|
Not in my back yard
Residents welcome new London railway depot - not!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8189061.stm MaxB |
Not in my back yard
On 7 Aug, 12:24, MaxB wrote:
Residents welcome new London railway depot - not! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8189061.stm MaxB "Liberal Democrat councillor for Haringey Council Rachel Allison has described the proposed building as "the bunker"... "This is a huge maintenance facility nearly two-storeys high." " My preconceptions about bunker design were that they shouldn't be so prominent! Dominic |
Not in my back yard
Dominic wrote:
On 7 Aug, 12:24, MaxB wrote: Residents welcome new London railway depot - not! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8189061.stm MaxB "Liberal Democrat councillor for Haringey Council Rachel Allison has described the proposed building as "the bunker"... "This is a huge maintenance facility nearly two-storeys high." " My preconceptions about bunker design were that they shouldn't be so prominent! Gosh, imagine having to live opposite a two-story building... |
Not in my back yard
Basil Jet wrote:
Dominic wrote: On 7 Aug, 12:24, MaxB wrote: Residents welcome new London railway depot - not! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8189061.stm MaxB "Liberal Democrat councillor for Haringey Council Rachel Allison has described the proposed building as "the bunker"... "This is a huge maintenance facility nearly two-storeys high." " My preconceptions about bunker design were that they shouldn't be so prominent! Gosh, imagine having to live opposite a two-story building... Storey, even. Looking at the diagram, the building will be on the far side of the ECML opposite the properties in Chadwell Lane. Aren't they council properties? Haven't these people heard that beggars can't be choosers? It will be barely visible from the private properties in New River Avenue. |
Not in my back yard
In message , at 18:41:49 on Fri, 7
Aug 2009, Basil Jet remarked: "This is a huge maintenance facility nearly two-storeys high." " Gosh, imagine having to live opposite a two-story building... It's only *nearly* two stories high. Does that mean one and a half stories, in reality? -- Roland Perry |
Not in my back yard
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 04:24:44 -0700 (PDT), MaxB
wrote: Residents welcome new London railway depot - not! Same on the former Radlett aerodrome. Freight depot proposed, locals say "nooooooooo!". Perhaps they don't want the jobs. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/ "Nullius in Verba" - take no man's word for it. - attr. Horace, chosen by John Evelyn for the Royal Society |
Not in my back yard
On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 19:25:33 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote: On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 04:24:44 -0700 (PDT), MaxB wrote: Residents welcome new London railway depot - not! Same on the former Radlett aerodrome. Freight depot proposed, locals say "nooooooooo!". Perhaps they don't want the jobs. Perhaps they don't want the noise and the traffic, which would be considerable. The site is Green Belt and should remain so. Planning permission has been applied for on the basis of a "Rail Freight Village". The government, in all its wisdom (none!) decided that "Rail Freight Villages" should be built on Green Belt Land if they complied with a requirement that 70% of goods handled should either enter or leave by rail. Many of these "Rail Freight Villages" have been built around Britain but none of them actually complies with the 70% requirement. Several don't even have rail services at all, so they achieve 0%. No national monitoring has been done to evaluate the extent of compliance with the 70% figure, even though the 70% is a statutory requirement. The very best performing of the "Rail Freight Villages" is at Daventry in Northamptonshire, but that could only achieve 58% on the best available figures. So I am not 58%, nor 70%, but 100% in agreement with the people of Radlett and London Colney, whose lives would be blighted by the construction and operation of a sham "Rail Freight Village". It would be, in reality, just another road freight depot with a rail connection that might as well not be there, all in the Green Belt. No thanks. |
Not in my back yard
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 09:33:37 -0700 (PDT), Dominic
wrote: On 7 Aug, 12:24, MaxB wrote: Residents welcome new London railway depot - not! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8189061.stm MaxB "Liberal Democrat councillor for Haringey Council Rachel Allison has described the proposed building as "the bunker"... "This is a huge maintenance facility nearly two-storeys high." " My preconceptions about bunker design were that they shouldn't be so prominent! but this one is not prominent being "nearly two storeys high" so smaller than the surrrounding suburbia. -- Peter Lawrence |
Not in my back yard
MaxB wrote:
Residents welcome new London railway depot - not! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8189061.stm MaxB No sympathy I'm afraid - I have to live opposite a two storey building too: http://www.barratthomes.co.uk/images...e/SCR43513.JPG |
Not in my back yard
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message ... On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 04:24:44 -0700 (PDT), MaxB wrote: Residents welcome new London railway depot - not! Same on the former Radlett aerodrome. Freight depot proposed, locals say "nooooooooo!". Perhaps they don't want the jobs. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/ "Nullius in Verba" - take no man's word for it. - attr. Horace, chosen by John Evelyn for the Royal Society oh yea, the people of Radlett working in an industrial complex. Kevin |
Not in my back yard
