steve wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 03:15:49 -0700, umpston wrote:

John Rowland wrote:
"Alan (in Brussels)" wrote in message
...
Press report forwarded FYI by:

- Alan (in Brussels)

"Campaigners' joy as station plan is axed

www.hamhigh.co.uk

"This is the end of the project. We needed that new station, now the
users of the Northern Line face decades of misery."

Rubbish. The solution to Camden Town's problems is to get more people to
switch to Camden Road. I roughly calculated that the money to be spent
on rebuilding Camden Town station would fund a decent service on the
North London Line every day for about a century.


But how would you raise the money to do it? The Camden Town redevelopment
would be paid for by the property developer.

This is the problem though. When does property development stop. e.g we
could sell off Hyde park and pay for crossrail etc.

Well, in the case of Camden Town, it has been stopped.

"umpston" wrote in message
ups.com...
asdf wrote:
On 28 Jun 2005 03:15:49 -0700, "umpston" wrote:

John Rowland wrote:
"Alan (in Brussels)" wrote in message
...
Press report forwarded FYI by:

- Alan (in Brussels)

"Campaigners' joy as station plan is axed

www.hamhigh.co.uk

"This is the end of the project. We needed that new station,
now the users of the Northern Line face decades of misery."

Rubbish. The solution to Camden Town's problems is to get more
people to switch to Camden Road. I roughly calculated that the money
to be spent on rebuilding Camden Town station would fund a decent
service on the North London Line every day for about a century.

But how would you raise the money to do it? The Camden Town
redevelopment would be paid for by the property developer. I don't see
a similar opportunity for the new trains and/or signalling needed to do
what you suggest.

Err, I don't think he was suggesting that someone pay for a century's
worth of decent service up front.

Well somebody does have to pay up front, or nothing will ever be built
or improved. I doubt much of an improvement in NLL services can be
made without a major investment in trains and signalling systems
(without even considering station facilities). All this would have to
be paid up front, whether funded privately or publicly.

I didn't make myself clear, but my calculation concerned the funding
required to provide the current peak service all day, 7 days a week, not an
increase on the current peak service. I don't think any infrastructure would
be needed, just more drivers.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

John Rowland wrote:
"umpston" wrote in message
ups.com...
asdf wrote:
On 28 Jun 2005 03:15:49 -0700, "umpston" wrote:

John Rowland wrote:
"Alan (in Brussels)" wrote in message
...
Press report forwarded FYI by:

- Alan (in Brussels)

"Campaigners' joy as station plan is axed

www.hamhigh.co.uk

"This is the end of the project. We needed that new station,
now the users of the Northern Line face decades of misery."

Rubbish. The solution to Camden Town's problems is to get more
people to switch to Camden Road. I roughly calculated that the money
to be spent on rebuilding Camden Town station would fund a decent
service on the North London Line every day for about a century.

But how would you raise the money to do it? The Camden Town
redevelopment would be paid for by the property developer. I don't see
a similar opportunity for the new trains and/or signalling needed to do
what you suggest.

Err, I don't think he was suggesting that someone pay for a century's
worth of decent service up front.

Well somebody does have to pay up front, or nothing will ever be built
or improved. I doubt much of an improvement in NLL services can be
made without a major investment in trains and signalling systems
(without even considering station facilities). All this would have to
be paid up front, whether funded privately or publicly.

I didn't make myself clear, but my calculation concerned the funding
required to provide the current peak service all day, 7 days a week, not an
increase on the current peak service. I don't think any infrastructure would
be needed, just more drivers.


Maybe you're right but wouldn't it also need more trains, allowing for
those which need to be taken out of service for maintenance in the
off-peak period, plus the increased wear and tear on everything?

"John Rowland" wrote in message
...

Well somebody does have to pay up front, or nothing will ever be built
or improved. I doubt much of an improvement in NLL services can be
made without a major investment in trains and signalling systems
(without even considering station facilities). All this would have to
be paid up front, whether funded privately or publicly.

I didn't make myself clear, but my calculation concerned the funding
required to provide the current peak service all day, 7 days a week, not
an
increase on the current peak service. I don't think any infrastructure
would
be needed, just more drivers.

More drivers wouldn't solve the problem of what to do with all the freight
trains that there is no longer room for.

Peter Smyth