It has been reported (only by 'Transport Briefing' so far AFAICT) that a
second Crossrail Paddington station design contract has been let that:

"...involves drawing up detailed plans for a coordinated scheme for the
north side of Paddington station. This will include a new station entrance
fronting Paddington Basin, complete redevelopment of the Hammersmith and
City line Tube station, a new taxi facility and provision for an over-site
development."

"Crossrail has awarded this latest design deal to accommodate the
significant increase in passenger demand predicted for Paddington station
and provide safe, smooth, step-free access through the station."

IIRC many of the discussions about the 'teacup service' alterations
mentioned the poor quality of the H&C platforms for interchange purposes. I
guess these proposed alterations to the overall station were already known
to LU's planners, and it is possible that part of the rationale for the
extended Circle service is to improve distribution of pax from Crossrail,
without needing to pass through the District/Circle station?

A couple of questions though, firstly why not do all the rebuilding first
and alter the service patterns later? Secondly, is the Network Rail 'Span 4'
work already integrated with this (apparently) new package?

Paul S

On Aug 25, 7:10*am, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
It has been reported (only by 'Transport Briefing' so far AFAICT) that a
second Crossrail Paddington station design contract has been let that:

"...involves drawing up detailed plans for a coordinated scheme for the
north side of Paddington station. This will include a new station entrance
fronting Paddington Basin, complete redevelopment of the Hammersmith and
City line Tube station, a new taxi facility and provision for an over-site
development."

"Crossrail has awarded this latest design deal to accommodate the
significant increase in passenger demand predicted for Paddington station
and provide safe, smooth, step-free access through the station."

IIRC many of the discussions about the 'teacup service' alterations
mentioned the poor quality of the H&C platforms for interchange purposes. *I
guess these proposed alterations to the overall station were already known
to LU's planners, and it is possible that part of the rationale for the
extended Circle service is to improve distribution of pax from Crossrail,
without needing to pass through the District/Circle station?

A couple of questions though, firstly why not do all the rebuilding first
and alter the service patterns later? Secondly, is the Network Rail 'Span 4'
work already integrated with this (apparently) new package?

Paul S

Thank you for posting Paul. I really appreciate seeing this
information. Somehow I had gotten the idea that the Paddington
Crossrail platforms were going to be on the other side of the mainline
platforms, under the cab road.

If Crossrail is going to be over on the north side I think
consideration should be given to cross platform interchange with the
Hammersmith and City.

My 0.02

In message
"Paul Scott" wrote:

[snip]

A couple of questions though, firstly why not do all the rebuilding first
and alter the service patterns later?

Get the bugs out of the service alterations before the increased passenger
loadings take effect?

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

1506 wrote:

Thank you for posting Paul. I really appreciate seeing this
information. Somehow I had gotten the idea that the Paddington
Crossrail platforms were going to be on the other side of the mainline
platforms, under the cab road.

If Crossrail is going to be over on the north side I think
consideration should be given to cross platform interchange with the
Hammersmith and City.

But the Crossrail platforms WILL be on the south west side of the station.
That is a separate contract, this work is a previously unknown feature
AFAICT, at least as far as publicly available info goes.

What isn't really explained is if the major interchange route is to be below
the main line platforms - it seems the most logical solution to me...

Paul

On 2009-08-25 16:37:19 +0100, 1506 said:

On Aug 25, 7:10*am, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
It has been reported (only by 'Transport Briefing' so far AFAICT) that a
second Crossrail Paddington station design contract has been let that:

"...involves drawing up detailed plans for a coordinated scheme for the
north side of Paddington station. This will include a new station entranc
e
fronting Paddington Basin, complete redevelopment of the Hammersmith and
City line Tube station, a new taxi facility and provision for an over-sit
e
development."

"Crossrail has awarded this latest design deal to accommodate the
significant increase in passenger demand predicted for Paddington station
and provide safe, smooth, step-free access through the station."

IIRC many of the discussions about the 'teacup service' alterations
mentioned the poor quality of the H&C platforms for interchange purposes.
*I
guess these proposed alterations to the overall station were already know
n
to LU's planners, and it is possible that part of the rationale for the
extended Circle service is to improve distribution of pax from Crossrail,
without needing to pass through the District/Circle station?

A couple of questions though, firstly why not do all the rebuilding first
and alter the service patterns later? Secondly, is the Network Rail 'Span
4'
work already integrated with this (apparently) new package?

Paul S

Thank you for posting Paul. I really appreciate seeing this
information. Somehow I had gotten the idea that the Paddington
Crossrail platforms were going to be on the other side of the mainline
platforms, under the cab road.

If Crossrail is going to be over on the north side I think
consideration should be given to cross platform interchange with the
Hammersmith and City.

My 0.02

As far as I understand it, this announcement of the this new contract
does not imply that the Crossrail station is being moved away from
being under Eastbourne Terrace. It simply says that a new northern
entrance is to be designed, and having suffered travelling via the H&C
to and from Paddington, not before time. The entrance to the suburban
platforms from Bishops Bridge has been closed for years and ever since
the 1968 resignalling the westbound H&C trains have had to share a
platform with the eastbound trains and the exit stairway to the
Paddington overbridge has been like a rugby scrum whenever two trains
cross there.

A new entrance on the north side with easy access to the forthcoming
Crossrail platforms to the south of the station (via a subway or an
extension to the existing bridge?) will be a great boon in view of the
number and size of the office blocks built on the site of the old
parcels depot over the past 10 years ar so.
--
Robert

In article ,
(rail) wrote:

In message
"Paul Scott" wrote:

[snip]

A couple of questions though, firstly why not do all the
rebuilding first and alter the service patterns later?

Get the bugs out of the service alterations before the increased
passenger loadings take effect?

When the existing platforms won't cope with the crap new service?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Aug 25, 8:58*am, Robert wrote:
On 2009-08-25 16:37:19 +0100, 1506 said:





On Aug 25, 7:10*am, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
It has been reported (only by 'Transport Briefing' so far AFAICT) that a
second Crossrail Paddington station design contract has been let that:

"...involves drawing up detailed plans for a coordinated scheme for the
north side of Paddington station. This will include a new station entranc
e
fronting Paddington Basin, complete redevelopment of the Hammersmith and
City line Tube station, a new taxi facility and provision for an over-sit
e
development."

"Crossrail has awarded this latest design deal to accommodate the
significant increase in passenger demand predicted for Paddington station
and provide safe, smooth, step-free access through the station."

IIRC many of the discussions about the 'teacup service' alterations
mentioned the poor quality of the H&C platforms for interchange purposes.
**I
guess these proposed alterations to the overall station were already know
n
to LU's planners, and it is possible that part of the rationale for the
extended Circle service is to improve distribution of pax from Crossrail,
without needing to pass through the District/Circle station?

A couple of questions though, firstly why not do all the rebuilding first
and alter the service patterns later? Secondly, is the Network Rail 'Span
*4'
work already integrated with this (apparently) new package?

Paul S

Thank you for posting Paul. *I really appreciate seeing this
information. *Somehow I had gotten the idea that the Paddington
Crossrail platforms were going to be on the other side of the mainline
platforms, under the cab road.

If Crossrail is going to be over on the north side I think
consideration should be given to cross platform interchange with the
Hammersmith and City.

My 0.02

As far as I understand it, this announcement of the this new contract
does not imply that the Crossrail station is being moved away from
being under Eastbourne Terrace. It simply says that a new northern
entrance is to be designed, and having suffered travelling via the H&C
to and from Paddington, not before time. The entrance to the suburban
platforms from Bishops Bridge has been closed for years and ever since
the 1968 resignalling the westbound H&C trains have had to share a
platform with the eastbound trains and the exit stairway to the
Paddington overbridge has been like a rugby scrum whenever two trains
cross there.

A new entrance on the north side with easy access to the forthcoming
Crossrail platforms to the south of the station (via a subway or an
extension to the existing bridge?) will be a great boon in view of the
number and size of the office blocks built on the site of the old
parcels depot over the past 10 years ar so.
--
Robert

IMHO The 1968 rearangement of the Paddington Suburban Platforms was a
mistake.

"1506" wrote

IMHO The 1968 rearangement of the Paddington Suburban Platforms was a
mistake.

It avoided the problems when a WR dmu failed to hitch up its AWS at Subway
Junction, and had to be diverted into the Main Line station. And it avoided
the WR messing up timekeeping on the H&C and Circle Lines. Though if someone
had dreamt up bi-mode then, perhaps the Slough to Moorgate through trains
could have been resurrected.

Peter

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:33:10 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be 1506
wrote this:-

IMHO The 1968 rearangement of the Paddington Suburban Platforms was a
mistake.

LT was very keen on segregation at the time. Wherever possible they
wanted their own trains on their own tracks with no other trains.


--
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

On 2009-08-26 01:12:30 +0100, David Hansen
said:

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:33:10 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be 1506
wrote this:-

IMHO The 1968 rearangement of the Paddington Suburban Platforms was a
mistake.

LT was very keen on segregation at the time. Wherever possible they
wanted their own trains on their own tracks with no other trains.

I would suggest that that is quite a sensible approach, certainly at
Paddington, in view of the possibility of delays on the GW being
imported onto the H&C, District (at Edgware Road) and the Circle lines.
But it eliminated the easy cross-platform connection which used to
exist.

The problem was that there were originally two sets of steps to each of
the island platforms, one set going out to Bishops Bridge and the other
to the footbridge over the platforms at the country end of Paddington
station, which were installed in the GWR re-build of the suburban
station. The number of stairways was reduced when the Bishops Bridge
exit was closed so all those passengers who used to make a
cross-platform connection could no long do so and were also forced to
use the one remaining set of stairs.

I know it's a bit late to change the plans for Crossrail and the
outer-suburban trains, but a better solution would have been to add
another island to Royal Oak station and make it possible to make
cross-platform connectionsto and from the H&C there and thereby reduce
the size of the scrum at Paddington.
--
Robert