On Jul 11, 7:24*am, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 17:37:00 -0700 (PDT), Andy
wrote:





On Jul 11, 12:46*am, Duncan wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 11:09:59 +0100, "Peter Masson"
wrote:

If the peak congestion is intolerable, the only quick fix I can think of is
to instigate a one-way system to and from platforms 13 - 16. One way via
platform 12 and the other way via the bridge. There would be people for whom
this would be inconvenient. It might also be possible to have the whole of
the bridge within the gated area, with gates removed from the bridge and put
at the foot of the stairs on platforms 1 and 6 - 9.

This was my proposal, pretty much, though that other exit is an issue.
The easier short-term one, as practiced by LM, is just to open the
barriers in the peaks and use them off-peak only, taking the very
slight revenue hit in favour of good customer service and safety
management.

As this also the gateline to the LUL platforms it may be easier said
than done. At Euston the decision by LM to leave the gates open only
affects their services, whereas at Paddington I assume FGW would need
the agreement from TfL.

Well, LM opening the gates does affect London Overground, who run
trains on behalf of TfL

Who in turn are providing an NR service.


But the LO revenue all goes to TfL, so they might wish to have a say
in whether the gates are left open. I was answering the statement that
at Euston only LM are affected.