"Basil Jet" wrote in message ... Basil Jet wrote: Dominic wrote: On 7 Aug, 12:24, MaxB wrote: Residents welcome new London railway depot - not! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8189061.stm MaxB "Liberal Democrat councillor for Haringey Council Rachel Allison has described the proposed building as "the bunker"... "This is a huge maintenance facility nearly two-storeys high." " My preconceptions about bunker design were that they shouldn't be so prominent! Gosh, imagine having to live opposite a two-story building... Storey, even. Looking at the diagram, the building will be on the far side of the ECML opposite the properties in Chadwell Lane. Aren't they council properties? Haven't these people heard that beggars can't be choosers? It will be barely visible from the private properties in New River Avenue. Can somebody explain how building the depot creates hundreds of jobs. Will the new Thameslink trains be that much more unreliable than the existing trains that they need more maintenance. Surely the existing trains are maintained so why does the new Thameslink require hundreds of extra maintenance staff. Kevin |
Not in my back yard
Zen83237 wrote:
Can somebody explain how building the depot creates hundreds of jobs. Will the new Thameslink trains be that much more unreliable than the existing trains that they need more maintenance. Surely the existing trains are maintained so why does the new Thameslink require hundreds of extra maintenance staff. A few more trains, but mostly, more carriages per train. |
Not in my back yard
In message , at 22:43:20 on
Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Zen83237 remarked: Can somebody explain how building the depot creates hundreds of jobs. Will the new Thameslink trains be that much more unreliable than the existing trains that they need more maintenance. Surely the existing trains are maintained so why does the new Thameslink require hundreds of extra maintenance staff. The new trains will have more carriages than the old. But they may also be factoring in a reluctance of staff at the old depot (where is that?) to the new ones, resulting in *local* recruitment. -- Roland Perry |
Not in my back yard
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
In message , at 22:43:20 on Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Zen83237 remarked: Can somebody explain how building the depot creates hundreds of jobs. Will the new Thameslink trains be that much more unreliable than the existing trains that they need more maintenance. Surely the existing trains are maintained so why does the new Thameslink require hundreds of extra maintenance staff. The new trains will have more carriages than the old. But they may also be factoring in a reluctance of staff at the old depot (where is that?) to the new ones, resulting in *local* recruitment. It's a bit like when supermarkets want to open new branches -- they invariably promise to create lots of jobs. But, of course, these 'new' jobs will simply replace a larger number of 'old' jobs lost in other local shops whose business will decline. |
Not in my back yard
In message , at 10:16:45 on
Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Recliner remarked: Can somebody explain how building the depot creates hundreds of jobs. Will the new Thameslink trains be that much more unreliable than the existing trains that they need more maintenance. Surely the existing trains are maintained so why does the new Thameslink require hundreds of extra maintenance staff. The new trains will have more carriages than the old. But they may also be factoring in a reluctance of staff at the old depot (where is that?) to the new ones, resulting in *local* recruitment. It's a bit like when supermarkets want to open new branches -- they invariably promise to create lots of jobs. But, of course, these 'new' jobs will simply replace a larger number of 'old' jobs lost in other local shops whose business will decline. That denies the possibility that there can be "growth" in employment in the retail sector, eg by offering a better service. Just looking around the places I've lived, comparing the number of shops "pre-supermarket" and the number of jobs now provided in ASDA and so on, the latter has to be much larger, even discounting the longer opening hours. And the old food shops have largely been replaced by some kind of specialist or non-food shop which requires staffing too. My impression from a quick Google is that retail employment has been increasing steadily at half to one percent per annum over the last decade. -- Roland Perry |
Not in my back yard
In message , Roland Perry
writes The new trains will have more carriages than the old. But they may also be factoring in a reluctance of staff at the old depot (where is that?) to the new ones, resulting in *local* recruitment. IIRC, the existing depots are at Bedford and Selhurst (run by Southern). -- Paul Terry |
Not in my back yard
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
In message , at 10:16:45 on Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Recliner remarked: It's a bit like when supermarkets want to open new branches -- they invariably promise to create lots of jobs. But, of course, these 'new' jobs will simply replace a larger number of 'old' jobs lost in other local shops whose business will decline. That denies the possibility that there can be "growth" in employment in the retail sector, eg by offering a better service. Just looking around the places I've lived, comparing the number of shops "pre-supermarket" and the number of jobs now provided in ASDA and so on, the latter has to be much larger, even discounting the longer opening hours. And the old food shops have largely been replaced by some kind of specialist or non-food shop which requires staffing too. My impression from a quick Google is that retail employment has been increasing steadily at half to one percent per annum over the last decade. I would think that the jobs per sales pound are much lower in an Asda or Tesco than the small shops they replace. Yes, you'll see shelf-stackers and staff loading bins for on-line shoppers in the aisles, but the average shopper will have much less human interaction with staff than in an old-fashioned small shop. But other retailers may be recruiting as well, as the increasingly affluent population (OK, not necessarily this year) spends more in retailers, buying stuff their predecessors simply couldn't buy (ie, it simply didn't exist or they couldn't afford it). |
