Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
eh??? 
Borough market to disappear?
- Thread starter maximilian ping
- Start date
Monkeynuts
Hello sailor
Red Jezza said:substantiate please with linked info. otherwise this is vague and weak as fuck.
and HOW MANY woolwichites or charltonites do yousee as having a need to get to charing X and soho regularly?
Well funnily enough I didn't make photocopies of it all for my own personal pleasure. I've no idea whether it is online. Perhaps the business case for TL2000 is on the regulator's site.
The point is that I'm not talking from the passengers' or spotters' perspective. You can argue personal opinions and observations all you like but there is a lot of study work done in assessing whether or not to commit tens of millions to a transport scheme. The conclusion was that it would be of benefit.
LB serves more than Woolwich and Charlton and funnily enough, some of us do work and socialise on the other side of the river.
Monkeynuts
Hello sailor
Red Jezza said:
This bit is wrong as well. Sevenoaks / Orpington line, Kent coast lines, Croydon line in evenings and on Sundays - because not enough capacity rest of the time. There are probably others. Plus you can get from the terminating tracks to the through, of course.
The reason more don't go through is lack of capacity.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
but so far, it's just your word on it....not saying you're wrong but "I'm tellings ya, IT'S TRUE!!" ain't enough on it's ownMonkeynuts said:
Monkeynuts said:
Exactly - at peak times watch the number of people going over from the terminating tracks over to catch a train to Charing X - loads of them. At least as many people get on the through trains at LB at peak times as get off.
And that is discounting the fact that the MAIN benefit is to be a hugely increased service through the Thameslink route via Farringdon. At present the service on this route via LB is insufficiently regular and reliable to be used much by commuters terminating at LB for onward travel, forcing them on to tube/bus etc instead at the moment. So there is lots of 'hidden' demand for the Thameslink route.
Honestly, you'd have thought such a major improvement to public transport might be applauded. People moan about how crap PT in London is and whenever there is a proposal to throw huge amounts of money at the problem, everyone moans
I don't quite understand when providing people with greater mobility in London became a BAD thing?
edited
scifisam
deleted
I was there today. It is a lovely area with lots of buildings worth keeping. As far as I can tell, though, almost all of them would be kept, just some of the market itself moved (and isn't a market, by its very nature, meant to be portable rather than permanent?) People will still be able to buy their overpriced cheese and admire the stalls with venison-on-a-stick and whole, skinned rabbits.
longdog
What is it you can't face?
<Roadie>
Monkeynuts is right about the routes through London Bridge. It's a notorious bottleneck and there've been schemes for years to provide more lines through it.
I don't know what the precise numbers are, but I use London Bridge regularly and it's heaving. More than once trains in from Dartford and the Kent Coast have been so full that I can't get on them (at Charlton) in the mornings, and at peak times the platforms at London Bridge are always very crowded.
On the face of it, there's a very good case to be made for building more through tracks.
Red Jezza said:
Monkeynuts is right about the routes through London Bridge. It's a notorious bottleneck and there've been schemes for years to provide more lines through it.
I don't know what the precise numbers are, but I use London Bridge regularly and it's heaving. More than once trains in from Dartford and the Kent Coast have been so full that I can't get on them (at Charlton) in the mornings, and at peak times the platforms at London Bridge are always very crowded.
On the face of it, there's a very good case to be made for building more through tracks.
Just saw a letter in today's Times on the subject of Thameslink 2000 and the need for "new capacity". It's quite short, so I will cut and paste:
Sir, Before spending billions on projects such as Thameslink 2000, Crossrail, a north-south high-speed line and more, perhaps we should check that the existing rail network is being utilised fully.
Yes, it is impossible to squeeze enough cross-London trains through London Bridge in peak hours; but what of that four-track railway between Elephant & Castle and Blackfriars?
And then there is Battersea railway bridge, currently used only by half-hourly Silverlink and hourly Southern services; no wonder the District Line crossing the Thames at Putney is overcrowded. And what about those Ludgate lines going north from Clapham Junction — used only by goods trains and not in peak hours?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2573535,00.html
I don't know enough of railways in London to comment. Anyone know more? Is he talking sense? Or bollocks?
Giles..
Sir, Before spending billions on projects such as Thameslink 2000, Crossrail, a north-south high-speed line and more, perhaps we should check that the existing rail network is being utilised fully.
