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.
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.
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.
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.'
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?
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.