Thes trains do not have 'grandfather rights' - so the H&S issues presumably
can be overcome if required - you can nearly always find an example of
something happening on the railway that they say 'isn't possible' somewhere
else...

The Whistling Fellsman tour - 13 Mk2's (plus a generator coach) - set
down at Denton last night with no problems.

But then there were plenty of stewards to make sure passengers were
moved forward to the first 3 coaches in order to alight safely.

In message , at 12:09:45 on
Sun, 3 Aug 2008, Paul Scott remarked:
As I've mentioned before, TOCs such as SWT use SDO by whole unit, sometimes
only releasing the doors in 4 coaches of 12; or using single door only in
444s at 4 platform stations such as Beaulieu Rd, or Shawford.

Do those trains have a corridor connection between each set of 4
carriages?

One of the major design flaws in the networkers on the Cambridge line is
that they don't.

The 5-car train I mentioned earlier was made of three units (2+2+1) and
not only was there a corridor all the way through, the connecting doors
were open so you could see all the way through the train!
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 12:09:45 on Sun,
3 Aug 2008, Paul Scott remarked:
As I've mentioned before, TOCs such as SWT use SDO by whole unit,
sometimes
only releasing the doors in 4 coaches of 12; or using single door only in
444s at 4 platform stations such as Beaulieu Rd, or Shawford.

Do those trains have a corridor connection between each set of 4
carriages?


Yes - and so do Southern, (on their EMUs) which also have the benefit of SDO
by carriage number, rather than whole unit.

Paul

On Aug 3, 10:17*am, "Brian Watson" wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message

...





In message . uk, at
23:36:00 on Sat, 2 Aug 2008, Colin Rosenstiel
remarked:
07:15 Cambridge London Kings Cross * * 176%
07:45 Cambridge London Kings Cross * * 164%
17:45 London Kings Cross Kings Lynn * *164%

Due to be 12 car trains

20 extra carriages are apparently to be supplied to FCC, but not
necessarily all for use on the Cambridge line. I'll be interesting to see
what sort those are. Displaced from elsewhere, presumably.

from May 2009 (at least I think so in the third case).

Does that mean their stopping pattern will change?

If those are average rather than worst snapshot figures they will still
have standing passengers.

Why cannot more mainline trains be a little longer (by a carriage or two)
and overhang platforms at the back?

It happens on various rural routes and seems to present no problem.
--
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Apart from the issues already described by others, one major problem
on certain routes is platform length at the terminus or key
intermediate stations. Waterloo is a good example, where many
platforms can only handle 8-car trains (and most others only 12-car of
20 m or 10-car of 23 m) and the platforms cannot be lengthened in the
country direction owing to signalling issues, or reduction in capacity
of flexibility.

Other stations similarly constrained include London Bridge (no
platform can take more than 12 cars), Liverpool Street, Kings Cross
and Cambridge. Glasgow Central also has a number of short platforms.

In message
, at
04:28:08 on Sun, 3 Aug 2008,
remarked:
Other stations similarly constrained include London Bridge (no
platform can take more than 12 cars), Liverpool Street, Kings Cross
and Cambridge. Glasgow Central also has a number of short platforms.

The through platform at Cambridge needs extending by about half a
carriage (either end) to accommodate 12-car trains in the Thameslink
plan [maybe they were originally designed for a loco +10]. But if they
are thinking of running 12-car trains then presumably these will be made
of 4-cars from Kings Lynn joining the rear of a fresh 8-cars, and the
northern half of the platform will therefore be blocked by this
operation for five minutes. [And the converse in the evening].

The peak FCC trains tend to use main KX platforms these days, which are
already accommodating a few 12-car trains to Peterborough. In the
distant future they may run through to the south (unless TLK-2012 turns
out not to incorporate this much-awaited feature).

--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:

The through platform at Cambridge needs extending by about half a
carriage (either end) to accommodate 12-car trains in the Thameslink
plan [maybe they were originally designed for a loco +10]. But if they
are thinking of running 12-car trains then presumably these will be made
of 4-cars from Kings Lynn joining the rear of a fresh 8-cars, and the
northern half of the platform will therefore be blocked by this
operation for five minutes. [And the converse in the evening].

How about building another platform, as at Wolverhampton and Rugby, or
is there something sacred about the Cambridge layout?
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632982.html
(43 171 at Stockport, 1985)

In message , at 16:10:03 on
Sun, 3 Aug 2008, Chris Tolley remarked:
The through platform at Cambridge needs extending by about half a
carriage (either end) to accommodate 12-car trains in the Thameslink
plan [maybe they were originally designed for a loco +10]. But if they
are thinking of running 12-car trains then presumably these will be made
of 4-cars from Kings Lynn joining the rear of a fresh 8-cars, and the
northern half of the platform will therefore be blocked by this
operation for five minutes. [And the converse in the evening].

How about building another platform, as at Wolverhampton and Rugby, or
is there something sacred about the Cambridge layout?

There are apparently plans for an island platform, but that may be more
because they want to shift the terminus a couple of miles north to
Chesterton Sidings.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...

How about building another platform, as at Wolverhampton and Rugby, or
is there something sacred about the Cambridge layout?

There are apparently plans for an island platform, but that may be more
because they want to shift the terminus a couple of miles north to
Chesterton Sidings.

Alternatively there are some people who think the island platform scheme is
designed to scupper Chesterton Parkway, as if you get one you won't need the
other. But understanding rail conspiracy theories is beyond me, so please
don't shoot the messenger!

--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at
16:10:03 on Sun, 3 Aug 2008, Chris Tolley
remarked:
The through platform at Cambridge needs extending by about half a
carriage (either end) to accommodate 12-car trains in the Thameslink
plan [maybe they were originally designed for a loco +10]. But if
they are thinking of running 12-car trains then presumably these
will be made of 4-cars from Kings Lynn joining the rear of a fresh
8-cars, and the northern half of the platform will therefore be
blocked by this operation for five minutes. [And the converse in
the evening].

How about building another platform, as at Wolverhampton and Rugby, or
is there something sacred about the Cambridge layout?

There are apparently plans for an island platform, but that may be
more because they want to shift the terminus a couple of miles
north to Chesterton Sidings.

No, it's because of the plan to run 12 cars on West Anglia. While there
is or soon will be capacity for through 12 car trains (for a minimal
extension of platform 1 and a slightly greater extension of platform 4)
there is just no way of terminating the Liverpool St service, which uses
platforms 2 and 3 pretty well entirely, if it comprises 12 car trains,
without extra platforms.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article
,
() wrote:

On Aug 3, 10:17*am, "Brian Watson" wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message

...

In message . uk,
at
23:36:00 on Sat, 2 Aug 2008, Colin Rosenstiel

remarked:
07:15 Cambridge London Kings Cross * * 176%
07:45 Cambridge London Kings Cross * * 164%
17:45 London Kings Cross Kings Lynn * *164%

Due to be 12 car trains

20 extra carriages are apparently to be supplied to FCC, but not
necessarily all for use on the Cambridge line. I'll be interesting
to see what sort those are. Displaced from elsewhere, presumably.

from May 2009 (at least I think so in the third case).

Does that mean their stopping pattern will change?

If those are average rather than worst snapshot figures they will
still have standing passengers.

Why cannot more mainline trains be a little longer (by a carriage or
two) and overhang platforms at the back?

It happens on various rural routes and seems to present no problem.

Apart from the issues already described by others, one major problem
on certain routes is platform length at the terminus or key
intermediate stations. Waterloo is a good example, where many
platforms can only handle 8-car trains (and most others only 12-car of
20 m or 10-car of 23 m) and the platforms cannot be lengthened in the
country direction owing to signalling issues, or reduction in capacity
of flexibility.

Other stations similarly constrained include London Bridge (no
platform can take more than 12 cars), Liverpool Street, Kings Cross
and Cambridge. Glasgow Central also has a number of short platforms.

King's Cross has two platforms (1 and 6) longer than the others. The
North of London Eurostar sets could only use them when on the White Rose
services a few years back.

The advent of 12-car trains on the West Anglia route is why the Cambridge
island platform scheme has suddenly come to the fore.

--
Colin Rosenstiel