On Tue, 22 May 2012 14:40:29 +0100
"Peter Masson" wrote:
Not the day after. The platforms would have had to be raised. And I suspect

I don't remember them being low. Were they? Don't see the point if they were,
there was no chance of a UIC guage train ever getting there.

that passengers would have been infuriated at the tortuous route between the
concourse and those platforms.

Not as infuriated as not having a train to get on because there's no free
platform.

B2003

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 May 2012 14:40:29 +0100
"Peter Masson" wrote:
Not the day after. The platforms would have had to be raised. And I
suspect

I don't remember them being low. Were they? Don't see the point if they
were,
there was no chance of a UIC guage train ever getting there.

Yes. E* platforms are lower than National Rail standard (though the NoL E*s
seemed to manage OK with standard height platforms, e.g. on the White Rose
service on the ECML). The International platforms at Stratford have been
temporarily heightened for use by the Javelin service.

Peter

On Tue, 22 May 2012 17:20:36 +0100
"Peter Masson" wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 May 2012 14:40:29 +0100
"Peter Masson" wrote:
Not the day after. The platforms would have had to be raised. And I
suspect

I don't remember them being low. Were they? Don't see the point if they
were,
there was no chance of a UIC guage train ever getting there.

Yes. E* platforms are lower than National Rail standard (though the NoL E*s

Wierd. I wonder what numpty thought that was a good idea.

B2003

On Wed, 23 May 2012 09:36:43 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 17:20:36 +0100
"Peter Masson" wrote:

Yes. E* platforms are lower than National Rail standard

Wierd. I wonder what numpty thought that was a good idea.

What is the height on the continent compared to National Rail?

--
jhk

On May 22, 6:20*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:
wrote in message

... On Tue, 22 May 2012 14:40:29 +0100
"Peter Masson" wrote:
Not the day after. The platforms would have had to be raised. And I
suspect

I don't remember them being low. Were they? Don't see the point if they
were,
there was no chance of a UIC guage train ever getting there.

Yes. E* platforms are lower than National Rail standard (though the NoL E*s
seemed to manage OK with standard height platforms, e.g. on the White Rose
service on the ECML). The International platforms at Stratford have been
temporarily heightened for use by the Javelin service.

While the stations associated with HS1 definitely have UIC platforms
for Eurostar, my memory of Waterloo International is that it had UK
type rather than UIC type platforms. Looking at some photos online,
it certainly gives the impression of having UK type platforms, but I
can't find a definite reference. Anyone have chapter-and-verse on
this?

Robin

"bob" wrote in message
...


While the stations associated with HS1 definitely have UIC platforms
for Eurostar, my memory of Waterloo International is that it had UK
type rather than UIC type platforms. Looking at some photos online,
it certainly gives the impression of having UK type platforms, but I
can't find a definite reference. Anyone have chapter-and-verse on
this?

They aren't quite the same as NR standard.

The 2005 SRA/Arup report on Waterloo International re-use discusses this in
great detail, but unfortunately I cannot find a live link to it. This is
the summary:

"5.5.2 Platform Clearances
Stepping distances for passengers between platform and trains are a critical
safety factor. The platforms are designed and maintained to suit the
Eurostar trains. The main sections of the platforms form part of the station
structure. There were concerns that with this form of construction combined
with platform curvature the different platform clearances and stopping
distances required to meet Network Rail standards with domestic trains may
be difficult to achieve.

"NR provided some limited gauging information for several of the WIT
platforms. Although somewhat out of date it provided an opportunity to
determine the likely extent of any problems. It indicated that the platform
edges did not fully comply with NR standards and that work would be
required. However, the variations in dimensions were quite small. The
platform edges have conventional coping stones which can quite easily be
taken up and reset to meet future requirements. Therefore, platform
clearances do not appear to be a significant issue in conversion of WIT to
domestic use.

"As part of any conversion scheme, a detailed gauging survey will be
required, together with work to realign and reset the platform edge copers
to NR standards."

I believe the copings were adjusted on P20 when it was (theoretically) made
available to SWT a couple of years back..

Paul

On Thu, 24 May 2012 14:56:37 +0100
"Paul Scott" wrote:
structure. There were concerns that with this form of construction combined
with platform curvature the different platform clearances and stopping
distances required to meet Network Rail standards with domestic trains may
be difficult to achieve.

Sounds like the typical british can't-do attitude these days.

Unless the eurostar trains are smaller than normal UK stock which is highly
unlikely then a uk profile train will fit and its just a matter of whether
the step from door to platform is too great which can be discovered by driving
various train types in there and having a look.

B2003

On Thu, 24 May 2012 14:03:06 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Thu, 24 May 2012 14:56:37 +0100
"Paul Scott" wrote:
structure. There were concerns that with this form of construction combined
with platform curvature the different platform clearances and stopping
distances required to meet Network Rail standards with domestic trains may
be difficult to achieve.

Sounds like the typical british can't-do attitude these days.

Unless the eurostar trains are smaller than normal UK stock which is highly
unlikely then a uk profile train will fit and its just a matter of whether
the step from door to platform is too great which can be discovered by driving
various train types in there and having a look.

I didn't think the platforms were the main issue. It's the routes for
both the trains and the people to them that's the problem.

"Recliner" wrote in message
...

I didn't think the platforms were the main issue.

Precisely - but the only point I was making is that the platforms are not
quite to NR standards, which was what 'bob' wanted to know earlier.

Paul