Overcrowded trains
 

"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."

Overcrowded trains
 

In message , at 10:17:46 on Sun, 3
Aug 2008, Brian Watson remarked:
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.

The Elfin Safety people won't allow it. And surprisingly a lot of modern
trains simply aren't equipped with sufficiently sophisticated selective
door opening.

As you say, it can happen on some "grandfather rights" rural routes. I
was on a 5-car train a week ago that stopped at two stations with only
room for 3-cars. The way they organised it was for the guard to make
several announcements and walk through the train, and then *only* open
the door at the very front of the train by the driver's cab.

And many London commuter trains are driver-only-operated so similar
logisitics would be difficult.
--
Roland Perry

Overcrowded trains
 

"Roland Perry" wrote

As you say, it can happen on some "grandfather rights" rural routes. I
was on a 5-car train a week ago that stopped at two stations with only
room for 3-cars. The way they organised it was for the guard to make
several announcements and walk through the train, and then *only* open
the door at the very front of the train by the driver's cab.

In slam door days there were three options:
1 - Guard goes through train and moves passengers who wish to alight at a
short platform, so that they are in a coach which will be adjacent to the
platform.
2 - Front of train stops at platform, then train draws up to get next
portion by the platform. I've been on a train which drew up twice to let one
passenger alight at Duncraig.
3 - Passengers climb down to track level. I've done this at Culrain, and at
Corrour, when the Saturday evening train used to have a 6 coach seats and
sleeper portion for London, plus a 6 coach portion for Glasgow. I alighted
somewhere in the vicinity of the loop points.

Peter

Overcrowded trains
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 10:17:46 on Sun, 3 Aug
2008, Brian Watson remarked:
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.

The Elfin Safety people won't allow it. And surprisingly a lot of modern
trains simply aren't equipped with sufficiently sophisticated selective
door opening.


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.

Happens routinely on the mainline platforms at Clapham Junction too, so the
rural bit isn't a requirement either.

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...

Paul

Overcrowded trains
 

"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.

--
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

Overcrowded trains
 

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.

Overcrowded trains
 

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.

Overcrowded trains
 

On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 10:17:46 +0100 someone who may be "Brian Watson"
wrote this:-

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.

Some years ago a lady got off a HST at Markinch. She had not checked
to see if there was a platform to put her feet on and as a result
she broke her ankle when she landed on the lineside. Such things
are/were not common, but are a reason to slowly eliminate the
possibility.

On lines equipped with conductor rails the result might be worse. In
some places, generally in built up areas, lines come together
quickly after the platform and someone could fall onto or near
another line. Some platforms are near bridges and there is the
possibility of people stepping off into a river or over a large
drop, or onto a bridge parapet which they then fall off. The
relatively well known case of the former was at Bath Spa, with a
soldier stepping out of a train and falling into the river.




--
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

Overcrowded trains
 

In message , at 12:12:36 on Sun, 3
Aug 2008, Tim Ward remarked:
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's usually because the trains split, rather than a short platform.
For some reason this is regarded as less passenger-unfriendly than only
opening half the doors, presumably because at the station where the
train splits there's the ability to change units if it turns out you are
the wrong one.

Perhaps one of the options for the Cambridge trains is to run fast to
Letchworth then split into 8 & 4 car units. One running fast to
Cambridge and the other becoming an all station stopper.

--
Roland Perry

Overcrowded trains
 

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

Overcrowded trains
 

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

Overcrowded trains
 

In message , at 14:03:48 on
Sun, 3 Aug 2008, David Hansen
remarked:
Some years ago a lady got off a HST at Markinch. She had not checked
to see if there was a platform to put her feet on and as a result
she broke her ankle when she landed on the lineside. Such things
are/were not common, but are a reason to slowly eliminate the
possibility.

