Shepherd's Bush WLL
 

The new issue of Private Eye, out today, has the following interesting
section on the much-delayed Shepherd's Bush WLL station:

---

At the heart of the new £1.6bn mega-development in London, just north
of Shepherd's Bush, there is to be a new railway station on the West
London line. It is a key part of the plan to ensure good public access
to the 300 shops, 14-screen cinema and all the rest of this huge
scheme. All very Green.

The station is virtually complete but surprisingly there is no
announcement about when it will open. Although it should have been
handed over to operators Silverlink at the end of August, the handover
has now been postponed indefinitely. That's because one of the
platforms is 18 inches shorter than the minimum specified by the
Railway Inspectorate. This might not sound like much, but with the
numbers expected to use the station, it is enough to pose a genuine
safety risk.

It might sound simple to resolve, too, with a bit of extra concrete,
but unfortunately there is a huge wall in the way and the estimated
cost is a staggering £7n. The issue is now the subject of a major
dispute between all the players - developer Westfield, Transport for
London and the safety inspectors. There seems no easy resolution, but
someone is going to have to cough up £7m for what will be the most
expensive 18 inches of railway platform in the world.

Shepherd's Bush WLL
 

On 10 Oct, 07:56, James Farrar wrote:
The new issue of Private Eye, out today, has the following interesting
section on the much-delayed Shepherd's Bush WLL station:

---

At the heart of the new £1.6bn mega-development in London, just north
of Shepherd's Bush, there is to be a new railway station on the West
London line. It is a key part of the plan to ensure good public access
to the 300 shops, 14-screen cinema and all the rest of this huge
scheme. All very Green.

The station is virtually complete but surprisingly there is no
announcement about when it will open. Although it should have been
handed over to operators Silverlink at the end of August, the handover
has now been postponed indefinitely. That's because one of the
platforms is 18 inches shorter than the minimum specified by the
Railway Inspectorate. This might not sound like much, but with the
numbers expected to use the station, it is enough to pose a genuine
safety risk.

It might sound simple to resolve, too, with a bit of extra concrete,
but unfortunately there is a huge wall in the way and the estimated
cost is a staggering £7n. The issue is now the subject of a major
dispute between all the players - developer Westfield, Transport for
London and the safety inspectors. There seems no easy resolution, but
someone is going to have to cough up £7m for what will be the most
expensive 18 inches of railway platform in the world.

Can they not just use platform edge doors?

Shepherd's Bush WLL
 

On Oct 10, 8:20 am, lonelytraveller
wrote:
On 10 Oct, 07:56, James Farrar wrote:





The new issue of Private Eye, out today, has the following interesting
section on the much-delayed Shepherd's Bush WLL station:

---

At the heart of the new £1.6bn mega-development in London, just north
of Shepherd's Bush, there is to be a new railway station on the West
London line. It is a key part of the plan to ensure good public access
to the 300 shops, 14-screen cinema and all the rest of this huge
scheme. All very Green.

The station is virtually complete but surprisingly there is no
announcement about when it will open. Although it should have been
handed over to operators Silverlink at the end of August, the handover
has now been postponed indefinitely. That's because one of the
platforms is 18 inches shorter than the minimum specified by the
Railway Inspectorate. This might not sound like much, but with the
numbers expected to use the station, it is enough to pose a genuine
safety risk.

It might sound simple to resolve, too, with a bit of extra concrete,
but unfortunately there is a huge wall in the way and the estimated
cost is a staggering £7n. The issue is now the subject of a major
dispute between all the players - developer Westfield, Transport for
London and the safety inspectors. There seems no easy resolution, but
someone is going to have to cough up £7m for what will be the most
expensive 18 inches of railway platform in the world.

Can they not just use platform edge doors?

Sensible suggestion but will it work with variable train lengths and
differing stock types with differing door spacing. It works on the
Jubilee because of uniform stock types and lengths ?- remember the
insertion of extra coaches could only be done on a block closure
basis.

Shepherd's Bush WLL
 

On 10 Oct, 07:56, James Farrar wrote:
The new issue of Private Eye, out today, has the following interesting
section on the much-delayed Shepherd's Bush WLL station:

---

At the heart of the new £1.6bn mega-development in London, just north
of Shepherd's Bush, there is to be a new railway station on the West
London line. It is a key part of the plan to ensure good public access
to the 300 shops, 14-screen cinema and all the rest of this huge
scheme. All very Green.

The station is virtually complete but surprisingly there is no
announcement about when it will open. Although it should have been
handed over to operators Silverlink at the end of August, the handover
has now been postponed indefinitely. That's because one of the
platforms is 18 inches shorter than the minimum specified by the
Railway Inspectorate. This might not sound like much, but with the
numbers expected to use the station, it is enough to pose a genuine
safety risk.

It might sound simple to resolve, too, with a bit of extra concrete,
but unfortunately there is a huge wall in the way and the estimated
cost is a staggering £7n. The issue is now the subject of a major
dispute between all the players - developer Westfield, Transport for
London and the safety inspectors. There seems no easy resolution, but
someone is going to have to cough up £7m for what will be the most
expensive 18 inches of railway platform in the world.


Wow!

If this is the case it would explain a lot. Though if this is the case
a lot of explaining needs to be done as well.

Shepherd's Bush WLL
 

On 10 Oct, 07:56, James Farrar wrote:
....
It might sound simple to resolve, too, with a bit of extra concrete,
but unfortunately there is a huge wall in the way and the estimated
cost is a staggering £7n. The issue is now the subject of a major
dispute between all the players - developer Westfield, Transport for
London and the safety inspectors. There seems no easy resolution, but
someone is going to have to cough up £7m for what will be the most
expensive 18 inches of railway platform in the world.

Sounds like utter ********, which wouldn't be surprising given the
general ****poor quality of the Eye's railway reporting. A fiver says
it opens with LO branding and the current platform length on November
11.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

Shepherd's Bush WLL
 

"John B" wrote in message
ps.com...
On 10 Oct, 07:56, James Farrar wrote:
....
It might sound simple to resolve, too, with a bit of extra concrete,
but unfortunately there is a huge wall in the way and the estimated
cost is a staggering £7n. The issue is now the subject of a major
dispute between all the players - developer Westfield, Transport for
London and the safety inspectors. There seems no easy resolution, but
someone is going to have to cough up £7m for what will be the most
expensive 18 inches of railway platform in the world.

Sounds like utter ********, which wouldn't be surprising given the
general ****poor quality of the Eye's railway reporting. A fiver says
it opens with LO branding and the current platform length on November
11.


Its been mentioned somewhere a few weeks ago which I can't find at the mo,
and it isn't the length, its the width, the yellow line is in the middle of
the platform...

Paul

Shepherd's Bush WLL
 

On Oct 10, 11:42 am, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
"John B" wrote in message

ps.com...
On 10 Oct, 07:56, James Farrar wrote:
... It might sound simple to resolve, too, with a bit of extra concrete,
but unfortunately there is a huge wall in the way and the estimated
cost is a staggering £7n. The issue is now the subject of a major
dispute between all the players - developer Westfield, Transport for
London and the safety inspectors. There seems no easy resolution, but
someone is going to have to cough up £7m for what will be the most
expensive 18 inches of railway platform in the world.

Sounds like utter ********, which wouldn't be surprising given the
general ****poor quality of the Eye's railway reporting. A fiver says
it opens with LO branding and the current platform length on November
11.



Its been mentioned somewhere a few weeks ago which I can't find at the mo,
and it isn't the length, its the width, the yellow line is in the middle of
the platform...

Paul

Does Clapham Common meet those standards? I've always thought that
must be terrifying during the rush hour.

Jonn

Shepherd's Bush WLL
 

On 10 Oct, 11:55, wrote:
Sounds like utter ********, which wouldn't be surprising given the
general ****poor quality of the Eye's railway reporting. A fiver says
it opens with LO branding and the current platform length on November
11.

Its been mentioned somewhere a few weeks ago which I can't find at the mo,
and it isn't the length, its the width, the yellow line is in the middle of
the platform...

