Does anyone know anything more about the detailed plans for P2 at at Clapham
Jn, to allow for operation of the extended ELL services. A network change
proposal on NR's website includes this:

"This Network Change Notice outlines Network Rail's proposal for works
associated
with remodelling Platform 2 at Clapham Junction to create two separate
platforms
with segregated working."

Does 'separate' and 'segregated' suggest something a bit more than a mid
platform crossover as previously discussed? (The 'Cambridge solution'.)

Paul S

On Mar 18, 11:14*am, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
Does anyone know anything more about the detailed plans for P2 at at Clapham
Jn, to allow for operation of the extended ELL services. A network change
proposal on NR's website includes this:

"This Network Change Notice outlines Network Rail's proposal for works
associated
with remodelling Platform 2 at Clapham Junction to create two separate
platforms
with segregated working."

Does 'separate' and 'segregated' suggest something a bit more than a mid
platform crossover as previously discussed? *(The 'Cambridge solution'.)

Paul S

Clapham Junction to Shepherds Bush is becoming increasingly
popular.The existing platform two now gets fairly crowded at peak
times and when delays occur. Do Network Rail propose to extend the
platform by filling in the void left by the closure of platform one?.
In which case are the existing supporting pillars, supporting the
former trackbed up to the load?. I am surprised that the Cambridge
solution is being considered. I have never encountered extensive two
way interchange at Cambridge but I suspect many more people, in the
absence of through trains from the South London to the West London
lines,will want to change there. Are conflicting pedestrian flows on a
relatively narrow platform a good idea? - Would it not be easier to
run all trains on as e.c.s. to the adjacent former Kensington sidings
which would facilitate train inspection and reversal could act as a
buffer store in the event of service disruption.

"Mwmbwls" wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 11:14 am, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
Does anyone know anything more about the detailed plans for P2 at at
Clapham
Jn, to allow for operation of the extended ELL services. A network change
proposal on NR's website includes this:

"This Network Change Notice outlines Network Rail's proposal for works
associated
with remodelling Platform 2 at Clapham Junction to create two separate
platforms
with segregated working."

Does 'separate' and 'segregated' suggest something a bit more than a mid
platform crossover as previously discussed? (The 'Cambridge solution'.)

Paul S

Clapham Junction to Shepherds Bush is becoming increasingly
popular.The existing platform two now gets fairly crowded at peak
times and when delays occur. Do Network Rail propose to extend the
platform by filling in the void left by the closure of platform one?.
In which case are the existing supporting pillars, supporting the
former trackbed up to the load?. I am surprised that the Cambridge
solution is being considered. I have never encountered extensive two
way interchange at Cambridge but I suspect many more people, in the
absence of through trains from the South London to the West London
lines,will want to change there. Are conflicting pedestrian flows on a
relatively narrow platform a good idea? - Would it not be easier to
run all trains on as e.c.s. to the adjacent former Kensington sidings
which would facilitate train inspection and reversal could act as a
buffer store in the event of service disruption.

Platform 2 becomes 2A and 2B with the middle siding used to access 2B?

On Mar 18, 9:00*pm, Mwmbwls wrote:
On Mar 18, 11:14*am, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

Does anyone know anything more about the detailed plans for P2 at at Clapham
Jn, to allow for operation of the extended ELL services. A network change
proposal on NR's website includes this:

"This Network Change Notice outlines Network Rail's proposal for works
associated
with remodelling Platform 2 at Clapham Junction to create two separate
platforms
with segregated working."

Does 'separate' and 'segregated' suggest something a bit more than a mid
platform crossover as previously discussed? *(The 'Cambridge solution'.)

Paul S

Clapham Junction to Shepherds Bush is becoming increasingly
popular.The existing platform two now gets fairly crowded at peak
times and when delays occur. Do Network Rail propose to extend the
platform by filling in the void left by the closure of platform one?.
In which case are the existing supporting pillars, supporting the
former trackbed up to the load?. I am surprised that the Cambridge
solution is being considered. I have never encountered extensive two
way interchange at Cambridge but I suspect many more people, in the
absence of through trains from the South London to the West London
lines,will want to change there. Are conflicting pedestrian flows on a
relatively narrow platform a good idea? - Would it not be easier to
run all trains on as e.c.s. to the adjacent former Kensington sidings
which would facilitate train inspection and reversal could act as a
buffer store in the event of service disruption.

