Twickenham station improvements to be unveiled

Richmond and Twickenham Times: Station: Needs more than a facelift Station: Needs more than a facelift

People who want to find out more about the platform-level improvements at Twickenham station can attend a drop-in session next week.

Significant improvements will be carried out, including a new footbridge, using £1.6m funding from the Greater London Authority.

Leader of Richmond Council Lord True said: “There is no one in Twickenham who does not think the current station is an utter disgrace to our town and hugely inadequate – struggling to cope at maximum capacity.

“Given the long delays caused by an unjustifiable challenge to the planning process, it will sadly not be possible to complete the whole station rebuild by the 2015 World Cup.

“But we are working with Network Rail and South West Trains to ensure a high quality platform level station and entrance are available by then - this is the first stage of that.”

Network Rail and South West Trains Alliance are holding the drop-in from 4pm with a presentation scheduled for 6.30pm on January 29 in the Churchill Suite at Twickenham stadium.

This meeting will focus on works at platform level and not the wider Solum Regeneration project.

Comments (14)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:57am Fri 24 Jan 14

mumto1plus2 says...

It will be interesting to see these plans as the originals proposed by Solum did nothing to address capacity issues, in fact quite the opposite. As for Lord True, his continued arrogance astounds me! He speaks for us all does he? Pfft! Hurry up May local election!
It will be interesting to see these plans as the originals proposed by Solum did nothing to address capacity issues, in fact quite the opposite. As for Lord True, his continued arrogance astounds me! He speaks for us all does he? Pfft! Hurry up May local election! mumto1plus2

1:50pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Sophie P says...

How many of us that use the station every single work day will be back from the city (or wherever) in time to leg it down to this 'drop in' over at the stadium by 6.30pm? which group of station users will be represented here? the rugby fans? the commuters? those that hop on and off at Richmond on the occasional day - ah yes.. so nobody that uses the station at anything close to full capacity. Take that back, buggy users are relevant I agree..
How many of us that use the station every single work day will be back from the city (or wherever) in time to leg it down to this 'drop in' over at the stadium by 6.30pm? which group of station users will be represented here? the rugby fans? the commuters? those that hop on and off at Richmond on the occasional day - ah yes.. so nobody that uses the station at anything close to full capacity. Take that back, buggy users are relevant I agree.. Sophie P

7:35pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Julie Hill says...

I received a hand delivered letter about this and finally managed to speak to someone at Network Rail as I can't attend their drop in (it is on the same night as the Community Police Partnership Meeting at York House).

The lady I spoke to told me categorically that the purpose of the meeting was NOT to discuss Solum but that it was - quote: "all about the Rugby World Cup and making the station look nice for the Rugby World Cup".

She said that Richmond Council is chipping in - not sure if this is for lots of hanging baskets on the platform or for something more permanent.

I asked her if details of her Presentation would be available on the NR website but she said no and suggested I ask Richmond Council to display them for the benefit of those who can't attend.
I received a hand delivered letter about this and finally managed to speak to someone at Network Rail as I can't attend their drop in (it is on the same night as the Community Police Partnership Meeting at York House). The lady I spoke to told me categorically that the purpose of the meeting was NOT to discuss Solum but that it was - quote: "all about the Rugby World Cup and making the station look nice for the Rugby World Cup". She said that Richmond Council is chipping in - not sure if this is for lots of hanging baskets on the platform or for something more permanent. I asked her if details of her Presentation would be available on the NR website but she said no and suggested I ask Richmond Council to display them for the benefit of those who can't attend. Julie Hill

12:48am Sat 25 Jan 14

Twickenham Bob says...

There are hundreds of stations across the country that have the same layout and design as Twickenham currently has. There is nothing disgraceful about it. Indeed, when it was built it was a show-piece station with clean sight lines including a ceiling to the platform canopies.

The main problem is lack of maintenance and regressive steps like removing the canopy ceilings which destroy the unity of the design and make the station looking very messy. The inability of SWT, to clear the blocked drains on the platforms is another factor making the station look like a mess. Lifts could be added too - but that's the same issue for most stations in the UK t.

What is disgraceful though is that new station booking hall will be of the SAME size as the current 1950s one. Lord True really doesnt get it does he. Time for the boot for him and his chums!
There are hundreds of stations across the country that have the same layout and design as Twickenham currently has. There is nothing disgraceful about it. Indeed, when it was built it was a show-piece station with clean sight lines including a ceiling to the platform canopies. The main problem is lack of maintenance and regressive steps like removing the canopy ceilings which destroy the unity of the design and make the station looking very messy. The inability of SWT, to clear the blocked drains on the platforms is another factor making the station look like a mess. Lifts could be added too - but that's the same issue for most stations in the UK t. What is disgraceful though is that new station booking hall will be of the SAME size as the current 1950s one. Lord True really doesnt get it does he. Time for the boot for him and his chums! Twickenham Bob

6:09pm Sat 25 Jan 14

jeremyhm says...

mumto1plus2: I do not see why you are blaming Lord True. The land belongs to the rail company (not the Council), who asked Solum to develop it. The delay in getting on with it is due to the intervention of TRAG, that is nothing to do with Lord True. As Leader of the Council, he is expressly absolutely forbidden from having any influence either way on the planning process. Planning Committees are "quasi-legal" bodies.
As for your final comment, it is not clear what if anything the LibDems would (or indeed could) do about this if they were to form the next administration. I understand they did a public opinion survey that showed there was little interest in this subject except in the immediate vicinity. Perhaps they could enlighten us?
mumto1plus2: I do not see why you are blaming Lord True. The land belongs to the rail company (not the Council), who asked Solum to develop it. The delay in getting on with it is due to the intervention of TRAG, that is nothing to do with Lord True. As Leader of the Council, he is expressly absolutely forbidden from having any influence either way on the planning process. Planning Committees are "quasi-legal" bodies. As for your final comment, it is not clear what if anything the LibDems would (or indeed could) do about this if they were to form the next administration. I understand they did a public opinion survey that showed there was little interest in this subject except in the immediate vicinity. Perhaps they could enlighten us? jeremyhm

5:59pm Sun 26 Jan 14

ruggabugga says...

News Update:

@LBRUT admitted on Twitter that it wasn't actually their money that was being invested in tarting up the platforms, but £1.6m of Boris dosh.
This is how much Boris gifted Solum.
So this is Solum's baby, despite Network Rail's claims.
It will be platform only improvements, with no change to the station entrance, walkways or steps (and most significantly no lifts).
I hope the 1million rugby fans enjoy Lord True's hanging baskets!
News Update: @LBRUT admitted on Twitter that it wasn't actually their money that was being invested in tarting up the platforms, but £1.6m of Boris dosh. This is how much Boris gifted Solum. So this is Solum's baby, despite Network Rail's claims. It will be platform only improvements, with no change to the station entrance, walkways or steps (and most significantly no lifts). I hope the 1million rugby fans enjoy Lord True's hanging baskets! ruggabugga

7:47pm Sun 26 Jan 14

Twickenham Bob says...

jeremyhm - the Council should be advocates for their local residents. The quality of SWT Stations is dire. They are not even carrying out basic maintenance tasks such as repairing gutters - which they are contractually obliged to carry out under the terms of there franchise.

