On Jul 11, 12:46*am, Duncan wrote:
In article ,
says...







On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 11:09:59 +0100, "Peter Masson"
wrote:

If the peak congestion is intolerable, the only quick fix I can think of is
to instigate a one-way system to and from platforms 13 - 16. One way via
platform 12 and the other way via the bridge. There would be people for whom
this would be inconvenient. It might also be possible to have the whole of
the bridge within the gated area, with gates removed from the bridge and put
at the foot of the stairs on platforms 1 and 6 - 9.

This was my proposal, pretty much, though that other exit is an issue.
The easier short-term one, as practiced by LM, is just to open the
barriers in the peaks and use them off-peak only, taking the very
slight revenue hit in favour of good customer service and safety
management.

As this also the gateline to the LUL platforms it may be easier said
than done. At Euston the decision by LM to leave the gates open only
affects their services, whereas at Paddington I assume FGW would need
the agreement from TfL.


Well, LM opening the gates does affect London Overground, who run
trains on behalf of TfL In fact, it is normally the arrival of a LM
and a LO train at similar times which causes the overcrowding at the
gates. The gate-line is being widened in the near future, so that it
can remain in use all the time.

Do any other LUL stations leave their gates open, as I'm not aware of
any?

Generally only the quieter LU stations, when there are insufficient
staff to man the gate-line.

On 10 July, 16:14, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
"D DB 90001" wrote in ...

Hopefully, the plan in the long term will be either an extra bridge,
or widening of existing infrastructure and an extra set of stairs; no
idea if that's the official plan tho.

Details are available on Westminster's planning website:

http://idocs.westminster.gov.uk:8080...cs.do?appNumbe...

The 'design and access statement', figure 3.2.2 is a relevant section, but
the text quality is very poor.

The rebuilt H&C station has its own access routes from the main station, and
a dedicated gateline, leading to three sets of stairs and a lift down to
P15/16. *The existing footbridge will not provide a direct interchange route
from 10/11/13/14 to the LU platforms, you'll have to leave via a dedicated
gateline, and re-enter the underground's gateline. *(And vice versa of
course)

Paul S

Many, many thanks for digging this up, I would have looked for it
myself, but I didn't have a clue where to start!

As you say, the future plans for the Northern end of Paddington look
much more promising. An extra set of gatelines to pass through if you
are coming from platforms 13/14 or 10/11, but passengers from 8/9 and
1-7 can use the southern bridge and avoid the gated area (via 13/14
and 10/11); (had to re-read several of the documents a few times to
understand the complex layout, but eventually got it!) Then there is a
completely new gateline for platforms 15/16 with 3 sets of stairs for
the H&C/C platforms as you mentioned; this should ease overcrowding on
the 13/14-10/11 bridge because passengers changing from H&C to IC FGW
services won't have to use that Northern bridge, but can use the
Southern bridge instead (and NO gates on that bridge).

In the short term though they really should reopen the second set of
stairs between 13/14 and 15/16 in order to allow a full one-way system
between H&C/C services. Access TO H&C/C would be via platform 12 and
the newly reopened bridge; and access FROM H&C/C to FGW services via
the existing Northern Bridge - simply making the barriers on that
bridge permenantly one-way in order to prevent dangerous bi-
directional passenger movements. Since there are already barriers
preventing unauthorised access to Platform 12, unless a passenger
leaves via the Northern exit via a rather convoluted route there is
very minimal risk of revenue loss. Passengers changing between H&C/C
and suburban services wouldn't need to touch in since their journey
would just continue as normal as it does now. (Yes, I know the one-way
solution has already been mentioned, apologies for repeating that,
just did it for completeness.)

The question is, with the problem of the congestion on the stairs to
platforms 15/16 and the related overbridge, why the Hell is the second
set of stairs (and related overbridge) not operational currently?
Ironically this overbridge is slated for demolition as part of the
plans for the new H&C Paddington Northern entrance!

Once again, many thanks for the link to the planning documents, found
them to be very illuminating - despite being near-impossible to read!
Highly recommend them for further reading.

On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 17:37:00 -0700 (PDT), Andy
wrote:

On Jul 11, 12:46*am, Duncan wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 11:09:59 +0100, "Peter Masson"
wrote:

If the peak congestion is intolerable, the only quick fix I can think of is
to instigate a one-way system to and from platforms 13 - 16. One way via
platform 12 and the other way via the bridge. There would be people for whom
this would be inconvenient. It might also be possible to have the whole of
the bridge within the gated area, with gates removed from the bridge and put
at the foot of the stairs on platforms 1 and 6 - 9.

