|
Oh No Kenny O
http://www.transportbriefing.co.uk/story.php?id=4907
quote Olympia to be remodelled in Overground property plan Filed 24/04/08 Transport for London has appointed commercial property consultancy Lambert Smith Hampton to manage property at stations across the London Overground network. The two-year contract makes LSH responsible for providing portfolio management services across 50 stations on the North London, West London, Gospel Oak to Barking and the Euston to Watford lines. TfL intends to spend more than £1.4m over the next four years refurbishing stations and increasing the number of on-site retailers to bankroll further investment. 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. Control of London Overground rail services, formerly branded Silverlink Metro, was transferred by the government to the Mayor of London, and hence TfL, in November last year. Geoff Smith, a director in LSH’s transport team based in London, said: “The former Silverlink Metro service did not take full advantage of the retail opportunities available on its network. With the help of TfL’s £1.4bn investment programme, LSH will develop these sites into state-of-the-art facilities. “Our aim is to encourage potential tenants to sign-up during the early stages of the investment programme, with the incentive of the potential growth once it is complete.” Last week managing director of TfL London Rail, Ian Brown, said: "All London Overground stations will upgraded and refurbished by 2010 and some will be remodelled depending on funding availability." unquote Is that it - letting the station building to a retailer and build a couple of sheds – why not use the air rights over the station to build a substantial high rise complex – office, retail, housing ala Dalston Junction and use the profits to have decent station facilities. If there was enough of a profit- TfL or Network Rail could reinvest to electrify the GOBLIN Route thereby making the Overground all electric. |
Oh No Kenny O
On 24 Apr, 15:09, Mwmbwls wrote:
Is that it *- letting the station building to a retailer and build a couple of sheds – why not use the air rights over the station to build a substantial high rise complex – office, retail, housing ala Dalston Junction and use the profits to have decent station facilities. Probably best to read the press release TB is repeating: http://www.lsh.co.uk/pages/news_deta...1&q=overground "New stations are also proposed including one at Kensington and Olympia, where there are plans to let the existing station let to a retailer following the development of a new smaller station." I think they're referring to letting out the land rather than just the building - which is just a small scruffy single storey concrete thing isn't it? U -- http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/ A blog about transport projects in London |
Oh No Kenny O
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. "Large existing station building"? -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9633126.html (D2511 (no TOPS class) at Haworth, 15 Jan 2000) |
Oh No Kenny O
On 24 Apr, 15:17, Mr Thant
wrote: On 24 Apr, 15:09, Mwmbwls wrote: Is that it *- letting the station building to a retailer and build a couple of sheds – why not use the air rights over the station to build a substantial high rise complex – office, retail, housing ala Dalston Junction and use the profits to have decent station facilities. Probably best to read the press release TB is repeating:http://www.lsh.co.uk/pages/news_deta...1&q=overground "New stations are also proposed including one at Kensington and Olympia, where there are plans to let the existing station let to a retailer following the development of a new smaller station." I think they're referring to letting out the land rather than just the building - which is just a small scruffy single storey concrete thing isn't it? So, new facilities based on the number of people who currently go there attracted by services which are about to be withdrawn. 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. |
Oh No Kenny O
In message
Mwmbwls wrote: http://www.transportbriefing.co.uk/story.php?id=3D4907 quote Olympia to be remodelled in Overground property plan Filed 24/04/08 Transport for London has appointed commercial property consultancy Lambert Smith Hampton to manage property at stations across the London Overground network. The two-year contract makes LSH responsible for providing portfolio management services across 50 stations on the North London, West London, Gospel Oak to Barking and the Euston to Watford lines. TfL intends to spend more than =A31.4m over the next four years refurbishing stations and increasing the number of on-site retailers to bankroll further investment. [snip] Is that it - letting the station building to a retailer and build a couple of sheds why not use the air rights over the station to build a substantial high rise complex =96 office, retail, housing ala Dalston Junction and use the profits to have decent station facilities. 