On Aug 25, 11:36*pm, Robert wrote:
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

IMHO, the better solution would have been to install a single BR WR
track north of the H&C, from Royal Oak, to serve platform 17. IIRC
there was ample space thru the old parcels depot.

Perhaps below Royal Oak would be the better place for the Cross Rail
reversing platforms. Although to me, that whole concept is wrong.