On Jan 23, 1:03*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

"Tom Anderson" wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Mizter T wrote:

(1) London Bridge won't have space to accommodate [the SLL service] as
it'll have fewer terminating platforms as a result of the station's
redevelopment for the Thameslink Programme and won't have the capacity to
accommodate the SLL service - AIUI much of this redevelopment will happen
in tandem with the construction of the Shard skyscraper, because the
developers have to cough up x amount of money to contribute towards the
redevelopment of LB station. (My understanding is that the space
currently occupied by platforms 14-16 will become part of the Shard
development around the base of the tower.)

Huh. Is there somewhere i can read more about this? Will more platforms be
added to replace them? How?

The before and after drawings *(part of the Thameslink [1] enquiry) *for
London Bridge station don't show any significant reduction in the current
lengths of 14 -16. *If anything, it is the other remaining *terminating
platforms (equivalent to 11 - 13) that will be shortened to roughly where
the current footbridge is.

However the eventual 6 terminating platforms (10 - 15 when renumbered), will
be 3 twin track bays - the most southern platform will be against the
building wall, in other words, not facing the wall as now.

Separately, there seem to be proposals that all 6 terminating platforms
should be made 12 car capable - that isn't currently the plan, it looks like
the new P10 is relatively short because of the shape of the throat.

[1] I haven't a current link to them unfortunately...

Thanks Paul, sorry for spreading any misinformation about the fate of
the current platforms 14-16, I'd obviously got a wrong idea about the
eventual layout at LB.

Simple question - is the Shard development inherently responsible for
killing off any of the terminating platforms, or is all it might do to
make the remaining terminating platforms to be located a bit further
away from the current concourse i.e. push the buffer stops a little
way further towards the 'country end' of the station?

(For some reason I'd had this vague idea that the Shard was actually
going to be responsible for eating some of the platforms, but I think
I see now that I got that wrong - instead the most it'll do is shift
them further out a little bit, but all that's really happening is that
space in the station is simply being reallocated from the terminating
platforms over to expanding the number through platforms - right? If
so, the Shard itself isn't to blame for the SLL service being kicked
out of LB due to lack of space to accommodate it - as I'm sure I've
heard being suggested - but it's just the whole redevelopment of LB
for Thameslink that's behind it.)

"Mizter T" wrote

Simple question - is the Shard development inherently responsible for
killing off any of the terminating platforms, or is all it might do to
make the remaining terminating platforms to be located a bit further
away from the current concourse i.e. push the buffer stops a little
way further towards the 'country end' of the station?

(For some reason I'd had this vague idea that the Shard was actually
going to be responsible for eating some of the platforms, but I think
I see now that I got that wrong - instead the most it'll do is shift
them further out a little bit, but all that's really happening is that
space in the station is simply being reallocated from the terminating
platforms over to expanding the number through platforms - right? If
so, the Shard itself isn't to blame for the SLL service being kicked
out of LB due to lack of space to accommodate it - as I'm sure I've
heard being suggested - but it's just the whole redevelopment of LB
for Thameslink that's behind it.)

London Bridge has 15 platforms now, and will have 15 platforms when all is
finished. But the Thameslink platforms will be more or less where the
Charing Cross platforms are now, and the Charing Cross platforms will be
more or less on the site of the old South Eastern low level station,
extending a little way into the Brighton train shed. AIUI the Shard wo't ake
any operational space from the station.

Peter

On Jan 23, 2:22*pm, Mizter T wrote:
On Jan 23, 10:50*am, Andy wrote:





On Jan 23, 10:15*am, MIG wrote:

On 23 Jan, 01:05, Andy wrote:
[snip]
The Victoria - Dartford services actually run through Clapham High
Street platforms much of the time anyway; most switch to / from the
Chatham Reversible at Voltaire Road Junction, although in the past
many have gone via the low level lines. Since the loss of the Eurostar
services, the trains via Stewarts Lane have been reduced to a few Up
peak services.

I think that's pretty much all there ever was, even when Eurostar was
there. *The only time I ever saw the down Stewarts Lane being used was
during engineering works on the viaduct.

The past goes back to the early - mid 1990s, when there were Down
trains sent that way as well as Up. I don't know the last year that
scheduled services used the Down route.

