On Apr 30, 11:55*am, wrote:

(Mizter T) wrote:

On Apr 29, 9:45*pm, wrote:

(Mizter T) wrote:
[snip]
That's very interesting - first time I've come across that. That
plan makes the notion of sharing a platform face actually workable
(having the WLL and ELL services actually share the very same
operational platform would be a recipe for total disaster, which is
why I'd dismissed it previously - never thought of what you've
mentioned though). It's possible of course because there's a centre
track in between those on platforms 2 and 3.

Isn't there a middle road between 2 and 3 at Clapham Junction?

Yes, that's exactly what I mean above when I said there was a centre
track.

Indeed. You seemed unsure.

No - what I meant was that this proposed solution is only possible
because of the (essentially unused) middle road / centre track between
platforms 2 and 3 - if it wasn't there, then the whole plan wouldn't
be feasible.


Actually quite ingenious. I knew that the decking beneath the track
space of platform 1 wasn't in a very healthy state - I guess that
some time in the future that might have to be dealt with properly,
then again maybe it's fine and can continue to be patched up so
long as it doesn't need to take the weight of a train or two.

I think the other problem with the original platform 1 is the
signalling or other hardware that would have to be moved.

My memory is that there track bed space isn't used for anything
critical like that, BICBW.

It's in the ELL article on page 54 of MR. It just says that "bringing
platform 1 back into use is technically difficult".

I thought the potential show stopper w.r.t. reinstating platform 1 was
simply that the decking was in need of some major (and therefore
expensive) structural work to bring it up to scratch.