In message , at 12:39:05 on Tue, 11
Dec 2007, Garry Smith remarked:
Fortunately I didn't have to go through it this morning, but
my wife did. Here's what she said - her first two points are
not actually about the new station, but her last point is
interesting.

[...]

New definition of Hell - Thameslink, Midland Mainline and a Eurostar
from Paris all arriving at the same time!!!!"

Including the use of the "old" franchise names.

And it'll get even busier when the Kent domestics start going, but at
least there should be a [new] northern tube ticket hall as well.

--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 09:04:15 -0000, "Peter Masson"
wrote:


"Mizter T" wrote

Absolutely. Underground sub-surface stock is bigger than all (?)
National Rail stock. I don't think a Met line train would fit down the
tunnels of the GN&CR (i.e. Moorgate line).

The Met stock of the time was used on the GN&C until 1939 (the line was
owned by the Metropolitan Railweay from 1913). It seems to have become part
of the Northern Line, with tube stock used, from 1939, until it was closed
for conversion for the GN electrics.

If the same loading gauge is involved then possibly A stock would be
limited not by the tunnels themselves but by any locations involving
curves. IIRC the use of tube stock by LU was mainly because that was
the most easily available stock WRT maintenance and the associated
stock transfers without leaving the GNC line effectively in
"Drain"-style isolation.

On 11 Dec, 11:08, Sky Rider wrote:

What I'm personally more annoyed about are the new gates - at the moment
you have to shove your (paper) ticket through the slot, and the flaps
themselves are so slow they make it easier for tailgaters to pass
through behind someone else (compared to the other two sets of gates on
the LU network anyway).

The gates are shockingly slow, just like those in use throughout
King's Cross. I don't like them one bit (about 10 people can pass
through with you) but for the sake of Paul C's sanity, I won't start
ranting about them again!!

One thing I will say; at the FCC stations that have only put in a few
gates, they're so slow that during busy periods they're forced to
press the 'plunger' to open them up and let people through. This sort
of defeats the object, in my opinion.

Jonathan

On 11 Dec, 12:39, "Garry Smith" wrote:

New definition of Hell - Thameslink, Midland Mainline and a Eurostar
from Paris all arriving at the same time!!!!"

It's pretty bad isn't it. The 'traffic' passing through King's Cross
underground station is now VERY busy at certain times, presumably, as
you say, when lots of trains are arriving at St Pancras - as well as
NXEC.

Jonathan

"Charles Ellson" wrote

If the same loading gauge is involved then possibly A stock would be
limited not by the tunnels themselves but by any locations involving
curves. IIRC the use of tube stock by LU was mainly because that was
the most easily available stock WRT maintenance and the associated
stock transfers without leaving the GNC line effectively in
"Drain"-style isolation.

Indeed. Until 1939 Northern City stock was presumably transferred to Neasden
for heavy maintenance, presumably dragged via Finsbury Park, the Widened
Lines, crossing to the Circle at Farringdon.. From 1939, when the line
became a detached part of the Northern Line the drags were via Finsbury Park
and Highgate (HL) to Northern Line depots. Shortly before the line was
closed for conversion for the GN Electrics a bridge on this route was
declared unsafe, and the route via Farringdon was again used to reach the
main LUL network.

Compared with modern National Rail stock Met A stock is indeed wider, but it
is also shorter, so throw over on curves is less. As pre-1976 use of the
Northern City Line by surface stock was pre-1939, and used surface stock of
the era, I do not know whether or not A stock would have fitted, or if it
didn't, whether C or D stock would have been possible.

Peter

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:39:05 -0000, "Garry Smith"
wrote:

Fortunately I didn't have to go through it this morning, but
my wife did. Here's what she said - her first two points are
not actually about the new station, but her last point is
interesting.

"Today's journey was the usual fiasco. A train broke down at
St Pancras so we were stuck for 25 minutes at Cricklewood.

At King's Cross all the machines stopped accepting tickets and
would only accept Oyster cards. I tried mine on 3 machines before
I gave up so by the time I got to Piccadilly Circus it failed in the
reader there too!

New definition of Hell - Thameslink, Midland Mainline and a Eurostar
from Paris all arriving at the same time!!!!"

I can vouch for that. On Saturday lunchtime, queues for tickets in
both LUL booking halls were horrendous. This seems not to have been
thought out properly at all.

OK then - could you fit two island platforms in the box? Based on my
crude maths and assuming straight track and a 6m existing platform -
no end or centre throws - the latter is definitely not true at the
south end or where S&C may affect the layout at the north end. It also
ignores S&C to achieve 4 parallel tracks not 2.

Platforms = 6.000m *2 = 12.000m
Track = 1.435m *2 = 2.870m
Track to platform 0.730m *2 = 1.460m
Six foot = 1.970m

Width of box = 18.300m approx.

For two islands you would need
Track = 1.435m *4 = 5.740m
Six foot = 1.970m
Cess=1.250m (minimum)*2 = 2.500m
Track to platform = 0.730m*4 = 2.920m

This would leave two platforms of width 2.585m - the HMRI minimum for
a single face platform is 2.5m. So no.

OC

In message , at 18:34:59 on
Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Mike Roebuck remarked:
On Saturday lunchtime, queues for tickets in both LUL booking halls
were horrendous. This seems not to have been thought out properly at
all.

The queues were horrendous in the old booking hall, and were horrendous
in the new one from the day it reopened. They just don't seem to want to
put enough staff on duty.
--
Roland Perry

In message
, at
10:27:16 on Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Old Central
remarked:
OK then - could you fit two island platforms in the box? Based on my
crude maths and assuming straight track and a 6m existing platform -
no end or centre throws - the latter is definitely not true at the
south end or where S&C may affect the layout at the north end. It also
ignores S&C to achieve 4 parallel tracks not 2.

Platforms = 6.000m *2 = 12.000m
Track = 1.435m *2 = 2.870m
Track to platform 0.730m *2 = 1.460m
Six foot = 1.970m

Width of box = 18.300m approx.

For two islands you would need
Track = 1.435m *4 = 5.740m
Six foot = 1.970m
Cess=1.250m (minimum)*2 = 2.500m
Track to platform = 0.730m*4 = 2.920m

This would leave two platforms of width 2.585m - the HMRI minimum for
a single face platform is 2.5m. So no.

I've found the following Arup Journal article, which has all kinds of
diagrams (and text) which answer many of the questions we've been
wondering about. Including much of the history of why it was done the
way it is (maybe we can now nickname the Champagne Bar "Platform 4"?)

Figure 14 does seem to show that there's a possibility for two islands,
albeit with a fairly thin platform; and why else would it be that wide?

http://www.arup.com/_assets/_download/download238.pdf
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 07:37:53 -0800 (PST), jonmorris
wrote:

One thing I will say; at the FCC stations that have only put in a few
gates, they're so slow that during busy periods they're forced to
press the 'plunger' to open them up and let people through. This sort
of defeats the object, in my opinion.

Euston has the traditional type, and it's still common for them to do
that to clear a morning peak crowd. I reckon, though, that commuter
services would carry very few fare-dodgers, as most will have season
tickets.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.