Paul Oter wrote:
On 23 Mar, 15:42, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:

All in all no consideration of passengers accompanying cycles at all.

Gatelines are getting better for cyclists, fortunately.
Here's a photo of the new gates at Stevenage, including a wide gate
for cyclists etc.
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/map/location/10317/

Doubtless we'll see something similar at Cambridge in due course.

Yes, Paul. Those are the same style of gate that Chiltern have installed.
They work fine - I have no problems with them, as a cyclist, other than that
the paddles can sometime be a little slow.

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:27:16 +0000, "Clive D. W. Feather"
wrote:

In article , Roland Perry
writes

For the Piccadilly Line there will be a second set of escalators,
starting at the north end of the platforms;
[...]
Sounds like quite a dog-leg to get back to platforms 1-8.

To platform 1, perhaps (the Piccadilly platforms are roughly under
platforms 2 and 4), but it'll bring you out in the new main line ticket
hall.

Might be a quicker route to St Pancras, though. Are there plans to have
tunnels from the Northern Ticket hall to inside the St Pancras complex

I'm afraid I don't know.

Isn't that the function of the tunnel already in place under Pancras
Road? (Open, but little used, during the TL blockade and now closed.).


--
Peter Lawrence

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, Paul Scott wrote:

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
(brixtonite) wrote:

I do believe that no one has audited these plans for their impact on
cyclists using trains

Perhaps now you have audited the plans you could drop them a line...

Also, LTUC, the CTC and LCC.

(as opposed to the irrelevant for these purposes cycle parking).

One of my pet peeves - cycle parking is probably the stupidest 'facility'
in the universe.

tom

--
Everything that has transpired has done so according to my design.

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, Paul Scott wrote:

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
(brixtonite) wrote:

I do believe that no one has audited these plans for their impact
on cyclists using trains

Perhaps now you have audited the plans you could drop them a
line...

Also, LTUC, the CTC and LCC.

(as opposed to the irrelevant for these purposes cycle parking).

One of my pet peeves - cycle parking is probably the stupidest
'facility' in the universe.

Why? And before you answer that, perhaps you should take a look at
http://simon.nuttall.name/bicycles/p...m_station.html

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

(as opposed to the irrelevant for these purposes cycle parking).

One of my pet peeves - cycle parking is probably the stupidest
'facility' in the universe.

I wouldn't go that far. It is important in places, but usually it needs
to be much more localised than planners can get their heads round.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article .com,
(Paul Oter) wrote:

On 23 Mar, 15:42, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:

( changes at King's Cross)

Gatelines sound pretty cycle-unfriendly too. They certainly are at
Liverpool Street. No mention of "cycle" in the Executive Summary
or any other part of the document referred to above I note.

All in all no consideration of passengers accompanying cycles at
all.

Gatelines are getting better for cyclists, fortunately.
Here's a photo of the new gates at Stevenage, including a wide gate
for cyclists etc. http://www.camcycle.org.uk/map/location/10317/

Doubtless we'll see something similar at Cambridge in due course.

If they can find the space. One such gate will hardly be enough at
Cambridge.

The snag at Stevenage is the stairs, far from cycle-friendly. Are the
lifts actually on the platform side of the gateline?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article . com,
(Paul Oter) wrote:

On 23 Mar, 23:59, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
In article ,
(Roland Perry) wrote:
In message , at 18:29:30 on
Fri, 23 Mar 2007, Clive D. W. Feather
remarked:

Every train at King's Cross has a booked and timetabled
platform.

Do they still have that station announcer who yells at people
(to go back to the concourse) who "guess" the platform before it's
published?

Not tonight they didn't. I was one of a group waiting for the
signallers to get off their arses and announce that the 19:15 was
going from 6. It had to be; there was no other 8-car FCC train to
be seen. Eventually they put it on the screens at 19:09.

They seem to be announcing the 1915 rather late these days. Even
though it's in the platform from about 1900, they often don't
announce it until about 1905, by which time there can be a hundred
regular passengers hanging around at the platform end.

I think it may be related to the fact that the 1903 to Leeds often
leaves from the opposite platform 6; GNER often close the gates to
platforms 6/7 until after their train departs (not always possible
if hundreds of arriving FCC passengers need to leave platform 7 at the
same time).

That certainly wasn't the problem on Friday. The 19:07 Peterborough was
on 7 and the stock for the 19:15 had been there (on 6) more than long
enough to clear the incoming passengers.

On Thursday the 19:15 was on 7 and announced just after 19:00, so it
seems the signallers aren't even consistent.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007, Richard J. wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, Paul Scott wrote:

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
(brixtonite) wrote:

(as opposed to the irrelevant for these purposes cycle parking).

One of my pet peeves - cycle parking is probably the stupidest
'facility' in the universe.

Why?

Because i personally very rarely use them!

Okay, perhaps i was exaggerating a little. But still, the beauty of the
bike + train combination is that you can cycle at both ends of the trip.
Cycle parking is based on people not doing this. The only situation i can
think of in which you might want to do this is if you were going somewhere
where you had a walkable final leg, in which case the parking should
probably be at the country stations, not King's Cross, unless it's aimed
at people who live in inner London and who are heading to an airport or
something.

And before you answer that, perhaps you should take a look at
http://simon.nuttall.name/bicycles/p...m_station.html

Most impressive. I do wonder where all the people went after they locked
up, though.

tom

--
if you can't beat them, build them

Tom Anderson wrote:

Okay, perhaps i was exaggerating a little. But still, the beauty of
the bike + train combination is that you can cycle at both ends of
the trip. Cycle parking is based on people not doing this.

Actually a lot of people use their "regular" bike from home to their country
station, then come into London and pick up an old boneshaker that they have
picked up cheap and which they leave overnight in the terminus station cycle
parking area, in order to complete their journey - on the basis that if it
gets nicked (as is far more likely in London), then it doesn't matter so
much. The cycle racks at Marylebone, for example (which are on the site of
the old platform 4 and under constant CCTV monitoring) are often more full
overnight than they are during the day.

In article ,
(Jack Taylor) wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

Okay, perhaps i was exaggerating a little. But still, the beauty
of the bike + train combination is that you can cycle at both ends of
the trip. Cycle parking is based on people not doing this.

Actually a lot of people use their "regular" bike from home to
their country station, then come into London and pick up an old
boneshaker that they have picked up cheap and which they leave
overnight in the terminus station cycle parking area, in order to
complete their journey - on the basis that if it gets nicked (as is
far more likely in London), then it doesn't matter so much. The
cycle racks at Marylebone, for example (which are on the site of
the old platform 4 and under constant CCTV monitoring) are often
more full overnight than they are during the day.

I see few or no signs of that form of commuting from Cambridge but I may
travel at the wrong times of day.

--
Colin Rosenstiel