Yes, it is impossible to squeeze enough cross-London trains through London Bridge in peak hours; but what of that four-track railway between Elephant & Castle and Blackfriars?
And then there is Battersea railway bridge, currently used only by half-hourly Silverlink and hourly Southern services; no wonder the District Line crossing the Thames at Putney is overcrowded. And what about those Ludgate lines going north from Clapham Junction — used only by goods trains and not in peak hours?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2573535,00.html
I don't know enough of railways in London to comment. Anyone know more? Is he talking sense? Or bollocks?
Giles..
Monkeynuts
Hello sailor
I don't know a lot about the sections to the W he talks about. The Elephant and Castle solution supposedly works for some of the shorter routes but not the longer ones.
Question is, has he read up on the relevant Rail Utilisation Strategies (availability, gauge, linespeed, load capacity) for the routes he mentions...
Question is, has he read up on the relevant Rail Utilisation Strategies (availability, gauge, linespeed, load capacity) for the routes he mentions...
Monkeynuts
Hello sailor
Red Jezza said:
Been trying to find you a copy of the track layout.
But for starters see p8 of this:
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/documents/3132_Route 1 kent.pdf
Monkeynuts
Hello sailor
Also interesting: http://www.pooloflondon.co.uk/press/index.php/00017.html
02/05/2002 New Study to Assess Options for Redevelopment of London Bridge Station
In order to assess the best option for the proposed redevelopment of London Bridge station the Pool of London Partnership (PLP) commissioned Arup Transport Planning to undertake a passenger capacity study for the three current options for the station:
* Keeping the station as it is today – this option is seen to be inadequate and unacceptable even with current passenger numbers. The station regularly suffers from overcrowding and will be unable to cope with future passenger flows.
* Thameslink 2000 – is a railway infrastructure project which will increase the number and length of trains running north-south across London and which includes the upgrade of a number of stations including London Bridge where the project partly addresses the general station capacity problem by substituting 3 terminating platforms at the station with 3 new through platforms on a new viaduct to be built adjacent to the existing through platforms. These works will be finished in 2009. At that time however, further works will be necessary to deal with capacity problems on platforms 1-4 which are not solved by Thameslink 2000. These unavoidable further works would not be finished until 2014, would raise the cost of necessary station works to about £560m but would not create any wider regeneration or social benefits at all.
* Railtrack’s Masterplan proposal (including modified Thameslink 2000) – this scheme does look at the wider needs of the local area, passengers, existing regeneration activities and new regeneration opportunities. The proposal includes a comprehensive remodelling of the platforms to provide a street-level concourse, plus escalators and lifts to access all other platforms and levels. Other improvements include, widening of platforms, provision of quality office space, a public shopping mall incorporated into the station which would include shops suitable for local people’s needs, new public space to reduce the barrier effect of the railway line, improved public street safety and increased job opportunities for local people. Masterplan already has full planning and listed building consent, could be completed in 2009 and at £484m costs £70m less than the combined cost of Thameslink 2000 and subsequent upgrade works to platforms 1-4.
The results of Arup’s study highlighted the need for redevelopment in order to cope with existing and future passenger requirements. Also, in a comparison of the two alternative schemes, the Masterplan was seen to be the best solution for the area in terms of use of public money, reduced disruption and better opportunities for regenerating the Pool of London area.
Linda Houston, Director of the PLP commented,
“It is crucial that a comprehensive station redevelopment takes place; we believe that the Thameslink scheme would work if modified to be developed in line with the wider implications of Railtrack’s Masterplan proposal. This option presents the best value for public money while providing longer-term benefits for the Pool of London such as: developing a location that encourages people to spend time and money in the area; improving the travelling experience; increasing safety; creating natural links to other areas of the Pool; and complimenting nearby regeneration activities such as More London, Guy’s Hospital Campus, Tooley Street improvements, London Bridge Tower and Borough Market.”
Railtrack’s Masterplan complies with the Mayor’s Transport Strategy and the study shows, is a feasible scheme in terms of passenger capacity until 2060.
A decision from the government’s public inquiry on whether to approve the Thameslink option is imminent.