Lord True keeps his trap shut about the inadequacy of SWTs because he see's any criticism of them, or railway privatisation as heresy. Meanwhile, because of his ideological blinkers we all suffer a very very poor railway service.
jeremyhm - the Council should be advocates for their local residents. The quality of SWT Stations is dire. They are not even carrying out basic maintenance tasks such as repairing gutters - which they are contractually obliged to carry out under the terms of there franchise. Lord True keeps his trap shut about the inadequacy of SWTs because he see's any criticism of them, or railway privatisation as heresy. Meanwhile, because of his ideological blinkers we all suffer a very very poor railway service. Twickenham Bob

1:56am Mon 27 Jan 14

Scott Naylor says...

jeremyhm wrote:
mumto1plus2: I do not see why you are blaming Lord True. The land belongs to the rail company (not the Council), who asked Solum to develop it. The delay in getting on with it is due to the intervention of TRAG, that is nothing to do with Lord True. As Leader of the Council, he is expressly absolutely forbidden from having any influence either way on the planning process. Planning Committees are "quasi-legal" bodies.
As for your final comment, it is not clear what if anything the LibDems would (or indeed could) do about this if they were to form the next administration. I understand they did a public opinion survey that showed there was little interest in this subject except in the immediate vicinity. Perhaps they could enlighten us?
Jeremy I think your comment about Lord True having nothing to do with the planning process is highly questionable and nieve at the extreme, I am sorry to say, else we may well be in a totally different place than we are now.
The suppression of the damning TAP report written by professionals acting on behalf of the Community and the ensuing debacle of my requesting the report on the day of the Planning Committee is well catalogued now by the Rich & Twick Times and those of us who attended all of the Judicial Review High Court actions, as well as the heavy criticism by the High Court Judges.

So if a body is quasi legal, maybe you should be looking into the exact meaning of that Jeremy in relation to what was witnessed by a number of people months before this second application came before the Plannng Committee...Bear in mind that others have a lot more knowledge than you as they were there and you were not. I implore you not to get tangled up in this which you simply do not know enough about!
[quote][p][bold]jeremyhm[/bold] wrote: mumto1plus2: I do not see why you are blaming Lord True. The land belongs to the rail company (not the Council), who asked Solum to develop it. The delay in getting on with it is due to the intervention of TRAG, that is nothing to do with Lord True. As Leader of the Council, he is expressly absolutely forbidden from having any influence either way on the planning process. Planning Committees are "quasi-legal" bodies. As for your final comment, it is not clear what if anything the LibDems would (or indeed could) do about this if they were to form the next administration. I understand they did a public opinion survey that showed there was little interest in this subject except in the immediate vicinity. Perhaps they could enlighten us?[/p][/quote]Jeremy I think your comment about Lord True having nothing to do with the planning process is highly questionable and nieve at the extreme, I am sorry to say, else we may well be in a totally different place than we are now. The suppression of the damning TAP report written by professionals acting on behalf of the Community and the ensuing debacle of my requesting the report on the day of the Planning Committee is well catalogued now by the Rich & Twick Times and those of us who attended all of the Judicial Review High Court actions, as well as the heavy criticism by the High Court Judges. So if a body is quasi legal, maybe you should be looking into the exact meaning of that Jeremy in relation to what was witnessed by a number of people months before this second application came before the Plannng Committee...Bear in mind that others have a lot more knowledge than you as they were there and you were not. I implore you not to get tangled up in this which you simply do not know enough about! Scott Naylor

11:33am Mon 27 Jan 14

jeremyhm says...

I was merely asking mumto1plus2 to explain her criticism of Lord True, and to ask LibDems what they would do. I await replies.
I do know what "quasi-legal means". It describes the use of a committee to hear evidence considering arguments for and against. Reference "Evaluation Approaches: Framework and Designs" HS490, via Google
I was merely asking mumto1plus2 to explain her criticism of Lord True, and to ask LibDems what they would do. I await replies. I do know what "quasi-legal means". It describes the use of a committee to hear evidence considering arguments for and against. Reference "Evaluation Approaches: Framework and Designs" HS490, via Google jeremyhm

9:55pm Mon 27 Jan 14

ruggabugga says...

Dear Jeremy,
I think you'll find that the station delays were the result of poor design, lack of consultation and a flawed planning process (re. the judges criticism of LBRUT).
Dear Jeremy, I think you'll find that the station delays were the result of poor design, lack of consultation and a flawed planning process (re. the judges criticism of LBRUT). ruggabugga

1:35pm Wed 29 Jan 14

mumto1plus2 says...

jeremyhm wrote:
I was merely asking mumto1plus2 to explain her criticism of Lord True, and to ask LibDems what they would do. I await replies.
I do know what "quasi-legal means". It describes the use of a committee to hear evidence considering arguments for and against. Reference "Evaluation Approaches: Framework and Designs" HS490, via Google
Talk about misinterpreting jeremy. My criticism was of Lord True constantly saying 'everyone'. I read it so often and it infuriates me. He should not claim to speak for all of us. My opinion of the station is different from his. Most of my opinions on Twickenham issues differ from his! Where exactly did I show support for the Lib Dems or any other political party in my comment? Nowhere. Please think twice before criticising next time.
[quote][p][bold]jeremyhm[/bold] wrote: I was merely asking mumto1plus2 to explain her criticism of Lord True, and to ask LibDems what they would do. I await replies. I do know what "quasi-legal means". It describes the use of a committee to hear evidence considering arguments for and against. Reference "Evaluation Approaches: Framework and Designs" HS490, via Google[/p][/quote]Talk about misinterpreting jeremy. My criticism was of Lord True constantly saying 'everyone'. I read it so often and it infuriates me. He should not claim to speak for all of us. My opinion of the station is different from his. Most of my opinions on Twickenham issues differ from his! Where exactly did I show support for the Lib Dems or any other political party in my comment? Nowhere. Please think twice before criticising next time. mumto1plus2

3:21pm Wed 29 Jan 14

jeremyhm says...

Thank you. I do not see how I "misinterpreted" you. Lord True is quoted in the article as saying "There is no one in Twickenham who does not think the current station is an utter disgrace to our town and hugely inadequate – struggling to cope at maximum capacity". If that is the sole basis of your criticism, I deduce now that you do not agree with this. Is that correct?
I did not say you supported the LibDems; I only asked what they would do about the situation
Thank you. I do not see how I "misinterpreted" you. Lord True is quoted in the article as saying "There is no one in Twickenham who does not think the current station is an utter disgrace to our town and hugely inadequate – struggling to cope at maximum capacity". If that is the sole basis of your criticism, I deduce now that you do not agree with this. Is that correct? I did not say you supported the LibDems; I only asked what they would do about the situation jeremyhm

10:12am Thu 30 Jan 14

mumto1plus2 says...

jeremyhm wrote:
Thank you. I do not see how I "misinterpreted
" you. Lord True is quoted in the article as saying "There is no one in Twickenham who does not think the current station is an utter disgrace to our town and hugely inadequate – struggling to cope at maximum capacity". If that is the sole basis of your criticism, I deduce now that you do not agree with this. Is that correct?
I did not say you supported the LibDems; I only asked what they would do about the situation
Jeremy, you actually said to me "I do not see why you are blaming Lord True. " I didn't blame Lord True. I object to him constantly claiming to speak for everyone in Twickenham. He doesn't. Really, you should re-read your own comments before finding fault in others.
[quote][p][bold]jeremyhm[/bold] wrote: Thank you. I do not see how I "misinterpreted " you. Lord True is quoted in the article as saying "There is no one in Twickenham who does not think the current station is an utter disgrace to our town and hugely inadequate – struggling to cope at maximum capacity". If that is the sole basis of your criticism, I deduce now that you do not agree with this. Is that correct? I did not say you supported the LibDems; I only asked what they would do about the situation[/p][/quote]Jeremy, you actually said to me "I do not see why you are blaming Lord True. " I didn't blame Lord True. I object to him constantly claiming to speak for everyone in Twickenham. He doesn't. Really, you should re-read your own comments before finding fault in others. mumto1plus2

9:29am Fri 31 Jan 14

jeremyhm says...

Please just take the comments at face value, ie in the spirit in which they were written. I was merely seeking information
Please just take the comments at face value, ie in the spirit in which they were written. I was merely seeking information jeremyhm

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree