The plans for Camden Town was Oh No Kenny O
 

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008, MIG wrote:

On Apr 24, 6:57*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, MIG wrote:
On 24 Apr, 16:54, Mizter T wrote:
On 24 Apr, 16:19, MIG wrote:

On 24 Apr, 15:48, Mizter T wrote:

On 24 Apr, 15:29, MIG wrote:

Nearly as bizarre as demolishing Camden in order to accommodate the
number of people who go to Camden to visit the things that are being
demolished.

Whilst I absolutely understand where you're coming from, the plan
doesn't involve "demolishing Camden", it just doesn't.

Poetic licence, but the points are ... points.

Understood. TBH I haven't properly got my head round the plans for
Camden Town yet, but whilst my initial thoughts were along the lines of
yours, I've since come to the understanding that they are not in fact
that radical.

It's not demolition of the whole of Camden, no, but it's a bit like saying
the plan for Parliament Square isn't that radical because it's only
Westminster Abbey that's being demolished.

It probably deserves a separate thread on utl sometime soon.

Separated!

In Camden, far from the station, the Stables market at least is under
threat,

Are you sure? I've just spent some time looking through documents related
to the proposed rebuilding, and there's no mention of the Stables. How are
they related to the plan?

That's what I meant about lumping together different plans. The
Stables is under threat, but not from the station rebuilding.

Okay, got you. So why is the Stables under threat? Is it just general
redevelopment?

tom

--
It's never too late to change the future.

Oh No Kenny O
 

On 25 Apr, 13:52, Jamie Thompson wrote:

I do hope they don't limit themselves in the future by removing the
possibility of restoring a 4th line though the station by plonking a
great huge building over/next to the station, as whilst the original
eastern platform is unlikely to be brought back into use due the
proximity of the housing, there is plenty of room on the western side
to move the platform westwards and once again have a pair of loops for
freight to wait in as well as non-stopping services to overtake the
stopping LO ones.

I agree, but my impression is that TPTB are also well aware of that
possibility - IIRC the South London RUS (and indeed the Cross-London
RUS) ponders such thoughts, though decides that another passing loop
on the WLL is not justified at the moment. So I certainly wouldn't
expect any development to take place that would limit this from
happening in the future. Anyway, as things stand an air-rights
development isn't even vaguely on the agenda whatsoever.

I also think that restoring the original platform on the eastern side
would be a problem at all - the old platform still exists and is
pretty wide, and anyway it's not like there are gardens or anything on
the other side of the wall, it's just a roadway for access to parking
spaces. See this 'bird's eye view' from Live Search Maps:
http://tinyurl.com/6bvcb9

The plans for Camden Town was Oh No Kenny O
 

On 25 Apr, 14:10, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008, MIG wrote:
On Apr 24, 6:57*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, MIG wrote:
On 24 Apr, 16:54, Mizter T wrote:
On 24 Apr, 16:19, MIG wrote:

On 24 Apr, 15:48, Mizter T wrote:

On 24 Apr, 15:29, MIG wrote:

Nearly as bizarre as demolishing Camden in order to accommodate the
number of people who go to Camden to visit the things that are being
demolished.

Whilst I absolutely understand where you're coming from, the plan
doesn't involve "demolishing Camden", it just doesn't.

Poetic licence, but the points are ... points.

Understood. TBH I haven't properly got my head round the plans for
Camden Town yet, but whilst my initial thoughts were along the lines of
yours, I've since come to the understanding that they are not in fact
that radical.

It's not demolition of the whole of Camden, no, but it's a bit like saying
the plan for Parliament Square isn't that radical because it's only
Westminster Abbey that's being demolished.

It probably deserves a separate thread on utl sometime soon.

Separated!

In Camden, far from the station, the Stables market at least is under
threat,

Are you sure? I've just spent some time looking through documents related
to the proposed rebuilding, and there's no mention of the Stables. How are
they related to the plan?

That's what I meant about lumping together different plans. *The
Stables is under threat, but not from the station rebuilding.

Okay, got you. So why is the Stables under threat? Is it just general
redevelopment?

Had to dredge back in my memory, but it was definitely a news item a
few months ago, and then I found this http://www.savecamdenstablesmarket.co.uk/
and this http://www.camden.gov.uk/ccm/content...bles-market.en.

Oh No Kenny O
 

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 06:00:49 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

On 25 Apr, 12:06, Mizter T wrote:
On 24 Apr, 19:46, TBirdFrank wrote:

I don't claim any expertise on this specific operation - but is not
this a case of TfL being in the effective shoes of a Franchisee, and
Network Rail still being the freeholders? - a situation which has
destroyed the potential for less than stellar property transactions
due to there now being too many parties trying to extract both profit
and hypothecated gains within the life of a mere franchise.

I don't think that any time-limit has been placed on TfL's control of
the 'North London Railway' (i.e. all the old Silverlink Metro routes).
TfL's appointment of LOROL as the operator was for a set period of
something like seven years, but I think the plan is for this contract
to simply be renewed/extended if they do a good job - I don't think it
has to go out to competitive tender like a normal franchise does.