This was my proposal, pretty much, though that other exit is an issue.
The easier short-term one, as practiced by LM, is just to open the
barriers in the peaks and use them off-peak only, taking the very
slight revenue hit in favour of good customer service and safety
management.

As this also the gateline to the LUL platforms it may be easier said
than done. At Euston the decision by LM to leave the gates open only
affects their services, whereas at Paddington I assume FGW would need
the agreement from TfL.


Well, LM opening the gates does affect London Overground, who run
trains on behalf of TfL

Who in turn are providing an NR service.

In fact, it is normally the arrival of a LM
and a LO train at similar times which causes the overcrowding at the
gates. The gate-line is being widened in the near future, so that it
can remain in use all the time.

Do any other LUL stations leave their gates open, as I'm not aware of
any?

Generally only the quieter LU stations, when there are insufficient
staff to man the gate-line.

On Jul 11, 7:24*am, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 17:37:00 -0700 (PDT), Andy
wrote:





On Jul 11, 12:46*am, Duncan wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 11:09:59 +0100, "Peter Masson"
wrote:

If the peak congestion is intolerable, the only quick fix I can think of is
to instigate a one-way system to and from platforms 13 - 16. One way via
platform 12 and the other way via the bridge. There would be people for whom
this would be inconvenient. It might also be possible to have the whole of
the bridge within the gated area, with gates removed from the bridge and put
at the foot of the stairs on platforms 1 and 6 - 9.

This was my proposal, pretty much, though that other exit is an issue.
The easier short-term one, as practiced by LM, is just to open the
barriers in the peaks and use them off-peak only, taking the very
slight revenue hit in favour of good customer service and safety
management.

As this also the gateline to the LUL platforms it may be easier said
than done. At Euston the decision by LM to leave the gates open only
affects their services, whereas at Paddington I assume FGW would need
the agreement from TfL.

Well, LM opening the gates does affect London Overground, who run
trains on behalf of TfL

Who in turn are providing an NR service.


But the LO revenue all goes to TfL, so they might wish to have a say
in whether the gates are left open. I was answering the statement that
at Euston only LM are affected.

On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 14:12:57 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

I suppose the IRA bombing campaign against London targets would have
done a lot to change traffic arrangements such as that at Paddington.
Sadly, the Islamist threat that replaced it makes it all the more
important to keep road vehicle flows out of stations. :-(

Yet there are road vehicle flows in a few stations still - Edinburgh
Waverley for one.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To reply put my first name before the at.

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 00:46:55 +0100, Duncan wrote:

As this also the gateline to the LUL platforms it may be easier said
than done. At Euston the decision by LM to leave the gates open only
affects their services

It affects LO as well, as the gates also cover Platform 9. But I
suppose it's still "National Rail" though.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To reply put my first name before the at.

On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 16:14:28 +0100, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

The 'design and access statement', figure 3.2.2 is a relevant section, but
the text quality is very poor.

Cheers - it looks like this will help a lot. Though I think the
gateline for the bridge is badly placed - it is not wide enough and
should move out into the open area at the end of the bridge to allow
for enough gates for the large flow.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To reply put my first name before the at.

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 14:02:04 +0100, Neil Williams
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 14:12:57 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

I suppose the IRA bombing campaign against London targets would have
done a lot to change traffic arrangements such as that at Paddington.
Sadly, the Islamist threat that replaced it makes it all the more
important to keep road vehicle flows out of stations. :-(

Yet there are road vehicle flows in a few stations still - Edinburgh
Waverley for one.


Ssshhh! Don't tell anyone!

Although it is difficult to see how Waverley could be accessed by cars
and taxis in any other way, given the confines of the site.

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:29:49 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

Although it is difficult to see how Waverley could be accessed by cars
and taxis in any other way, given the confines of the site.

I suppose the only other option would be on the street, such as the
bridges.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To reply put my first name before the at.

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:06:49 +0100, Neil Williams
wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:29:49 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

Although it is difficult to see how Waverley could be accessed by cars
and taxis in any other way, given the confines of the site.

I suppose the only other option would be on the street, such as the
bridges.


It's difficult to see how people arriving/departing by car/taxi could
be adequately served by pick up/set down on the bridges. There is
also the issue of where long term car parking could be provided.

Obviously none of these changes would be impossible, but they would
greatly reduce the utility of the station. Whether that would be
worth the reduction in security risk is difficult to evaluate.