On 12 Oct, 18:02, Mizter T wrote:
On 12 Oct, 13:16, THC wrote:
On Oct 10, 11:58 pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:
It's not obvious why the posts are there at all. Wouldn't fixing the lamps to the
wall solve the problem?

There hasn't really been any suggestion that the lamps are the problem
- it would seem that the platform width, regardless of the lamps, is
at fault.

That is by far the most cost-effective and sensible solution to the
problem. Expect to see the "wall" torn down at a cost of £xx million
instead...

Balls to that. If the developer is required to deliver a new station
as part of the agreement to gain planning permission, then they should
deliver a new station to the requirements. If they bodged it up they
should sort it out - and it would appear that this is exactly what is
going to happen.

As a SheBu resident I'd actually quite like to see this station open
in my lifetime (I'm 36) and so would be happy to see it open with the
minor modifications suggested by John rather than the major rebuild
you favour. I don't have access to the demand forecasts but, as a
regular WLL user, do have local knowledge and so I'd imagine that the
southbound origin passenger flows will be significantly heavier than
northbound origin flows, especially as Southern services to Watford
Junction will not serve the station. Widening the platform by
eighteen whole inches would therefore IMV seem to be a waste of money,
especially given the sum involved.

THC

On 12 Oct, 19:03, THC wrote:
On 12 Oct, 18:02, Mizter T wrote:



On 12 Oct, 13:16, THC wrote:
On Oct 10, 11:58 pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:
It's not obvious why the posts are there at all. Wouldn't fixing the lamps to
the wall solve the problem?

There hasn't really been any suggestion that the lamps are the problem
- it would seem that the platform width, regardless of the lamps, is
at fault.

That is by far the most cost-effective and sensible solution to the
problem. Expect to see the "wall" torn down at a cost of £xx million
instead...

Balls to that. If the developer is required to deliver a new station
as part of the agreement to gain planning permission, then they should
deliver a new station to the requirements. If they bodged it up they
should sort it out - and it would appear that this is exactly what is
going to happen.

As a SheBu resident I'd actually quite like to see this station open
in my lifetime (I'm 36) and so would be happy to see it open with the
minor modifications suggested by John rather than the major rebuild
you favour. I don't have access to the demand forecasts but, as a
regular WLL user, do have local knowledge and so I'd imagine that the
southbound origin passenger flows will be significantly heavier than
northbound origin flows, especially as Southern services to Watford
Junction will not serve the station. Widening the platform by
eighteen whole inches would therefore IMV seem to be a waste of money,
especially given the sum involved.

THC


John's suggested modification - removing the lampposts - still doesn't
address the apparent issue, that the station platform was seemingly
not built to the regulation width. I'd like to know the precise
details, and without them then much of this discussion is speculation,
but the lampposts don't appear to be the fundamental problem.

If the station isn't built to regulations then, AIUI, it cannot open.
HMRI aren't going to grant a derogation for a brand new station.

And why should they - if they do, then this issue could occur again
and again and again, as developers promise a new station as part of x,
y or z new development and then deliver a substandard end product.

Yes, I can see why you'd say the demand flows southbound might be
heavier, though over time the northbound flows would likely increase -
given the likely traffic to/from points north to the new shopping
centre, also as commuters discovered a new interchange point, and
especially if the service became more frequent (which is a TfL
desire).

However, I think the passenger forecasts may be something of a red-
herring - regardless of the forecast number of passengers the new
platform appears not to be up to scratch. I think Westfield might be
introducing the "pax forecasts higher then we originally thought" line
as a way of deflecting attention from the fact that they messed it up.