WZR wrote:

Was it actually built, then? I went on an official visit which included a
ride on most of the system, and the trains stopped in the middle of nowhere,
as the station stop was programmed in to the computer.

IIRC our guide explained that this was due to plans for the station having
been put on hold, rather than it having been removed.

Yes, it was built, complete with signs. The Development got the go-
ahead just before the DLR opened, so it was decided not to open the
station, as it the whole area would be a building site. As you
correctly remember, the trains still stopped at the site for a long
time afterwards, but I think the system was eventually re-programmed
to remove the stop.

The original station was dismantled either just before, or just after
the system opened, I can't remember which. The parts of the station
were stored on some land nearby, and I think some of them may have
been re-used when other stations wre lengthened, but I'm not sure.

On 2 Jan, 23:04, Stephen Furley wrote:
WZR wrote:
Was it actually built, then? I went on an official visit which included a
ride on most of the system, and the trains stopped in the middle of nowhere,
as the station stop was programmed in to the computer.

IIRC our guide explained that this was due to plans for the station having
been put on hold, rather than it having been removed.

Yes, it was built, complete with signs. The Development got the go-
ahead just before the DLR opened, so it was decided not to open the
station, as it the whole area would be a building site. As you
correctly remember, the trains still stopped at the site for a long
time afterwards, but I think the system was eventually re-programmed
to remove the stop.

The original station was dismantled either just before, or just after
the system opened, I can't remember which. The parts of the station
were stored on some land nearby, and I think some of them may have
been re-used when other stations were lengthened, but I'm not sure.


Reuse of station parts would make sense, as the DLR stations (the
earlier ones at least) have modular components.

I remember the bizarre stop at the ghost station of Canary Wharf. If
anyone knows where there's any pictures of this on the net please pipe
up!

On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 15:04:28 -0800 (PST), Stephen Furley wrote:

WZR wrote:

Was it actually built, then? I went on an official visit which included a
ride on most of the system, and the trains stopped in the middle of nowhere,
as the station stop was programmed in to the computer.

IIRC our guide explained that this was due to plans for the station having
been put on hold, rather than it having been removed.

Yes, it was built, complete with signs. The Development got the go-
ahead just before the DLR opened, so it was decided not to open the
station, as it the whole area would be a building site. As you
correctly remember, the trains still stopped at the site for a long
time afterwards, but I think the system was eventually re-programmed
to remove the stop.

The original station was dismantled either just before, or just after
the system opened, I can't remember which. The parts of the station
were stored on some land nearby, and I think some of them may have
been re-used when other stations wre lengthened, but I'm not sure.

Thanks Stephen. I'm fairly sure the system had opened when I went, can't
remember that date but I do have some slides somewhere from the visit which
may have a date on.

Remembering a little more from within the mists of time, I think the
explanation given may have been that the station site was to be moved
because of the development, but I definitely don't rcall any mention of it
already having been built and then removed.

--
WZR

O

The southbound photo shows the access from the footbridge in the direction
of the tracks via the narrowest part of theplatform, rather than 'along'
the line of theplatform. Note also the (loudspeaker?) pole stood right on
the corner, again narrowing the access - why isnt it hung off the footbridge
structure?



has anyone measured what the actual width is on the scale drawings and scaled it up to the width requirement of new platforms

and what is the railways inspectorates width requirement anyway for
new platforms?

As a north london local authority surveyor, you should see the cock up
that the self regulation rules put in under the tories on biulding
control have done to new biuldings.....there are houses a flats self
certified by architects that are biult on thames water land that are
total death traps if they caught fire

and what is the railways inspectorates width requirement anyway for
new platforms?

2.5m IIRC and that is a figure used for low passanger flows. See
http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/nav.1096

On 10 Jan, 00:54, wrote:
has anyone measured what the actual width is on the scale drawings and scaled it up to the width requirement of new platforms

and what is the railways inspectorates width requirement anyway for
new platforms?

Where trains are below 100mph, 2.5m unobstructed. The northbound
platform is 2.6m on the drawings, and possibly is in real life. The
lights being moved onto the platform would certainly push it below
2.5m.

I'm currently trying to get some official word from Westfield.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 05:08:12 -0800 (PST), Mr Thant
wrote:

On 10 Jan, 00:54, wrote:
has anyone measured what the actual width is on the scale drawings and scaled it up to the width requirement of new platforms

and what is the railways inspectorates width requirement anyway for
new platforms?

Where trains are below 100mph, 2.5m unobstructed. The northbound
platform is 2.6m on the drawings, and possibly is in real life. The
lights being moved onto the platform would certainly push it below
2.5m.

There is also a general requirement that it is 'adequate for the
greatest number of passengers likely to use it at any time' which is
probably the crucial one here. Otherwise the clause about 'columns
or other obstructions should be at least 2000 mm clear of the platform
edge' seems to mean the platform is OK. (I am looking at
http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pd...b-statns.pdf.).
--
Peter Lawrence

On 10 Jan, 17:14, "Peter Lawrence" wrote:
There is also a general requirement that it is 'adequate for the
greatest number of passengers likely to use it at any time' which is
probably the crucial one here. * Otherwise the clause about 'columns
or other obstructions should be at least 2000 mm clear of the platform
edge' seems to mean the platform is OK. * (I am looking athttp://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/rspg-2b-statns.pdf.).

I was looking at this:
http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/docushare...GIRT7016_2.PDF

So a 2000-2500mm platform may be OK under the HSE/ORR's guidance, but
the railway's own rules forbid it. That's my interpretation. Plus as
you rightly mention, the crowding issues.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

Mr Thant wrote:
On 10 Jan, 17:14, "Peter Lawrence" wrote:
There is also a general requirement that it is 'adequate for the
greatest number of passengers likely to use it at any time' which is
probably the crucial one here. Otherwise the clause about 'columns
or other obstructions should be at least 2000 mm clear of the
platform
edge' seems to mean the platform is OK. (I am looking
athttp://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/rspg-2b-statns.pdf.).

I was looking at this:
http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/docushare...GIRT7016_2.PDF

So a 2000-2500mm platform may be OK under the HSE/ORR's guidance, but
the railway's own rules forbid it. That's my interpretation. Plus as
you rightly mention, the crowding issues.


There is a bit of a question mark over whether those HSE guidance documents
are still valid, or are only there transitionally to cover installations
designed prior to the latest rules revision, but not yet completed. We were
discussing the way the HSE calls for ramped platforms, but the later
regulations don't, a week or two ago...

Paul

In article
,
(Mr Thant) wrote:

On 10 Jan, 00:54, wrote:
has anyone measured what the actual width is on the scale
drawings and scaled it up to the width requirement of new
platforms

and what is the railways inspectorates width requirement anyway
for new platforms?

Where trains are below 100mph, 2.5m unobstructed. The northbound
platform is 2.6m on the drawings, and possibly is in real life. The
lights being moved onto the platform would certainly push it below
2.5m.

Does this mean that removing the lighting columns and attaching the
lights to the walls might fix the problem?

I'm currently trying to get some official word from Westfield.

--
Colin Rosenstiel