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? -- 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 24 Apr, 15:09, Mwmbwls wrote: http://www.transportbriefing.co.uk/story.php?id=4907 quote Olympia to be remodelled in Overground property plan Filed 24/04/08 Transport for London has appointed commercial property consultancy Lambert Smith Hampton to manage property at stations across the London Overground network. The two-year contract makes LSH responsible for providing portfolio management services across 50 stations on the North London, West London, Gospel Oak to Barking and the Euston to Watford lines. TfL intends to spend more than £1.4m over the next four years refurbishing stations and increasing the number of on-site retailers to bankroll further investment. 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. Control of London Overground rail services, formerly branded Silverlink Metro, was transferred by the government to the Mayor of London, and hence TfL, in November last year. Geoff Smith, a director in LSH’s transport team based in London, said: “The former Silverlink Metro service did not take full advantage of the retail opportunities available on its network. With the help of TfL’s £1.4bn investment programme, LSH will develop these sites into state-of-the-art facilities. “Our aim is to encourage potential tenants to sign-up during the early stages of the investment programme, with the incentive of the potential growth once it is complete.” Last week managing director of TfL London Rail, Ian Brown, said: "All London Overground stations will upgraded and refurbished by 2010 and some will be remodelled depending on funding availability." unquote Is that it - letting the station building to a retailer and build a couple of sheds – why not use the air rights over the station to build a substantial high rise complex – office, retail, housing ala Dalston Junction and use the profits to have decent station facilities. If there was enough of a profit- TfL or Network Rail could reinvest to electrify the GOBLIN Route thereby making the Overground all electric. Well, Dalston Junction is owned by TfL not Network Rail. I'm not sure what the plans are w.r.t. the timetable for building the complex at Dalkston Junction - is it going to be built before services start, or is provision going to be made for it to be built after ELLX services commence? Whatever, one problem at Kenny O is that the WLL is already a busy line, day and night. That's without even considering whether an air rights development would be appropriate to the area, whether there's any real demand for it etc etc. The large station building at Olympia was, UIVMM, the Motorail terminal built in the 60's. I don't know how long it's been in use as a normal ticket office (perhaps since the 80's and the attempt to reinvigorate KO with new cross-London Intercity services?), though in another part of the building there is a 'tunnel' where you can see the remnants of the old ticket windows that seemingly provided for the District line plus the few mainline passenger trains that actually served Olympia. Whilst the current booking hall is thus something of a reminder of times past, and has all the hallmarks of 60's BR modernisation, it just isn't a great use of the space. Many passengers genuinely aren't even aware that there is a ticket office at KO, given that it is somewhat hidden away. If a more prominent ticket office that overlooks the station, toilets and a waiting room can be provided under the new arrangements then I think they're to be welcomed. As Olympia is a favourite spot for spotters I expect there will be much wailing about this change, and indeed it might mean some of the backwater charm of Kenny O, but the railway is for passengers and Olympia is a backwater no more. Apart from developments at KO, this is an interesting bit of news. As well as getting some extra income, an important part of the thinking is that stations that feature shops are more welcoming to passengers and less welcoming to ne'er do wells. Though whether the world really needs more places where people can fritter away their money on chocolate bars and bottled water is another question! |
Oh No Kenny O
On 24 Apr, 15:29, MIG wrote: On 24 Apr, 15:17, Mr Thant wrote: On 24 Apr, 15:09, Mwmbwls wrote: Is that it - letting the station building to a retailer and build a couple of sheds – why not use the air rights over the station to build a substantial high rise complex – office, retail, housing ala Dalston Junction and use the profits to have decent station facilities. Probably best to read the press release TB is repeating: http://www.lsh.co.uk/pages/news_deta...1&q=overground "New stations are also proposed including one at Kensington and Olympia, where there are plans to let the existing station let to a retailer following the development of a new smaller station." I think they're referring to letting out the land rather than just the building - which is just a small scruffy single storey concrete thing isn't it? So, new facilities based on the number of people who currently go there attracted by services which are about to be withdrawn. You're referring to the withdrawal of direct services from KO to Gatwick, which I do think is a great shame but the argument put forward strongly by the RUS is that they simply weren't the best use of scarce capacity. However the plan is for there to be both *more* LO trains between Clapham and Willesden Junctions, and also *more* Southern services from Watford Jn to, er, South Croydon was it (I think the RUS proposes making these half-hourly). So despite the withdrawal of Gatwick trains Olympia is still set to get busier. Lots and lots of people are attracted there by the local services. 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. |
