> On Jan 18, 4:40 pm, "Paul Scott" btinternet.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

>> "Mwmbwls" virgin.net> wrote in message

>

>>news:6daceaa6-338f-4ccd-8c2e-b067ba895820@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...

>

>>>http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080117/d...

>

>>> Local MP's expressed their frustration at the Government's apparent
>>> inability to come up with a seamless solution to Eurostars withdrawel
>>> from Waterloo - they also pressed for the rebuilding of Clapham
>>> Junction.  Airtrack I suspect will also be contingent on resolving
>>> these bottlenecks but that was not mentioned. Should all three
>>> projects should been combined in a Thameslink style Masterplan? ...

> Clapham Junction will have its own 39-storey twin towers, if an
> ambitious project gets the go-ahead.
> As well as the skyscapers developers are also planning a two-floor
> shopping plaza and a face...

> "Mwmbwls" virgin.net> wrote
>

>> Clapham Junction will have its own 39-storey twin towers, if an
>> ambitious project gets the go-ahead.

>
> I hope the plans will allow properly for future train services. For
> example, will Crossrail 2 serve Clapham Junction, and if so, which
> platforms? Will there be 3 or 4 tracks for the SWML fast trains, and
> will platform 7 be made more suitable for them, peraps with 8 made
> reversible? Will platform lengths be increased, e.g. to 10 car on the
> SWML Slow Lines, the Windsor Lines, and the Brighton Slow Lines, and
> longer than 12 (16, with provision to use the International platforms
> at Waterloo?) for platforms 7, 8 and 9? Will the Watford to Clapham
> Junction service continue to run beyond Clapham Junction...

> Peter Masson wrote:

>> "Mwmbwls" virgin.net> wrote
>>

>>> Clapham Junction will have its own 39-storey twin towers, if an
>>> ambitious project gets the go-ahead.

>>
>> I hope the plans will allow properly for future train services.

>
> Great list of problems with the actual station Peter, but I suspect having
> read the article these proposals are yet another of those 'air rights'
> sales, and nothing much to do with operational use of the station.
>
> One point though, is that Crossrail probably won't serve CJ, the published
> protected alignment is to take over the District Line from Parsons Green

> Wimbledon...
>

>
> Even an air rights scheme needs to take account of future needs at platform
> level. Unless there is intention to use skyhooks technology someone needs to
> decide where to put the columns which will hold the buildings up.
>
> I thought one option for Crossrail 2 was to run Wimbledon - East Putney -
> Wandsworth Town - Clapham Junction before tunnelling to Chelsea and on to
> Hackney, and I hadn't heard that this option had been abandoned.
>

> Now if only there were recognised expert media
> savvy commentators - perhaps even a journalist or two - with extensive
> industry and political contacts capable of drawing the necessarily
> simple picture for every MP and Councillor in the Exeter - Eastbourne
> - Westminster Triangle. They could point out the window of
> opportunity and the need for getting the fundamentals right. If only
> there were candidates for Mayor who could see the scope for major
> improvements in south London's infrastructure as being a vote winner.
> If only they were subscribers to this group .....if only.........

> In message v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
>           Mwmbwls virgin.net> wrote:

>> If only
>> there were candidates for Mayor who could see the scope for major
>> improvements in south London's infrastructure as being a vote winner.
>> If only they were subscribers to this group .....if only.........

>
> You think Ken Livingstone might subscribe to this group?
>

> On Jan 22, 5:56

> In message <54418b31-c818-4317-a249-00b6a0d3fd39@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
> Mwmbwls virgin.net> wrote:
>

>> On Jan 22, 5:56 pm, Graeme Wall greywall.demon.co.uk...

> In message <54418b31-c818-4317-a249-00b6a0d3f...@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
>           Mwmbwls virgin.net> wrote:
>

>> On Jan 22, 5:56 pm, Graeme Wall greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Boris, on the other hand...