See my reply to MIG - a couple of trains were I believe scheduled to
do this until recently, but apparently hardly ever actually did do so
in reality.


They were much more reliable when the conflicting trains were
Eurostars (the 19.13 and 19.43 from Waterloo), but once the Eurostars
disappeared in November 2007, there was less need. Most of the reports
on gensheet were after Eurostar finished.


It's true that down services have tended to cross backwards and
forwards, going through CHS platforms, then crossing back again before
Peckham Rye.

Pretty much all the services heading for Nunhead and beyond from
Victoria go via the Atlantic lines, although the Chatham lines (the
northern pair) seem to be busier in recent years.

At weekends the diverted Sevenoaks trains (via Nunhead) that would
otherwise be Blackfriars/ Thameslink services go to and from Victoria
- these seem to use the Chatham lines as opposed to the Atlantic
lines.

See the LDB for Denmark Hill, in particular the platforming -
platforms 1&2 serve the Atlantic lines (the southernmost pair),
platforms 3&4 serve the Chatham lines (the northernmost):
http://realtime.nationalrail.co.uk/ldb/station.aspx?T=DMK

At the moment (i.e. as it's a weekend) the Dartford trains and the SLL
are on the Atlantic lines, the Sevenoaks trains are on the Chatham
lines. I've been there a few times recently-ish when there's been some
appallingly late platform changes, but off the top of my head I can't
remember what the particular scenarios were (I do remember helping
people up and down staircases with bags, and also once blocking the
doorway of a train as the driver shouted at me, the intention being to
hold it to allow an elderly-ish couple to get down the stairs and
board.)

PSUL (http://www.avoe05.dsl.pipex.com/2010.htm) is a better guide as
to what is supposed to happen

Sevenoaks services now seem to be booked that way all days of the
week, although only in the evenings on weekdays (as you say diverted
from Blackfriars) and with more Down trains than Up. Sundays seem to
be the busiest, but will be engineering work dependant.

On Jan 23, 2:32*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"MIG" wrote



Also, I think it may be earlier than that. *I was an immigrant to
south London in about 1989, and I don't remember seeing the down
Stewarts Lane used in the early 1990s. *Could just always be there at
the wrong time I suppose ...

My assumption was that Stewarts Lane only really started being used
much after Eurostar started sharing the tracks, the up track adding a
fourth track to the viaduct. *Definitely one for Peter Masson.

Until the Victoria resignalling in the 1980s the high level route to
Victoria consisted of two up lines (from Shepherds Lane) and one down line,
with a 4-track approach only from Battersea Pier Junction. The Stewarts Lane
route was never used by passenger trains, unless there was an engineering
blockade or other problem on the high level route. I think people are right
in suggesting that use of the up Stewarts Lane route only began when
Eurostar started, and that use of the down Stewarts Lane route was very
rare - the only time I've used it was when there was a Victoria - Redhill -
Tonbridge service run by South Eastern, which ran from Chatham side,
crossing to the Battersea eversible at Stewarts Lane, and joining the
Brighton Main line at Pouparts Junction. With the Victoria resignalling what
had been the Up Slow on the high level viaduct became a reversible line, and
during the Eurostar era was mainly used as a Down Slow (the up slow being
the Stewarts Lane route).


PSUL has an archive file, from 1992, showing Up (and a few Down on
Sundays) services running via Stewarts Lane. This was, of course,
several years before Eurostar started.

On 23 Jan, 14:59, Andy wrote:

On Jan 23, 2:22*pm, Mizter T wrote:

On Jan 23, 10:50*am, Andy wrote:
[snip]
The past goes back to the early - mid 1990s, when there were Down
trains sent that way as well as Up. I don't know the last year that
scheduled services used the Down route.

See my reply to MIG - a couple of trains were I believe scheduled to
do this until recently, but apparently hardly ever actually did do so
in reality.

They were much more reliable when the conflicting trains were
Eurostars (the 19.13 and 19.43 from Waterloo), but once the Eurostars
disappeared in November 2007, there was less need. Most of the reports
on gensheet were after Eurostar finished.

