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?

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)

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?

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'.

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

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

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)

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.