Regardless of what the situation is with the operator, TfL is in this
for the long run - therefore they can think long-term. As you say
Network Rail remains the freeholder, but the impression I get is that
they and TfL are establishing a good working relationship, not least
because Network Rail realises TfL aren't going anywhere soon!

Even if Boris wins next week?

Do you have any reason at all for asking that question?

Oh No Kenny O
 

On 25 Apr, 16:51, James Farrar wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 06:00:49 -0700 (PDT), MIG





wrote:
On 25 Apr, 12:06, Mizter T wrote:
On 24 Apr, 19:46, TBirdFrank wrote:

I don't claim any expertise on this specific operation - but is not
this a case of TfL being in the effective shoes of a Franchisee, and
Network Rail still being the freeholders? - a situation which has
destroyed the potential for less than stellar property transactions
due to there now being too many parties trying to extract both profit
and hypothecated gains within the life of a mere franchise.

I don't think that any time-limit has been placed on TfL's control of
the 'North London Railway' (i.e. all the old Silverlink Metro routes).
TfL's appointment of LOROL as the operator was for a set period of
something like seven years, but I think the plan is for this contract
to simply be renewed/extended if they do a good job - I don't think it
has to go out to competitive tender like a normal franchise does.

Regardless of what the situation is with the operator, TfL is in this
for the long run - therefore they can think long-term. As you say
Network Rail remains the freeholder, but the impression I get is that
they and TfL are establishing a good working relationship, not least
because Network Rail realises TfL aren't going anywhere soon!

Even if Boris wins next week?

Do you have any reason at all for asking that question?

Not in the sense of anyone knowing the answer for sure, but
questioning whether all kinds of certainties are so certain after
all. I was referring more the the "working relationship" part than
the "going anywhere" part, since the working relationships with new
chiefs, and very different attitutudes to how much should be spent on
publicly-run services, could be very different.

Oh No Kenny O
 

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:22:51 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

On 25 Apr, 16:51, James Farrar wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 06:00:49 -0700 (PDT), MIG





wrote:
On 25 Apr, 12:06, Mizter T wrote:
On 24 Apr, 19:46, TBirdFrank wrote:

I don't claim any expertise on this specific operation - but is not
this a case of TfL being in the effective shoes of a Franchisee, and
Network Rail still being the freeholders? - a situation which has
destroyed the potential for less than stellar property transactions
due to there now being too many parties trying to extract both profit
and hypothecated gains within the life of a mere franchise.

I don't think that any time-limit has been placed on TfL's control of
the 'North London Railway' (i.e. all the old Silverlink Metro routes).
TfL's appointment of LOROL as the operator was for a set period of
something like seven years, but I think the plan is for this contract
to simply be renewed/extended if they do a good job - I don't think it
has to go out to competitive tender like a normal franchise does.

Regardless of what the situation is with the operator, TfL is in this
for the long run - therefore they can think long-term. As you say
Network Rail remains the freeholder, but the impression I get is that
they and TfL are establishing a good working relationship, not least
because Network Rail realises TfL aren't going anywhere soon!

Even if Boris wins next week?

Do you have any reason at all for asking that question?

Not in the sense of anyone knowing the answer for sure, but
questioning whether all kinds of certainties are so certain after
all. I was referring more the the "working relationship" part than
the "going anywhere" part

OK. It didn't look that way; in fact, it looked very much like a claim
that "Boris will abolish TfL".

Oh No Kenny O
 

On 25 Apr, 17:29, James Farrar wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:22:51 -0700 (PDT), MIG





wrote:
On 25 Apr, 16:51, James Farrar wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 06:00:49 -0700 (PDT), MIG

wrote:
On 25 Apr, 12:06, Mizter T wrote:
On 24 Apr, 19:46, TBirdFrank wrote:

I don't claim any expertise on this specific operation - but is not
this a case of TfL being in the effective shoes of a Franchisee, and
Network Rail still being the freeholders? - a situation which has
destroyed the potential for less than stellar property transactions
due to there now being too many parties trying to extract both profit
and hypothecated gains within the life of a mere franchise.

I don't think that any time-limit has been placed on TfL's control of
the 'North London Railway' (i.e. all the old Silverlink Metro routes).
TfL's appointment of LOROL as the operator was for a set period of
something like seven years, but I think the plan is for this contract
to simply be renewed/extended if they do a good job - I don't think it
has to go out to competitive tender like a normal franchise does.

Regardless of what the situation is with the operator, TfL is in this
for the long run - therefore they can think long-term. As you say
Network Rail remains the freeholder, but the impression I get is that
they and TfL are establishing a good working relationship, not least
because Network Rail realises TfL aren't going anywhere soon!

Even if Boris wins next week?

Do you have any reason at all for asking that question?