Oh No Kenny O
Mr Thant wrote:
On 24 Apr, 15:09, Mwmbwls wrote: Is that it - letting the station building to a retailer and build a couple of sheds – why not use the air rights over the station to build a substantial high rise complex – office, retail, housing ala Dalston Junction and use the profits to have decent station facilities. Probably best to read the press release TB is repeating: http://www.lsh.co.uk/pages/news_deta...1&q=overground "New stations are also proposed including one at Kensington and Olympia, where there are plans to let the existing station let to a retailer following the development of a new smaller station." I think a more accurate interpretation might be: "New station buildings are also proposed including one at Kensington Olympia, where there are plans to let the existing building to a retailer following the development of a new smaller ticket office." I suspect air rights here would be objected to by owners of the existing terraced properties along the east side of the railway? Paul S |
Oh No Kenny O
On 24 Apr, 15:24, Chris Tolley wrote: 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. "Large existing station building"? FSVO large. What is currently used as a spacious booking hall is, AIUI, in fact the old Motorail terminal lounge. Here's a 'bird's eye view' of the station buildings from Live Search Maps: http://tinyurl.com/5mwrqx It's the whole building (collection of buildings) from the bit with the maroon painted walls right up to the bridge. This is also interesting, less for the photo and more for the comments about the "large 'executive' waiting area": http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicohogg/503786358/ |
Oh No Kenny O
On Apr 24, 3:34 pm, Graeme Wall wrote:
In message Mwmbwls wrote: http://www.transportbriefing.co.uk/story.php?id=3D4907 quote Olympia to be remodelled in Overground property plan Filed 24/04/08 Transport for London has appointed commercial property consultancy Lambert Smith Hampton to manage property at stations across the London Overground network. The two-year contract makes LSH responsible for providing portfolio management services across 50 stations on the North London, West London, Gospel Oak to Barking and the Euston to Watford lines. TfL intends to spend more than =A31.4m over the next four years refurbishing stations and increasing the number of on-site retailers to bankroll further investment. [snip] Is that it - letting the station building to a retailer and build a couple of sheds why not use the air rights over the station to build a substantial high rise complex =96 office, retail, housing ala Dalston Junction and use the profits to have decent station facilities. 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? -- Graeme Wall This address is not read, substitute trains for rail. Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html 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. Tim |
Oh No Kenny O
On 24 Apr, 16:01, "Paul Scott" wrote: Mr Thant wrote: On 24 Apr, 15:09, Mwmbwls wrote: Is that it - letting the station building to a retailer and build a couple of sheds – why not use the air rights over the station to build a substantial high rise complex – office, retail, housing ala Dalston Junction and use the profits to have decent station facilities. Probably best to read the press release TB is repeating: http://www.lsh.co.uk/pages/news_deta...1&q=overground "New stations are also proposed including one at Kensington and Olympia, where there are plans to let the existing station let to a retailer following the development of a new smaller station." I think a more accurate interpretation might be: "New station buildings are also proposed including one at Kensington Olympia, where there are plans to let the existing building to a retailer following the development of a new smaller ticket office." That's how I read it. However, as nice as it is, the current spacious booking hall and waiting lounge is completely underused, somewhat hidden away and little known about. It's also on the wrong side of the tracks for Gatwick-bound pax. A smaller but more obvious ticket office would be welcome - untold times, whilst waiting for a train at KO, I've directed ticketless passengers struggling with the ticket machines towards the invisible ticket office. I suspect air rights here would be objected to by owners of the existing terraced properties along the east side of the railway? For a great many reasons I very much doubt it's on the agenda, and that is surely one of them. |
Oh No Kenny O
On 24 Apr, 15:48, Mizter T wrote:
On 24 Apr, 15:29, MIG wrote: On 24 Apr, 15:17, Mr Thant wrote: On 24 Apr, 15:09, Mwmbwls wrote: Is that it *- letting the station building to a retailer and build a couple of sheds – why not use the air rights over the station to build a substantial high rise complex – office, retail, housing ala Dalston Junction and use the profits to have decent station facilities. Probably best to read the press release TB is repeating: http://www.lsh.co.uk/pages/news_deta...1&q=overground "New stations are also proposed including one at Kensington and Olympia, where there are plans to let the existing station let to a retailer following the development of a new smaller station." I think they're referring to letting out the land rather than just the building - which is just a small scruffy single storey concrete thing isn't it? So, new facilities based on the number of people who currently go there attracted by services which are about to be withdrawn. You're referring to the withdrawal of direct services from KO to Gatwick, which I do think is a great shame but the argument put forward strongly by the RUS is that they simply weren't the best use of scarce capacity. However the plan is for there to be both *more* LO trains between Clapham and Willesden Junctions, and also *more* Southern services from Watford Jn to, er, South Croydon was it (I think the RUS proposes making these half-hourly). So despite the withdrawal of Gatwick trains Olympia is still set to get busier. Lots and lots of people are attracted there by the local services. 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. |
Oh No Kenny O
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. |
Oh No Kenny O
On 24 Apr, 16:19, MIG wrote: On 24 Apr, 15:48, Mizter T wrote: On 24 Apr, 15:29, MIG wrote: (big snip) 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 probably deserves a separate thread on utl sometime soon. I absolutely give you credit for putting such viewpoints forward forcefully, as on these newsgroups there are many who are of the 'just knock-it down school' if something gets in the way of new transport infrastructure. That said, I'm also not of the 'preserve everything' school of thinking. Indeed sometimes the knee-jerk reaction that x,y or z development is going to obliterate everything simply isn't backed up on closer scrutiny of the plans (and I think the Camden Town redevelopment might fall into that category). All that said, whilst passing through Cutty Sark DLR station and making illicit use of the lavatorial facilities in the adjacent fast- food emporium, I was somewhat saddened by all these tourists who had ventured to Greenwich to see the sights and ended up eating in a McDonalds or Subway or Ben & Jerry's outlet. As I'm sure you know, the construction of the DLR station led to the controversial demolition of a number of older buildings and a new development going up in it's place, one which houses these outlets and various other distinctly bland retail offerings. However, all that said I must admit I can't quite recall anything of particular note of what buildings stood there beforehand, so I'm left wondering if its demolition really was that big a loss... or whether my memory just isn't that good! |
Oh No Kenny O
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: (big snip) 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 probably deserves a separate thread on utl sometime soon. I absolutely give you credit for putting such viewpoints forward forcefully, as on these newsgroups there are many who are of the 'just knock-it down school' if something gets in the way of new transport infrastructure. That said, I'm also not of the 'preserve everything' school of thinking. Indeed sometimes the knee-jerk reaction that x,y or z development is going to obliterate everything simply isn't backed up on closer scrutiny of the plans (and I think the Camden Town redevelopment might fall into that category). All that said, whilst passing through Cutty Sark DLR station and making illicit use of the lavatorial facilities in the adjacent fast- food emporium, I was somewhat saddened by all these tourists who had ventured to Greenwich to see the sights and ended up eating in a McDonalds or Subway or Ben & Jerry's outlet. As I'm sure you know, the construction of the DLR station led to the controversial demolition of a number of older buildings and a new development going up in it's place, one which houses these outlets and various other distinctly bland retail offerings. However, all that said I must admit I can't quite recall anything of particular note of what buildings stood there beforehand, so I'm left wondering if its demolition really was that big a loss... or whether my memory just isn't that good! I may be guilty of lumping other developments in both Camden and Greenwich with the ones that are directly related to transport infrastructure. In Camden, far from the station, the Stables market at least is under threat, and in Greenwich the main touristy market is under threat. I have no particular interest in such markets, but logically, if people are attracted by them, it makes no sense to accommodate large numbers of people without retaining the character of whatever attracts them (unpleasant dodgy character that it may be). The logic seems to be 1) Lots of people seem to be attracted by something unique about the area. 2) Let's knock down a little bit of it to improve the transport facilities to bring people to the area that they are attracted to. 3) Oh look, there's loads of people attracted to the area and a shiny new station to bring them here, so we can make money by putting a supermarket here (for which we'll have to knock down everything else). I don't blame transport developments for this, but something a bit bonkers does seem to be going on in both cases. With a bit of luck stage 3) will be averted. |
Oh No Kenny O
On 24 Apr, 16:05, Mizter T wrote:
Here's a 'bird's eye view' of the station buildings from Live Search Maps: http://tinyurl.com/5mwrqx Blimey, didn't realise there was quite so much of it. It would make a lot of sense to rent that out. Though it does also show how much other out-of-use land there is around the station. U -- http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/ A blog about transport projects in London |
Oh No Kenny O
In message
MIG wrote: On 24 Apr, 15:17, Mr Thant wrote: On 24 Apr, 15:09, Mwmbwls wrote: Is that it =A0- letting the station building to a retailer and build a couple of sheds =96 why not use the air rights over the station to build= a substantial high rise complex =96 office, retail, housing ala Dalston Junction and use the profits to have decent station facilities. Probably best to read the press release TB is repeating:http://www.lsh.co.= uk/pages/news_detail.asp?id=3D711&q=3Doverground "New stations are also proposed including one at Kensington and Olympia, where there are plans to let the existing station let to a retailer following the development of a new smaller station." I think they're referring to letting out the land rather than just the building - which is just a small scruffy single storey concrete thing isn't it? So, new facilities based on the number of people who currently go there attracted by services which are about to be withdrawn. What are you talking about? -- 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 24 Apr, 16:15, Mizter T wrote:
However, as nice as it is, the current spacious booking hall and waiting lounge is completely underused, somewhat hidden away and little known about. It's also on the wrong side of the tracks for Gatwick-bound pax. A smaller but more obvious ticket office would be welcome - untold times, whilst waiting for a train at KO, I've directed ticketless passengers struggling with the ticket machines towards the invisible ticket office. Well, the previous ticket office still exists, at least it did the nast time I was there, not long ago, I don't know what it's used for now, but the ticket windows were behind the timetables are in the passage leading onto the Northbound platform. That was part of the post-war rebuilding of the station; the original station had the main buildings on the East side of the line; I think there were just open fields to the West when the line was built, until the building of the original exhibition hall, now the Grand Hall. Once the re-building of Euston was completed, and Motorail departed, the only regular passenger trains were the 'Exhibition service only' District Line service to Earl's Court, High Street Kensington and sometimes Edgeware Road which used the new platform 7, now 1, and the handful of rush-hour shuttles to Clapham Junction, from platform 6, now 2. There was nothing at all on the East side of the station, from either the through platform, or any of the bays. I find it difficult to understand why it took so long to get a proper passenger service back on this line. 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. |
Oh No Kenny O
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 |
Oh No Kenny O
On 24 Apr, 18:03, Stephen Furley wrote: On 24 Apr, 16:15, Mizter T wrote: However, as nice as it is, the current spacious booking hall and waiting lounge is completely underused, somewhat hidden away and little known about. It's also on the wrong side of the tracks for Gatwick-bound pax. A smaller but more obvious ticket office would be welcome - untold times, whilst waiting for a train at KO, I've directed ticketless passengers struggling with the ticket machines towards the invisible ticket office. Well, the previous ticket office still exists, at least it did the nast time I was there, not long ago, I don't know what it's used for now, but the ticket windows were behind the timetables are in the passage leading onto the Northbound platform. That was part of the post-war rebuilding of the station; the original station had the main buildings on the East side of the line; I think there were just open fields to the West when the line was built, until the building of the original exhibition hall, now the Grand Hall. Nothing's changed, said ticket windows are still hidden behind the timetables in that passage (which I perhaps somewhat confusingly described elsewhere as a 'tunnel'), and if you look up you can see the old (and unilluminated) lightbox signs above them (different windows for LU and main line train tickets). I'm curious as to when they were last in use, and when the main ticket office moved into the old Motorail lounge? Perhaps when BR attempted to reintroduce cross-London Intercity services in the 80's, perhaps when North London Railways (the precursor to Silverlink) started running the Clapham Jn to Willesden Jn service in the early/mid 90's (at least I think it was them wot did it)... As ever it's hard to imagine the open fields, but of course that's exactly how it once was. Once the re-building of Euston was completed, and Motorail departed, the only regular passenger trains were the 'Exhibition service only' District Line service to Earl's Court, High Street Kensington and sometimes Edgware Road which used the new platform 7, now 1, and the handful of rush-hour shuttles to Clapham Junction, from platform 6, now 2. There was nothing at all on the East side of the station, from either the through platform, or any of the bays. 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 some of today's passengers would be completely amazed to hear that it's a relatively recent reintroduction. 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. Indeed. Pendar Silwood's Abandoned Stations website has an interesting section on the West London Line he http://www.loveplums.co.uk/Tube/West_London_Line.html I suppose the waxing and waning fortunes of some of the urban railway lines in London, such as the WLL and WLL, are really just a reflection of a whole host of other factors - the changing fortunes as a whole of the capital city, the vast demographic changes within it, the depopulation and repopulation of areas, the decline and regentrification of districts, changes in levels of affluence, the varying level of employment, growing commutes to work, changing attitudes to mobility, higher expectations of public transport provision, and crucially the increasing level of ownership of the private motorcar and then the gradually ensuing gridlock caused by them. |
The plans for Camden Town was Oh No Kenny O
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? Bear in mind that the Lock market, which is where the good stuff is, isn't affected, nor is the Canal market, on the east side of Chalk Farm Road (even tackier than the Stables!), nor are the millions of conventional shops along the streets, which are also a major part of the attraction of Camden. I don't know if the market which bills itself as 'The Camden Market' is affected; it's next to the Electric Ballroom, which is targeted for termination, so perhaps. I hope so, it's horrible. Does anyone know where i can find a copy of the Transport and Works Act Order application that TfL made? I can find the government documents explaining why it was rejected, but not the details of the application itself. The best i've found is this: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/twa/ir/lon...1?page=4#a1003 BTW, if anyone is having a hard as time as me matching their mental map of Camden up with real maps, this may be handy: http://www.streetsensation.co.uk/camden/ca_intro.htm Finally, on the subject of Greenwich, all i have to say is that when i was little, i thought the famous boat was called Cutty's Ark. tom -- Get a ****ing hobby that isn't breathing, browsing 4chan, or fapping. -- The Well Cultured Anonymous, on Manners |
Oh No Kenny O
On 24 Apr, 18:01, Mr Thant wrote: On 24 Apr, 16:05, Mizter T wrote: Here's a 'bird's eye view' of the station buildings from Live Search Maps: http://tinyurl.com/5mwrqx Blimey, didn't realise there was quite so much of it. It would make a lot of sense to rent that out. Though it does also show how much other out-of-use land there is around the station. Just to be clear, the station buildings do not include the big shed to the right of that shot. That big shed used to house the Motorail platforms / loading bays, but they've subsequently been filled in (you can see this further to the right, at least it's clearer if you look at it from a train window) and it's all used as a car park now. But yes, the station is spacious and is pretty underutilised. I think the plan makes sense. |
Oh No Kenny O
"Mizter T" wrote in another part of the building there is a 'tunnel' where you can see the remnants of the old ticket windows that seemingly provided for the District line plus the few mainline passenger trains that actually served Olympia. Those ticket windows were operated by London Transport - though in the early 1960s on non-exhibition days the only passenger trains were the two unadvertised departures to Clapham Junction. What is more, if you asked for a ticket to Clapham Junction they would actually issue a London Transport ticket to Elephant & Castle. By 1967 the Clapham Junction trains were advertised, and were the last steam-hauled passenger service entirely within Greater London. peter |
Oh No Kenny O
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 |
Oh No Kenny O
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 |
Oh No Kenny O
"Mizter T" wrote Nothing's changed, said ticket windows are still hidden behind the timetables in that passage (which I perhaps somewhat confusingly described elsewhere as a 'tunnel'), and if you look up you can see the old (and unilluminated) lightbox signs above them (different windows for LU and main line train tickets). I'm curious as to when they were last in use, and when the main ticket office moved into the old Motorail lounge? Perhaps when BR attempted to reintroduce cross-London Intercity services in the 80's, perhaps when North London Railways (the precursor to Silverlink) started running the Clapham Jn to Willesden Jn service in the early/mid 90's (at least I think it was them wot did it)... The BR ticket office moved into the Motorail Louinge for the 1980s cross-London InterCity. I can't remember what the arrangements were then for buying Underground tickets. Peter |
