"D7666" wrote in message
...
I've only picked up this tread today so and quickly skimmed through it
and apologies if what I am about to write has been said already in
this thread.


In the Sheffield footbridge thread it was stated that EMT as part of
the franchise specification set by DfT had to barrier the station, and
its this that has led to the unwanted effect of bloking the direct
foot bridge - tram stop route.

Does not a similar sort of argument apply at Paddington - ISTR
barriering Paddington was set in a franchise spec because for a long
tie it went without any. Was it not just after the current fGW period
that Padd gained barriers. So when talking about ''common barrier
areas'' etc i.e. common with LU is it perhaps the DfT or forerunners
who are responsible for this in the first place. If so, its bound up
in franchise terms and not easy to undo.

Sorry, missed this Nick.

Yes, barriers for the suburban platforms was a fairly recent franchise
requirement, the drawings first came to light and were discussed in u.t.l
towards the end of 2008 IIRC. I think what they ended up with is the best
of a bad job, because it was impossible to have separate accesses to the LU
and NR platforms due to the bridge constraints. You probably remember the
'LU only' gateline was further along the bridge, between the stairs to
13/14 and 15/16.

The normal situation at a major terminus seems to be not to allow a 'short
circuit' from mainline to underground, perhaps Paul C could comment on that?
I'm thinking of places such as Waterloo, Liverpool St, Kings Cross.

But as we now know the current work reverts it to separate paid areas for NR
and LU - I expect (in hindsight) this is a basic requirement for revenue
protection...

By the way, Crossrail have produced a flyer on the demolition and its impact
on the H&C station - it is easy to see why the line is closed...

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/ny/pdf/CR...ank_050710.pdf

Paul S