Not in the sense of anyone knowing the answer for sure, but
questioning whether all kinds of certainties are so certain after
all. *I was referring more the the "working relationship" part than
the "going anywhere" part

OK. It didn't look that way; in fact, it looked very much like a claim
that "Boris will abolish TfL".

He might well wish that he could, but it would take more terms in
office than he would be likely to cling on for.

He could certainly appoint enough new people and change enough budgets
to make it fairly unrecognisable though, I'd have thought.

I would rather not find out.

Oh No Kenny O
 

On 25 Apr, 14:00, MIG wrote:

On 25 Apr, 12:06, Mizter T wrote:

On 24 Apr, 19:46, TBirdFrank wrote:

I don't claim any expertise on this specific operation - but is not
this a case of TfL being in the effective shoes of a Franchisee, and
Network Rail still being the freeholders? - a situation which has
destroyed the potential for less than stellar property transactions
due to there now being too many parties trying to extract both profit
and hypothecated gains within the life of a mere franchise.

I don't think that any time-limit has been placed on TfL's control of
the 'North London Railway' (i.e. all the old Silverlink Metro routes).
TfL's appointment of LOROL as the operator was for a set period of
something like seven years, but I think the plan is for this contract
to simply be renewed/extended if they do a good job - I don't think it
has to go out to competitive tender like a normal franchise does.

Regardless of what the situation is with the operator, TfL is in this
for the long run - therefore they can think long-term. As you say
Network Rail remains the freeholder, but the impression I get is that
they and TfL are establishing a good working relationship, not least
because Network Rail realises TfL aren't going anywhere soon!

Even if Boris wins next week? It's a frightening thought.


Isn't it just! I think my usenet self is going to stop sitting on the
metaphorical fence on this one now!

The plans for Camden Town was Oh No Kenny O
 

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008, MIG wrote:

On 25 Apr, 14:10, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008, MIG wrote:
On Apr 24, 6:57*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, MIG wrote:

In Camden, far from the station, the Stables market at least is under
threat,

Are you sure? I've just spent some time looking through documents related
to the proposed rebuilding, and there's no mention of the Stables. How are
they related to the plan?

That's what I meant about lumping together different plans. *The
Stables is under threat, but not from the station rebuilding.

Okay, got you. So why is the Stables under threat? Is it just general
redevelopment?

Had to dredge back in my memory, but it was definitely a news item a
few months ago, and then I found this http://www.savecamdenstablesmarket.co.uk/
and this http://www.camden.gov.uk/ccm/content...bles-market.en.

Oh, i see. They're redeveloping it - in the sense of expanding it,
cleaning it up, adding better access, and putting a roof on it, not the
sense of turning it into a supermarket. Not what i'd call 'under threat'.
But maybe the current plan is only what it is because of the public
outcry.

Cheers for the info.

tom

--
How did i get here?

The plans for Camden Town was Oh No Kenny O
 

On Apr 26, 2:14*am, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008, MIG wrote:
On 25 Apr, 14:10, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008, MIG wrote:
On Apr 24, 6:57*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, MIG wrote:

In Camden, far from the station, the Stables market at least is under
threat,

Are you sure? I've just spent some time looking through documents related
to the proposed rebuilding, and there's no mention of the Stables. How are
they related to the plan?

That's what I meant about lumping together different plans. *The
Stables is under threat, but not from the station rebuilding.

Okay, got you. So why is the Stables under threat? Is it just general
redevelopment?

Had to dredge back in my memory, but it was definitely a news item a
few months ago, and then I found thishttp://www.savecamdenstablesmarket.co.uk/
and thishttp://www.camden.gov.uk/ccm/content/press/2006/october-2006/camden-c....

Oh, i see. They're redeveloping it - in the sense of expanding it,
cleaning it up, adding better access, and putting a roof on it, not the
sense of turning it into a supermarket. Not what i'd call 'under threat'.
But maybe the current plan is only what it is because of the public
outcry.

Cheers for the info.

Certainly the new stories a few months back sounded pretty
devastating, but that may have been spin by the protesters competing
with spin by the developers.

I can see that the plans might effectively result in an indoor
shopping centre on the layout of the former market.

You don't have to go to Camden to visit an indoor shopping centre
(maybe I could have stopped after the first seven words of that
sentence).

Oh No Kenny O
 

MIG wrote:
On 25 Apr, 17:29, James Farrar wrote:

it looked very much like a
claim that "Boris will abolish TfL".

He might well wish that he could, but it would take more terms in
office than he would be likely to cling on for.

He could certainly appoint enough new people and change enough budgets
to make it fairly unrecognisable though, I'd have thought.

I would rather not find out.

Doesn't the fact that all the terrorists are supporting Ken tell you
anything?

Oh No Kenny O
 

John Rowland wrote:

Doesn't the fact that all the terrorists are supporting Ken tell you
anything?

I don't know about that, but if you know who the terrorists are and you
haven't passed that info to TPTB, then you should expect a knock at the
door, pronto.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632886.html
(33 111 at Weymouth Town, May 1985)

Oh No Kenny O
 

On 26 Apr, 13:18, "John Rowland"
wrote:

MIG wrote:

On 25 Apr, 17:29, James Farrar wrote:

it looked very much like a
claim that "Boris will abolish TfL".

He might well wish that he could, but it would take more terms in
office than he would be likely to cling on for.

He could certainly appoint enough new people and change enough budgets
to make it fairly unrecognisable though, I'd have thought.

I would rather not find out.

Doesn't the fact that all the terrorists are supporting Ken tell you
anything?

Are they really? Or have you just gone into cabbie rant mode?

Oh No Kenny O
 

MIG wrote:
...
He could certainly appoint enough new people and change enough budgets
to make it fairly unrecognisable though, I'd have thought.

I would rather not find out.

Same here - the reports that Boris would have to spend three days a week
chairing the Met Police Authority doesn't suggest he'd leave a lot of
time for transport. He'd have to find a yet unspecified chairman for
TfL, and judging by the only name I've seen (Daniel Moylan), plus the
unspoken dog whistle* in his transport policy, is likely to be a pro-car
right-winger. Since Mayor Boris would be beholden to the suburban
middle class and the Evening Standard it's not too much of a mental leap
from that to suggest that TfL's current role as an public transport
authority that starts things and sees them through might be somewhat
diminished by this change in Mayoral priorities.

Tom

* Roughly: 'Got a car? Want to drive it? Don't worry, we'll see you
right'.

Oh No Kenny O
 

On Apr 25, 2:26 pm, Mizter T wrote:
On 25 Apr, 13:52, Jamie Thompson wrote:

I do hope they don't limit themselves in the future by removing the
possibility of restoring a 4th line though the station by plonking a
great huge building over/next to the station, as whilst the original
eastern platform is unlikely to be brought back into use due the
proximity of the housing, there is plenty of room on the western side
to move the platform westwards and once again have a pair of loops for
freight to wait in as well as non-stopping services to overtake the
stopping LO ones.

I agree, but my impression is that TPTB are also well aware of that
possibility - IIRC the South London RUS (and indeed the Cross-London
RUS) ponders such thoughts, though decides that another passing loop
on the WLL is not justified at the moment. So I certainly wouldn't
expect any development to take place that would limit this from
happening in the future. Anyway, as things stand an air-rights
development isn't even vaguely on the agenda whatsoever.

I also think that restoring the original platform on the eastern side
would be a problem at all - the old platform still exists and is
pretty wide, and anyway it's not like there are gardens or anything on
the other side of the wall, it's just a roadway for access to parking
spaces. See this 'bird's eye view' from Live Search Maps:
http://tinyurl.com/6bvcb9

Interesting...It had never occurred to me that the use of the former
platform space would be different along it's length, and I was basing
my comments on the northern half of the platform, which most certainly
is now mostly gardens. The southern half though is as you say, an
access road (and a lot of space between it and the old platform face).
I'd imagine the loss of a metre or two of garden is a fairly common
occurrence in urban areas when transport infrastructure needs
expanding though.

Oh No Kenny O
 

On 26 Apr, 14:27, Jamie Thompson wrote:

On Apr 25, 2:26 pm, Mizter T wrote:

On 25 Apr, 13:52, Jamie Thompson wrote:

I do hope they don't limit themselves in the future by removing the
possibility of restoring a 4th line though the station by plonking a
great huge building over/next to the station, as whilst the original
eastern platform is unlikely to be brought back into use due the
proximity of the housing, there is plenty of room on the western side
to move the platform westwards and once again have a pair of loops for
freight to wait in as well as non-stopping services to overtake the
stopping LO ones.

I agree, but my impression is that TPTB are also well aware of that
possibility - IIRC the South London RUS (and indeed the Cross-London
RUS) ponders such thoughts, though decides that another passing loop
on the WLL is not justified at the moment. So I certainly wouldn't
expect any development to take place that would limit this from
happening in the future. Anyway, as things stand an air-rights
development isn't even vaguely on the agenda whatsoever.

I also think that restoring the original platform on the eastern side
would be a problem at all - the old platform still exists and is
pretty wide, and anyway it's not like there are gardens or anything on
the other side of the wall, it's just a roadway for access to parking
spaces. See this 'bird's eye view' from Live Search Maps:
http://tinyurl.com/6bvcb9

Interesting...It had never occurred to me that the use of the former
platform space would be different along it's length, and I was basing
my comments on the northern half of the platform, which most certainly
is now mostly gardens. The southern half though is as you say, an
access road (and a lot of space between it and the old platform face).
I'd imagine the loss of a metre or two of garden is a fairly common
occurrence in urban areas when transport infrastructure needs
expanding though.


But I don't even think that would be necessary - it depends of course
on how long you wanted the platform to be, but by my estimation you
could still have an 8 to 10 car platform using what's still available,
and you could of course extend it a bit further south too, so they'd
be no need to reclaim a sliver of the garden (let alone any of the
access road).

Oh No Kenny O
 

"Mizter T" wrote

But I don't even think that would be necessary - it depends of course
on how long you wanted the platform to be, but by my estimation you
could still have an 8 to 10 car platform using what's still available,
and you could of course extend it a bit further south too, so they'd
be no need to reclaim a sliver of the garden (let alone any of the
access road).

How much need is there for KO platforms to be longer than 4 car once the AXC
services are withdrawn later this year? The LO Willesden - Clapham Junction
shuttle is currently limited to 3-car by platform length at Willesden
Junction, and I don't see them having aspirations for more than 4-car
(preferring to increase capacity if necessary by increasing frequency).
Similarly, I can't see Southern wanting to run trains longer than 4-car.

When the southbound platform was built out over the former loop track it was
originally only 3-car length, and InterCity trains used the northbound
platform reversibly. It was because these caused delays to the local service
when southbound InterCitys ran out of course that the southbound platform
was lengthened.

Also, how much need is there for freights either to overtake passenger
trains, or to be recessed on the Through Line awaiting a path elsewhere? I
would have thought that the occasions when the ability to recess two
freights at the same time would be sufficiently infrequent that restoring a
second through line is unnecessary. After all, even when ELLX is extended to
Clapham Junction it will still be possible to recess freights to or from
South Eastern Lines between Latchmere and Culver Road Junctions.

Peter

Oh No Kenny O
 

Mizter T wrote:
On 26 Apr, 13:18, "John Rowland"
wrote:

MIG wrote:

On 25 Apr, 17:29, James Farrar wrote:

it looked very much like a
claim that "Boris will abolish TfL".

He might well wish that he could, but it would take more terms in
office than he would be likely to cling on for.

He could certainly appoint enough new people and change enough
budgets to make it fairly unrecognisable though, I'd have thought.

I would rather not find out.

Doesn't the fact that all the terrorists are supporting Ken tell you
anything?

Are they really?

Pick one...

http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...nG=Search+News

Oh No Kenny O
 

John Rowland wrote:

Mizter T wrote:
On 26 Apr, 13:18, "John Rowland"
Doesn't the fact that all the terrorists are supporting Ken tell you
anything?

Are they really?

Pick one...

http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...nG=Search+News

So a high number of Google matches indicates a connection?

Google matches:
"tories livingstone" 286
"conservatives livingstone" 199
"royal family livingstone". 43
"terrorists livingstone". 15

Meanwhile...
"amphibians livingstone" 3
"reptiles livingstone" 0

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683690.html
(59611 (Class 116) at Birmingham Moor Street, 10 Jun 1985)

Oh No Kenny O
 

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:05:18 +0100, "Peter Masson"
wrote:

Similarly, I can't see Southern wanting to run trains longer than 4-car.

In the peaks there is certainly the demand for 8 cars on the "round
the side" Clapham-Watford service.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Oh No Kenny O
 

On 26 Apr, 16:09, "John Rowland"
wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

On 26 Apr, 13:18, "John Rowland"
wrote:

(snip)

Doesn't the fact that all the terrorists are supporting Ken tell you
anything?

Are they really?

Pick one...

http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...rists+livingst...


OK, the first result on that search was a Guardian timeline of Ken
Livingstone's eight years of office, and this paragraph about
Livingstone and the terrorists:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ocalgovernment
---quote---
The next day the city was rocked by the terrorist attacks on the tube
network and a bus which killed 52 people. Livingstone drew praise for
his leadership, telling the terrorists: "Where freedom is strong and
people can live in harmony, whatever you do, however many you kill,
you will fail."
---/quote---


However I suspect you're referring to this story - and since you won't
be specific all I can do is guess - entitled "Ken's adviser is linked
to terror group" by Andrew Gilligan in the Standard (Dabinderjit Singh
is a TfL Board Member)...

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...ils/article.do

Anyone can read the whole article above, but I would recommend reading
the whole thing, from start to finish, in order to get the full story
- nonetheless I'm going to present a few excerpts anyway, because I
think they balance out the emphasis of the article somewhat:

---quote---
There is no suggestion that Dabinderjit Singh has been personally
involved in facilitating or carrying out an act of terrorism, or in
ISYF activity since the group was banned.
[...]
Asked for his views on the armed struggle, Mr Singh said: "If someone
has had their mother and father killed and they decide to take up arms
because they feel there is no justice for them, it's very difficult to
condemn them, because they're trying to defend themselves."

Dabinderjit Singh is described by Sikh analysts as the "respectable
face" of Sikh separatist militancy. He is a senior civil servant with
the National Audit Office and has been awarded the OBE.

Reports of the ceremony describe him as an ISYF member and state that
he wore the ISYF insignia to the investiture. The ISYF was legal at
that point and enjoyed close relations with some British politicians,
who protested against the Government ban.

Mr Singh, who still has a place on the TfL board, would have attended
board meetings and decided upon new fare rises, financing and budgets,
proposed lines extensions, strategic planning and health and safety
issues.
---/quote---


In addition, here is Dabinderjit Singh's short bio from the TfL
website

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/abou...cers/1432.aspx
---quote---
Dabinderjit Singh Sidhu, Board Member
Dabinderjit Sidhu has worked at the National Audit Office for the past
eighteen years and since January 2006 has been Director in the
Department of Health & Arms Length Bodies. In March 2004 he was also
appointed the first Chair of the EU College of External Auditors for
the European Defence Agency. With almost 20 year experience in the
audit sector, Dabinderjit was awarded an OBE in 2000 for work for the
National Audit Office, promotion of Equal Opportunities, services to
the public and contribution in representing the British Sikh
community.
---/quote---


So, I'm still to be convinced of the fact that "all the terrorists are
supporting Ken". So far I haven't read of any such endorsement from Al-
Qaeda and Associates or any other such outfit.

Anyway, if we're utilising such spurious reasoning then one could also
ask the question "Doesn't the fact that all the Nazis are supporting
Boris Ken tell you anything?"

For the context of the above:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ondon08.london

(I should probably just leave it there but I suppose I'd better add
this just for the record - I don't think Boris is even remotely close
to being a Nazi whatsoever.)

Oh No Kenny O
 

On Apr 25, 2:26 pm, Mizter T wrote:
On 25 Apr, 13:52, Jamie Thompson wrote:

I do hope they don't limit themselves in the future by removing the
possibility of restoring a 4th line though the station by plonking a
great huge building over/next to the station, as whilst the original
eastern platform is unlikely to be brought back into use due the
proximity of the housing, there is plenty of room on the western side
to move the platform westwards and once again have a pair of loops for
freight to wait in as well as non-stopping services to overtake the
stopping LO ones.

I agree, but my impression is that TPTB are also well aware of that
possibility - IIRC the South London RUS (and indeed the Cross-London
RUS) ponders such thoughts, though decides that another passing loop
on the WLL is not justified at the moment. So I certainly wouldn't
expect any development to take place that would limit this from
happening in the future. Anyway, as things stand an air-rights
development isn't even vaguely on the agenda whatsoever.

I also think that restoring the original platform on the eastern side
would be a problem at all - the old platform still exists and is
pretty wide, and anyway it's not like there are gardens or anything on
the other side of the wall, it's just a roadway for access to parking
spaces. See this 'bird's eye view' from Live Search Maps:
http://tinyurl.com/6bvcb9

When, and why, was the 'new' southbound platform built?

Oh No Kenny O
 

On Apr 26, 4:05 pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:
Also, how much need is there for freights either to overtake passenger
trains, or to be recessed on the Through Line awaiting a path elsewhere? I
would have thought that the occasions when the ability to recess two
freights at the same time would be sufficiently infrequent that restoring a
second through line is unnecessary. After all, even when ELLX is extended to
Clapham Junction it will still be possible to recess freights to or from
South Eastern Lines between Latchmere and Culver Road Junctions.

With WLL paths being as scarce as they are I can't imagine that
increasing frequency over lengthening would be preferred. After all,
increasing lengths requires expensive platform lengthening, but
increasing paths requires either inconveniently infrequent advancement
in signalling technology or horrifically expensive new tracks. That
said, I can't help but agree that there would be ample room for an 8-
car on the southbound. We'll just have to wait until LO patronage
requires 12-cars before we have problems :)

Oh No Kenny O
 

In article ,
John Rowland wrote:
Doesn't the fact that all the terrorists are supporting Ken tell you
anything?

Combat-18's political wing support Boris. (But, I note, he rejects their
support, even going as far as saying that he doesn't want their second
preference vote.)

--
Shenanigans! Shenanigans! Best of 3!
-- Flash

Oh No Kenny O
 

Mizter T wrote:
On 24 Apr, 18:03, Stephen Furley wrote:
I find it difficult to understand why it took so long to get a proper
passenger service back on this line.

As do I - it's a very useful and increasingly popular link.

I think it's because, from before the war until about 1990, there was
a general presumption that railways were in decline. So hardly anyone
even considered re-opening closed stations.

I think some of today's passengers would be completely amazed to hear
that it's a relatively recent reintroduction.

And some of today's non-passengers would be amazed at the places they
could once have reached by train.

Another strange thing about this line is the number of stations which
it had, no less than six intermediate ones between Clapham Junction
and Willesden Junction.

Not any closer together than on tube lines in the area. And with some
location adjustments, you could probably justify re-opening all of them.

And the same probably goes for the Dudden Hill line.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

Oh No Kenny O
 

On Apr 26, 7:26*pm, Jamie Thompson wrote:
On Apr 26, 4:05 pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:

Also, how much need is there for freights either to overtake passenger
trains, or to be recessed on the Through Line awaiting a path elsewhere? I
would have thought that the occasions when the ability to recess two
freights at the same time would be sufficiently infrequent that restoring a
second through line is unnecessary. After all, even when ELLX is extended to
Clapham Junction it will still be possible to recess freights to or from
South Eastern Lines between Latchmere and Culver Road Junctions.

With WLL paths being as scarce as they are I can't imagine that
increasing frequency over lengthening would be preferred. After all,
increasing lengths requires expensive platform lengthening, but
increasing paths requires either inconveniently infrequent advancement
in signalling technology or horrifically expensive new tracks. That
said, I can't help but agree that there would be ample room for an 8-
car on the southbound. We'll just have to wait until LO patronage
requires 12-cars before we have problems :)

I agree in part both with Jamie and Peter - the passing loop(s) aka
the though line(S) at Kenny O breaks up a long double track section
and provide operational robustness. The keypoint is that the route
must be able to carry 9'6" tall containers and that any loop must be
at least 775 metres long to accomodate the maximum - if fact the new
standard - length of container trains.As to the one loop or two
question timetable modelling will show up any time and place conflicts
- even if the answer is one passive provision should be left for two
if possible. .

Somewhere in the back of Mwmbwls memory marbles bag is the
recollection that longer NLL trains will operate to Stratford during
the Olympics - IIRC some of the NLL stations used to accomodate longer
peak hour trains into Broad Street - any idea which ones. Has the
longer trains idea been abandoned?

Oh No Kenny O
 

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008, Mizter T wrote:


On 26 Apr, 13:18, "John Rowland"
wrote:

MIG wrote:

On 25 Apr, 17:29, James Farrar wrote:

it looked very much like a
claim that "Boris will abolish TfL".

He might well wish that he could, but it would take more terms in
office than he would be likely to cling on for.

He could certainly appoint enough new people and change enough budgets
to make it fairly unrecognisable though, I'd have thought.

I would rather not find out.

Doesn't the fact that all the terrorists are supporting Ken tell you
anything?

Are they really? Or have you just gone into cabbie rant mode?

'Gone into'?

tom

--
The major advances in civilization are processes that all but wreck the
societies in which they occur. -- Alfred North Whitehead

Oh No Kenny O
 

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008, Chris Tolley wrote:

John Rowland wrote:

Mizter T wrote:
On 26 Apr, 13:18, "John Rowland"
Doesn't the fact that all the terrorists are supporting Ken tell you
anything?

Are they really?

Pick one...

http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&...nG=Search+News

So a high number of Google matches indicates a connection?

Google matches:
"tories livingstone" 286
"conservatives livingstone" 199
"royal family livingstone". 43
"terrorists livingstone". 15

Meanwhile...
"amphibians livingstone" 3
"reptiles livingstone" 0

reptiles "royal family" 1

Which i think blows that idea out of the water.

tom

--
The major advances in civilization are processes that all but wreck the
societies in which they occur. -- Alfred North Whitehead

Oh No Kenny O
 

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 21:25:25 +0100, Colin McKenzie wrote

And some of today's non-passengers would be amazed at the places they
could once have reached by train.

....but would much of that be of any consequence these days? As a random
example not too far from here, Presteigne was reachable by rail, at the end
of a rambling branch line off a rambling branch line off a relatively minor
main line. Today it's minutes from a major trunk road.



Another strange thing about this line is the number of stations which
it had, no less than six intermediate ones between Clapham Junction
and Willesden Junction.

Not any closer together than on tube lines in the area. And with some
location adjustments, you could probably justify re-opening all of them.


Errr... then they wouldn't be re-openings; they'd be new stations in a
previously unused location

Oh No Kenny O
 

On 26 Apr, 16:05, "Peter Masson" wrote:
Similarly, I can't see Southern wanting to run trains longer than 4-car.

The South London RUS suggests an 8-car third-rail only service running
from south London to Shepherd's Bush, reversing in North Pole depot.
Whether this is peak hours only, and where the Watford Junction
service fits in (binned?), I don't know.

Network Rail aren't keen on 4-car trains, at least on the Victoria
side of the Southern network.

U

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

Oh No Kenny O
 

On 26 Apr, 22:03, Mwmbwls wrote:
Somewhere in the back of Mwmbwls memory marbles bag is the
recollection that longer NLL trains will operate to Stratford during
the Olympics - IIRC some of the NLL stations used to accomodate longer
peak hour trains into Broad Street - any idea which ones. Has the
longer trains idea been abandoned?

I think the original plan for the NLL upgrade was 6 cars. There aren't
many platforms longer than 3 or 4 cars, and by 2012 the Overground
fleet will be 4 cars per unit, so 6 cars won't be an option (unless
they get the 313s back for the extra services).

U

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

Oh No Kenny O
 

Mizter T wrote:

Anyway, if we're utilising such spurious reasoning then one could also
ask the question "Doesn't the fact that all the Nazis are supporting
Boris Ken tell you anything?"

For the context of the above:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ondon08.london

Oh The Guardian, that's a reliable source. I only know one person who's
voting BNP, and he's giving his second vote to Ken because he hates Boris so
much.

Oh No Kenny O
 

In article
,
(Mr Thant) wrote:

On 26 Apr, 22:03, Mwmbwls wrote:
Somewhere in the back of Mwmbwls memory marbles bag is the
recollection that longer NLL trains will operate to Stratford during
the Olympics - IIRC some of the NLL stations used to accomodate
longer
peak hour trains into Broad Street - any idea which ones. Has the
longer trains idea been abandoned?

I think the original plan for the NLL upgrade was 6 cars. There aren't
many platforms longer than 3 or 4 cars, and by 2012 the Overground
fleet will be 4 cars per unit, so 6 cars won't be an option (unless
they get the 313s back for the extra services).

Will they have given all the 313s up by 2012?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Oh No Kenny O
 

On 27 Apr, 15:18, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
Will they have given all the 313s up by 2012?

January 2009 is the current target, although it's probably going to be
missed by a few months.

First Capital Connect are only interested in 8 of them, and the rest
don't appear in the Rolling Stock Plan, so it looks like curtains (or
Shoeburyness) for the rest.

U

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

Oh No Kenny O
 

In message i
Tom Anderson wrote:

[snip]

reptiles "royal family" 1


Does that include crocodile wives?

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

Oh No Kenny O
 

On Apr 27, 1:06*pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:
Mizter T wrote:

Anyway, if we're utilising such spurious reasoning then one could also
ask the question "Doesn't the fact that all the Nazis are supporting
Boris Ken tell you anything?"

For the context of the above:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ondon08.london

Oh The Guardian, that's a reliable source. I only know one person who's
voting BNP, and he's giving his second vote to Ken because he hates Boris so
much.

Ah, so that's what you meant by "all the terrorists ...". You were
referring to the nail-bombers.

If you do have more reliable sources about how the terrorists are
going to vote than the Guardian has about the BNP's advice to its
members, then I would echo a previous suggestion that you ought to go
to the police.

Oh No Kenny O
 

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008, Graeme Wall wrote:

In message i
Tom Anderson wrote:

reptiles "royal family" 1

Does that include crocodile wives?

I fear not. Although you would need to ask David Icke to be certain!

tom

--
There are lousy reviews, and then there's empirical ****ness. -- pikelet

The plans for Camden Town was Oh No Kenny O
 

MIG wrote:

In Camden, far from the station, the Stables market at least is under
threat,

Oh, i see. They're redeveloping it - in the sense of expanding it,
cleaning it up, adding better access, and putting a roof on it, not the
sense of turning it into a supermarket. Not what i'd call 'under threat'.
But maybe the current plan is only what it is because of the public
outcry.

Cheers for the info.


Certainly the new stories a few months back sounded pretty
devastating, but that may have been spin by the protesters competing
with spin by the developers.

I can see that the plans might effectively result in an indoor
shopping centre on the layout of the former market.

You don't have to go to Camden to visit an indoor shopping centre
(maybe I could have stopped after the first seven words of that
sentence).


It's more than under threat, when i went there a couple of weeks ago it
was a huge building site.

The arches where the furniture stall were have totally gone. the indoor
bit contianing the antiques market was closed and home to builders and
the stalls that back on to the road were all closed.

The Stable Market is gone, the Canal market 'went on fire'... if the one
next to the tube station disappears thy won't need the tube extension

The plans for Camden Town was Oh No Kenny O
 

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 17:35:45 +0100, Stuart wrote:

The Stable Market is gone, the Canal market 'went on fire'... if the one
next to the tube station disappears thy won't need the tube extension

I was looking forward to visiting the markets. How much is left? The Canal
market was the one across the canal bridge and one the same side of the
road as Camden Town tube station, wasn't it? How much is left on the
opposite side of the road?

--
jhk

The plans for Camden Town was Oh No Kenny O
 

On Apr 27, 5:53*pm, Jarle H Knudsen wrote:
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 17:35:45 +0100, Stuart wrote:
The Stable Market is gone, the Canal market 'went on fire'... if the one
next to the tube station disappears thy won't need the tube extension

I was looking forward to visiting the markets. How much is left? The Canal
market was the one across the canal bridge and one the same side of the
road as Camden Town tube station, wasn't it? How much is left on the
opposite side of the road?

The stuff between the lock gates and the railway viaduct is pretty
much untouched (including the cobbled square and a large indoor
market).

That's the west side of the road. The Stables is the same side but
north of the viaduct (but with passageways through, so I am not
entirely clear on the boundary of the development), and the Canal
market is on the east side where the whole block is closed (ie the
pubs and shops facing the main road that the market backed on to).

Further down the east side, nearer the station, there is a fairly
grotty market in a square, with every stall selling identical mass-
produced T shirts (oops; I mean unique individual hand-made things
that you can't get anywhere else). Over the road there's a side road
with a few stalls selling limp vegetables.