In message , at 22:58:00 on
Mon, 2 Feb 2009, Paul Scott remarked:
They have now got two or three ticket machines near the MML buffers on the
rather empty MML concourse (although a few seats have also appeared).

Have they been clever enough not to mount the seats at an angle on the
sloping bit?

I can't remember. They are in a couple of rows parallel to the tracks,
quite close to the glass wall along the E* platform and I'm fairly sure
they are in the gap between the departure board and the buffers (so you
can't see the departure board!) Maybe that's to keep them level.
--
Roland Perry

In message
, at
09:20:08 on Mon, 2 Feb 2009, Jamie Thompson
remarked:
I still think the ideal situation when they redevelop KX would be to
demolish the suburban shed and the somewhat ugly GN Hotel

They demolished quite a bit of shedding between the suburban platforms
and the Hotel at the very start of the project. Some thought this was a
prelude to extending the platform lengths, but it was not the case.

The hotel stays.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at
17:49:09 on Mon, 2 Feb 2009, Sam Wilson remarked:
When I came to the end of the platforms and the giant
statue I felt like some kind of intruder in a private place.

Yes, it almost feels like it's a bit of "backstage" that you've been let
into by accident. I know they probably wanted to keep the pub in the
corner in its original position, but the new pub is characterless (and a
reverse-Tardis inside) so it wasn't worth bothering.

They should have just had the Eurostar buffers at the end of the shed
and done something much more customer friendly with the west wall -
that's now the First Class Lounge and a very uninviting-from-the-outside
restaurant alongside the Champagne bar.

The latter is looking like turning into the Europe's longest White
Elephant, after a brief moment of pre-recession glory.
--
Roland Perry

"Jamie Thompson" wrote in message
...
On 2 Feb, 21:35, "Peter Masson" wrote:
Until the 1970s the platform numbers in the main shed omitted 4 and 9,
so
the original main departure platform was No. 10.

That's interesting. Don't suppose you know the reasoning for that?

IIRC there were originally only 2 platforms (which is why the bridge
only caters to 1 & 8), arrival (on the eastern side, hence the cab
road), and departure on the west side (hence the waiting rooms). The
centre roads being used as stock sidings until the centre platform
(current 4&5) were added over them, and finally the other two. I cold
be wrong, but I'm fairly sure that's how it worked.

I seem to recall a old map online somewhere showing the KX area with
many more platforms...I'll see if I can find it again.

The problem with adding more longer platforms on teh site of the
suburban
station is that this part of the station does not align well with the
Gas
Works Tunnels, so a good track layout in the throat would be difficult
to
achieve.

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.

On opening in 1852
Arrival platfform I(now 1)
14 carriage roads
Departure platform (now 8)

1862 new arrival platform added, full length one side (now 2) and stepped
the other side, with a short bay at the outer end (later 3) and a short
platform at the inner end (later 4).

In 1863 connections to the Met opened. Up trains to the Met called at York
Road platform. Down trains from the Met ran via the Hotel Curve, and set
back into the departure platform (now 8).

1875 the Local station opened (for departures only) - 2 tracks with 3
platform faces, on site of current 9 - 11.

1878 the Hotel Curve platform (later 16) added
2nd Gas Wiorks tunnel opened, and York Road platform resited

1892 3rd Gas Works tunnel added

1893 two platforms added either side of the central wall (now 4 and 5)

1895 Local station altered to give 3 tracks and 3 platforms (now 9-11).
Hotel Curve platform rebuilt and new terminal platform on its opposite face
(later 17) added.

1924 new island platform added between the local station and the Hotel Curve
platform, numbered 14 and 15.

1926 new island platform added in the departure side of the main shed,
numbered 7 and 8.

Numbering was now 1 - 17 across the station, though No. 9 was a carriage
road between 8 and 10 (now 7 and 8)

1934 platform 3 abolished and 4 extended to full length

1938 carriage road 9 abolished and 7/8 widened.

These last two changes explain the omission of platform numbers 3 and 9.

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

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.

However, the intended diversion of most of the FCC service into Thameslink
will mean, at least with the new platform and the new concourse, that Kings
Cross will have enough capacity. Perhaps though the main trainshed will be
used for NXEC and the remaining FCC trains (12-car at peak times) with the
suburban shed used for the shorter Hull Trains, Grand Central and Grand
Northern.

Peter

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message
,
at 09:20:08 on Mon, 2 Feb 2009, Jamie Thompson
remarked:
I still think the ideal situation when they redevelop KX would be to
demolish the suburban shed and the somewhat ugly GN Hotel

They demolished quite a bit of shedding between the suburban
platforms and the Hotel at the very start of the project. Some
thought this was a prelude to extending the platform lengths, but
it was not the case.

The hotel stays.

Sort of. Doesn't the ground floor in effect become part of the station?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

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 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.

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

"Jamie Thompson" wrote in message
...
On 2 Feb, 16:15, Mark Goodge wrote:
Kins Cross suffers badly from a combination of the split between the
main and suburban train sheds and creeping retailisation on the
concourse. The new concourse ought to improve both of those, at least
a bit.

I still think the ideal situation when they redevelop KX would be to
demolish the suburban shed and the somewhat ugly GN Hotel and build
another full-length train shed span next to the existing two. Failing
that, I never could understand why TPTB claimed more suburban
platforms were too expensive....KX used to at one point have several
more adjacent to the current shed (3+ more?)

'When they redevelop KX' - it's already designed and commenced last year...

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. The existing platforms will see much
less use then, and still be long enough for diverted 6 car trains if the
Moorgate line still shuts at weekends.

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

Paul S

In message , at 04:39:51
on Tue, 3 Feb 2009, remarked:
The hotel stays.

Sort of. Doesn't the ground floor in effect become part of the station?

Doesn't the hotel building rather obviously have to "stay" for that to
happen?

--
Roland Perry

wrote in message
...
In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message
,
at 09:20:08 on Mon, 2 Feb 2009, Jamie Thompson
remarked:
I still think the ideal situation when they redevelop KX would be to
demolish the suburban shed and the somewhat ugly GN Hotel

They demolished quite a bit of shedding between the suburban
platforms and the Hotel at the very start of the project. Some
thought this was a prelude to extending the platform lengths, but
it was not the case.

The hotel stays.

Sort of. 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. A similar situation
to St Pancras where the hotel & apartments is a separate project?

Paul S

On 3 Feb, 10:21, "Peter Masson" wrote:
On opening in 1852
Arrival platfform I(now 1)
14 carriage roads
Departure platform (now 8)

With you so far.

1862 new arrival platform added, full length one side (now 2) and stepped
the other side, with a short bay at the outer end (later 3) and a short
platform at the inner end (later 4).

...and I'm already skidding of the track. Oh dear.

In 1863 connections to the Met opened. Up trains to the Met called at York
Road platform. Down trains from the Met ran via the Hotel Curve, and set
back into the departure platform (now 8).

Makes sense.

1875 the Local station opened (for departures only) - 2 tracks with 3
platform faces, on site of current 9 - 11.

Can't help but wonder if that would be a better arrangement then what
we have now. Crowds hanging around on the platform as train loads try
to get off is nicely avoided by having arrivals on one side of the
train and departures on the other. Perhaps "A||D||A" or somesuch could
work. If you had a full barrier line across all three that matched the
platforms, you might even be able to get onto the platforms within a
few minutes of a train arriving...

1878 the Hotel Curve platform (later 16) added
2nd Gas Wiorks tunnel opened, and York Road platform resited

1892 3rd Gas Works tunnel added

Shame they didn't open a 4th to the west

1893 two platforms added either side of the central wall (now 4 and 5)

Did this ever have access to the footbridge?

1895 Local station altered to give 3 tracks and 3 platforms (now 9-11).
Hotel Curve platform rebuilt and new terminal platform on its opposite face
(later 17) added.

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.

1926 new island platform added in the departure side of the main shed,
numbered 7 and 8.

Is the relative youth of the platform any relation to the axle weight
restriction sign on it, do you know?

Numbering was now 1 - 17 across the station, though No. 9 was a carriage
road between 8 and 10 (now 7 and 8)

1934 platform 3 abolished and 4 extended to full length

1938 carriage road 9 abolished and 7/8 widened.

These last two changes explain the omission of platform numbers 3 and 9.

Intriguing. Though in that diagram I found there are definitely 17
faces onto tracks, so unless some of them were non-platform faces, I'm
a bit confused. I guess some might be parcels platforms or somesuch.
They're all unnumbered on it.

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

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.

However, the intended diversion of most of the FCC service into Thameslink
will mean, at least with the new platform and the new concourse, that Kings
Cross will have enough capacity. Perhaps though the main trainshed will be
used for NXEC and the remaining FCC trains (12-car at peak times) with the
suburban shed used for the shorter Hull Trains, Grand Central and Grand
Northern.

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.

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.