On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 08:04:12 GMT someone who may be Bill Hayles
wrote this:-

With very few exceptions, the conductor rail at stations, and station
approaches, is on the side furthest from the platform face.

When I used to live in London I noted a number of locations where a
conductor rail was on the "platform" side within a coach length or
two of the ramp.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

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.
--
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.

Are you sure about London Bridge? I'd have thought that the through
platforms (1-6) can accomodate more. IIRC, there are 12 car Kent Coast
trains that call at 6 on the way up to Charing Cross, and 6 has a whole
section fenced off because it's redundant for current train lengths.

Robin

"R.C. Payne" wrote

Are you sure about London Bridge? I'd have thought that the through
platforms (1-6) can accomodate more. IIRC, there are 12 car Kent Coast
trains that call at 6 on the way up to Charing Cross, and 6 has a whole
section fenced off because it's redundant for current train lengths.

Platforms then numbered 1-4, 6 and 7 were extended from 8- to 10-car length
in the mid 1950s for the South Eastern Suburban '10-car scheme' (ater
Bulleid's 4DDs were found not to be the answer to peak overcrowding). To do
this the No. 5 Up Through Line was removed.

In the mid-1970s as part of the London Bridge resignalling a new Up
Passenger Loop was created asjacent to the platform 6 (renumbered from 7)
track. At the same time platform 6 was renumbered 5. The Up Passenger Loop
and platform 6 line converge immediately beyond the station, with an overlap
measured in inches rather than metres. Around 1990 platforms were again
extended to 12-car length, and the opportunity was taken to set the starting
signals back to provide a slightly more satisfactory overlap.

I'm not sure ifr platform 5 could take a train longer than 12 cars in the
down direction, but apart from that the statement that London Bridge has no
platform that can take a train longer than 12 cars is correct. Anyway, a
longer train could not be accommodated at Charing Cross or Cannon Street.

AIUI the only 'Southern' termini able to take a train longer than 12x20m are
platform 2 at Victoria (which used to cope with the Night Ferry, which could
load to 17 vehicles behind the loco), the ex-E* platforms at Waterloo, and
the northbound platform at Kensington Olympia.

Peter

On 4 Aug, 11:39, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"R.C. Payne" wrote

Are you sure about London Bridge? *I'd have thought that the through
platforms (1-6) can accomodate more. *IIRC, there are 12 car Kent Coast
trains that call at 6 on the way up to Charing Cross, and 6 has a whole
section fenced off because it's redundant for current train lengths.

Platforms then numbered 1-4, 6 and 7 were extended from 8- to 10-car length
in the mid 1950s for the *South Eastern Suburban '10-car scheme' (ater
Bulleid's 4DDs were found not to be the answer to peak overcrowding). To do
this the No. 5 Up Through Line was removed.

In the mid-1970s as part of the London Bridge resignalling a new Up
Passenger Loop was created asjacent to the platform 6 (renumbered from 7)
track. At the same time platform 6 was renumbered 5. The Up Passenger Loop
and platform 6 line converge immediately beyond the station, with an overlap
measured in inches rather than metres. Around 1990 platforms were again
extended to 12-car length, and the opportunity was taken to set the starting
signals back to provide a slightly more satisfactory overlap.

That doesn't sound quite right. There must have been plenty of twelve-
coach trains through London Bridge before 1990 (although they used to
hang over the end at Charing Cross at 5 and 6, and couldn't have
fitted in the others).

As far as I know, the changes around 1993 were to extend all platforms
at Charing Cross to take twelve coaches comfortably and to extend
platforms at London Bridge so that there was a long distance between
the subways and where the trains stopped, so that people wouldn't jump
out of hiding and try to open the door of a train.

That was what encroached on the country end of the former platform 7.

Now that there are no slam-door trains, I don't really see the need
for the long walk which could be used for longer trains but, as you
say, there are no platforms long enough at Charing Cross anyway.


I'm not sure ifr platform 5 could take a train longer than 12 cars in the
down direction, but apart from that the statement that London Bridge has no
platform that can take a train longer than 12 cars is correct. Anyway, a
longer train could not be accommodated at Charing Cross or Cannon Street.

AIUI the only 'Southern' termini able to take a train longer than 12x20m are
platform 2 at Victoria (which used to cope with the Night Ferry, which could
load to 17 vehicles behind the loco), the ex-E* platforms at Waterloo, and
the northbound platform at Kensington Olympia.

Peter

In article
,
(Jamie Thompson) wrote:

I don't know why they can't make the new island platform the same
length as the (extended) existing one, with the existing through
access line being used to provide access to both platforms on the new
face (or even just having a traditional pair of through lines
providing the access to both platforms per face). You could then also
have another pair of faces on the other side of the island for the
terminating Norwich/Ipswich services, removing conflicts with the
northbound services via Ely. That would give Cambridge 10 platforms (6
of which that could take 12 coach trains), with (if my guestimates are
good enough, still enough room for a freight line on the eastern side.
Additionally, I guess you could use the centre face of the island (the
one facing the existing face) for terminating services, leaving the
outer new face for though services south; centre terminating roads are
always useful as they don't cross either through line when entering or
exiting. That would also provide a pair of 12-car terminating
facilities at Cambridge for not much more than the cost of the island
anyway, as most of the additional work would mainly be trackwork and
signalling.

Thoughts?

Sounds about the size of it. I've not seen the plans in enough detail to
know how they will use the scissors crossover with the new island
platform or how long the island will be. I understand that the through
freight lines will be retained.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

"MIG" wrote in message
...
On 4 Aug, 11:39, "Peter Masson" wrote:

In the mid-1970s as part of the London Bridge resignalling a new Up
Passenger Loop was created asjacent to the platform 6 (renumbered from 7)
track. At the same time platform 6 was renumbered 5. The Up Passenger
Loop
and platform 6 line converge immediately beyond the station, with an
overlap
measured in inches rather than metres. Around 1990 platforms were again
extended to 12-car length, and the opportunity was taken to set the
starting
signals back to provide a slightly more satisfactory overlap.

That doesn't sound quite right. There must have been plenty of twelve-
coach trains through London Bridge before 1990 (although they used to
hang over the end at Charing Cross at 5 and 6, and couldn't have
fitted in the others).


There were plenty of 12-car trains *through* London Bridge before the 1990s
platform lengthening, but they didn't stop. Moving the stop board further
back on London Bridge platform 6 may have had a side benefit of stopping
passengers running up teh ramp and opening doors of slammers after the right
away had been given, but it dodn't stop passengers running down the
footbridge and doing the same thing. The real reason was, as I stated, to
increase the overlap before the fouling point of platform 6 line and the Up
Passenger Loop.

Peter

On Aug 4, 5:36*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"MIG" wrote in message

...
On 4 Aug, 11:39, "Peter Masson" wrote:







In the mid-1970s as part of the London Bridge resignalling a new Up
Passenger Loop was created asjacent to the platform 6 (renumbered from 7)
track. At the same time platform 6 was renumbered 5. The Up Passenger
Loop
and platform 6 line converge immediately beyond the station, with an
overlap
measured in inches rather than metres. Around 1990 platforms were again
extended to 12-car length, and the opportunity was taken to set the
starting
signals back to provide a slightly more satisfactory overlap.

That doesn't sound quite right. *There must have been plenty of twelve-
coach trains through London Bridge before 1990 (although they used to
hang over the end at Charing Cross at 5 and 6, and couldn't have
fitted in the others).

There were plenty of 12-car trains *through* London Bridge before the 1990s
platform lengthening, but they didn't stop.

I'll have to take your word for it (because I don't remember you ever
being wrong [or maybe just the once]), but I'm having trouble
reconciling it with dingy memory.

Moving the stop board further
back on London Bridge platform 6 may have had a side benefit of stopping
passengers running up teh ramp and opening doors of slammers after the right
away had been given, but it dodn't stop passengers running down the
footbridge and doing the same thing. The real reason was, as I stated, to
increase the overlap before the fouling point of platform 6 line and the Up
Passenger Loop.

I am sure that was the reason for moving it, but there must have been
some reasoning behind why they moved it so far. I thought there was
an opportunity taken to move it further from the subway at the same
time for safety reasons.


Peter- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 17:36:11 +0100, Peter Masson wrote:

In the mid-1970s as part of the London Bridge resignalling a new Up
Passenger Loop was created asjacent to the platform 6 (renumbered from 7)
track. At the same time platform 6 was renumbered 5. The Up Passenger
Loop
and platform 6 line converge immediately beyond the station, with an
overlap
measured in inches rather than metres. Around 1990 platforms were again
extended to 12-car length, and the opportunity was taken to set the
starting
signals back to provide a slightly more satisfactory overlap.

That doesn't sound quite right. There must have been plenty of twelve-
coach trains through London Bridge before 1990 (although they used to
hang over the end at Charing Cross at 5 and 6, and couldn't have
fitted in the others).

There were plenty of 12-car trains *through* London Bridge before the 1990s
platform lengthening, but they didn't stop. Moving the stop board further
back on London Bridge platform 6 may have had a side benefit of stopping
passengers running up teh ramp and opening doors of slammers after the right
away had been given, but it dodn't stop passengers running down the
footbridge and doing the same thing. The real reason was, as I stated, to
increase the overlap before the fouling point of platform 6 line and the Up
Passenger Loop.

There's a similar unused length of platform on platform 5. This adds
an (apparently) unnecessary extra walk from the ramp to the train.
Does this exist purely because of slammers?

"Tim Ward" wrote in message
...
"Peter Masson" wrote in message
...

In slam door days there were three options:

4 - everybody just got onto the right carriage in the first place, as per
the notices and announcements at the point of embarkation - "front two
coaches for x" etc.

That was my thought.

It seems that for the price of a bit of selective switchgear the problem of
overcrowding and under-capacity could be significantly reduced.

--
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."

On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 17:36:11 +0100, "Peter Masson"
wrote:

There were plenty of 12-car trains *through* London Bridge before the 1990s
platform lengthening, but they didn't stop.

Sometimes, they did, especially during disruptions - country end off the
platform both ways. It wasn't uncommon.
This was before problems with stopping at short platforms - don't forget
that although the track layout permitted 12 car trains into platforms 4,
5 & 6 at Charing Cross, the platforms were just over 11 cars long. At
Orpington (down) the back two hung off, which could be a problem,
especially with HAPs.

I'm trying to think of a scheduled 12 car stop at London Bridge, and
offhand I can't. I can also only think of one occasion when a 12 car
train I was working did so (*), but I didn't work that many 12 car
trains on the Eastern side.

(*) One Saturday morning with the 0730 Charing Cross to Folkestone
Harbour / Ramsgate via Dover




--
Bill Hayles
http://www.rossrail.com