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