London SE1 community website

Thameslink 2000 @ Borough Market & Blackfriars

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ...LastNext
Current: 3 of 17
Wednesday 26 October 2005 4.23pm
Andrew Wrote:
> Jonathan, you should try this page:
> You might also want to try
> tla_tl2k.html

Thanks Andrew, the Geocities site appears to be down though.

The other site states that the decrease in services from LB to Charing X and Canon Street will be very marginal down from 30 to 29 and 23 to 21 per morning peak hour respectively. And it shows through services during the morning peak on Thameslink going from 0 to 18 per hour. Additionally, there would be a possible frequency decrease to Kentish Town, Hendon, Cricklewood and Radlett where stations can't take 12 car trains.

Got to say looking at the facts that I am very much for this scheme. I do love the market and the pubs around them and regualy enjoy both, but I think some change to the built environment there will bring long-overdue benefits to the pubilc transport infrastructure of SE1 and London.

Edited 1 times. Last edit at 26 October 2005 4.32pm by Jonathan K.
Wednesday 26 October 2005 5.45pm
Thanks for wading through and finding that, Jonathan. I think they must have bumped the decreased trains up a bit since the original enquiry. The better N-S trains sound great, but still the idea that underlies the whole scheme is to bring passengers across Central London needlessly. There are alternatives eg. the Elephant route and perhaps some engineering ideas that have never been worked up. So yes, there are benefits, but its up to individuals to decide whether they are worth the destruction. Personally I would like the alternatives to have received a lot more attention.
Wednesday 26 October 2005 6.00pm
Once it becomes necessary to start knocking the tops of buildings while retaining the ground floor and chopping the backs of buildings but retaining the front. wedging the line between listed buildings,and totally demolishing others its pretty clear it would be easier and cheeper to put it under ground.

I also find it strange that the design for the new Blackfrias Staion is blue,and all of network rails visulisations for the Blakfrars bridge station and canopy are created aginst the most ridiculously deep blue sky that in reality doesn't exist.just to make it look like the staion building is matching somthing.

Why didn't they just design the station to fit in with its existing surroundings.

Also if you note the inquiry coverd the blackfriars canopy on the very first day ,after which the visulisations were removed from the inquiry web site pronto.

Obviously not so much a case of Thames link and more a case of weekest link.

And Network rail know it.

You are the weekest Thameslink goodby.

Edited 3 times. Last edit at 26 October 2005 6.20pm by mickysalt.
Friday 28 October 2005 3.57pm
> its pretty clear it would be easier and cheeper to put it under ground.

Do you have any evidence for that assertion?
Friday 28 October 2005 10.06pm
You cant fund public service on the cheapest option because the cheapest option is no public service.

What I described above simply isn't a sensible option.

Even if it is cheaper than a the moment In twenty years time when they wont to widen the viaduct .

What will they do.
Monday 31 October 2005 1.42pm
Widening a tunnel on the other hand...?
Monday 31 October 2005 7.25pm
Cost of 10 miles of Jubilee line 3.5bn. Which makes the Jubilee line cost 350m per mile. That's 200,000 per yard. Inflation being what it is, by the time we've finished it, a tunnel we think about drilling now is going to cost perhaps twice that - much of the J-line was built in the 80s. So 400,000 per yard. Now the Jubilee line is a small bore deep line. Thameslink will be proper trains so - I'm guessing - 3 times the volume to dig out? Let's be generous and say that that's only going to up the cost two-fold. 800,000 per yard.

Now let's examine your assertion. 'Once it becomes necessary to start knocking the tops of buildings while ... its pretty clear it would be easier and cheeper to put it under ground.'

No really. My garden birds are cheeper.

Monday 31 October 2005 9.10pm
This reveals the problems with policy-making based on cost-benefit analysis. Clearly Michael puts a higher value on the retention of the existing buildings and sightlines around Borough Market and Blackfriars Bridge than some others, but more importantly, what weighting does the law allow the inspector or Secretary of State to give to non-financial considerations?

Monday 31 October 2005 10.44pm
I don't understand that the government invests billions of pounds into the Channel Tunnel Rail Link from Kent to St Pancras. All these billions for 15 minutes (!) reduction of travel time between Paris and London.

Current travel time is 2.35 hrs whereas that will be 2.20 hrs.

The cost of building the Channel Tunnel Rail Link is estimated to be 5.2 billion (inflation-adjusted final cost), of which the Government will pay 3.1 billion.

I cannot believe that the competitive position of London will be positively or negatively affected by 15 minutes travel time of a train ride to either Paris or Brussels. Those 3.1 million could be much better spent, IMHO.

Tuesday 1 November 2005 8.49am
To be pedantic, the actual journey times to Paris and Brussels after construction of the CTRL will be 40 minutes faster not 15.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ...LastNext
Current: 3 of 17

To post a message, please log in or register..
We are part of
Independent Community News Network
Email newsletter

For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.

7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?

Read the latest issue before signing up

Also on the forum
Views expressed in this discussion forum are those of the contributors and may not reflect the editorial policy of this website. Please read our terms and conditions