On lines equipped with conductor rails the result might be worse. In
some places, generally in built up areas, lines come together
quickly after the platform and someone could fall onto or near
another line. Some platforms are near bridges and there is the
possibility of people stepping off into a river or over a large
drop, or onto a bridge parapet which they then fall off. The
relatively well known case of the former was at Bath Spa, with a
soldier stepping out of a train and falling into the river.

I've seen people almost getting off an over-length slam-door southern
region train at Wokingham - the result would be landing on the level
crossing!
--
Roland Perry

Overcrowded trains
 

"Roland Perry" wrote

I've seen people almost getting off an over-length slam-door southern
region train at Wokingham - the result would be landing on the level
crossing!

Overlength, or just stopped short? Anything over 8 coaches on the Windsor
Lines would be an embarrassment, as few if any of the platforms are longer,
and particularly nothing longer than 8 can use platforms 4A/4B at Reading -
indeed, they had to move the starting signals to get 8-car 458s in there.

Peter

Overcrowded trains
 

On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 14:17:47 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote this gibberish:

In message , at 12:12:36 on Sun, 3
Aug 2008, Tim Ward remarked:
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's usually because the trains split, rather than a short platform.
For some reason this is regarded as less passenger-unfriendly than only
opening half the doors, presumably because at the station where the
train splits there's the ability to change units if it turns out you are
the wrong one.

Perhaps one of the options for the Cambridge trains is to run fast to
Letchworth then split into 8 & 4 car units. One running fast to
Cambridge and the other becoming an all station stopper.

One of the trains I take fairly often splits and even with many many
announcements there are always people swapping at the station where
the train splits (haywards heath).
--
Mark Varley
www.MarkVarleyPhoto.co.uk
www.TwistedPhotography.co.uk
London, England.

Overcrowded trains
 

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)

Overcrowded trains
 

In message , at 16:04:47 on
Sun, 3 Aug 2008, Peter Masson remarked:
I've seen people almost getting off an over-length slam-door southern
region train at Wokingham - the result would be landing on the level
crossing!

Overlength, or just stopped short? Anything over 8 coaches on the Windsor
Lines would be an embarrassment, as few if any of the platforms are longer,
and particularly nothing longer than 8 can use platforms 4A/4B at Reading -
indeed, they had to move the starting signals to get 8-car 458s in there.

This would have been about 1980. Does Wokingham normally have room for 8
cars?
--
Roland Perry

Overcrowded trains
 

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

Overcrowded trains
 

"Roland Perry" wrote

This would have been about 1980. Does Wokingham normally have room for 8
cars?

It's had 8-car trains for many years - although IIRC until the 1970s the
more common arrangement was for 8-car trains to split at Ascot into Reading
and Guildford via Aldershot portions.

Peter

Overcrowded trains
 

On 3 Aug, 12:00, "Peter Masson" wrote:

3 - Passengers climb down to track level. I've done this at Culrain, and at
Corrour, when the Saturday evening train used to have a 6 coach seats and
sleeper portion for London, plus a 6 coach portion for Glasgow. I alighted
somewhere in the vicinity of the loop points.

On a recent trip on the IoMR the one passenger for Ronaldsway climbed
down to track level and walked back to the "platform".

Ian

Overcrowded trains
 

"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

Overcrowded trains
 

In article , (Tim
Ward) wrote:

"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.

As was invariably the arrangement for short platforms between Ely and
Lynn before electrification.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Overcrowded trains
 

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

Overcrowded trains
 

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

Overcrowded trains
 

In message . uk, at
20:54:00 on Sun, 3 Aug 2008, Colin Rosenstiel
remarked:
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.

Why can't they terminate at Chesterton Parkway?
--
Roland Perry

Overcrowded trains
 

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as
gently breathed:

Glasgow Central also has a number of short platforms.

But makes up for it by also having some very long ones - I believe 15
Mk1s + loco will fit in Platform 11, though that might involve the loco
and leading coach blocking one (of two) exits from Platform 10.

--
- DJ Pyromancer, Black Sheep, Leeds. http://www.sheepish.net

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = http://www.wytches.net = The UK's Pagan ISP!
http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk http://www.revival.stormshadow.com

Overcrowded trains
 

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message . uk,
at 20:54:00 on Sun, 3 Aug 2008, Colin Rosenstiel
remarked:
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.

Why can't they terminate at Chesterton Parkway?

Only one terminating platform. I'm not sure it will accommodate 12 car
trains either.

No planning has included 12 car trains on West Anglia until a very recent
plan mainly concerned with issues nearer London but where Cambridge is
the only practical termination point. At least that's my reading of it.
I'm assured that the case for Chesterton Parkway is unaffected, mainly
because CB1 depends on diverting the cars from the existing station.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Overcrowded trains
 

In message . uk, at
21:30:00 on Sun, 3 Aug 2008, Colin Rosenstiel
remarked:
Why can't they terminate at Chesterton Parkway?

Only one terminating platform. I'm not sure it will accommodate 12 car
trains either.

No planning has included 12 car trains on West Anglia until a very recent
plan mainly concerned with issues nearer London but where Cambridge is
the only practical termination point. At least that's my reading of it.
I'm assured that the case for Chesterton Parkway is unaffected, mainly
because CB1 depends on diverting the cars from the existing station.

So how will Chesterton Parkway work? Shuttling one unit down to
Cambridge to connect with the remainder... and with only one platform
it'll be challenging to have sufficiently regular trains to attract
commuters in their cars.
--
Roland Perry

Overcrowded trains
 

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message . uk,
at 21:30:00 on Sun, 3 Aug 2008, Colin Rosenstiel
remarked:
Why can't they terminate at Chesterton Parkway?

Only one terminating platform. I'm not sure it will accommodate 12 car
trains either.

No planning has included 12 car trains on West Anglia until a very
recent plan mainly concerned with issues nearer London but where
Cambridge is the only practical termination point. At least that's
my reading of it. I'm assured that the case for Chesterton Parkway
is unaffected, mainly because CB1 depends on diverting the cars from
the existing station.

So how will Chesterton Parkway work? Shuttling one unit down to
Cambridge to connect with the remainder... and with only one
platform it'll be challenging to have sufficiently regular trains
to attract commuters in their cars.

It will have two through platforms as well as a terminating bay. Some
trains will go through Cambridge to terminate there instead of at
Cambridge. I don;t think they will be 12-car though I don't recall it
being discussed in the Chesterton plans.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Overcrowded trains
 

On 3 Aug, 22:10, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
In article , (Roland



Perry) wrote:
In message . uk,
at 21:30:00 on Sun, 3 Aug 2008, Colin Rosenstiel
remarked:
Why can't they terminate at Chesterton Parkway?

Only one terminating platform. I'm not sure it will accommodate 12 car
trains either.

No planning has included 12 car trains on West Anglia until a very
recent plan mainly concerned with issues nearer London but where
Cambridge is the only practical termination point. At least that's
my reading of it. I'm assured that the case for Chesterton Parkway
is unaffected, mainly because CB1 depends on diverting the cars from
the existing station.

So how will Chesterton Parkway work? Shuttling one unit down to
Cambridge to connect with the remainder... and with only one
platform it'll be challenging to have sufficiently regular trains
to attract commuters in their cars.

It will have two through platforms as well as a terminating bay. Some
trains will go through Cambridge to terminate there instead of at
Cambridge. I don;t think they will be 12-car though I don't recall it
being discussed in the Chesterton plans.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

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?

Overcrowded trains
 

On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 14:03:48 +0100, David Hansen
wrote:

On lines equipped with conductor rails the result might be worse.

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


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

Overcrowded trains
 

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

Overcrowded trains
 

Overcrowded trains
 

"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

Overcrowded trains
 

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

Overcrowded trains
 

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

Overcrowded trains
 

"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

Overcrowded trains
 

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 -

Overcrowded trains
 

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?

Overcrowded trains
 

"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."

Overcrowded trains
 

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