[original thread on uk.railway]
[x-posted to uk.transport.london]

On Jul 8, 11:54*am, Neil Williams wrote:
Once again, the barriers on the bridge at Paddington caused a very
quick build-up of queues this morning, causing disruption to journeys,
and once again the poorly-placed ticket machine queues got in the
way. *This was not helped by someone getting luggage stuck in the
barrier, which the staff could not see and did not respond quickly to
it when it was pointed out.

These barriers really need to be removed, bringing the entire bridge
and LUL platforms into the same CTA.

CTA? (Common ticketed area?)

*The only risk this would seem to
bring is that a PAYG Oyster or Tube ticket user *might* be able to, by
way of an unresolved journey, get onto the main platforms. *A
Travelcard will, after all, open the barriers anyway. *Or at least,
fGW need to adopt the LM policy of opening them fully in the peaks.

I *think* you're suggesting that the entire overbridge should be
barriered, right? Or not barriered - it's not quite clear to me. (I
don't quite understand the "*might*" reference w.r.t. access to the
main platforms.)

Gating the entire overbridge would bring its own set of issues - the
overbridge is used as a route to and from the exit at the north side
of the station (towards the canal basin and Harrow Rd beyond). Plus
there seems to be the desire for HEx to use ungated platforms (ditto
with GatEx), so as to enable the rush and jump on and buy ticket on-
board flexibility.

Regardless, the situation sounds rather less than ideal. (Long term,
as part of Crossrail, the LU H&C/ lasso line platforms are to get a
new entrance which should help matters - must admit I'm not up on the
details of this though.)

On 8 July, 13:42, Mizter T wrote:

CTA? (Common ticketed area?)

Compulsory ticket area.

I *think* you're suggesting that the entire overbridge should be
barriered, right? Or not barriered - it's not quite clear to me. (I
don't quite understand the "*might*" reference w.r.t. access to the
main platforms.)

I'm saying the whole overbridge should be within a common barriered
area containing both LUL and the mainline. To achieve this, it would
I guess be necessary to have a smaller barriered area around the
access to the stairs on the HEx platforms and platform 1. There would
then be no barriers on the bridge itself to get in the way of a very
large passenger flow.

(I suspect, like other things, this was not an issue prior to the
teacup).

Gating the entire overbridge would bring its own set of issues - the
overbridge is used as a route to and from the exit at the north side
of the station (towards the canal basin and Harrow Rd beyond).

How do you get there? Is it from Platform 1, which would remain
unbarriered? I can't recall seeing any other exits.

Regardless, the situation sounds rather less than ideal. (Long term,
as part of Crossrail, the LU H&C/ lasso line platforms are to get a
new entrance which should help matters - must admit I'm not up on the
details of this though.)

That is certainly necessary - my experiences over the past few weeks
would suggest that the issue on that platform is so bad that the
Circle should be reverted until *after* another entrance (or at least
a second set of temporary stairs from the overbridge to the LUL
platforms) can be constructed.

Neil

On 8 July, 13:58, Neil Williams wrote:
On 8 July, 13:42, Mizter T wrote:

CTA? (Common ticketed area?)

Compulsory ticket area.

I *think* you're suggesting that the entire overbridge should be
barriered, right? Or not barriered - it's not quite clear to me. (I
don't quite understand the "*might*" reference w.r.t. access to the
main platforms.)

I'm saying the whole overbridge should be within a common barriered
area containing both LUL and the mainline. *To achieve this, it would
I guess be necessary to have a smaller barriered area around the
access to the stairs on the HEx platforms and platform 1. *There would
then be no barriers on the bridge itself to get in the way of a very
large passenger flow.

(I suspect, like other things, this was not an issue prior to the
teacup).

Gating the entire overbridge would bring its own set of issues - the
overbridge is used as a route to and from the exit at the north side
of the station (towards the canal basin and Harrow Rd beyond).

How do you get there? *Is it from Platform 1, which would remain
unbarriered? *I can't recall seeing any other exits.


The exit is to the north east, from the top of platforms 8 and 9,
where the bridge takes a bend between spans 3 and 4, the exit goes
straight on(ish). It comes out by the canal and ultimately leads to
Bishop's Bridge Road. It is one of the reasons that there has to be a
barrier on the bridge, if barriers are used, as the pathway is
currently rather narrow.

Regardless, the situation sounds rather less than ideal. (Long term,
as part of Crossrail, the LU H&C/ lasso line platforms are to get a
new entrance which should help matters - must admit I'm not up on the
details of this though.)

That is certainly necessary - my experiences over the past few weeks
would suggest that the issue on that platform is so bad that the
Circle should be reverted until *after* another entrance (or at least
a second set of temporary stairs from the overbridge to the LUL
platforms) can be constructed.

Neil

On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 06:31:45 -0700 (PDT), Andy
wrote:

The exit is to the north east, from the top of platforms 8 and 9,
where the bridge takes a bend between spans 3 and 4, the exit goes
straight on(ish). It comes out by the canal and ultimately leads to
Bishop's Bridge Road. It is one of the reasons that there has to be a
barrier on the bridge, if barriers are used, as the pathway is
currently rather narrow.

Ah, I looked and saw it today. Must have disregarded it last time as
it looks like a bit of a building site entrance!

Not sure of the solution for that... I guess this is potentially
looking like a Sheffield-esque situation. Hmm. Might have a look
tomorrow to see if I can work out what could fit in to handle it.

The other solution to the problem might, of course, involve putting
the Circle Line back the way it was and thus reducing the number of
people on the bridge in the first place - we shall see come the
temporary situation that occurs in July-August.

In the meantime, fGW would do well to stop being so damn stubborn and
to open the barriers in the height of the peaks when the situation
starts being a problem, at which time most people are travelling on
season tickets and so ticket checks are perhaps of lower importance as
there will generally be less fare dodging anyway.

They could perhaps also put some sort of queueing tape around the
ticket machines to direct the queue where it doesn't get in the way as
much, as well as posting one more member of staff on the bridge when
the barriers are closed (or providing CCTV), as as it is the gateline
staff cannot see the entire gateline to resolve issues.

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

On 8 July, 23:24, Neil Williams
wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 06:31:45 -0700 (PDT), Andy
wrote:

The exit is to the north east, from the top of platforms 8 and 9,
where the bridge takes a bend between spans 3 and 4, the exit goes
straight on(ish). It comes out by the canal and ultimately leads to
Bishop's Bridge Road. It is one of the reasons that there has to be a
barrier on the bridge, if barriers are used, as the pathway is
currently rather narrow.

Ah, I looked and saw it today. *Must have disregarded it last time as
it looks like a bit of a building site entrance!

There is something circular about this. Because of overcrowding,
there has to be an extra exit, but because of the extra exit, there
has to be a barrier that creates overcrowding.

(Or was there always an exit that way? I can only remember going
through the main station, but maybe I never needed to go the other
way.)

On 9 July, 07:24, MIG wrote:
On 8 July, 23:24, Neil Williams
wrote:

On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 06:31:45 -0700 (PDT), Andy
wrote:

The exit is to the north east, from the top of platforms 8 and 9,
where the bridge takes a bend between spans 3 and 4, the exit goes
straight on(ish). It comes out by the canal and ultimately leads to
Bishop's Bridge Road. It is one of the reasons that there has to be a
barrier on the bridge, if barriers are used, as the pathway is
currently rather narrow.

Ah, I looked and saw it today. *Must have disregarded it last time as
it looks like a bit of a building site entrance!

There is something circular about this. *Because of overcrowding,
there has to be an extra exit, but because of the extra exit, there
has to be a barrier that creates overcrowding.

(Or was there always an exit that way? *I can only remember going
through the main station, but maybe I never needed to go the other
way.)

Perhaps someone could take a photo of the overcrowding on the H&C
platforms at Paddington, or would they get arrested under the
"Terrorism Act"?

