|
Euston Station
On 3 Feb, 11:41, "Paul Scott" wrote:
You have to look at the plans for the whole area though. The re-design for Kings Cross didn't need to allow for longer or more suburban platforms, because the greater proportion will be diverted to Thameslink, and lengthened to 12 car at that time. Thameslink will only have room for 8 of them per hour. While that should mean 12 car platform provision at KX is adequate in 2015, it won't have room for any serious growth in IC or outer suburban frequency. (though granted, neither does Welwyn viaduct) 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. U |
King's Cross Station
"martyn dawe" wrote
I think there was a fear of confusing the signals folk - apparently they could re-sign the platforms, but they'd run out of dymolabels to sort out the signals diagrams ... ... or something equally stupid, unbelievable and Totally British Rail. I thought British Rail Cased some years ago ? What on earth made you think that? They live on in all but name, all over the country, doing loopy, stupid things and blaming others afterward; look around you - the failure to electrify Gospel Oak to Barking (and twenty other false economies); - restoring Barlow's magnificent train shed - and adding a flat roofed mess at the end - seriously planning an electric train dragging a diesel engine from London to Scotland, rather than, er, attach it at Edinburgh for the onward journey. I could go on, endlessly; BR is alive and well, but working in disguise. -- Andrew |
Euston Station
On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 23:49:32 -0000, "David Morgan"
wrote: "Adrian" wrote in message ... I think it's somehting like "Pur-kip-see". "Pick-upsy", IIRC Although I travelled through Poughkeepsie a few years ago the train wasn't scheduled to stop so there was no announcement. So my only reference is from the TV series Friends episode "The Girl from Poughkeepsie" where it's pronounced "Pur-kip-see" as Adrian says It's mentioned quite a few times by Gene Hackman in one scene from the French Connection. -- |
King's Cross Station
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. This is neither a situation that's particularly BR-ish, nor one that's unique to the UK. - restoring Barlow's magnificent train shed - and adding a flat roofed mess at the end I think you mean 'a sympathetic, low-profile extension that makes St P useable without detracting from Barlow's architecture. I mean, what, you'd've stuck up a giant pastiche shed extension or something? YAQuinlanTerry[spit]AICMFP. - seriously planning an electric train dragging a diesel engine from London to Scotland, rather than, er, attach it at Edinburgh for the onward journey. I'll give you that one. I don't *entirely* blame people who've seen loco-switching operations in the dying days of CrossCountry, or EMU +loco operations from Chester to Holyhead, for viewing this as unworkable - however, it *should* be as easy and effective as splitting and joining units on the Southern. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Euston Station
In message
, at 04:19:23 on Tue, 3 Feb 2009, Mr Thant remarked: You have to look at the plans for the whole area though. The re-design for Kings Cross didn't need to allow for longer or more suburban platforms, because the greater proportion will be diverted to Thameslink, and lengthened to 12 car at that time. Thameslink will only have room for 8 of them per hour. While that should mean 12 car platform provision at KX is adequate in 2015, it won't have room for any serious growth in IC or outer suburban frequency. And some people have speculated that it will transpire to be 0 per hour, when they decide at some stage not to connect up the ECML to Thameslink after all. -- Roland Perry |
Euston Station
On Tue, 3 Feb 2009, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 21:49:03 GMT, Neil Williams put finger to keyboard and typed: [1] It's a pity that M&S Food[2] seem to have an almost-monopoly on station supermarkets, though. A small Tesco or Sainsbury's would be a lot more useful for a "get a quick shop on the way home" type diversion - which is why the latter is very welcome at Manc Picc. That's an interesting point. I've always seen station retail as catering primarily to departing travellers, and thus focussing on goods (mainly food, toiletries and reading material, plus a few over-priced gifts) that are useful to someone who is waiting to get on a train. That's certainly how I use station retail facilities, anyway - either to eat before I get on the train, or buying something to take on the train with me. By contrast, when I arrive at a station on a train, I only ever want to get out of it as soon as possible in order to complete the journey to my ultimate destination Right. Hold that thought ... 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. It doesn't have to be a full-sized shop, but it's useful to be able to buy the kind of things that don't keep, like fresh fruit and veg, milk, etc. The little M&Ss ought to do this, but have mostly become glorified sandwich shops. tom -- There is no strange thing. |
Euston Station
On Feb 3, 12:15*pm, Jamie Thompson wrote:
1924 new island platform added between the local station and the Hotel Curve platform, numbered 14 and 15. Quite how they manage with only 3 + borrowing some from the maid shed these days is amazing. Don't forget the extra x2 at Moorgate GN. Opening up the Gas Works tunnels is not an option, as the Grand Union Canal goes over the top of them. It might, I suppose, be possible to reinstate the third tunnel, use the western one only for the suburban station (including possible longer and/or additional platforms), the middle one for platforms 5-8, and the eastern one for platforms 1-4 and 0/W/Y or whatever it will be called. You could stick the canal into an aqueduct...it bridges obstacles elsewhere with ease. Bridging the gap for the road is also (relatively speaking, of course) trivial. Boat lift! I do have my doubts. Capacity is the sort of thing that gets eaten up very quickly. I think the diversion onto Thameslink is going to be a monumental balls up. The tube suffers with some delays with multiple branches only going out to zone 5. Thameslink is going to have route pollution from MML (from TL diagrams that use the fast lines), damn near *all* ECML services thanks to the Welwyn viaduct, not to mention the Peterborough services and the magic 3-track section, and they want to merge 24tph into the 2 platform St. Pancras Thameslink....it's all going to go horribly wrong, I suspect. Not making SPTL 4- (or at least 3-)platform was an error. However, the Central line works well, despite its multiple and far-out (including Epping, which would probably be zone 7 or 8 if Essex CC hadn't lobbied and paid to put it in Zone 6 before zones 7-9 were invented) branches, on 24tph. ATO combined with clever signalling that reacts dynamically to any delays in incoming trains is the key here. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Euston Station
On 3 Feb, 13:09, Tom Anderson wrote:
It doesn't have to be a full-sized shop, but it's useful to be able to buy the kind of things that don't keep, like fresh fruit and veg, milk, etc. The little M&Ss ought to do this, but have mostly become glorified sandwich shops. They're fine for milk and bread, but given that unopened milk easily keeps for up to 2 weeks these days that isn't an issue, and bread can be frozen. What I want to be able to buy at Euston on the way home is properly fresh veg for consumption that day. M&S doesn't provide that to any useful extent, not even at an inflated price - just not at all. No fresh mushrooms, for instance. Neil |
King's Cross Station
"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, and with a few infill electrifications, much of the containerised freight (the only part that's actually resurging (!), could be entirely electric. And not territorial fighting; I'd argue exactly the same for a dozen similarly sized schemes (see the railway magazines - they feature regularly). And the argument for GOB preceded the overground by several years.I don't blame the operators for diesel; many of them would jump at the chance to run electric - but they'd have few diversionary routes, and some key lines would be unreachable. Much European freight is electric; if they didn't have four voltages and five signalling systems, probably the 66 would not have been needed in Europe! I think you mean 'a sympathetic, low-profile extension that makes St P useable without detracting from Barlow's architecture. I mean, what, you'd've stuck up a giant pastiche shed extension or something? There's absolutely nothing sympathetic about it; it's brutal. I'll give you that one. I don't *entirely* blame people who've seen loco-switching operations in the dying days of CrossCountry, or EMU +loco operations from Chester to Holyhead, for viewing this as unworkable - however, it *should* be as easy and effective as splitting and joining units on the Southern. And of course, electrification - already planned by Scotland - will remove the need anyway -- Andrew |
Euston Station
"Jamie Thompson" wrote That said, I do love these newsgroups sometimes. If you have somewhere to cite all that from, it'd be great to get that on Wikipedia. The information was taken from 'London's Termini' by Alan A Jackson, originally published by David & Charles in 1969, my edition by Pan Books 1972. The reduction in the number of platforms takes into account the transfer of the Northern Heights (High Barnet and Mill Hill East) to LUL Northern Line, and the diversion of the inner suburbans to Moorgate (except late evenings and weekends), although some trains formerly ran to Broad Street, or to Moorgate via the Widened Lines. Peter |
Euston Station
"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 |
Euston Station
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 |
Euston Station
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 |
Euston Station
|
Euston Station
"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 |
King's Cross Station
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. |
King's Cross Station
"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. |
Euston Station
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 |
Euston Station
"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 |
King's Cross Station
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 |
Euston Station
Mark Goodge wrote 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. When I worked in Moorgate and commuted from SWT Surrey I sometimes shopped in a nearby supermarket (then Safeways) at lunchtime or before going home and sometimes stopped off at Clapham Junction on the way home to visit Asda or Lidl. No M&S nearby then, but even if there had been there wasn't much there that was worth the higher price. Also, most SWT stations beyond Surbiton are distant from their town so 'home end' supermarkets would have little daytime trade. -- Mike D |
King's Cross Station
On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 22:57:18 -0000, "Andrew Heenan"
wrote: "Jamie Thompson" wrote ... Bring back the eastern bore, then have the tracks running primarily diagonally from the mouths to the platforms. Perhaps move some of the pointwork to the maiden lane opening. I guess if you wanted to be drastic...you could even contemplate opening up some of the gasworks tunnels. When they open the 'new' platform on the taxi road, are they still planning to call it "Platform Y", or have they come to their senses and agreed to renumber the existing platforms. I think there was a fear of confusing the signals folk - apparently they could re-sign the platforms, but they'd run out of dymolabels to sort out the signals diagrams ... ... or something equally stupid, unbelievable and Totally British Rail. Isn't it the cost and complication of altering the 'theatre' signal route indicators? Andrew -- Peter Lawrence |
King's Cross Station
"Peter Lawrence" wrote :
When they open the 'new' platform on the taxi road, are they still planning to call it "Platform Y", or have they come to their senses and agreed to renumber the existing platforms. I think there was a fear of confusing the signals folk - apparently they could re-sign the platforms, but they'd run out of dymolabels to sort out the signals diagrams ... ... or something equally stupid, unbelievable and Totally British Rail. Isn't it the cost and complication of altering the 'theatre' signal route indicators? Quite conceiveably; though why that would affect the 'public' signage, with all the distress and confusion that will entail for tourists and 'first timers', is another matter. The public will insist on getting in the way of running a smooth railway, won't they? ;o) |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:15 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk