On 24 Apr, 16:14, TimB wrote:

(snip)

Are we going to see the Imperial Wharf project (see recent thread) put
on ice while they decide how to make more money out of it? Not to
mention the Shepherds Bush rebuild.


No and no.

The Imperial Wharf station project is the result of a tie-in with
developers, in fact I think it's the result of a tie in with two
developers - the developer which was responsible for the already built
Chelsea Harbour development on the east side of the line (and who has
already paid their contribution), and the developer who wants to
develop land to the west side of the line. Whilst TfL obviously backs
this new station, it's not a TfL project per-se - it's really being
handled by LB Hammersmith & Fulham. Anyway very recent developments
suggest it is indeed going to happen, hopefully by 2010 - see:
http://londonconnections.blogspot.co...n-by-2010.html

Shepherd's Bush station is meanwhile the responsibility of the
developers of the new mega shopping centre north of Shepherd's Bush,
Westfield. Things now look like they're moving there as well - see:
http://londonconnections.blogspot.co...-platform.html

This announcement is all about better exploiting commercial
opportunities at existing stations on the LO network.

On 24 Apr, 16:25, Mizter T wrote:
The Imperial Wharf station project is the result of a tie-in with
developers, in fact I think it's *the result of a tie in with two
developers - the developer which was responsible for the already built
Chelsea Harbour development on the east side of the line (and who has
already paid their contribution), and the developer who wants to
develop land to the west side of the line.

I think the development on that land would make a good place for shops
- the station is on an embankment so it has very little land of its
own to work with.

Shepherd's Bush station is meanwhile the responsibility of the
developers of the new mega shopping centre north of Shepherd's Bush,
Westfield.

And it has its own row of shops, albeit on the opposite side of the
bus station.

U

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

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.

LSH of course contains a large number of former railway surveyors and
what remains from the old station trading teams, so they do know what
they are doing.

Of course where the prize is larger it maybe worth a tripartite
developer / TOC / NR agreement to be entered - but that cannot be the
case everywhere and transactions have been lost that way

In message
TimB wrote:

On Apr 24, 3:34 pm, Graeme Wall wrote:
[snip]

That's just the proposal for Olympia, I expect LSH will be keen on
exploiting all sources of income as doubtless they are on a percentage.
The Olympia scheme is a quick and easy job, the building already exists
and is presumably in good enough condition. That gets the ball rolling
and money coming in. Would keeping the current building preclude the sort
of development you are considering?


Are we going to see the Imperial Wharf project (see recent thread) put
on ice while they decide how to make more money out of it? Not to
mention the Shepherds Bush rebuild.

As I understand it Imperial Wharf is already going ahead and Shepherds Bush
has been built but to the wrong scale.

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

Mwmbwls wrote:
Plans include letting the large existing station building at
Kensington Olympia station to a retailer and constructing new
passenger facilities on a smaller site nearby.

Typical. Always prioritise commercial income over uses that might
improve the utility of the station.

If they don't need the building, why not convert it into a secure
cycle park? Kenny O has poor links to the tube network, but is ideally
placed for commuters from both north and south to cycle to work in
West London.

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.

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.

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

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.

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).

"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