In message
Paul Terry wrote:

In message .com, Bob
writes

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ts/page/dft_ra
ilways_610690.pdf

Well spotted!

any views?

I agree with Peter that the T5-only terminal could be a weakness - given
the Airtrack journey time from Waterloo, it wouldn't compete effectively
with even the Piccadilly for the other terminals. But I suspect that T5
will eventually take a big slice of Heathrow's traffic once open.

Given that T5 will be exclusively BA AIUI, is this not a case of unfair
competition? Someone give Branson a ring...

[snip]

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

In message
"Paul Scott" wrote:


"Terry Harper" wrote in message
...

Why do that? The current use of 4a/b allows tight connections into
trains of platform 4. Very useful from the Gatwick trains when wanting
one going west, as most people will do.

Terry Harper

Veering OT, but does anyone know why these platforms are numbered 4a and
4b? This type of designation is usually used where a single platform face
is arranged for use by more than one train, isn't it?


Simple, they were built and added into the numbering system long after the
rest of station when Reading Southern was closed. They could just call them
A and B I suppose.

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

In message
"Peter Masson" wrote:

[snip]

To be pedantic, only platform 4A was added in 1965, and used for Waterloo
trains. 'North Downs' trains (then Tadpoles, with some 33+3 loco hauled)
ran into the main part of Reading General, often using platform 6. Platform
4B was added some years later, converting what had been 4A into an island.


I'm pretty certain it was in existance by 1969 which is when I started using
Reading regularly for travelling between Evesham and Wokingham

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

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
In message
"Peter Masson" wrote:

[snip]

To be pedantic, only platform 4A was added in 1965, and used for
Waterloo
trains. 'North Downs' trains (then Tadpoles, with some 33+3 loco hauled)
ran into the main part of Reading General, often using platform 6.
Platform
4B was added some years later, converting what had been 4A into an
island.


I'm pretty certain it was in existance by 1969 which is when I started
using
Reading regularly for travelling between Evesham and Wokingham

I've checked a 1967 WTT, in which EMUs are all shown as using platform 4A.
Off-peak, when the EMUs were 4-car, DMUs off the Tonbridge line sometimes
joined them in 4A, otherwise they went up the spur and used one of the
platforms (often No. 6 Bay) in the main part of the station.

So when was 4B added?

Peter

In message , at
10:42:00 on Fri, 30 Dec 2005, Colin Rosenstiel
remarked:

The railway doesn't have a problem. Road users who find the
crossings almost always closed have a problem.

Sometimes open is better than closed entirely. If this is the only
issue, I do wonder why some people (yourself included) are
advocating closure.

Because money is being leeched away from the railway in the road
interest.

I wouldn't describe "keeping level crossings open" as leeching money
away from the railway. In any event, there is no longer any pretence
that the railway is a public service. It is a set of private
companies operating for profit. No-one forced any of the ToCs to bid.
They understand the nature of the business, and must take the rough
with the smooth.

Er, level crossings is infrastructure, responsibility of Network Rail.
That's a not for profit company that struggles to avoid being defined
as the public sector, using increasingly implausible smoke and mirrors.
You wait till they can't pay back their debts.

And where do they get their income? The ToCs.

Anyway the problem isn't keeping level crossings open. It's keeping
them closed long enough to allow modern traffic levels to pass without
long delays. That's a highway problem.

I think you have confused "open" as in "still operational" with "open"
as in "gates across the railway line" and "open" as in "gates cross the
road".

Even to the extent that railway problems cannot be resolved, like
restoring the full footbridge at North Sheen.

What's happening at North Sheen?

They only have half a footbridge. It's an island platform with a level
crossing adjacent but passengers from one side have to cross the line
by the level crossing to reach the footbridge to access the platforms.
The MP has been complaining there is no money to restore the other half
of the footbridge.

And that's a *highways* problem??
--
Roland Perry

In article , (Roland Perry) wrote:

In message ,
at 10:42:00 on Fri, 30 Dec 2005, Colin Rosenstiel
remarked:

The railway doesn't have a problem. Road users who find the
crossings almost always closed have a problem.

Sometimes open is better than closed entirely. If this is the
only issue, I do wonder why some people (yourself included) are
advocating closure.

Because money is being leeched away from the railway in the road
interest.

I wouldn't describe "keeping level crossings open" as leeching
money away from the railway. In any event, there is no longer any
pretence that the railway is a public service. It is a set of private
companies operating for profit. No-one forced any of the ToCs to
bid. They understand the nature of the business, and must take the
rough with the smooth.

Er, level crossings is infrastructure, responsibility of Network
Rail. That's a not for profit company that struggles to avoid being
defined as the public sector, using increasingly implausible smoke
and mirrors. You wait till they can't pay back their debts.

And where do they get their income? The ToCs.

A somewhat inexact statement, if I may say so.

Anyway the problem isn't keeping level crossings open. It's keeping
them closed long enough to allow modern traffic levels to pass
without long delays. That's a highway problem.

I think you have confused "open" as in "still operational" with
"open" as in "gates across the railway line" and "open" as in "gates
cross the road".

And my wording wasn't deliberate, do you imagine? :-)

Even to the extent that railway problems cannot be resolved, like
restoring the full footbridge at North Sheen.

What's happening at North Sheen?

They only have half a footbridge. It's an island platform with a
level crossing adjacent but passengers from one side have to cross
the line by the level crossing to reach the footbridge to access the
platforms. The MP has been complaining there is no money to restore
the other half of the footbridge.

And that's a *highways* problem??

Only because so much money is being spent on highways and not the railway.

How much does it cost Network Rail and the TOCs involved every time yet another lorry hits the underbridge at Ely? It's the third most struck bridge in the country. Many of the lorries are local and in too much of a hurry to wait to use the adjacent level crossing (apart from the one that smashed through the gates instead - that was Turners' too).

Then there is the chaos to One's services after yet another illegal vehicle on a level crossing was hit by one of their precious DMUs one Sunday. A whole diagram had to be cancelled on Monday, with delights such as a four hour gap in the East Suffolk service

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message
"Peter Masson" wrote:


"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
In message
"Peter Masson" wrote:

[snip]

To be pedantic, only platform 4A was added in 1965, and used for
Waterloo trains. 'North Downs' trains (then Tadpoles, with some 33+3
loco hauled) ran into the main part of Reading General, often using
platform 6. Platform 4B was added some years later, converting what had
been 4A into an island.


I'm pretty certain it was in existance by 1969 which is when I started
using Reading regularly for travelling between Evesham and Wokingham

I've checked a 1967 WTT, in which EMUs are all shown as using platform 4A.
Off-peak, when the EMUs were 4-car, DMUs off the Tonbridge line sometimes
joined them in 4A, otherwise they went up the spur and used one of the
platforms (often No. 6 Bay) in the main part of the station.

So when was 4B added?


Looks like around 1968. I'm basing it on the fact that I don't remember it
being built and I was using Reading from 1969 until 1977 on a regular basis.
For the first 6 years of that I was arriving from the Wokingham direction so
was actually using those platforms.

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

In message , at
13:54:00 on Fri, 30 Dec 2005, Colin Rosenstiel
remarked:

The railway doesn't have a problem. Road users who find the
crossings almost always closed have a problem.

Sometimes open is better than closed entirely. If this is the
only issue, I do wonder why some people (yourself included) are
advocating closure.

Because money is being leeched away from the railway in the road
interest.

I wouldn't describe "keeping level crossings open" as leeching
money away from the railway. In any event, there is no longer any
pretence that the railway is a public service. It is a set of private
companies operating for profit. No-one forced any of the ToCs to
bid. They understand the nature of the business, and must take the
rough with the smooth.

Er, level crossings is infrastructure, responsibility of Network
Rail. That's a not for profit company that struggles to avoid being
defined as the public sector, using increasingly implausible smoke
and mirrors. You wait till they can't pay back their debts.

And where do they get their income? The ToCs.

A somewhat inexact statement, if I may say so.

It's the direct source. Indirectly it's passengers and Government
subsidy, of course.

What's happening at North Sheen?

They only have half a footbridge. It's an island platform with a
level crossing adjacent but passengers from one side have to cross
the line by the level crossing to reach the footbridge to access the
platforms. The MP has been complaining there is no money to restore
the other half of the footbridge.

And that's a *highways* problem??

Only because so much money is being spent on highways and not the railway.

People who use highways pay through the nose for the pleasure. While I
don't advocate that all taxation of road transport is spent on the
roads, we should at least acknowledge that only a small fraction of it
is. Some of the rest of that money is going to the railways by way of
subsidy, as the passengers don't pay enough for them to break even.

How much does it cost Network Rail and the TOCs involved every time yet
another lorry hits the underbridge at Ely? It's the third most struck
bridge in the country. Many of the lorries are local and in too much of
a hurry to wait to use the adjacent level crossing (apart from the one
that smashed through the gates instead - that was Turners' too).

I have no idea why the vehicles owners (or their insurance companies)
aren't charged for such escapades.

Then there is the chaos to One's services after yet another illegal
vehicle on a level crossing was hit by one of their precious DMUs one
Sunday. A whole diagram had to be cancelled on Monday, with delights
such as a four hour gap in the East Suffolk service

Ditto.
--
Roland Perry

In article , (Roland Perry) wrote:

In message ,
at 13:54:00 on Fri, 30 Dec 2005, Colin Rosenstiel
remarked:

How much does it cost Network Rail and the TOCs involved every time
yet another lorry hits the underbridge at Ely? It's the third most
struck bridge in the country. Many of the lorries are local and in
too much of a hurry to wait to use the adjacent level crossing
(apart from the one that smashed through the gates instead - that
was Turners' too).

I have no idea why the vehicles owners (or their insurance companies)
aren't charged for such escapades.

They were, in the case of the broken barrier. Driving without due care, IIRC. A small fine.

Then there is the chaos to One's services after yet another illegal
vehicle on a level crossing was hit by one of their precious DMUs
one Sunday. A whole diagram had to be cancelled on Monday, with
delights such as a four hour gap in the East Suffolk service

Ditto.

Darwin applies here.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at
15:50:00 on Fri, 30 Dec 2005, Colin Rosenstiel
remarked:
In article ,
(Roland Perry) wrote:

In message ,
at 13:54:00 on Fri, 30 Dec 2005, Colin Rosenstiel
remarked:

How much does it cost Network Rail and the TOCs involved every time
yet another lorry hits the underbridge at Ely? It's the third most
struck bridge in the country. Many of the lorries are local and in
too much of a hurry to wait to use the adjacent level crossing
(apart from the one that smashed through the gates instead - that
was Turners' too).

I have no idea why the vehicles owners (or their insurance companies)
aren't charged for such escapades.

They were, in the case of the broken barrier. Driving without due care,
IIRC. A small fine.

Why aren't they charged damages, too?

Then there is the chaos to One's services after yet another illegal
vehicle on a level crossing was hit by one of their precious DMUs
one Sunday. A whole diagram had to be cancelled on Monday, with
delights such as a four hour gap in the East Suffolk service

Ditto.

Darwin applies here.

Darwin's vehicle's insurers should still have to pay damages.
--
Roland Perry