02/05/2002 New Study to Assess Options for Redevelopment of London Bridge Station
In order to assess the best option for the proposed redevelopment of London Bridge station the Pool of London Partnership (PLP) commissioned Arup Transport Planning to undertake a passenger capacity study for the three current options for the station:
* Keeping the station as it is today – this option is seen to be inadequate and unacceptable even with current passenger numbers. The station regularly suffers from overcrowding and will be unable to cope with future passenger flows.
* Thameslink 2000 – is a railway infrastructure project which will increase the number and length of trains running north-south across London and which includes the upgrade of a number of stations including London Bridge where the project partly addresses the general station capacity problem by substituting 3 terminating platforms at the station with 3 new through platforms on a new viaduct to be built adjacent to the existing through platforms. These works will be finished in 2009. At that time however, further works will be necessary to deal with capacity problems on platforms 1-4 which are not solved by Thameslink 2000. These unavoidable further works would not be finished until 2014, would raise the cost of necessary station works to about £560m but would not create any wider regeneration or social benefits at all.
* Railtrack’s Masterplan proposal (including modified Thameslink 2000) – this scheme does look at the wider needs of the local area, passengers, existing regeneration activities and new regeneration opportunities. The proposal includes a comprehensive remodelling of the platforms to provide a street-level concourse, plus escalators and lifts to access all other platforms and levels. Other improvements include, widening of platforms, provision of quality office space, a public shopping mall incorporated into the station which would include shops suitable for local people’s needs, new public space to reduce the barrier effect of the railway line, improved public street safety and increased job opportunities for local people. Masterplan already has full planning and listed building consent, could be completed in 2009 and at £484m costs £70m less than the combined cost of Thameslink 2000 and subsequent upgrade works to platforms 1-4.
The results of Arup’s study highlighted the need for redevelopment in order to cope with existing and future passenger requirements. Also, in a comparison of the two alternative schemes, the Masterplan was seen to be the best solution for the area in terms of use of public money, reduced disruption and better opportunities for regenerating the Pool of London area.
Linda Houston, Director of the PLP commented,
“It is crucial that a comprehensive station redevelopment takes place; we believe that the Thameslink scheme would work if modified to be developed in line with the wider implications of Railtrack’s Masterplan proposal. This option presents the best value for public money while providing longer-term benefits for the Pool of London such as: developing a location that encourages people to spend time and money in the area; improving the travelling experience; increasing safety; creating natural links to other areas of the Pool; and complimenting nearby regeneration activities such as More London, Guy’s Hospital Campus, Tooley Street improvements, London Bridge Tower and Borough Market.”
Railtrack’s Masterplan complies with the Mayor’s Transport Strategy and the study shows, is a feasible scheme in terms of passenger capacity until 2060.
A decision from the government’s public inquiry on whether to approve the Thameslink option is imminent.
Monkeynuts
Hello sailor
Double post deleted
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
fair enuff - ta for that - will read laterMonkeynuts said:
Monkeynuts
Hello sailor
Aye, but what we really need is the track layout. Here you will see the limited number of tracks on the way in bursting out into the 9 terminating platforms. If you see this, suddenly it all comes to life and it becomes obvious how hard it must be to get trains in and out of 9 platforms onto the tracks (bearing in mind you have to leave a bit ofg gap between trains and the sort of gap we accept between us and cars when crossing the road isn't really a goer).
I will keep searching for stuff but believe me I am being sincere - I worked on the conservation aspects of TL2000 years ago and came round to the technical arguments when I had the figures in front of me. So I'm well aware of what is to go at Borough Market and what this means. I'm a natural conservative (SMALL C!) in generally preferring what's there already and being cynical about "progress" but I go for this one. See also Elephant thread where potentially there could be an improvement.
I will keep searching for stuff but believe me I am being sincere - I worked on the conservation aspects of TL2000 years ago and came round to the technical arguments when I had the figures in front of me. So I'm well aware of what is to go at Borough Market and what this means. I'm a natural conservative (SMALL C!) in generally preferring what's there already and being cynical about "progress" but I go for this one. See also Elephant thread where potentially there could be an improvement.
Miss Potter
hates mice
petition here if you're against
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
agree more on the E&C one than this.Monkeynuts said:
just one Q: even if I accept all you've put, what's you8r guarantee that TfL won't cock it up so badly that we are back at sq 1 within a decade or so?
Monkeynuts
Hello sailor
Red Jezza said:
That I can't help you with! They have a real talent... although it wouldn't actually be TfL doing the cocking up in this case.
They should end up with a station that would allow the existing service pattern to work, meaning that you no longer have to add 5 minutes onto every journey to allow for sitting at a signal "waiting for a parking space" as the more comedic drivers sometimes announce, and where we will be able to stay on the train to Charing Cross rather than change.
The station will also be a bit nicer and more accessible to the mobility impaired.
Those aspects, at least, are relatively safe and should result in an improvement they can't totally wreck.
Monkeynuts
Hello sailor
alice band said:
Ah well... nearly 27,000 signatures. Another 73,000 and you will have nearly as many as the number of people who use (and are usually delayed at) London Bridge Station everyday.
Great petition though. Good timing as well, after the scheme has been through a public inquiry and got planning.
I'm interested in the idea that "construction of a new viaduct will destroy the WHOLE PRESENT CHARACTER of this neighbourhood" - the buildings of which date from after the railway and the dominant feature of which is viaducts. I put it to you that the market would no longer be there at all and the whole areas redeveloped were it not for the protection the viaducts afford.
I'm also interested in the idea that "this will disastrously affect a CONSERVATION AREA of national importance, lead to the destruction of many fine Grade 11 listed buildings, including - the Wheatsheaf Pub (loss of the top floor) all of Green Dragon Court, 16-26 Borough High Street (Smirke Terrace) and the r/o the Park Street Georgian terrace".
16-26 Borough High St - you mean this beauty?
Or these bits of authentic Victoriana
next to the viaduct?
Park St - ah, you mean this bit, the bit that is to remain? You aren't being a little economical with the truth now are you?
And much as I do love the Wheatsheaf, I'm not too upset about it getting a haircut as I mainly use it to drink in rather than concern myself what is on the second floor.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Sorry, but what around there is of 'national importance'? There's some nice-ish 'traditional' London buildings there, but I've never seen owt of outstanding architectural merit bar the Cathederal and that's been living with a viaduct for decades now...
Monkeynuts
Hello sailor
In less sentimental times...
Kyser's post brought this to mind. You probably oughtn't to build viaducts right by cathedrals...
The above is a classic though. Not the shot I was really after but, yes, they have built a viaduct in the background, and yes it does go slap bang through the middle of the castle!
Kyser's post brought this to mind. You probably oughtn't to build viaducts right by cathedrals...
The above is a classic though. Not the shot I was really after but, yes, they have built a viaduct in the background, and yes it does go slap bang through the middle of the castle!
Monkeynuts
Hello sailor
Some better ones
I don't think railways - or their viaducts - are inherently ugly. Modern, concrete-slab ones usually are, but older ones aren't.
Maybe I'm a heretic, but I don't think the people who built a railway line through the walls of Conwy Castle ruined it...
(full-size pic here.
Okay, so the area around Borough Market is not an unattractive part of London, but one new railway viaduct isn't going to ruin the entire area. Besides, the country is full of Victorian houses and shops, and losing one or two of them doesn't IMO matter all that much. It's not as if they're planning to knock down the Tower of London now, is it?
Maybe I'm a heretic, but I don't think the people who built a railway line through the walls of Conwy Castle ruined it...
(full-size pic here.
Okay, so the area around Borough Market is not an unattractive part of London, but one new railway viaduct isn't going to ruin the entire area. Besides, the country is full of Victorian houses and shops, and losing one or two of them doesn't IMO matter all that much. It's not as if they're planning to knock down the Tower of London now, is it?
A Dashing Blade
Takes horses to water but can't make donkeys drink
It's the clustering of the buildings that make it nice and dinky vis the number of times the area is used for film sets and video shoots (prolly twice a month).
Monkeynuts
Hello sailor
A Dashing Blade said:
Hmm nothing to do with the viaducts then, no matter how indirectly?
And one more will totally spoil this?
A Dashing Blade
Takes horses to water but can't make donkeys drink
Monkeynuts said:
Yup!
Seriously, it's a really dinky little area.
(takes off nimby hat)
The Market website has information on the petitions and their response to the changes http://boroughmarket.org.uk/index.php?module=news:72
Monkeynuts
Hello sailor
cillaB said:
Yes and everyone should bloody read it!!
Pretty balanced - and they should know...
Similar threads