I don't understand that - if the (theoretical) need for them to use
the Down Stewarts Lane line was conflicting Eurostars, why were there
more reports of trains actually it after Nov '07 when the Eurostars
weren't around any more?


It's true that down services have tended to cross backwards and
forwards, going through CHS platforms, then crossing back again before
Peckham Rye.

Pretty much all the services heading for Nunhead and beyond from
Victoria go via the Atlantic lines, although the Chatham lines (the
northern pair) seem to be busier in recent years.

At weekends the diverted Sevenoaks trains (via Nunhead) that would
otherwise be Blackfriars/ Thameslink services go to and from Victoria
- these seem to use the Chatham lines as opposed to the Atlantic
lines.

See the LDB for Denmark Hill, in particular the platforming -
platforms 1&2 serve the Atlantic lines (the southernmost pair),
platforms 3&4 serve the Chatham lines (the northernmost):
http://realtime.nationalrail.co.uk/ldb/station.aspx?T=DMK

At the moment (i.e. as it's a weekend) the Dartford trains and the SLL
are on the Atlantic lines, the Sevenoaks trains are on the Chatham
lines. I've been there a few times recently-ish when there's been some
appallingly late platform changes, but off the top of my head I can't
remember what the particular scenarios were (I do remember helping
people up and down staircases with bags, and also once blocking the
doorway of a train as the driver shouted at me, the intention being to
hold it to allow an elderly-ish couple to get down the stairs and
board.)

PSUL (http://www.avoe05.dsl.pipex.com/2010.htm) is a better guide as
to what is supposed to happen

Sevenoaks services now seem to be booked that way all days of the
week, although only in the evenings on weekdays (as you say diverted
from Blackfriars) and with more Down trains than Up. Sundays seem to
be the busiest, but will be engineering work dependant.

Yes, to be honest I was only really thinking about the stopping
services!

On 23 Jan, 14:51, "Peter Masson" wrote:

"Mizter T" wrote

Simple question - is the Shard development inherently responsible for
killing off any of the terminating platforms, or is all it might do to
make the remaining terminating platforms to be located a bit further
away from the current concourse i.e. push the buffer stops a little
way further towards the 'country end' of the station?

(For some reason I'd had this vague idea that the Shard was actually
going to be responsible for eating some of the platforms, but I think
I see now that I got that wrong - instead the most it'll do is shift
them further out a little bit, but all that's really happening is that
space in the station is simply being reallocated from the terminating
platforms over to expanding the number through platforms - right? If
so, the Shard itself isn't to blame for the SLL service being kicked
out of LB due to lack of space to accommodate it - as I'm sure I've
heard being suggested - but it's just the whole redevelopment of LB
for Thameslink that's behind it.)

London Bridge has 15 platforms now, and will have 15 platforms when all is
finished. But the Thameslink platforms will be more or less where the
Charing Cross platforms are now, and the Charing Cross platforms will be
more or less on the site of the old South Eastern low level station,
extending a little way into the Brighton train shed. AIUI the Shard wo't ake
any operational space from the station.

Thanks Peter (though I dunno why I didn't just count the total number
of platforms that you said the redeveloped station will have in
earlier posts - d'oh!). Anyhow that firmly puts to bed a
misapprehension that I'd somehow picked up from somewhere.

On Jan 23, 4:01*pm, Mizter T wrote:
On 23 Jan, 14:59, Andy wrote:





On Jan 23, 2:22*pm, Mizter T wrote:

On Jan 23, 10:50*am, Andy wrote:
[snip]
The past goes back to the early - mid 1990s, when there were Down
trains sent that way as well as Up. I don't know the last year that
scheduled services used the Down route.

See my reply to MIG - a couple of trains were I believe scheduled to
do this until recently, but apparently hardly ever actually did do so
in reality.

They were much more reliable when the conflicting trains were
Eurostars (the 19.13 and 19.43 from Waterloo), but once the Eurostars
disappeared in November 2007, there was less need. Most of the reports
on gensheet were after Eurostar finished.

I don't understand that - if the (theoretical) need for them to use
the Down Stewarts Lane line was conflicting Eurostars, why were there
more reports of trains actually it after Nov '07 when the Eurostars
weren't around any more?


PSUL also listed conflicts with the 19.18 and 19.48 Victoria - Ashford
International services which continued after Eurostar ended. Of course
these South Eastern trains would cause much less of a conflict, being
considerably shorter, but there would still be the potential depending
on which platforms and tracks were used by the relevant services.

On 23 Jan, 16:11, Andy wrote:
On Jan 23, 4:01*pm, Mizter T wrote:





On 23 Jan, 14:59, Andy wrote:

On Jan 23, 2:22*pm, Mizter T wrote:

On Jan 23, 10:50*am, Andy wrote:
[snip]
The past goes back to the early - mid 1990s, when there were Down
trains sent that way as well as Up. I don't know the last year that
scheduled services used the Down route.

See my reply to MIG - a couple of trains were I believe scheduled to
do this until recently, but apparently hardly ever actually did do so
in reality.

They were much more reliable when the conflicting trains were
Eurostars (the 19.13 and 19.43 from Waterloo), but once the Eurostars
disappeared in November 2007, there was less need. Most of the reports
on gensheet were after Eurostar finished.

I don't understand that - if the (theoretical) need for them to use
the Down Stewarts Lane line was conflicting Eurostars, why were there
more reports of trains actually it after Nov '07 when the Eurostars
weren't around any more?

PSUL also listed conflicts with the 19.18 and 19.48 Victoria - Ashford
International services which continued after Eurostar ended. Of course
these South Eastern trains would cause much less of a conflict, being
considerably shorter, but there would still be the potential depending
on which platforms and tracks were used by the relevant services.-

1916 and 1946 tended to use 7 or 8 as I recall, and the Ashfords
something to the lower numbers, like 3.

On Jan 22, 8:25*pm, Mizter T wrote:
[snip]
[...] The reasons for the SLL service being dropped are twofold:

(1) London Bridge won't have space to accommodate it as it'll have
fewer terminating platforms as a result of the station's redevelopment
for the Thameslink Programme and won't have the capacity to
accommodate the SLL service - AIUI much of this redevelopment will
happen in tandem with the construction of the Shard skyscraper,
because the developers have to cough up x amount of money to
contribute towards the redevelopment of LB station. (My understanding
is that the space currently occupied by platforms 14-16 will become
part of the Shard development around the base of the tower.)

I should just clarify something here. I had been operating under a
sort of vague and muddled misapprehension that the Shard development
might actually end up permanently 'stealing' some platforms from LB -
this is not the case, as has since been made clear to me (by Peter
Masson downthread) - the old LB has 15 platforms, the new LB will also
have 15 platforms, there will simply be a shift to there being more
through platforms (though given the construction undertaking that
requires, saying 'simply' is a bit of an understatement there!).

(I think I'd somehow picked up on this notion of the Shard gobbling up
platform space by reading a blog comment on the London Connections
blog while back, which is not necessarily a great venue for reliable
information - the comment that is, not Mr Thant's great, late and
lamented blog itself!)

On Jan 23, 4:11*pm, Andy wrote:

On Jan 23, 4:01*pm, Mizter T wrote:

On 23 Jan, 14:59, Andy wrote:

On Jan 23, 2:22*pm, Mizter T wrote:

On Jan 23, 10:50*am, Andy wrote:
[snip]
The past goes back to the early - mid 1990s, when there were Down
trains sent that way as well as Up. I don't know the last year that
scheduled services used the Down route.

See my reply to MIG - a couple of trains were I believe scheduled to
do this until recently, but apparently hardly ever actually did do so
in reality.

They were much more reliable when the conflicting trains were
Eurostars (the 19.13 and 19.43 from Waterloo), but once the Eurostars
disappeared in November 2007, there was less need. Most of the reports
on gensheet were after Eurostar finished.

I don't understand that - if the (theoretical) need for them to use
the Down Stewarts Lane line was conflicting Eurostars, why were there
more reports of trains actually it after Nov '07 when the Eurostars
weren't around any more?

PSUL also listed conflicts with the 19.18 and 19.48 Victoria - Ashford
International services which continued after Eurostar ended. Of course
these South Eastern trains would cause much less of a conflict, being
considerably shorter, but there would still be the potential depending
on which platforms and tracks were used by the relevant services.

OK, thanks, understood.