Not in my back yard
In message , at 13:45:07 on
Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Recliner remarked: My impression from a quick Google is that retail employment has been increasing steadily at half to one percent per annum over the last decade. I would think that the jobs per sales pound are much lower in an Asda or Tesco than the small shops they replace. Yes, you'll see shelf-stackers and staff loading bins for on-line shoppers in the aisles, but the average shopper will have much less human interaction with staff than in an old-fashioned small shop. But other retailers may be recruiting as well, as the increasingly affluent population (OK, not necessarily this year) spends more in retailers, buying stuff their predecessors simply couldn't buy (ie, it simply didn't exist or they couldn't afford it). Every "traditional" shop near where I live, be it a corner shop or in one of the several parades, is still open as a shop. They aren't generally selling groceries any more (apart from a few specialist deli's) but they are selling something. -- Roland Perry |
Not in my back yard
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
In message , at 13:45:07 on Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Recliner remarked: My impression from a quick Google is that retail employment has been increasing steadily at half to one percent per annum over the last decade. I would think that the jobs per sales pound are much lower in an Asda or Tesco than the small shops they replace. Yes, you'll see shelf-stackers and staff loading bins for on-line shoppers in the aisles, but the average shopper will have much less human interaction with staff than in an old-fashioned small shop. But other retailers may be recruiting as well, as the increasingly affluent population (OK, not necessarily this year) spends more in retailers, buying stuff their predecessors simply couldn't buy (ie, it simply didn't exist or they couldn't afford it). Every "traditional" shop near where I live, be it a corner shop or in one of the several parades, is still open as a shop. They aren't generally selling groceries any more (apart from a few specialist deli's) but they are selling something. I wonder how many of those are estate agents or bank/building society offices? And, of course, you now have mobile phone stores, pizza delivery outfits, etc. |
Not in my back yard
In message , at 14:44:28 on
Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Recliner remarked: Every "traditional" shop near where I live, be it a corner shop or in one of the several parades, is still open as a shop. They aren't generally selling groceries any more (apart from a few specialist deli's) but they are selling something. I wonder how many of those are estate agents or bank/building society offices? And, of course, you now have mobile phone stores, pizza delivery outfits, etc. One of the odd things is that my town has only one mobile phone shop (Carphone Warehouse) and it is literally the shop furthest from the centre. There must be some retail database that all the phone companies use, to choose new sites, which scores the place too low. There aren't many estate agents, but plenty of banks and building societies. All of these need staff, however. There is just one pizza delivery place (a tiny delivery/pickup-only Pizza Hut). Nearby is a Pizza Express, ironically in a building that used to be a Building Society (it closed, rather than relocated). -- Roland Perry |
Not in my back yard
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
In message , at 14:44:28 on Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Recliner remarked: Every "traditional" shop near where I live, be it a corner shop or in one of the several parades, is still open as a shop. They aren't generally selling groceries any more (apart from a few specialist deli's) but they are selling something. I wonder how many of those are estate agents or bank/building society offices? And, of course, you now have mobile phone stores, pizza delivery outfits, etc. One of the odd things is that my town has only one mobile phone shop (Carphone Warehouse) and it is literally the shop furthest from the centre. There must be some retail database that all the phone companies use, to choose new sites, which scores the place too low. There aren't many estate agents, but plenty of banks and building societies. All of these need staff, however. That's what I meant when I said that it's these 'new' types of retailers that are employing extra staff, while supermarkets need less staff per pound of sales. |
Not in my back yard
In message , at 16:23:10 on
Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Recliner remarked: There aren't many estate agents, but plenty of banks and building societies. All of these need staff, however. That's what I meant when I said that it's these 'new' types of retailers that are employing extra staff, while supermarkets need less staff per pound of sales. But overall the staff levels are gradually increasing. -- Roland Perry |
Not in my back yard
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