That's slightly saner - the '18 inches of length' point as reported in
the Eye made no sense whatsoever, but I can see that adding 45cm of
width to a full-length platform could be an expensive undertaking, and
that a narrow platform might actually be dangerous (whereas a short
platform can be dealt with by SDO). In which case, somebody involved
with the design needs shot.

Does Clapham Common meet those standards? I've always thought that
must be terrifying during the rush hour.

Most definitely not, and most definitely yes - but there's a concept
called "grandfather rights" which effectively means that the railways
are allowed to do dangerous things they've always done, but not to
start doing new dangerous things.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

Shepherd's Bush WLL
 

"John B" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 10 Oct, 11:55, wrote:
Sounds like utter ********, which wouldn't be surprising given the
general ****poor quality of the Eye's railway reporting. A fiver says
it opens with LO branding and the current platform length on November
11.

Its been mentioned somewhere a few weeks ago which I can't find at the
mo,
and it isn't the length, its the width, the yellow line is in the
middle of
the platform...

That's slightly saner - the '18 inches of length' point as reported in
the Eye made no sense whatsoever, but I can see that adding 45cm of
width to a full-length platform could be an expensive undertaking, and
that a narrow platform might actually be dangerous (whereas a short
platform can be dealt with by SDO). In which case, somebody involved
with the design needs shot.


I'm not sure which is 'up' or 'down', but I'm sure its the western side
platform that is the problem. The bit where the stairs and lifts come down
is quite deep, possibly for about a coach length, but to the north of that
it is quite narrow, and the back wall is quite substantial, I wonder if it
is supporting the higher ground of the bus station?

Dave Arquati's site links to some photos, which seem to predate the
retaining wall going in:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/davearq...7594243368848/

Paul

Shepherd's Bush WLL
 

On 10 Oct, 15:00, John B wrote:

Its been mentioned somewhere a few weeks ago which I can't find at the
mo, and it isn't the length, its the width, the yellow line is in the middle
of the platform...

That's slightly saner - the '18 inches of length' point as reported in
the Eye made no sense whatsoever, but I can see that adding 45cm of
width to a full-length platform could be an expensive undertaking, and
that a narrow platform might actually be dangerous (whereas a short
platform can be dealt with by SDO). In which case, somebody involved
with the design needs shot.


Yes, the Eye's railway reporting is sometimes a little confused, but I
can't quite see how they've totally fabricated this story - it seems
likely there's something in this story, and Paul Scott's comments
appear to suggest it is a platform width issue.

Is this a salutary lesson in how one should not let developers (in
this case Westfield) build stations by themselves.

I've got a horrible feeling that the thrust of the Eye piece is true,
and this is an almighty screw up of the first order.

It'd also explain the ghostly silence that has surrounded the (non)
opening of the station.

Shepherd's Bush WLL
 

On 10 Oct, 09:10, Mwmbwls wrote:
On Oct 10, 8:20 am, lonelytraveller

wrote:
On 10 Oct, 07:56, James Farrar wrote:

The new issue of Private Eye, out today, has the following interesting
section on the much-delayed Shepherd's Bush WLL station:

---

At the heart of the new £1.6bn mega-development in London, just north
of Shepherd's Bush, there is to be a new railway station on the West
London line. It is a key part of the plan to ensure good public access
to the 300 shops, 14-screen cinema and all the rest of this huge
scheme. All very Green.

The station is virtually complete but surprisingly there is no
announcement about when it will open. Although it should have been
handed over to operators Silverlink at the end of August, the handover
has now been postponed indefinitely. That's because one of the
platforms is 18 inches shorter than the minimum specified by the
Railway Inspectorate. This might not sound like much, but with the
numbers expected to use the station, it is enough to pose a genuine
safety risk.

It might sound simple to resolve, too, with a bit of extra concrete,
but unfortunately there is a huge wall in the way and the estimated
cost is a staggering £7n. The issue is now the subject of a major
dispute between all the players - developer Westfield, Transport for
London and the safety inspectors. There seems no easy resolution, but
someone is going to have to cough up £7m for what will be the most
expensive 18 inches of railway platform in the world.

Can they not just use platform edge doors?

Sensible suggestion but will it work with variable train lengths and
differing stock types with differing door spacing. It works on the
Jubilee because of uniform stock types and lengths ?- remember the
insertion of extra coaches could only be done on a block closure
basis.

If there are variable train lengths, then surely there can be trains
short enough to safely use the platfoms?

Shepherd's Bush WLL
 

On 10 Oct, 15:24, "Paul Scott" wrote:
"John B" wrote in message

(snip)

That's slightly saner - the '18 inches of length' point as reported in
the Eye made no sense whatsoever, but I can see that adding 45cm of
width to a full-length platform could be an expensive undertaking, and
that a narrow platform might actually be dangerous (whereas a short
platform can be dealt with by SDO). In which case, somebody involved
with the design needs shot.

I'm not sure which is 'up' or 'down', but I'm sure its the western side
platform that is the problem. The bit where the stairs and lifts come down
is quite deep, possibly for about a coach length, but to the north of that
it is quite narrow, and the back wall is quite substantial, I wonder if it
is supporting the higher ground of the bus station?

Dave Arquati's site links to some photos, which seem to predate the
retaining wall going in:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/davearq...et-72157594243...

Paul

I'm intrigued to know whether this was an error on the plans or an
error on the ground, but it would all seem to strongly suggest that
the width of the retaining wall wasn't given proper consideration.

Shepherd's Bush WLL - opening winter 2009?

Shepherd's Bush WLL
 

Mizter T wrote:

I'm intrigued to know whether this was an error on the plans or an
error on the ground, but it would all seem to strongly suggest that
the width of the retaining wall wasn't given proper consideration.

It's the Hastings Line all over again!

Shepherd's Bush WLL
 

On 10 Okt., 15:24, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
I'm not sure which is 'up' or 'down', but I'm sure its the western side
platform that is the problem. The bit where the stairs and lifts come down
is quite deep, possibly for about a coach length, but to the north of that
it is quite narrow, and the back wall is quite substantial, I wonder if it
is supporting the higher ground of the bus station?

I was intrigued enough to pay a visit to the site today, and took some
photos:
http://londonconnections.blogspot.co...m-debacle.html

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

Shepherd's Bush WLL
 

"Mr Thant" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 10 Okt., 15:24, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
I'm not sure which is 'up' or 'down', but I'm sure its the western side
platform that is the problem. The bit where the stairs and lifts come
down
is quite deep, possibly for about a coach length, but to the north of
that
it is quite narrow, and the back wall is quite substantial, I wonder if
it
is supporting the higher ground of the bus station?

I was intrigued enough to pay a visit to the site today, and took some
photos:
http://londonconnections.blogspot.co...m-debacle.html


Well done, a picture is worth a thousand words. My last view was from the
window of a passing Silverlink service

Always seems to me that there must be a better solution than all these lamp
standards as well, they don't exactly help the passenger circulation. But
in this case, perhaps they have too many? There seems to be a pole every few
yards, given its only a four car platform...

Paul

Shepherd's Bush WLL
 

Mr Thant wrote:
On 10 Okt., 15:24, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
I'm not sure which is 'up' or 'down',

'Up' is towards Broad Street. :-)

but I'm sure its the western side platform that is the problem.
The bit where the stairs and lifts come down is quite deep,
possibly for about a coach length, but to the north of that
it is quite narrow, and the back wall is quite substantial, I
wonder if it is supporting the higher ground of the bus
station?

I was intrigued enough to pay a visit to the site today, and
took some photos:
http://londonconnections.blogspot.co...m-debacle.html

That's great. Thanks.

Can't they just move the yellow line? No, really. It seems a long way
from the edge of the platform. What's the speed limit on this line?

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Shepherd's Bush WLL
 

Paul Scott wrote:
"Mr Thant" wrote in message
ups.com...

I was intrigued enough to pay a visit to the site today, and took
some photos:
http://londonconnections.blogspot.co...m-debacle.html


Well done, a picture is worth a thousand words. My last view was from
the window of a passing Silverlink service

Always seems to me that there must be a better solution than all
these lamp standards as well, they don't exactly help the passenger
circulation. But in this case, perhaps they have too many? There
seems to be a pole every few yards, given its only a four car
platform...

It's not obvious why the posts are there at all. Wouldn't fixing the lamps
be to the wall solve the problem?

Shepherd's Bush WLL
 

At 23:58:22 on Wed, 10 Oct 2007 John Rowland opined:-

Paul Scott wrote:
"Mr Thant" wrote in message
ups.com...

I was intrigued enough to pay a visit to the site today, and took
some photos:
http://londonconnections.blogspot.co...bush-platform-
debacle.html


Well done, a picture is worth a thousand words. My last view was from
the window of a passing Silverlink service

Always seems to me that there must be a better solution than all
these lamp standards as well, they don't exactly help the passenger
circulation. But in this case, perhaps they have too many? There
seems to be a pole every few yards, given its only a four car
platform...

It's not obvious why the posts are there at all. Wouldn't fixing the lamps
be to the wall solve the problem?


What are the regulations re the yellow line, and are they different for
National Rail and LUL? At Paddington, Platform 14 (NR) has the line 3-4
ft from the edge, whereas Platform 15 (Underground) has it 1 ft or less
from the edge.
--
Thoss
E-mail address usenetatamoladdotorgdotuk

Shepherd's Bush WLL
 

"thoss" wrote in message
...
At 23:58:22 on Wed, 10 Oct 2007 John Rowland opined:-

Paul Scott wrote:
"Mr Thant" wrote in message
ups.com...

I was intrigued enough to pay a visit to the site today, and took
some photos:
http://londonconnections.blogspot.co...bush-platform-
debacle.html


Well done, a picture is worth a thousand words. My last view was from
the window of a passing Silverlink service

Always seems to me that there must be a better solution than all
these lamp standards as well, they don't exactly help the passenger
circulation. But in this case, perhaps they have too many? There
seems to be a pole every few yards, given its only a four car
platform...

It's not obvious why the posts are there at all. Wouldn't fixing the lamps
be to the wall solve the problem?


What are the regulations re the yellow line, and are they different for
National Rail and LUL? At Paddington, Platform 14 (NR) has the line 3-4
ft from the edge, whereas Platform 15 (Underground) has it 1 ft or less
from the edge.

Probably different - LU hasn't generally # had to deal with either slam
doors being
opened while the train moving, or passing HSTs, turbulence caused by passing
freights etc.

But it seems recent NR installations do have a certain standard depth of
edging, then the tactile strip, then the yellow line.

# I'm aware LU & NR share platforms here and there...

Paul

Shepherd's Bush WLL
 

On 12 Oct, 11:38, "Paul Scott" wrote:
"thoss" wrote in message

...





At 23:58:22 on Wed, 10 Oct 2007 John Rowland opined:-

Paul Scott wrote:
"Mr Thant" wrote in message
groups.com...

I was intrigued enough to pay a visit to the site today, and took
some photos:
http://londonconnections.blogspot.co...bush-platform-
debacle.html

Well done, a picture is worth a thousand words. My last view was from
the window of a passing Silverlink service

Always seems to me that there must be a better solution than all
these lamp standards as well, they don't exactly help the passenger
circulation. But in this case, perhaps they have too many? There
seems to be a pole every few yards, given its only a four car
platform...

It's not obvious why the posts are there at all. Wouldn't fixing the lamps
be to the wall solve the problem?

What are the regulations re the yellow line, and are they different for
National Rail and LUL? At Paddington, Platform 14 (NR) has the line 3-4
ft from the edge, whereas Platform 15 (Underground) has it 1 ft or less
from the edge.

Probably different - LU hasn't generally # had to deal with either slam
doors being
opened while the train moving, or passing HSTs, turbulence caused by passing
freights etc.

But it seems recent NR installations do have a certain standard depth of
edging, then the tactile strip, then the yellow line.

# I'm aware LU & NR share platforms here and there...

Paul


Has there ever been a regulation?

The original yellow lines were used to advertise the IC125 service out
of Paddington. They were accompanied by little signs attached to
posts saying "High speed trains pass this platform". I am sure it was
more of a publicity than a safety thing.

But more recently yellow lines started appearing everywhere. I am
sure it is generally a good idea to stand back from the platform edge,
but if there was ever a higher level of risk associated with high
speeds, it has been lost and the warning devalued.

Shepherd's Bush WLL
 

On 10 Oct, 15:24, "Paul Scott" wrote:

I'm not sure which is 'up' or 'down', but I'm sure its the western side
platform that is the problem.

I think the line on the West side is 'down'. I seem to remember that
it was treated as being part of the LNWR system, so heading North,
towards Watford, is down, while heading South, towards Euston, or
Clapham Junction, Broad Street, Elephant and Castle, would be up. Not
sure about the Croxley Green and Rickmansworth branches; were they
measured from the junction? If so, which one, the North or South one,
in the days when there was a triangle there. Or were they measured
from Euston via the South side of the triangle, which would have been
non-existant during the later part of Croxley Green's life?

Shepherd's Bush WLL
 

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?

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...

THC

Shepherd's Bush WLL
 

On Oct 10, 7:56 am, James Farrar wrote:
The new issue of Private Eye, out today, has the following interesting
section on the much-delayed Shepherd's Bush WLL station:

Further detail from today's Evening Standard
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...zed/article.do
quote
New railway station over budget...and undersized
Katharine Barney, Evening Standard
12.10.07
A new rail station needs millions of pounds worth of extra work -
because the platform is 18 inches too narrow.
The Shepherd's Bush station was built in preparation for the massive
shopping complex Westfield London, which will open next year.
The work cost £12 million but only when it was finished did developer
Westfield realise the station would be unable to cope with the
anticipated volume of passengers.
Lampposts had been installed and signs put up before it was discovered
the width of the platform posed a safety risk.
Now a wall will have to be knocked down so the western platform can be
widened - at a cost to the developer of another £7 million.
A source close to the development claimed planners had not taken into
account the number of passengers changing between the mainline station
and the Tube.
Workers also built the eastern platform wall in the wrong place.
The blunders have angered passengers on the route, which links Clapham
Junction to Willesden Junction. Mark Balaam, chairman of the West
London Line Group, said: "We are astounded at the delay in opening
what is a straightforward station when passengers are already crying
out to use it. We do not understand how any station is allowed to be
completed with insufficient space for passengers so that it cannot be
used.
"Maps have shown for many years the extensive Tube and rail
connections that Shepherd's Bush will now have, allowing it to mirror,
to a large extent, the Stratford interchange in east London.
"Our hope is that the Mayor will arrange for Transport for London to
open this station as soon as possible, ideally within the first few
weeks of the start of the new London Overground network next month.
"This station will provide significant improvements to public
transport in an area where they are particularly needed."
A spokesman for Westfield Shopping Town said: "We are working with
Network Rail to resolve the situation and are confident that we will
be able to do so."
Although the station was designed and funded by Westfield, Capita
Symonds was employed as project manager. It liaised with Network Rail,
the train operating companies and other stakeholders and provided an
on-site engineer to supervise the construction work. The company
refused to comment.
A spokesman for Network Rail said: "On any project of this size, it is
sometimes necessary to revisit original designs and in this case it
has been necessary to carry out further work to look at the projected
numbers of passengers using the station and redesigning the platforms
accordingly.
"We are working with the developer to address the situation in order
to see the station in use as soon as possible."
Westfield London, which will be spread over three floors, will have
boutiques, more than 40 restaurants, dozens of cafés and bars, a 14-
screen cinema complex, an atrium for the arts, a medical centre, a spa
and a citizens advice bureau. There are also plans for 200 affordable
homes, an overhaul of Shepherd's Bush Green and a £170million upgrade
of local transport links.
About 60 per cent of the tenancies for the shopping centre have
already been exchanged or agreed.
unquote

Shepherd's Bush WLL
 

On 12 Oct, 13:43, Mwmbwls wrote:

Aha!

Although the station was designed and funded by Westfield, Capita
Symonds was employed as project manager.

Having worked for a Capita company, I think I can see where the cockup
happened.

Shepherd's Bush WLL
 

On 12 Oct, 13:43, Mwmbwls wrote:
On Oct 10, 7:56 am, James Farrar wrote:

The new issue of Private Eye, out today, has the following interesting
section on the much-delayed Shepherd's Bush WLL station:

Further detail from today's Evening Standard
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...-details/New+r...
quote
New railway station over budget...and undersized
Katharine Barney, Evening Standard
12.10.07
A new rail station needs millions of pounds worth of extra work -
because the platform is 18 inches too narrow.

The Standard has at least managed to talk of platform width, as
opposed to Private Eye talking of platform length.

However I'm certain that this Evening Standard article was completely
inspired by the piece in the Eye. The various news organisations that
are supposed to cover London (BBC London, ITN's ITV London news
division, Associated/Evening Standard and News Int'l's thelondonpaper)
have done a really bad job in failing to ask any questions, up until
now, about this new station and why it's opening kept on being
delayed.

James Farrar's post, with a transcription of the Eye article, was the
first I'd heard about this apparent muck-up about platform length
(though on a seperate uk.railway thread Paul Scott reports that this
was being discussed a few weeks ago on the RailwayScene internet
forum).


The Shepherd's Bush station was built in preparation for the massive
shopping complex Westfield London, which will open next year.
The work cost £12 million but only when it was finished did developer
Westfield realise the station would be unable to cope with the
anticipated volume of passengers.
Lampposts had been installed and signs put up before it was discovered
the width of the platform posed a safety risk.
Now a wall will have to be knocked down so the western platform can be
widened - at a cost to the developer of another £7 million.
A source close to the development claimed planners had not taken into
account the number of passengers changing between the mainline station
and the Tube.

This sounds like a bit of spin to cover up the fact that the platform
was seemingly built too narrow and hence doesn't comply with the
regulations.

Can anyone provide some more information here - does the platform
width regulations vary according to projected usage? Or is the
platform as is simply too narrow, regardless of the projected usage?


Workers also built the eastern platform wall in the wrong place.

Have they - can anyone elaborate on what the problems are with the
eastern platform?


The blunders have angered passengers on the route, which links Clapham
Junction to Willesden Junction. Mark Balaam, chairman of the West
London Line Group, said: [...]
"Our hope is that the Mayor will arrange for Transport for London to
open this station as soon as possible, ideally within the first few
weeks of the start of the new London Overground network next month."

I'd suggest it'd be highly unlikely for the non-regulation compliant
station to open anytime soon Mark! I think things will need to be
fixed first.


Although the station was designed and funded by Westfield, Capita
Symonds was employed as project manager. It liaised with Network Rail,
the train operating companies and other stakeholders and provided an
on-site engineer to supervise the construction work. The company
refused to comment.

Yeah, I wonder why! This appears to be a masterclass in how not to
manage a project.


A spokesman for Network Rail said: "On any project of this size, it is
sometimes necessary to revisit original designs and in this case it
has been necessary to carry out further work to look at the projected
numbers of passengers using the station and redesigning the platforms
accordingly."
"We are working with the developer to address the situation in order
to see the station in use as soon as possible."

Which just sounds like a load of waffle! The questions I posed above,
with regards to whether the platform width regulations vary according
to projected usage, stand.

Shepherd's Bush WLL
 

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...

THC

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.

Shepherd's Bush WLL
 

On 12 Oct, 17:54, contrex wrote:
On 12 Oct, 13:43, Mwmbwls wrote:

Aha!

Although the station was designed and funded by Westfield, Capita
Symonds was employed as project manager.

Having worked for a Capita company, I think I can see where the cockup
happened.

Ho ho ho!

I'm surprised the Eye didn't mention this project management and
consultancy company, as they could again make use of their oft-
repeated but still delightful moniker for the group to which it
belongs - Crapita!

Shepherd's Bush WLL
 

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:54:46 -0000, contrex
wrote:

On 12 Oct, 13:43, Mwmbwls wrote:

Aha!

Although the station was designed and funded by Westfield, Capita
Symonds was employed as project manager.

Having worked for a Capita company, I think I can see where the cockup
happened.


Interesting. I wonder which of my former colleagues will be carrying
the can for that?


--
Regards

Mike

mikedotroebuckatgmxdotnet

Shepherd's Bush WLL
 

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

Shepherd's Bush WLL
 

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.

Shepherd's Bush WLL
 

"Mizter T" wrote in message
ups.com...
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.


I feel responsible for causing a little unintentional thread drift there,
but there did seem to be large number of lamp standards, which of course
wouldn't be noticed on a typical width platform...

Paul

Shepherd's Bush WLL
 

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:56:56 -0700, Mizter T
wrote:

James Farrar's post, with a transcription of the Eye article, was the
first I'd heard about this apparent muck-up about platform length
(though on a seperate uk.railway thread Paul Scott reports that this
was being discussed a few weeks ago on the RailwayScene internet
forum).

I was inspired by the piece to visit the Wikipedia page on the
station, and found an unsourced mention of the platform width. So I
fixed it :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...ldid=161505201

I notice a "Mr Thant" has since gone further ;-)

Shepherd's Bush WLL
 

"John Rowland" wrote in message
...
Paul Scott wrote:
"Mr Thant" wrote in message
ups.com...

I was intrigued enough to pay a visit to the site today, and took
some photos:
http://londonconnections.blogspot.co...m-debacle.html


Well done, a picture is worth a thousand words. My last view was from
the window of a passing Silverlink service

Always seems to me that there must be a better solution than all
these lamp standards as well, they don't exactly help the passenger
circulation. But in this case, perhaps they have too many? There
seems to be a pole every few yards, given its only a four car
platform...

It's not obvious why the posts are there at all. Wouldn't fixing the lamps
be to the wall solve the problem?

This is from the Nov 9th edition of Rail Manager online:

"Ian Brown believes full rectification of the problem is unlikely.
There was some lack of communication between the developers and Network
Rail – you could say liaison was less than optimum – and the northbound
platform is something over a foot too narrow. The issue is what happens if a
six-car train needs to be evacuated there in the future. I don’t think we
can widen the platform, but we can move the lamp posts out of the way, and
we may apply for a derogation from the relevant Railway Group Standard so
that the station can open soon, for shorter trains at least."

Anyone heard anything else on the issue?

Paul

Shepherd's Bush WLL
 

On Nov 20, 12:47 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

This is from the Nov 9th edition of Rail Manager online:

"Ian Brown believes full rectification of the problem is unlikely.
Who is Mr Brown
There was some lack of communication between the developers and Network Rail - you could say liaison was less than optimum
So is this an "Albert and the Lion Case" where no one is really to
blame or has someone got to be summonsed.
The issue is what happens if a
six-car train needs to be evacuated there in the future. I don't think we
can widen the platform, but we can move the lamp posts out of the way, and
we may apply for a derogation from the relevant Railway Group Standard so
that the station can open soon, for shorter trains at least."

Surely the issue is how to evacuate the platform based on the number
of passengers using the Shopping Centre and hence the station - short
trains unless plentiful will surely make crowding on the platform
worse. And if there are more short trains how will the freight traffic
using the WLL fit in? As for a derogation - listen - isn't that
gurgling sound I hear the sound of the HSE choking over their
collective Cornflakes. Whoever is responsible for this - either singly
or jointly should be made to pay up for putting it right. If nothing
else, it will as Voltaire put it act "pour encourager les autres"

Shepherd's Bush WLL
 

"Mwmbwls" wrote in message
...
On Nov 20, 12:47 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

This is from the Nov 9th edition of Rail Manager online:

"Ian Brown believes full rectification of the problem is unlikely.
Who is Mr Brown

Head of TfL Rail. Obviuosly knows nothing...

Paul