On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 06:28:12 GMT, Chris Tolley put finger to keyboard
and typed:

Neil Williams wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:22:02 +0100, Barry Salter
wrote:

Allegedly the "farce" you mention at Euston is deliberate, in case sets
need to be swapped for whatever reason. If the peak services "always"
departed from the same platforms, then it'd cause even more chaos if
they did need to swap a set out, as they'd have to get all of the
regulars off of the "wrong" platform.

This is probably the reason, but it isn't a good one. Platform
alterations happen all the time in other stations, and do not
generally cause "chaos".

Euston isn't the ideal place to do that kind of thing. The only
interchange between platforms (assuming the subterranean tunnels are off
limits) is via the concourse, which is at a different level, and Euston
probably has a fair proportion of longer-distance travellers with
luggage, who will not only be slower than average, but will also get in
the way of others making their way from platform X to Y. With just a bit
of bad luck, chaos (for once) could turn out to be the best word to
describe the result.

It's always struck me that Euston is particularly badly designed, in
this respect. Given that the concourse is at a different level to the
platforms anyway, why not put the concourse *over* the platforms,
instead of well to the rear of them? That not only allows for multiple
routes down to each platform instead of just the one, but also makes
the walking distance from concourse to train considerably shorter and
gives you more concourse space.

I know that having the concourse above the tracks can lead to a rather
claustrophic platform area (compared to the airiness of, say, Kings
Cross), but Euston doesn't exactly feel spacious to begin with so a
lower roof over the platforms would hardly be a great loss.

Mark
--
http://www.railwaystations.info - creating a pictorial record of British railway stations