AIUI, the south end of platform 2 will be extended out to the existing
centre road, so that the existing platform 2 will be halved in length.
This will give two 4-car bay platforms facing the Ludgate lines, with
one for ELL services and one for WLL.

The former platform 1 cannot easily be used owing to concerns about
the strength of the existing supporting pillars, as highlighted by
Mwmbwls.

"Mwmbwls" wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 11:14 am, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
Does anyone know anything more about the detailed plans for P2 at at
Clapham
Jn, to allow for operation of the extended ELL services. A network change
proposal on NR's website includes this:

"This Network Change Notice outlines Network Rail's proposal for works
associated
with remodelling Platform 2 at Clapham Junction to create two separate
platforms
with segregated working."

Does 'separate' and 'segregated' suggest something a bit more than a mid
platform crossover as previously discussed? (The 'Cambridge solution'.)

Clapham Junction to Shepherds Bush is becoming increasingly
popular.The existing platform two now gets fairly crowded at peak
times and when delays occur. Do Network Rail propose to extend the
platform by filling in the void left by the closure of platform one?.
In which case are the existing supporting pillars, supporting the
former trackbed up to the load?. I am surprised that the Cambridge
solution is being considered.

I only mentioned the Cambridge style split platform because it has
previously come up in discussions here - I've never seen anything official.
Which was basically why I was asking if the quote from NR definitely implied
something different.

My own idea in a previous discussion (in uk.t.l IIRC) was to build out the
country end to the centre road as suggested by 'The Gardener' in his reply.
At the very least it would give significantly more circulating space at the
end of the platform where the new lift is.

Paul S

In article ,
Mwmbwls wrote:
On Mar 18, 11:14*am, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

"This Network Change Notice outlines Network Rail's proposal for works
associated
with remodelling Platform 2 at Clapham Junction to create two separate
platforms
with segregated working."

Clapham Junction to Shepherds Bush is becoming increasingly
popular.The existing platform two now gets fairly crowded at peak
times and when delays occur. Do Network Rail propose to extend the
platform by filling in the void left by the closure of platform one?.
In which case are the existing supporting pillars, supporting the
former trackbed up to the load?. I am surprised that the Cambridge
solution is being considered.

Out of interest, why cannot Platform 1 be reinstated ? I've not been
to CJ for some years as you may be able to deduce

Nick
--
Serendipity: http://www.leverton.org/blosxom (last update 29th March 2010)
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

On Mar 18, 11:01*pm, Nick Leverton wrote:

Out of interest, why cannot Platform 1 be reinstated ? *I've not been
to CJ for some years as you may be able to deduce

Rusty. The deck, not the rails. (Which are long gone.)

It's this bit that's the problem - could only find a 'snow day' photo:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/laliparikh/3274981228/

In article ,
Mizter T wrote:

On Mar 18, 11:01*pm, Nick Leverton wrote:

Out of interest, why cannot Platform 1 be reinstated ? *I've not been
to CJ for some years as you may be able to deduce

Rusty. The deck, not the rails. (Which are long gone.)

It's this bit that's the problem - could only find a 'snow day' photo:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/laliparikh/3274981228/

Aha, thanks. Not a view of it that I recall seeing before but it does
look a bit flimsy even in that picture.

Nick
--
Serendipity: http://www.leverton.org/blosxom (last update 29th March 2010)
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

On Mar 19, 1:12*am, Mizter T wrote:
On Mar 18, 11:01*pm, Nick Leverton wrote:


Rusty. The deck, not the rails. (Which are long gone.)

Would not be a problem had it been maintained properly.

In message , Nick Leverton
writes

Aha, thanks. Not a view of it that I recall seeing before but it does
look a bit flimsy even in that picture.

There are pictures at platform level he

http://towerscj.files.wordpress.com/...-platform1.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/markhillary/3556355647/

The second shows a permanent way building on the trackbed. This could be
moved, I guess, but the strength of the viaduct is the main issue.
--
Paul Terry