Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
 

"Peter Masson"

So when was 4B added?


According to "Reading to Guildford" by Mitchell & Smith:

- Platform 4a was brought into use on 6th September 1965 (when obviously the
4 platform Reading Southern was taken out of use), with the view that the
one platform would suit all services from the SR, with diesel services
having the ability to use main line platforms via the spur, or occasionally
one of the northern platforms using the 'drive-under'.

- Platform 4b was added (by making the then current platform 4a into an
island) and brought into use on 4th May 1975, which came about when issues
relating to both the Waterloo EMUs and Tonbridge DEMUs into the same
platform simultaneously (as was intended) negated the need for extra
platforms.

Presumably once 4b was added, there was much less need for the drive-under,
and probably contributed to it's downfall - it was taken out of use on 30th
April 1979.

You can still clearly see that 4b was a add-on to 4a in the fact that there
is a line running up the middle and certain features in the construction
running across the platforms don't match up. Also there is the fact that
there is a single section of track as it passes over the Vastern Road
bridge. This would suggest that the bridge was rebuilt between the '65 and
'75. I don't know when it was rebuilt, but if it was closer to 1975 it's a
shame the building of 4b couldn't be accelerated (or forethought of the
need), which would have resulted in a wider bridge - cutting out a major
constraint for that part of the station.

Interestingly in August 1987 they say that platform 4a was de-energised, in
order for work to take place on foundations for the footbridge for the new
station. And at the time it was customary for North Downs services to use
platform 4b and 4a was therefore generally used for Waterloo services (which
was obviously reversed during the time of the work).

Cheers
Clive

Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
 

In message
"Clivester" wrote:

"Peter Masson"

So when was 4B added?


According to "Reading to Guildford" by Mitchell & Smith:

[snip]

- Platform 4b was added (by making the then current platform 4a into an
island) and brought into use on 4th May 1975, which came about when issues
relating to both the Waterloo EMUs and Tonbridge DEMUs into the same
platform simultaneously (as was intended) negated the need for extra
platforms.

[snip]

My memory is definitely going, I have no recollection of 4b not being there
before 75. On the other hand I would always have been looking at the main
line as we arrived from Bracknell so obviously just ignored the south side.


--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
 

On Sun, 1 Jan 2006, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

In article , (Tom Anderson) wrote:

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

In article ,
(John Rowland) wrote:

I still think that the best solution would be a Crossrail branch
from Wormwood Scrubs to Richmond, taking over most of the Windsor
Lines services out from there. There is room for four tracks on the
ground for most if not all of this part of the NLL. The Richmond to
Clapham Junction line could then easily handle the remaining local
services.

How does that meet the considerable Putney traffic needs?

That's the Richmond to Clapham Junction bit, i think.

AIUI, John suggests building a crossrail spur from Old Oak Common
(Wormwood Scrubs, as he puts it) to Richmond, along the route of the
NLL, then transferring the far end of the Windsor line (everything
beyond Richmond) to that, leaving a stub of the Windsor line running
Richmond - Putney - Clapham Junction - Waterloo. If anything, this
would serve Putney better, by relieving the Windsor line services.

It would hardly justify 10 trains an hour as now, though.

Perhaps not - but if that was the case, then that would be because
Putney's traffic needs were not quite as considerable as you might have
thought.

Yes, this would be a loss for Putneyites, but i have a hard time seeing
scaling back of overprovision as a Bad Thing.

Putney's service level has increased to 10 trains an hour since I ceased
living there because of the large numbers commuting into Putney. I don't
know where they travel from but the railway planners clearly think there
are enough to justify the numbers of trains.

Well, in that case, the level of demand at Putney is evidently enough to
justify 10 tph, and so John's proposal wouldn't lead the reduction you
fear!

tom

--
People don't want nice. People want London. -- Al

Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
 

In article , (Tom Anderson) wrote:

On Sun, 1 Jan 2006, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

In article ,
(John Rowland) wrote:

I still think that the best solution would be a Crossrail
branch from Wormwood Scrubs to Richmond, taking over most of
the Windsor Lines services out from there. There is room for
four tracks on the ground for most if not all of this part of
the NLL. The Richmond to Clapham Junction line could then
easily handle the remaining local services.

How does that meet the considerable Putney traffic needs?

That's the Richmond to Clapham Junction bit, i think.

AIUI, John suggests building a crossrail spur from Old Oak
Common (Wormwood Scrubs, as he puts it) to Richmond, along the
route of the NLL, then transferring the far end of the Windsor
line (everything beyond Richmond) to that, leaving a stub of the
Windsor line running Richmond - Putney - Clapham Junction -
Waterloo. If anything, this would serve Putney better, by
relieving the Windsor line services.

It would hardly justify 10 trains an hour as now, though.

Perhaps not - but if that was the case, then that would be because
Putney's traffic needs were not quite as considerable as you might
have thought.

Yes, this would be a loss for Putneyites, but i have a hard time
seeing scaling back of overprovision as a Bad Thing.

Putney's service level has increased to 10 trains an hour since I
ceased living there because of the large numbers commuting into
Putney. I don't know where they travel from but the railway
planners clearly think there are enough to justify the numbers of
trains.

Well, in that case, the level of demand at Putney is evidently enough
to justify 10 tph, and so John's proposal wouldn't lead the reduction
you fear!

Except that John's proposal wouldn't leave room for them West of Richmond!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
 

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jan 2006, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(John Rowland) wrote:

I still think that the best solution would be a Crossrail
branch from Wormwood Scrubs to Richmond, taking over most of
the Windsor Lines services out from there. There is room for
four tracks on the ground for most if not all of this part of
the NLL. The Richmond to Clapham Junction line could then
easily handle the remaining local services.

How does that meet the considerable Putney traffic needs?

That's the Richmond to Clapham Junction bit, i think.

AIUI, John suggests building a crossrail spur from Old Oak
Common (Wormwood Scrubs, as he puts it) to Richmond, along the
route of the NLL, then transferring the far end of the Windsor
line (everything beyond Richmond) to that, leaving a stub of the
Windsor line running Richmond - Putney - Clapham Junction -
Waterloo. If anything, this would serve Putney better, by
relieving the Windsor line services.

It would hardly justify 10 trains an hour as now, though.

Perhaps not - but if that was the case, then that would be because
Putney's traffic needs were not quite as considerable as you might
have thought.

Yes, this would be a loss for Putneyites, but i have a hard time
seeing scaling back of overprovision as a Bad Thing.

Putney's service level has increased to 10 trains an hour since I
ceased living there because of the large numbers commuting into
Putney. I don't know where they travel from but the railway
planners clearly think there are enough to justify the numbers of
trains.

Well, in that case, the level of demand at Putney is evidently enough
to justify 10 tph, and so John's proposal wouldn't lead the reduction
you fear!

Thanks to Tom for typing most of what I was thinking!

Except that John's proposal wouldn't leave room for them West of Richmond!

I am sure that in the long run, points west of Richmond would be better off
with direct trains to Paddington, Bond Street, TCR, Farringdon, Liverpool
Street and Canary Wharf than they would be with direct trains to Waterloo.
The loss of direct trains to Putney is unlikely to inspire widespread
wristslashing in the streets of Staines.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
 

In article , (John Rowland) wrote:

Except that John's proposal wouldn't leave room for them West of
Richmond!

I am sure that in the long run, points west of Richmond would be
better off with direct trains to Paddington, Bond Street, TCR,
Farringdon, Liverpool Street and Canary Wharf than they would be with
direct trains to Waterloo. The loss of direct trains to Putney is
unlikely to inspire widespread wristslashing in the streets of Staines.

What about people from West of Richmond who work in Putney? Why would they want to go to Paddington, Bond Street, TCR, Farringdon, Liverpool Street and Canary Wharf, pray? Where does the demand for 10 trains an hour come from then?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
 

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(John Rowland) wrote:

Except that John's proposal wouldn't leave room for them West of
Richmond!

I am sure that in the long run, points west of Richmond would be
better off with direct trains to Paddington, Bond Street, TCR,
Farringdon, Liverpool Street and Canary Wharf than they would be
with
direct trains to Waterloo. The loss of direct trains to Putney is
unlikely to inspire widespread wristslashing in the streets of
Staines.

What about people from West of Richmond who work in Putney? Why
would they want to go to Paddington, Bond Street, TCR, Farringdon,
Liverpool Street and Canary Wharf, pray? Where does the demand for
10 trains an hour come from then?

Those who don't think that Putney is the centre of the universe.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
 

In article , (Richard J.) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(John Rowland) wrote:

Except that John's proposal wouldn't leave room for them West of
Richmond!

I am sure that in the long run, points west of Richmond would be
better off with direct trains to Paddington, Bond Street, TCR,
Farringdon, Liverpool Street and Canary Wharf than they would be
with direct trains to Waterloo. The loss of direct trains to Putney
is unlikely to inspire widespread wristslashing in the streets of
Staines.

What about people from West of Richmond who work in Putney? Why
would they want to go to Paddington, Bond Street, TCR, Farringdon,
Liverpool Street and Canary Wharf, pray? Where does the demand for
10 trains an hour come from then?

Those who don't think that Putney is the centre of the universe.

Someone must or they wouldn't have increased the stopping services there
to 10 an hour (since I moved out).

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
 

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(John Rowland) wrote:

Except that John's proposal wouldn't leave room for them West of
Richmond!

I am sure that in the long run, points west of Richmond would be
better off with direct trains to Paddington, Bond Street, TCR,
Farringdon, Liverpool Street and Canary Wharf than they would be
with direct trains to Waterloo. The loss of direct trains to
Putney is unlikely to inspire widespread wristslashing in the
streets of Staines.

What about people from West of Richmond who work in Putney? Why
would they want to go to Paddington, Bond Street, TCR, Farringdon,
Liverpool Street and Canary Wharf, pray? Where does the demand for
10 trains an hour come from then?

Those who don't think that Putney is the centre of the universe.

Someone must or they wouldn't have increased the stopping services
there to 10 an hour (since I moved out).

Only 2 of those could be considered as a special favour to Putney,
namely the limited-stop services from Windsor. The other 8 stop at all
stations on their routes in Greater London.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
 

In article , (Richard J.) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(John Rowland) wrote:

Except that John's proposal wouldn't leave room for them West of
Richmond!

I am sure that in the long run, points west of Richmond would be
better off with direct trains to Paddington, Bond Street, TCR,
Farringdon, Liverpool Street and Canary Wharf than they would be
with direct trains to Waterloo. The loss of direct trains to
Putney is unlikely to inspire widespread wristslashing in the
streets of Staines.

What about people from West of Richmond who work in Putney? Why
would they want to go to Paddington, Bond Street, TCR, Farringdon,
Liverpool Street and Canary Wharf, pray? Where does the demand for
10 trains an hour come from then?

Those who don't think that Putney is the centre of the universe.

Someone must or they wouldn't have increased the stopping services
there to 10 an hour (since I moved out).

Only 2 of those could be considered as a special favour to Putney,
namely the limited-stop services from Windsor. The other 8 stop at all
stations on their routes in Greater London.

There weren't always 8.

--
Colin Rosenstiel