On Jul 9, 7:24*am, MIG wrote:

On 8 July, 23:24, Neil Williams
wrote:

On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 06:31:45 -0700 (PDT), Andy
wrote:

The exit is to the north east, from the top of platforms 8 and 9,
where the bridge takes a bend between spans 3 and 4, the exit goes
straight on(ish). It comes out by the canal and ultimately leads to
Bishop's Bridge Road. It is one of the reasons that there has to be a
barrier on the bridge, if barriers are used, as the pathway is
currently rather narrow.

Ah, I looked and saw it today. *Must have disregarded it last time as
it looks like a bit of a building site entrance!

There is something circular about this. *Because of overcrowding,
there has to be an extra exit, but because of the extra exit, there
has to be a barrier that creates overcrowding.

(Or was there always an exit that way? *I can only remember going
through the main station, but maybe I never needed to go the other
way.)

The exit (the northern one for Harrow Rd) has been around since long
before the new gates were installed last year (or whenever it was) -
so afraid your argument falls at the first hurdle!

I can't quite recall exactly what the arrangement was in days or yore,
but I think this northern exit used to form part of the cab road that
ran through Paddington - I think there was direct access off the old
Bishop's Bridge into the cab road, which then used the ramp down to
the wide island between platforms 8 & 9 before continuing across what
is now the concourse and onto the ramp that leads up to Praed Street.

I'm not sure if there was any pedestrian access next to the cab road
in those days, as the cast iron bridge it uses (which now forms part
of that northern exit) is quite narrow - nor am I sure whether or not
there was any other pedestrian exit up this way.

There did used to be a direct entrance onto the H&C line platforms
from Bishop's Bridge too - I'm not sure when this fell out of use, it
may have even been before the H&C line tracks and BR tracks on the
approach to Paddington were disentangled in the 60's. The current
emergency exit bridge between the H&C island platform and platforms
13/14 is I believe a remnant of this.

I dunno whether there were ever any thoughts about connecting the new
Bishop's Bridge to a re-opened exit for the H&C line in the same
location, but if there were then they were obviously never progressed.

Seems to me that the bridge connecting 13/14 at Paddington to the H&C/
Circle platforms has always been a nightmare. About 10 years ago, I
was living in Ealing, working in Basingstoke, and commuting daily at a
few mins before 6 (Ealing Broadway/West Ealing to Padd, then HST to
Reading, and then to Basingstoke). Even at this time of the morning,
there were plenty of other passengers spilling off my train and the
H&C, heading for the 06:30 to Bristol, which was invariably on
Platform 1. Heading home in the late afternoon/evening, the situation
was worse.

How on earth Railtrack/NR/LUL allowed this situation to continue
(especially with the more recent H&S interference) is somewhat odd.
Surely, if the "crush-loading" that others have described is
dangerous, then surely things should have been changed?

I fully appreciate that FGW and LU need to protect revenue, but there
*must* be a better way to go about it - and if we need to wait for the
redevelopment that's associated with Crossrail, then I can envisage
something awful occurring in the meantime.

M

On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 06:47:21 -0700 (PDT), M J Forbes
wrote:

How on earth Railtrack/NR/LUL allowed this situation to continue
(especially with the more recent H&S interference) is somewhat odd.
Surely, if the "crush-loading" that others have described is
dangerous, then surely things should have been changed?

I'm not totally sure it is dangerous - it is just disruptive, just as
the situation on the LUL platforms themselves is - it can take 10
minutes to get off the platforms there in the worst case.

LUL clearly didn't think this through properly before making changes
to the Circle Line. (Changes which I generally support, but
infrastructure work to open out the platform and an extra set of
stairs were required *first*).

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

In uk.railway Neil Williams wrote:
I'm not totally sure it is dangerous - it is just disruptive, just as
the situation on the LUL platforms themselves is - it can take 10
minutes to get off the platforms there in the worst case.

LUL clearly didn't think this through properly before making changes
to the Circle Line. (Changes which I generally support, but
infrastructure work to open out the platform and an extra set of
stairs were required *first*).

There's a disused bridge linking platforms 15/16 and platforms 13/14. How
feasible would this be to bring into use (until the Crossrail works happen),
to at least relieve some of the flow from the west end of 15/16? Does this
date from when the Circle and GWR were linked, as an extra entrance to the
Circle?

Theo