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.

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 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.

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?

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.

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".

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.

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!

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?

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).