In message 2015030817194448374-email@domaincom, at 17:19:44 on Sun, 8
Mar 2015, eastender remarked:

if Broad St station was still open, the amazingly successful
conversion of the ELL to the Overground, with the link to H&I, would
never have happened.

I think closing a London terminus given what we now know about
population growth and demand for travel was not a good decision. But
you can say that about a lot of railway closures.

If Thameslink 2018 performs to spec (or even if it doesn't), it'll be a
lot better than Holborn Viaduct for travellers south of the river.

Or if we include the tube: King William St.
--
Roland Perry

On 2015-03-08 17:24:22 +0000, Recliner said:

eastender wrote:
On 2015-03-08 15:02:01 +0000, Recliner said:

eastender wrote:
On 2015-03-08 10:45:02 +0000, Recliner said:
eastender wrote:
On 2015-03-07 23:38:01 +0000, Paul Corfield said:
I'm obviously guessing here but there are not many refuge sidings on
the ELL core section so you really need to get trains beyond Surrey
Quays to be able to hide them away somewhere.
I was wondering when watching it being built what they would do for
contingency - it seems very little. The elevated section down to
Shoreditch used to carry four tracks and one would have thought a siding
could have been put in there.
Yes, they used the wider embankment for the new stations, but could have
put a reversing siding between stations. But it does seem to be the modern
policy to keep tracks as simple as possible, as points and crossovers are
themselves vulnerable to failures. For this reason, I think many tube lines
now have fewer crossovers than before.
By extension, I was reading this piece in the Guardian the other day:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...y-into-the-air

The sell-off of Broad Street station and space is one example of
dreadfully short-sighted and cut price deals for developers. Imagine how
the railway would look now with a modern spur down to Broad Street.
I'd have though the Broadgate office development is far more usefu. And if
Broad St station was still open, the amazingly successful conversion of the
ELL to the Overground, with the link to H&I, would never have happened.

I think closing a London terminus given what we now know about population
growth and demand for travel was not a good decision. But you can say
that about a lot of railway closures.


The new Overground line adds a lot more capacity than was lost when that
little-used terminal finally closed.

Yes but this is with the benefit of hindsight - who knows what would
have been built around a Broad Street line by now. The point about the
sell-off of public space is also important.

E.

In article 2015030818105653618-email@domaincom,
(eastender) wrote:

On 2015-03-08 17:24:22 +0000, Recliner said:

eastender wrote:
On 2015-03-08 15:02:01 +0000, Recliner said:

eastender wrote:

The sell-off of Broad Street station and space is one example of
dreadfully short-sighted and cut price deals for developers. Imagine
how the railway would look now with a modern spur down to Broad
Street.

I'd have though the Broadgate office development is far more usefu.
And if Broad St station was still open, the amazingly successful
conversion of the ELL to the Overground, with the link to H&I, would
never have happened.

I think closing a London terminus given what we now know about
population growth and demand for travel was not a good decision. But
you can say that about a lot of railway closures.

The new Overground line adds a lot more capacity than was lost when
that little-used terminal finally closed.

Yes but this is with the benefit of hindsight - who knows what would
have been built around a Broad Street line by now. The point about
the sell-off of public space is also important.

How well did you know Broad Street in the years before it closed? Only
Birmingham Snow Hill was an emptier shell. City terminuses are a bit 19th
century relics. Through lines have proved far more effective in the years
since.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

eastender wrote:
On 2015-03-08 17:24:22 +0000, Recliner said:

eastender wrote:
On 2015-03-08 15:02:01 +0000, Recliner said:
eastender wrote:
On 2015-03-08 10:45:02 +0000, Recliner said:
eastender wrote:
On 2015-03-07 23:38:01 +0000, Paul Corfield said:
I'm obviously guessing here but there are not many refuge sidings on
the ELL core section so you really need to get trains beyond Surrey
Quays to be able to hide them away somewhere.
I was wondering when watching it being built what they would do for
contingency - it seems very little. The elevated section down to
Shoreditch used to carry four tracks and one would have thought a siding
could have been put in there.
Yes, they used the wider embankment for the new stations, but could have
put a reversing siding between stations. But it does seem to be the modern
policy to keep tracks as simple as possible, as points and crossovers are
themselves vulnerable to failures. For this reason, I think many tube lines
now have fewer crossovers than before.
By extension, I was reading this piece in the Guardian the other day:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...y-into-the-air
The sell-off of Broad Street station and space is one example
of
dreadfully short-sighted and cut price deals for developers. Imagine how
the railway would look now with a modern spur down to Broad Street.
I'd have though the Broadgate office development is far more usefu. And if
Broad St station was still open, the amazingly successful conversion of the
ELL to the Overground, with the link to H&I, would never have happened.
I think closing a London terminus given what we now know about population
growth and demand for travel was not a good decision. But you can say
that about a lot of railway closures.
The new Overground line adds a lot more capacity than was lost when that
little-used terminal finally closed.

Yes but this is with the benefit of hindsight - who knows what would have
been built around a Broad Street line by now.

There was no point keeping the almost disused, shabby old station open. The
re-established Richmond to Stratford route, and the busy new ELL Overground
routes are far more useful. The fortunate thing is that the old line's
disused viaduct was preserved for future railway use, while the redundant
station site was turned into something much more useful.


The point about the sell-off of public space is also important.

I don't agree at all. Only private sector money would have created the
wonderful new Kings Cross Granary Square developments, or restored St
Pancras Chambers into the magnificent new hotel. Ditto the Docklands area.
As for Broad St, the smart office buildings and privately-owned 'public'
spaces are a huge improvement over what was there before. The grand old
City buildings were always private developments.

Unlike that very left-wing Guardian polemic article, I've no problem with
privately owned land, or the way that London has sprouted various
curiously-shaped big buildings of late. I like the Gherkin, the Shard and
even the new Walkie Talkie (less so the bland Heron Tower). The new Canary
Wharf Crossrail station is also very promising. Let's hope OOC gets similar
developments.

On 2015-03-08 21:56:50 +0000, Recliner said:

eastender wrote:
On 2015-03-08 17:24:22 +0000, Recliner said:

eastender wrote:
On 2015-03-08 15:02:01 +0000, Recliner said:
eastender wrote:
On 2015-03-08 10:45:02 +0000, Recliner said:
eastender wrote:
On 2015-03-07 23:38:01 +0000, Paul Corfield said:
I'm obviously guessing here but there are not many refuge sidings on
the ELL core section so you really need to get trains beyond Surrey
Quays to be able to hide them away somewhere.
I was wondering when watching it being built what they would do for
contingency - it seems very little. The elevated section down to
Shoreditch used to carry four tracks and one would have thought a siding
could have been put in there.
Yes, they used the wider embankment for the new stations, but could have
put a reversing siding between stations. But it does seem to be the modern
policy to keep tracks as simple as possible, as points and crossovers are
themselves vulnerable to failures. For this reason, I think many tube lines
now have fewer crossovers than before.
By extension, I was reading this piece in the Guardian the other day:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...y-into-the-air

The sell-off of Broad Street station and space is one example
of
dreadfully short-sighted and cut price deals for developers. Imagine how
the railway would look now with a modern spur down to Broad Street.
I'd have though the Broadgate office development is far more usefu. And if
Broad St station was still open, the amazingly successful conversion of the
ELL to the Overground, with the link to H&I, would never have happened.
I think closing a London terminus given what we now know about population
growth and demand for travel was not a good decision. But you can say
that about a lot of railway closures.
The new Overground line adds a lot more capacity than was lost when that
little-used terminal finally closed.

Yes but this is with the benefit of hindsight - who knows what would have
been built around a Broad Street line by now.

There was no point keeping the almost disused, shabby old station open. The
re-established Richmond to Stratford route, and the busy new ELL Overground
routes are far more useful. The fortunate thing is that the old line's
disused viaduct was preserved for future railway use, while the redundant
station site was turned into something much more useful.


The point about the sell-off of public space is also important.

I don't agree at all. Only private sector money would have created the
wonderful new Kings Cross Granary Square developments, or restored St
Pancras Chambers into the magnificent new hotel. Ditto the Docklands area.
As for Broad St, the smart office buildings and privately-owned 'public'
spaces are a huge improvement over what was there before. The grand old
City buildings were always private developments.

Unlike that very left-wing Guardian polemic article, I've no problem with
privately owned land, or the way that London has sprouted various
curiously-shaped big buildings of late. I like the Gherkin, the Shard and
even the new Walkie Talkie (less so the bland Heron Tower). The new Canary
Wharf Crossrail station is also very promising. Let's hope OOC gets similar
developments.

You obviously have no problem then with privatisation of vast tracts of
cities where no one can protest or take pictures without permission,
and where the adjoining poor neighbourhoods are almost totally excluded
from investment. Instead what we get is space opimised for commerce and
bland upmarket shopping.

E.

eastender wrote:
On 2015-03-08 21:56:50 +0000, Recliner said:

eastender wrote:
On 2015-03-08 17:24:22 +0000, Recliner said:
eastender wrote:
On 2015-03-08 15:02:01 +0000, Recliner said:
eastender wrote:
On 2015-03-08 10:45:02 +0000, Recliner said:
eastender wrote:
On 2015-03-07 23:38:01 +0000, Paul Corfield said:
I'm obviously guessing here but there are not many refuge sidings on
the ELL core section so you really need to get trains beyond Surrey
Quays to be able to hide them away somewhere.
I was wondering when watching it being built what they would do for
contingency - it seems very little. The elevated section down to
Shoreditch used to carry four tracks and one would have thought a siding
could have been put in there.
Yes, they used the wider embankment for the new stations, but could have
put a reversing siding between stations. But it does seem to be the modern
policy to keep tracks as simple as possible, as points and crossovers are
themselves vulnerable to failures. For this reason, I think many tube lines
now have fewer crossovers than before.
By extension, I was reading this piece in the Guardian the other day:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...y-into-the-air
The sell-off of Broad Street station and
space is one example
of
dreadfully short-sighted and cut price deals for developers. Imagine how
the railway would look now with a modern spur down to Broad Street.
I'd have though the Broadgate office development is far more usefu. And if
Broad St station was still open, the amazingly successful conversion of the
ELL to the Overground, with the link to H&I, would never have happened.
I think closing a London terminus given what we now know about population
growth and demand for travel was not a good decision. But you can say
that about a lot of railway closures.
The new Overground line adds a lot more capacity than was lost when that
little-used terminal finally closed.
Yes but this is with the benefit of hindsight - who knows what would have
been built around a Broad Street line by now.
There was no point keeping the almost disused, shabby old station open. The
re-established Richmond to Stratford route, and the busy new ELL Overground
routes are far more useful. The fortunate thing is that the old line's
disused viaduct was preserved for future railway use, while the redundant
station site was turned into something much more useful.
The point about the sell-off of public space is also important.
I don't agree at all. Only private sector money would have created the
wonderful new Kings Cross Granary Square developments, or restored St
Pancras Chambers into the magnificent new hotel. Ditto the Docklands area.
As for Broad St, the smart office buildings and privately-owned 'public'
spaces are a huge improvement over what was there before. The grand old
City buildings were always private developments.
Unlike that very left-wing Guardian polemic article, I've no problem with
privately owned land, or the way that London has sprouted various
curiously-shaped big buildings of late. I like the Gherkin, the Shard and
even the new Walkie Talkie (less so the bland Heron Tower). The new Canary
Wharf Crossrail station is also very promising. Let's hope OOC gets similar
developments.

You obviously have no problem then with privatisation of vast tracts of
cities where no one can protest or take pictures without permission, and
where the adjoining poor neighbourhoods are almost totally excluded from
investment. Instead what we get is space opimised for commerce and bland upmarket shopping.

Actually, you can take amateur pics in those areas without permission, and
I often do. I've never been involved a protest in my life, and as far as
I'm concerned, they're a nuisance that stops me from getting to places, not
something I welcome or would want to encourage.

As for the adjoining poor neighbourhoods, they tend to become much more
desirable places to live than they used to be, and money floods in (eg,
Hoxton). That's the opposite of them being excluded from investment. How
else would they attract investment?

So, yes, I'm all in favour of wealth creation, and governments spend money,
rather than creating wealth. By all means regulate and tax the private
sector, but don't think you can create wealth without it.

In article

rg, (Recliner) wrote:

*Subject:* Overground down again
*From:* Recliner
*Date:* Sun, 8 Mar 2015 23:43:09 +0000 (UTC)

eastender wrote:
On 2015-03-08 21:56:50 +0000, Recliner said:

eastender wrote:

You obviously have no problem then with privatisation of vast tracts of
cities where no one can protest or take pictures without permission, and
where the adjoining poor neighbourhoods are almost totally excluded from
investment. Instead what we get is space opimised for commerce and
bland upmarket shopping.

Actually, you can take amateur pics in those areas without permission, and
I often do. I've never been involved a protest in my life, and as far as
I'm concerned, they're a nuisance that stops me from getting to places,
not something I welcome or would want to encourage.

As for the adjoining poor neighbourhoods, they tend to become much more
desirable places to live than they used to be, and money floods in (eg,
Hoxton). That's the opposite of them being excluded from investment. How
else would they attract investment?

So, yes, I'm all in favour of wealth creation, and governments spend
money, rather than creating wealth. By all means regulate and tax the
private sector, but don't think you can create wealth without it.

It entirely depends on the walkways agreements negotiated by local
authorities with the companies managing these spaces. We didn't let them go
that far when I was involved but it is getting harder to fend them off
sometimes.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote:
In article

, (Recliner) wrote:

*Subject:* Overground down again
*From:* Recliner
*Date:* Sun, 8 Mar 2015 23:43:09 +0000 (UTC)

eastender wrote:
On 2015-03-08 21:56:50 +0000, Recliner said:

eastender wrote:

You obviously have no problem then with privatisation of vast tracts of
cities where no one can protest or take pictures without permission, and
where the adjoining poor neighbourhoods are almost totally excluded from
investment. Instead what we get is space opimised for commerce and
bland upmarket shopping.

Actually, you can take amateur pics in those areas without permission, and
I often do. I've never been involved a protest in my life, and as far as
I'm concerned, they're a nuisance that stops me from getting to places,
not something I welcome or would want to encourage.

As for the adjoining poor neighbourhoods, they tend to become much more
desirable places to live than they used to be, and money floods in (eg,
Hoxton). That's the opposite of them being excluded from investment. How
else would they attract investment?

So, yes, I'm all in favour of wealth creation, and governments spend
money, rather than creating wealth. By all means regulate and tax the
private sector, but don't think you can create wealth without it.

It entirely depends on the walkways agreements negotiated by local
authorities with the companies managing these spaces. We didn't let them go
that far when I was involved but it is getting harder to fend them off
sometimes.

I must admit I wonder why they sometimes bother restricting photography,
though I can fully understand why they don't welcome protestors or
occupiers.

In message
-septem
ber.org, at 01:15:47 on Mon, 9 Mar 2015, Recliner
remarked:

It entirely depends on the walkways agreements negotiated by local
authorities with the companies managing these spaces. We didn't let them go
that far when I was involved but it is getting harder to fend them off
sometimes.

I must admit I wonder why they sometimes bother restricting photography,
though I can fully understand why they don't welcome protestors or
occupiers.

I was taking some pictures outside the then very new M&S Simply Food in
the "Circle" bit of St Pancras when the bouncer on the door (why would
they need one?) got very aggressive and demanded I stop, and delete any
photos I had already taken. He seemed to be suggesting that I was
involved in industrial espionage. I must have had a pretty desperate
client if they didn't already know what goes on inside an M&S SF.

As luck would have it a BTP chap was nearby and I asked him if there was
a ban on photography there and he chuckled a bit and said "of course
not".

ps Is that bit of St Pancras public or private - it belongs to LCR I
suppose.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message -septem
ber.org, at 01:15:47 on Mon, 9 Mar 2015, Recliner remarked:

It entirely depends on the walkways agreements negotiated by local
authorities with the companies managing these spaces. We didn't let them go
that far when I was involved but it is getting harder to fend them off
sometimes.

I must admit I wonder why they sometimes bother restricting photography,
though I can fully understand why they don't welcome protestors or
occupiers.

I was taking some pictures outside the then very new M&S Simply Food in
the "Circle" bit of St Pancras when the bouncer on the door (why would
they need one?) got very aggressive and demanded I stop, and delete any
photos I had already taken. He seemed to be suggesting that I was
involved in industrial espionage. I must have had a pretty desperate
client if they didn't already know what goes on inside an M&S SF.

As luck would have it a BTP chap was nearby and I asked him if there was
a ban on photography there and he chuckled a bit and said "of course not".

ps Is that bit of St Pancras public or private - it belongs to LCR I suppose.

I think the whole of all railway stations is private, owned by NR, LCR,
TfL, etc. Ditto with enclosed shopping malls. And, of course, the shopping
areas in St P are both.

The southern embankment near the mayor's office is also private land. I
went on a photography walk, and the guide said that, as a pro photographer,
he knew exactly where he could set up a tripod unmolested, and other areas
where he'd soon be evicted if he looked like a pro.

I think the new Granary Square is the same. You can wander around taking
pics to your heart's content with an amateur camera (I have), but set up a
tripod or start taking videos with what looks like pro gear and the private
security guards will soon approach you for a chat.