http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...challenge.html

In message
-septe
mber.org, at 07:26:16 on Mon, 9 Nov 2015, Recliner
remarked:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...port/11982661/
Ghost-stations-plan-on-London-Tube-faces-legal-challenge.html

"...have been frozen in time since being closed to the travelling
public. "

Or in the case of Down St, frozen in time at the end of the War (around
fifteen years after it closed to the travelling public).
--
Roland Perry

Paul Corfield wrote:

On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 07:26:16 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...challenge.html

That would be the Mr Chambers who has insulted various senior people
at TfL via social media, who has made outrageous statements about the
boss of the LT Museum, whose companies have repeatedly failed and / or
not posted annual accounts. He has also breached TfL and LU copyright
by using the London Underground name without approval. He has
barracked the Mayor of London umpteen times without any success. Boris
is too polite to tell him to "go away" (gross insulting alternative
versions are probably more appropriate).

He's a deluded fantasist. I don't imagine for one second TfL are
remotely concerned about being dragged into court. They are probably
relishing the prospect to demonstrate the lack of case he has. I also
doubt the London Assembly will be unduly bothered. They'll undoubtedly
be given a private briefing by TfL as to what has gone on in terms of
the procurement process plus all the previous attempts by Mr Chambers
to "market" stations that he does not own, he has no lease for or has
any authority over. His whole approach has been deeply flawed for
many years - he seems to believe he has an inalienable right to
exploit these disused stations but he simply does not.

He appears to be simultaneously claiming that TfL are both unfairly
discriminating against him and giving him an unfair advantage?

Peter Smyth

On 09.11.15 18:52, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 18:30:51 -0000 (UTC), "Peter Smyth"
wrote:

He appears to be simultaneously claiming that TfL are both unfairly
discriminating against him and giving him an unfair advantage?

Yes. Make of that what you will in terms of determining the
rationality of his argument.


Going a bit off-topic, here, but perhaps not so much.

Which of LUL shuttered stations is the most likely candidate for
reactivation?

wrote:
On 09.11.15 18:52, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 18:30:51 -0000 (UTC), "Peter Smyth"
wrote:

He appears to be simultaneously claiming that TfL are both unfairly
discriminating against him and giving him an unfair advantage?

Yes. Make of that what you will in terms of determining the
rationality of his argument.


Going a bit off-topic, here, but perhaps not so much.

Which of LUL shuttered stations is the most likely candidate for
reactivation?

Realistically, probably none.

But York Road would be well patronised if it did reopen. However, much of
that traffic would simply be displaced from King's Cross, so it wouldn't be
new traffic. Hence there's no real business case that could justify the
high costs and longer Picc journey times.

On 10.11.15 2:14, Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On 09.11.15 18:52, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 18:30:51 -0000 (UTC), "Peter Smyth"
wrote:

He appears to be simultaneously claiming that TfL are both unfairly
discriminating against him and giving him an unfair advantage?

Yes. Make of that what you will in terms of determining the
rationality of his argument.


Going a bit off-topic, here, but perhaps not so much.

Which of LUL shuttered stations is the most likely candidate for
reactivation?

Realistically, probably none.

But York Road would be well patronised if it did reopen. However, much of
that traffic would simply be displaced from King's Cross, so it wouldn't be
new traffic. Hence there's no real business case that could justify the
high costs and longer Picc journey times.

They are redeveloping the area around York Road, however, aren't they?

On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 12:56:39 +0000, "
wrote:

On 10.11.15 2:14, Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On 09.11.15 18:52, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 18:30:51 -0000 (UTC), "Peter Smyth"
wrote:

He appears to be simultaneously claiming that TfL are both unfairly
discriminating against him and giving him an unfair advantage?

Yes. Make of that what you will in terms of determining the
rationality of his argument.


Going a bit off-topic, here, but perhaps not so much.

Which of LUL shuttered stations is the most likely candidate for
reactivation?

Realistically, probably none.

But York Road would be well patronised if it did reopen. However, much of
that traffic would simply be displaced from King's Cross, so it wouldn't be
new traffic. Hence there's no real business case that could justify the
high costs and longer Picc journey times.

They are redeveloping the area around York Road, however, aren't they?

Yes, that's why it would be well-patronised if it re-opened. There's
now a university close by, with plenty of retail and residential
developments under way. There's even a new square, Granary Square.

Here's some pictures I took in the new Central Saint Martins building
(voted the world's best higher education building in 2012). In one of
them, you can see York Road station, just up the road:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/reclin...57636178212506

On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 2:17:00 AM UTC, Recliner wrote:
But York Road would be well patronised if it did reopen. However, much of
that traffic would simply be displaced from King's Cross, so it wouldn't be
new traffic. Hence there's no real business case that could justify the
high costs and longer Picc journey times.

Here's TfL's feasibility study into reopening York Road:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque..._and_any_techn

The resulting business case was described as 'extremely poor'.

On 10.11.15 17:17, wrote:
On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 2:17:00 AM UTC, Recliner wrote:
But York Road would be well patronised if it did reopen. However, much of
that traffic would simply be displaced from King's Cross, so it wouldn't be
new traffic. Hence there's no real business case that could justify the
high costs and longer Picc journey times.

Here's TfL's feasibility study into reopening York Road:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque..._and_any_techn

The resulting business case was described as 'extremely poor'.

That appears to be from 2004, approximately 11 years ago. I wonder if
LUL would at this time consider a re-evaluation, especially considering
that they plan to introduce driverless drains, which would use
moving-block signalling.