Oh No Kenny O
On 24 Apr, 18:48, Mizter T wrote:
Indeed. Pendar Silwood's Abandoned Stations website has an interesting section on the West London Line he http://www.loveplums.co.uk/Tube/West_London_Line.html From the Addison Road - Richmond section of the same site is this map: http://www.loveplums.co.uk/Tube/Hamm...rove_Road.html I make that 11 stations, and then there's the original Shepherd's Bush station on the H+C, already closed by this time, two Wood Lane stations just off the top of the map, or possibly three if you count the two parts of the Central station separately, as some do. Then there's the White City station which replaced it. Just off the bottom of the map there's the District station at Hammersmith, with Baron's Court and West Kengsington not far away. This area of London really does seem to have had more than its fair share of stations! I doubt if anywhere else has as many closed stations; there's another map of them all he http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...d%27s_Bush.png |
Oh No Kenny O
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. |
Oh No Kenny O
MIG wrote:
3) Oh look, there's loads of people attracted to the area and a shiny new station to bring them here, so we can make money by putting a supermarket here (for which we'll have to knock down everything else). A new supermarket so close to the massive Camden Sainsburys? I thought they were building offices. I estimated that the money earmarked for rebuilding Camden Town station would fund a 10-minute 7-day NLL service at Camden Road for a century, removing the need for so many people to use Camden Town station. |
The plans for Camden Town was Oh No Kenny O
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. |
Oh No Kenny O
On Apr 24, 6:02*pm, Graeme Wall wrote:
In message * * * * * MIG wrote: On 24 Apr, 15:17, Mr Thant wrote: On 24 Apr, 15:09, Mwmbwls wrote: Is that it =A0- letting the station building to a retailer and build a couple of sheds =96 why not use the air rights over the station to build= a substantial high rise complex =96 office, retail, housing ala Dalston Junction and use the profits to have decent station facilities. Probably best to read the press release TB is repeating:http://www.lsh..co.= uk/pages/news_detail.asp?id=3D711&q=3Doverground "New stations are also proposed including one at Kensington and Olympia, where there are plans to let the existing station let to a retailer following the development of a new smaller station." I think they're referring to letting out the land rather than just the building - which is just a small scruffy single storey concrete thing isn't it? So, new facilities based on the number of people who currently go there attracted by services which are about to be withdrawn. What are you talking about? Curtailment of services to Gatwick and Brighton in one direction. It's true that one can still change at East Croydon, but with luggage direct services are attractive. Reduction in stops at Watford to the north in the other direction. I happen to have recent experience of services in both directions being very useful and making Olympia attractive. |
Oh No Kenny O
On 25 Apr, 01:55, "John Rowland" wrote: MIG wrote: 3) Oh look, there's loads of people attracted to the area and a shiny new station to bring them here, so we can make money by putting a supermarket here (for which we'll have to knock down everything else). A new supermarket so close to the massive Camden Sainsburys? I thought they were building offices. I think MIG was speaking hypothetically. As you say, there's already a Sainsbury's, and a Morrisons close by too, so I think a new supermarket is off the agenda! I estimated that the money earmarked for rebuilding Camden Town station would fund a 10-minute 7-day NLL service at Camden Road for a century, removing the need for so many people to use Camden Town station. Well, that's a leftfield way of looking at it! Though ultimately however good you make the NLL at Camden I somehow doubt that's going to take the pressure off Camden Town enough for the Northern line to be split in two, which appears to be the long term game plan - after all the NLL is an east-west line, the Northern line a north-south one. My questions is, would implementing ATO on the Northern line improve performance enough so as to make unnecessary the plan to split the line in two? Probably not is the answer... |
Oh No Kenny O
On 25 Apr, 10:27, Mizter T wrote:
On 25 Apr, 01:55, "John Rowland" wrote: MIG wrote: 3) Oh look, there's loads of people attracted to the area and a shiny new station to bring them here, so we can make money by putting a supermarket here (for which we'll have to knock down everything else). A new supermarket so close to the massive Camden Sainsburys? I thought they were building offices. I think MIG was speaking hypothetically. As you say, there's already a Sainsbury's, and a Morrisons close by too, so I think a new supermarket is off the agenda! Indeed, I was parodying the apparent thought processes involved in what councils seem to allow. At this rate my poetic licence will be revoked. I estimated that the money earmarked for rebuilding Camden Town station would fund a 10-minute 7-day NLL service at Camden Road for a century, removing the need for so many people to use Camden Town station. Well, that's a leftfield way of looking at it! Though ultimately however good you make the NLL at Camden *I somehow doubt that's going to take the pressure off Camden Town enough for the Northern line to be split in two, which appears to be the long term game plan - after all the NLL is an east-west line, the Northern line a north-south one. My questions is, would implementing ATO on the Northern line improve performance enough so as to make unnecessary the plan to split the line in two? Probably not is the answer... I remember having trouble getting my head round this before. It seemed that in order to justify the splitting of the line, it was necessary to claim that the resignalling wasn't going to achieve very much. But at the same time, the resignalling had to be worth the money spent on it. The justification did seem to be working backwards from the decision already made. |
Oh No Kenny O
On 25 Apr, 10:35, MIG wrote: On 25 Apr, 10:27, Mizter T wrote: (snip) My questions is, would implementing ATO on the Northern line improve performance enough so as to make unnecessary the plan to split the line in two? Probably not is the answer... I remember having trouble getting my head round this before. It seemed that in order to justify the splitting of the line, it was necessary to claim that the resignalling wasn't going to achieve very much. But at the same time, the resignalling had to be worth the money spent on it. The justification did seem to be working backwards from the decision already made. I suspect the argument is that ATO works best on a straightforward 'linear line' (as it were!) rather than one which has branches and hence junctions, especially where those junctions for the branches are at the heart of the line (Northern line at Camden) rather than at the periphery (Central line). Having to send trains off onto different branches means that the possible throughput of trains is (significantly) reduced. Aiming for a situation akin to the Victoria line (when it's working smoothly) where trains are coming through every minute or two can't be done when one has to contend with sending trains up different branches, and indeed merging trains coming in from different branches. In other words, you'll only get the optimum performance out of ATO if you split it into two lines. |
ATO and Camden - was Oh No Kenny O
|
Oh No Kenny O
On 24 Apr, 19:56, "Peter Masson" wrote: "Mizter T" wrote Nothing's changed, said ticket windows are still hidden behind the timetables in that passage (which I perhaps somewhat confusingly described elsewhere as a 'tunnel'), and if you look up you can see the old (and unilluminated) lightbox signs above them (different windows for LU and main line train tickets). I'm curious as to when they were last in use, and when the main ticket office moved into the old Motorail lounge? Perhaps when BR attempted to reintroduce cross-London Intercity services in the 80's, perhaps when North London Railways (the precursor to Silverlink) started running the Clapham Jn to Willesden Jn service in the early/mid 90's (at least I think it was them wot did it)... The BR ticket office moved into the Motorail Lounge for the 1980s cross-London InterCity. I can't remember what the arrangements were then for buying Underground tickets. Thanks for confirmation of that Peter. It's a rather grand looking booking office to just be buying a return to Clapham Junction in! |
Oh No Kenny O
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! 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 |
Oh No Kenny O
On 25 Apr, 10:35, MIG wrote:
I remember having trouble getting my head round this before. *It seemed that in order to justify the splitting of the line, it was necessary to claim that the resignalling wasn't going to achieve very much. *But at the same time, the resignalling had to be worth the money spent on it. *The justification did seem to be working backwards from the decision already made. The idea is that once the resignalling is done the junction will be the bottleneck. So resignalling + splitting gives you a much bigger boost in capacity than one or the other alone. (and considering the resignalling is definitely happening, one can only assume the split will as well. The northbound morning peak split seems to now be a permanent fixture) U -- http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/ A blog about transport projects in London |
Oh No Kenny O
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. |
Oh No Kenny O
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. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:23 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk