Page 4 of 19 FirstFirst 123456714 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 187
  1. #31
    Dunscouting sully's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hurstpierpoint
    Posts
    7,276


    0 Not allowed!
    Putting down additional track IS expensive. Plonking a couple of concrete platforms either side of the existing track not so.

    As LC said, the last thing the rail authorities will want is a station trying to cope with a huge number of people right where there trying to run trains at full speed!

    • North Stand Chat

      advertising
      Join Date: Jul 2003
      Posts: Lots

        


    • #32
      Dunscouting sully's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2003
      Location
      Hurstpierpoint
      Posts
      7,276


      0 Not allowed!
      Originally posted by Yoda
      But not enough to accommodate the thousands of people using it.

      Have you ever tried to use Fulham Broadway when Chelsea have been playing at home? That would be about the size of station they'd be able to fit in there. And then have to get Southern to agree to run a train in each direction every 5 minutes on what is already the busiest rail route in the Country (On trains to track ratio).
      I agree with that.

      How many grounds have stations that can actually cope with the number of people trying to use them?

      Presumably, there would have to be some sort of crowd control marvellously demonstrated to us in Cardiff. Simple.

      Still won't happen, though, because of the national park, so not worth going into.
    • #33
      English & European Yoda's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 2004
      Location
      Worthing, West Sussex, United Kingdom
      Posts
      9,667


      0 Not allowed!
      Originally posted by sully
      Still won't happen, though, because of the national park, so not worth going into.
      Here, here!
      Why DON'T YOU ALL JUST
      Forza la Viola, Forza Fiorentina!!!
      Worthing Raiders RFC!!!
    • #34
      Members
      Join Date
      Jun 2004
      Location
      Land of the Chavs
      Posts
      3,255


      0 Not allowed!
      Waterhall might be ideal, but it't the wrong side of the A27, therefore undisputably in the National Park and not available for development of any sort. Waterhall was Belotti's preferred site but was not proceeded with for that reason.
    • #35
      Members
      Join Date
      Jul 2003
      Posts
      25,310


      0 Not allowed!
      Originally posted by sully

      Being next to a tunnel is a rubbish reason for not building a station there. There are many examples of stations not only next to, but IN tunnels on the rail network.

      christ I must've said this a million times now, NEW regulations mean you cannot build stations within 1mile of a Tunnel, yes there are loads of stations near tunnels because they we're built YEARS ago.

      right...thats the last time
      * Cricket * :yahoo: Football :yahoo: * Motor Racing *
    • #36
      a man with a sound track record as a source of quality Albion info! ditchy's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2003
      Location
      brighton
      Posts
      5,181


      0 Not allowed!
      Originally posted by sully
      Putting down additional track IS expensive. Plonking a couple of concrete platforms either side of the existing track not so.

      As LC said, the last thing the rail authorities will want is a station trying to cope with a huge number of people right where there trying to run trains at full speed!
      So saturday is the busiest day on the network !! no way . ok the odd midweek game to put up with ..but i think that could be overcome if the political will wanted it

      likewise if the council really wanted to put this city on the map it could easily build an all round all usage stadium like arnhem have with removable pitch etc .. could then be used for ice hockey basketball and indoor athletics with roof closed and even conferences which i believe they are looking at to replace the brighton centre!!
      I just love the East Upper !!
    • #37
      On fire Lord Bracknell's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2003
      Location
      104 Upper Grosvenor Street, Mayfair
      Posts
      39,637


      0 Not allowed!
      Inspector Collyer’s conclusions about the alternative sites:-

      Brighton Station. “The grant of permission for an alternative development presents a major obstacle in the way of securing this site for a new stadium. … If there were conclusive evidence that work on the permitted scheme was going ahead, I would accept that this site could not realistically be regarded as an available alternative for a stadium development”.

      Greyhound Stadium. “I discount the Greyhound Stadium as a realistic alternative site”.

      Shoreham Harbour. “In my judgement, to consolidate the stadium into the much larger regeneration project which the harbour strategy envisages is likely to be so complex, problematic and uncertain that this cannot be regarded as a realistic alternative”.

      Sheepcote Valley. “This site has its disadvantages as well as advantages … whether it represents a realistic alternative to Falmer is essentially a question of balance”.

      Toads Hole Valley. “In terms of social and economic impacts, I acknowledge that this site does not score too well in comparison with Falmer.”

      Waterhall. “I conclude that the AONB policy objections are overwhelming and that this site cannot reasonably be regarded as a viable alternative location for the development of a stadium”.

      Withdean Stadium. “The Applicants’ argument against the development of a new stadium on this site is essentially on the grounds of its inability to accommodate one of the capacity required. But this raises the question of why it is necessary to have a 22,000 capacity stadium”.


      This is obviously a selective gathering of brief quotes from an eleven page section of Collyer’s Report. One strategy he seems to be asking for consideration is to expand Withdean as part of a long-term plan to move to Shoreham Harbour, if and when the much bigger, comprehensive redevelopment of the harbour site goes ahead. The only options for a permanent 22,000 seater stadium that are in Collyer’s mind are at Sheepcote Valley and Toads Hole Valley.
      не съгласявам се!

      What if there were no hypothetical questions?
    • #38
      Native Creative Biscuit's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2003
      Location
      Brighton
      Posts
      22,040


      0 Not allowed!
      Originally posted by Lord Bracknell
      Inspector Collyer’s conclusions about the alternative sites:-

      Brighton Station. “The grant of permission for an alternative development presents a major obstacle in the way of securing this site for a new stadium. … If there were conclusive evidence that work on the permitted scheme was going ahead, I would accept that this site could not realistically be regarded as an available alternative for a stadium development”.

      Greyhound Stadium. “I discount the Greyhound Stadium as a realistic alternative site”.

      Shoreham Harbour. “In my judgement, to consolidate the stadium into the much larger regeneration project which the harbour strategy envisages is likely to be so complex, problematic and uncertain that this cannot be regarded as a realistic alternative”.

      Sheepcote Valley. “This site has its disadvantages as well as advantages … whether it represents a realistic alternative to Falmer is essentially a question of balance”.

      Toads Hole Valley. “In terms of social and economic impacts, I acknowledge that this site does not score too well in comparison with Falmer.”

      Waterhall. “I conclude that the AONB policy objections are overwhelming and that this site cannot reasonably be regarded as a viable alternative location for the development of a stadium”.

      Withdean Stadium. “The Applicants’ argument against the development of a new stadium on this site is essentially on the grounds of its inability to accommodate one of the capacity required. But this raises the question of why it is necessary to have a 22,000 capacity stadium”.


      This is obviously a selective gathering of brief quotes from an eleven page section of Collyer’s Report. One strategy he seems to be asking for consideration is to expand Withdean as part of a long-term plan to move to Shoreham Harbour, if and when the much bigger, comprehensive redevelopment of the harbour site goes ahead. The only options for a permanent 22,000 seater stadium that are in Collyer’s mind are at Sheepcote Valley and Toads Hole Valley.
      I love you Bracknell.
    • #39
      Grandad Miami Seagull's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2003
      Location
      Miami Florida, USA
      Posts
      1,351


      0 Not allowed!
      Lets not forget as well that Waterhall is the home of Brighton Rugby Club. I think, and have always done so, that waterhall would be the ideal site.
    • #40
      Punxsatawney Phil Curious Orange's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2003
      Location
      On NSC for over a decade...
      Posts
      9,364


      0 Not allowed!
      Waterhall won't be considered because it is against local planning policy to not build north of the A27, and so comes under "(vi) Are there any over-riding site specific planning issues?".
      Last edited by Curious Orange; 27-07-2004 at 14:02.
      When Steve McQueen met The Blob, he tried to kill it. It probably never crossed his mind to try and take it out to a restaurant.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •