"Mr Thant" wrote

There is no case for spare long platforms in case of weekend engineering
works on Thameslink etc either...

If the majority of the Thameslink fleet is indivisible 12 car trains,
then yes there is.

9 long and 3 short platforms should be enough for 5 tph NXEC, 6 tph
Cambridge/Peterborough, 4 (or even 8) tph inner suburban, if they can't go
back to Moorgate, and one HT/GC/GN.

Peter

On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 13:09:52 +0000, Tom Anderson put finger to keyboard
and typed:

On Tue, 3 Feb 2009, Mark Goodge wrote:

by whatever method (car/bus/tube/taxi/walk/etc) will take me there. The
idea of using station retail facilities for a quick shop on the way
through after arrival hadn't occurred to me. But, given that I do most
of my supermarket shopping on the way home from work (by car), it's not
unreasonable for rail commuters to want to be able to do the same thing
when arriving home by train. The obvious locations, though, for station
supermarkets would be commuter stations at the "home" end of the route,
rather than the city centre destination stations.

... and apply it!

The advantage of being able to do your shopping at the starting end is
that you can do it while waiting for your train, which is time you're
going to be spedning hanging around the station anyway. If the shop is at
the destination end, then every minute spent shopping is a minute later
walking in your front door.

Hmmm. I see your point, but I can't imagine any situation in which I'd
be likely to put it into practice. When I commuted by rail, my journey
home was essentially continuous (walk-tube-train-walk) with no more
than a few minutes wait at any point (unless something had gone
horribly wrong), so spending any time shopping at the station in
between tube and train (or in between office and tube) would have
risked missing the train I intended to catch. And now that I don't
commute as such by train, but do visit London by train quite often on
business, I don't think I'd particularly want to lug a bag of shopping
onto the train with me at Euston - especially since I'll have to carry
it from the station to my car at the other end and I'll already have a
briefcase and/or laptop with me.

On the other hand, when I lived in Ely and used the train to visit
Cambridge fairly often for leisure purposes (mostly going out for a
beer in the evening with friends or colleagues), I'd often pop into
the Tesco next to the station on the way home and pick up the odd item
that I thought I needed.

Mark
--
A Miscellany Of Good Stuff:
http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
http://namestore.good-stuff.co.uk
http://news.good-stuff.co.uk

On 3 Feb, 14:13, Mark Goodge wrote:

Hmmm. I see your point, but I can't imagine any situation in which I'd
be likely to put it into practice. When I commuted by rail, my journey
home was essentially continuous (walk-tube-train-walk) with no more
than a few minutes wait at any point

Mine isn't, on purpose. I always aim to arrive at Euston about 10-15
minutes before the train I want to catch, as this pretty much
guarantees a seat of my preference (window side, near the front,
accessible seat for extra legroom).

However, it doesn't make a substantial difference to this if I'm there
9 or 10 minutes beforehand, and sometimes the train is delayed
anyway. If this is the case, it's a perfect time to pop into a shop
for something. I travel to/from the station by bike and carry a
rucksack rather than a briefcase, so it just fits in there.

OTOH, a diversion via Tesco on the way home would take 30 minutes or
so off my already-too-short evening.

Neil

On 3/2/09 10:21, in article , "Peter
Masson" wrote:

1970s, in connection with suburban electrification York Road platform, and
platforms 14-17, abolished. Platforms renumbered 1 - 11 in a continuous
sequence.

Only two platforms, 9 and 10, in the suburban station; 11 was re-instated
some years later. I think what would become 11 was fenced off, and had no
track in it.

What was 17 used for?

"Stephen Furley" wrote in message
...



On 3/2/09 10:21, in article ,
"Peter
Masson" wrote:

1970s, in connection with suburban electrification York Road platform,
and
platforms 14-17, abolished. Platforms renumbered 1 - 11 in a continuous
sequence.

Only two platforms, 9 and 10, in the suburban station; 11 was re-instated
some years later. I think what would become 11 was fenced off, and had no
track in it.

What was 17 used for?

Presumably for suburban trains, though I imagine it had little use after 14
and 15 were added, and especially after WW2 when trains to the Northern
Heights went over to LUL Northern Line. Thanks for the reminder that
platform 11 was temporarily abolished after GN suburban electrification.

Peter

On Tue, 3 Feb 2009, Andrew Heenan wrote:

"John B" wrote ...
On Feb 3, 12:27 pm, "Andrew Heenan" wrote:
- the failure to electrify Gospel Oak to Barking (and twenty other false
economies);

That's territorial fighting. The UK freight resurgence is diesel-based
(the EMD Class 66 is the single best thing to happen to UK rail freight
in c.100 years: it's cheap and it Just Works) so there's no benefit to
freight operators in electrifying it. The only operator who'd benefit
is TfL, but they're not willing to pay the full cost without any
control over the infrastructure.

Very wrong; the 'resurgence' needn't be diesel-based,

But it *is* diesel-based.

Everyone, in every camp (except diesel trainbuilders), would like it if it
was electric-based, and the necessary bits of line were electrified to
make that possible, but that hasn't happened, and nobody feels like paying
for it, so it hasn't happened. So the growth of freight *is*, whether you
like it or not, diesel-based.

tom

--
Tristan Tzara offered to create a poem on the spot by pulling words at
random from a hat. A riot ensued and Andre Breton expelled Tzara from
the movement.

"Tom Anderson" wrote ...
On Feb 3, 12:27 pm, "Andrew Heenan" wrote:
- the failure to electrify Gospel Oak to Barking (and twenty other false
economies);
snips
Very wrong; the 'resurgence' needn't be diesel-based,
But it *is* diesel-based.
Everyone, in every camp (except diesel trainbuilders), would like it if it
was electric-based, and the necessary bits of line were electrified to
make that possible, but that hasn't happened, and nobody feels like paying
for it, so it hasn't happened. So the growth of freight *is*, whether you
like it or not, diesel-based.

Sorry, I was looking to a future when the current small resugence *could* be
a bigger, electric one; I know what *is*; my whole point is that with a few
minor chnages, the future could be *better*; the fact that it *isn't*, is
why I'm suggesting a certain 'British Rail' type outlook - "It is, it
evermore shall be so"

I'm no fan of privatization, but I readily admit there's been more
progress - either in fact or in planning - over the last 15 years, than in
the 50 before that. And on so much, it's the TOCs making the running, and
NR/Dft/RR resisting; electrification is the perfect example.

*IF* the infill schemes happened, it would allow much freight to be
electric, which in turn would speed up freight, allow more paths, less knock
on damage if one pasenger train fell behind the freight it should have
preceded, allow more options for diversion and expansion, etc., etc., etc.

That's why schemes *like* GOB electrification are so important. And that's
why a real resurgence of freight can only really be achieved with
electrification.

Ironically, the man we should thank for the 66 'revolution', Ed Burkhart,
had a dream of faster freight, and faster growth, and a greater
understanding of the passenger vs. freight capacity problems than the
current NR/Dft/RR - I don't know his views on electrification, but I
suspect whatever his preference, he was simply a realist. For *that* time.
But times have changed.

In message , at 12:14:54 on
Tue, 3 Feb 2009, Paul Scott remarked:
Doesn't the ground floor in effect become part of the station?

Seems just to hold the adjacent part of the roof up, it is outside the
'curve' of the Western Concourse, and the Camden planning drawings suggest
it is 'outside the scope of these applications', and the responsibility of
Kings Cross Central (are they the developers of the railway lands?).

Looks as if it will have no public use, indeed there is no sign of any
direct access between the building and the concourse.

The concourse ground level will "merge through" the hotel ground floor,
it seems:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/images/5381_mh1.jpg

Which of course precludes demolishing the hotel. Hyperspace bypass or no
hyperspace bypass.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 12:14:54 on Tue,
3 Feb 2009, Paul Scott remarked:
Doesn't the ground floor in effect become part of the station?

Seems just to hold the adjacent part of the roof up, it is outside the
'curve' of the Western Concourse, and the Camden planning drawings suggest
it is 'outside the scope of these applications', and the responsibility of
Kings Cross Central (are they the developers of the railway lands?).

Looks as if it will have no public use, indeed there is no sign of any
direct access between the building and the concourse.

The concourse ground level will "merge through" the hotel ground floor, it
seems:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/images/5381_mh1.jpg

Which of course precludes demolishing the hotel. Hyperspace bypass or no
hyperspace bypass.

Interesting - that'll be why I could see no doors on the drawing I referred
to - they've taken them out!

Paul

On Feb 3, 4:14*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
That's territorial fighting. The UK freight resurgence is diesel-based
(the EMD Class 66 is the single best thing to happen to UK rail freight
in c.100 years: it's cheap and it Just Works) so there's no benefit to
freight operators in electrifying it. The only operator who'd benefit
is TfL, but they're not willing to pay the full cost without any
control over the infrastructure.

Very wrong; the 'resurgence' needn't be diesel-based,

But it *is* diesel-based.

Everyone, in every camp (except diesel trainbuilders), would like it if it
was electric-based, and the necessary bits of line were electrified to
make that possible, but that hasn't happened, and nobody feels like paying
for it, so it hasn't happened. So the growth of freight *is*, whether you
like it or not, diesel-based.

Not even that - it *had* to be diesel-based.

Freight is the one unequivocal, massive, resounding success of
privatisation[*], and it worked because suddenly a whole bunch of
people were in charge who were keen to promote freight traffic,
understood how it worked abroad, and were willing to take on trains
that were a bit basic as long as they worked. So there was enormous
organic growth in freight, despite the absence of any particularly
meaningful National Plan. And as you say, it was diesel-based because
you could buy reliable cheap off-the-shelf diesel locos that went
anywhere.

Any electrification B/CA done in 1996 would have completely missed the
point, because it would have been based on 1996 levels of freight
traffic. It's only now that freight traffic has grown to the extent
that it has, driven by privatisation and 66es, that electrification
for freight routes like the GOBLIN is even worth thinking about.
[*] well, freight and Chiltern. Wise investors, these Germans...

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org