In message , at 16:23:10 on Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Recliner remarked: There aren't many estate agents, but plenty of banks and building societies. All of these need staff, however. That's what I meant when I said that it's these 'new' types of retailers that are employing extra staff, while supermarkets need less staff per pound of sales. But overall the staff levels are gradually increasing. That may well be so, but the point I was making was that when a supermarket moves into town, the numerous 'new' jobs it claims to be creating will be at the expense of a larger number existing jobs in local small shops, so there's an immediate drop in local retail employment. In due course, some of these small shops will close, and may well be replaced by new types of shops (ie, mobile phones, takeaways, internet cafes, banks, etc), so that the total number of retail jobs may indeed increase over time. But that's not because of the claimed new jobs created by the supermarket. |
Not in my back yard
In message , at 17:40:42 on
Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Recliner remarked: "Roland Perry" wrote in message In message , at 16:23:10 on Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Recliner remarked: There aren't many estate agents, but plenty of banks and building societies. All of these need staff, however. That's what I meant when I said that it's these 'new' types of retailers that are employing extra staff, while supermarkets need less staff per pound of sales. But overall the staff levels are gradually increasing. That may well be so, but the point I was making was that when a supermarket moves into town, the numerous 'new' jobs it claims to be creating will be at the expense of a larger number existing jobs in local small shops, so there's an immediate drop in local retail employment. It's not immediate In due course, Thankyou some of these small shops will close, and may well be replaced by new types of shops (ie, mobile phones, takeaways, internet cafes, banks, etc), so that the total number of retail jobs may indeed increase over time. The existing jobs stay much the same and... But that's not because of the claimed new jobs created by the supermarket. .... the "new" jobs at the supermarket still exist, and are genuine new jobs. -- Roland Perry |
Not in my back yard
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 22:43:20 on Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Zen83237 remarked: Can somebody explain how building the depot creates hundreds of jobs. Will the new Thameslink trains be that much more unreliable than the existing trains that they need more maintenance. Surely the existing trains are maintained so why does the new Thameslink require hundreds of extra maintenance staff. The new trains will have more carriages than the old. But they may also be factoring in a reluctance of staff at the old depot (where is that?) to the new ones, resulting in *local* recruitment. -- Roland Perry I thought that the figure I saw was an extra 500 staff. So a few extra coaches will require an extra 500 people!!! I thought that modern electric stock required very little maintenance. Kevin |
Not in my back yard
"Zen83237" wrote in message ... "Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 22:43:20 on Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Zen83237 remarked: Can somebody explain how building the depot creates hundreds of jobs. Will the new Thameslink trains be that much more unreliable than the existing trains that they need more maintenance. Surely the existing trains are maintained so why does the new Thameslink require hundreds of extra maintenance staff. The new trains will have more carriages than the old. But they may also be factoring in a reluctance of staff at the old depot (where is that?) to the new ones, resulting in *local* recruitment. -- Roland Perry I thought that the figure I saw was an extra 500 staff. So a few extra coaches will require an extra 500 people!!! I thought that modern electric stock required very little maintenance. Kevin And of course 450 of the 500 will probably go to East Europeans. |
Not in my back yard
In message , at 22:39:37 on
Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Zen83237 remarked: I thought that modern electric stock required very little maintenance. Won't it be cleaning, rather than repairs? -- Roland Perry |
Not in my back yard
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 22:39:37 on Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Zen83237 remarked: I thought that modern electric stock required very little maintenance. Won't it be cleaning, rather than repairs? -- Roland Perry If its just cleaning surely they don't need a depot that looks like a bunker, just a siding will do. Kevin |
Not in my back yard
"Zen83237" wrote in message ... "Zen83237" wrote in message ... "Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 22:43:20 on Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Zen83237 remarked: Can somebody explain how building the depot creates hundreds of jobs. Will the new Thameslink trains be that much more unreliable than the existing trains that they need more maintenance. Surely the existing trains are maintained so why does the new Thameslink require hundreds of extra maintenance staff. The new trains will have more carriages than the old. But they may also be factoring in a reluctance of staff at the old depot (where is that?) to the new ones, resulting in *local* recruitment. -- Roland Perry I thought that the figure I saw was an extra 500 staff. So a few extra coaches will require an extra 500 people!!! I thought that modern electric stock required very little maintenance. Kevin And of course 450 of the 500 will probably go to East Europeans. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8189061.stm It is 250 "new" jobs, just realised. |
Not in my back yard
In message , at 22:25:03 on
Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Zen83237 remarked: If its just cleaning surely they don't need a depot that looks like a bunker, just a siding will do. It's a bit 19th century to work outdoors cleaning the inside of trains. -- Roland Perry |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:12 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk