Is there any suggestion that the proposed development at Clapham
Junction is above the railway or is it just the plot opposite the old
A&H?

OC

Old Central wrote:
Is there any suggestion that the proposed development at Clapham
Junction is above the railway or is it just the plot opposite the old
A&H?


There is a map on the Wandsworth Planning site that shows the development
site as basically 'west'of the footbridge, but extending over the tracks and
part of the sheds. As Peter Masson has pointed out earlier, it would be good
if they built it on the basis of sorting out the platform curvature
eventually, but I suspect that any changes will be at the east end of the
layout, because it will be quite difficult to widen the western throat of
the station...

http://tinyurl.com/yokuhn

HTH Paul S

There is a map on the Wandsworth Planning site that shows the development
site as basically 'west'of the footbridge, but extending over the tracks
and part of the sheds. As Peter Masson has pointed out earlier, it would
be good if they built it on the basis of sorting out the platform
curvature eventually, but I suspect that any changes will be at the east
end of the layout, because it will be quite difficult to widen the western
throat of the station...

http://tinyurl.com/yokuhn

HTH Paul S

The developers also have their own site
http://www.theheartofbattersea.co.uk/
but there's not a lot of information on it

--
Peter

Peter Goodland wrote:
There is a map on the Wandsworth Planning site that shows the
development site as basically 'west'of the footbridge, but extending
over the tracks and part of the sheds. As Peter Masson has pointed
out earlier, it would be good if they built it on the basis of
sorting out the platform curvature eventually, but I suspect that
any changes will be at the east end of the layout, because it will
be quite difficult to widen the western throat of the station...

http://tinyurl.com/yokuhn

HTH Paul S

The developers also have their own site
http://www.theheartofbattersea.co.uk/
but there's not a lot of information on it

That's notable in that it doesn't actually include anything above the tracks
or platforms, which was suggested by the Wandsworth planning page I linked
to...

Paul S

On 23 Jan, 17:23, "Paul Scott" wrote:
That's notable in that it doesn't actually include anything above the tracks
or platforms, which was suggested by the Wandsworth planning page I linked
to...

They appear to be different areas. The "Heart of Battersea" plan is
for the area east of the footbridge and south of the tracks (i.e. the
shopping centre).

U

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

On Jan 22, 9:56 am, Graeme Wall wrote:

If only they were subscribers to this group .....if only.........

You think Ken Livingstone might subscribe to this group?

Subscribe, contribute no.

But aide workers might monitor.

Any serious transport advisor ought to monitor a group like this for
amid the twaddle and the lunatic and the completely backwards looking
rose tinted views, there are some gems of ideas for forward movement
in this forum.

--
Nick

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008, D7666 wrote:

On Jan 22, 9:56 am, Graeme Wall wrote:

If only they were subscribers to this group .....if only.........

You think Ken Livingstone might subscribe to this group?

Subscribe, contribute no.

But aide workers might monitor.

Any serious transport advisor ought to monitor a group like this for
amid the twaddle and the lunatic and the completely backwards looking
rose tinted views, there are some gems of ideas for forward movement in
this forum.

Yes, sadly, although we do do our *utmost* to suppress them!

tom

--
There is no latest trend.

I am disappointed with the proposals for development of Clapham
Junction. I feel that they lack scale and scope and fail to maximise
the regeneration potential of the area. I had been hoping for a
redevelopment programme similar the that at London Bridge where a
thorough going revision and rebuild of track layouts, largely
determined by pre-grouping rivalries, is taking place to make the rail
system more relevant for current and future needs This Master Plan is
being topped off by an iconic and imaginative use of air rights to
create buildings that in themselves will increase passenger usage and
help through rents help pay for the overall development, Clapham
Junction is too good a site to let go in a piece meal manner. Peter
Masson has already drawn attention to the well-rehearsed problems of
Clapham Junction. The area seems hardly to have changed since I used
to be taken to catch the 626/628 Trolleybuses onward to Fulham Palace
Road that terminated outside. IIRC in 2002 the SRA under Alistair
Morton fostered a brief era of TOC's coming forward with ideas to
increase network capacity. GNER, at that time considered a potent
potential rival to SWT, came up with a plan to move the entire station
westwards roughly to where the collapsing signal box used to stand at
a cost of about £115 million. The benefits of this plan were to
increase platform lengths, improve alignment and clearances and to
allow for future growth. I don't recall using the air rights to fund
the development being prominently debated at that time - in fact I
seem to remember the words "gold plated" being bandied about.

The rebuilding of Waterloo is now scheduled in the mid term,
(including the reintegration of the Waterloo International Platforms,
much discussed here). , Airtrack will be obliged to happen if the BAA
get their evil way and expand Heathrow as part of the horse-trading
that will take place on the surface access strategy. Indeed it might
just happen anyway without the expansion IIRC I understand that BAA
are preparing the TWA application documentation less the newly re-
elected Kenneth Robert(he whose name cannot be mentioned) creates a
third congestion zone round the airport.

Also in the mid term is the question of Crossrail 2. Crossrail have
safeguarded the Chelsea Hackney route from Parsons Green to Dalston
Junction. However the other suggestion for a shorter route starting
just north of Clapham Junction should be re-examined. There has been
an extensive debate about what sort of railway Crossrail should be -
an intra-urban express tube system (Crosslink) or a regional carrier
(Superlink) The argument has hinged upon would the interdependence
with other services (route pollution) make it impossible for an
effective service through the central core impossible to manage (The
Crosslink argument about Superlink) or is it a waste of valuable
resource if half the Crossrail services are turned back at Paddington
together with why should taxpayers from all of the United Kingdom but
particularly those of say Reading or Colchester pay for a very
expensive railway from which they get not direct benefit (The
Superlink argument about Crossrail). The great thing about Crossrail 2
is that it will be built after Crossrail 1, which embodies the
operating arguments for operating and intra urban express system, and
also after Thameslink, which embodies the case for a Superlink style
of operation. The point to note is that we will then no longer be
trading hypothetical cases but we will be able to compare and contrast
direct experience as which operating philosophy provides the best
solution. Now in the case of Crossrail 2 - if I were going to build an
intra-urban system, another classic Crossrail, I would follow the
existing safeguarded route from Parsons Green. However, if the object
was to connect the south central and western rail networks, Thameslink
style I would opt for the option that runs from Clapham Junction to
Dalston Junction via Victoria and Kings Cross. In the latter case the
existing Crossrail 2 alignment from Parsons Green would not be wastes
as it could also be built at some future point as part of the classic
tube network

For now, however, what is important is not to close off options to
redevelop Clapham Junction by building without regard to an overall
master plan for the next twenty years. If TfL and Network Rail are
thinking about this now is the time to make sure it is joined up.

On Jan 24, 9:55*am, Mwmbwls wrote:
GNER, at that time considered a potent
potential rival to SWT, came up with a plan to move the entire station
westwards roughly to where the collapsing signal box used to stand at
a cost of about £115 million.

Aplogies - correction should be move paltaforms eastwards.

Thanks for you responses on air rights but Mwmbwls is getting me
confused!

I attended a meeting last year where the subject of air rights in
London was raised and it was considered too costly - Fennell Report,
possession requirements, etc.

Are we talking about air rights for developments adjacent to or over
the railway?

Thanks

OC