On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 19:50:10 +0100, "Peter Masson"
wrote:



"Charles Ellson" wrote

Is it actually a right of way? I wouldn't be so sure that it is.

If it isn't then an appropriate sign ought to be in position.

There are other ways of ensuring that a way does not become a public right
of way by presumed dedication. One is to close it for one day a year, and
retain evidence of having done so. It is also possible to deposit a map and
statutory declarations with the highway authority. But I agree that the
normal way is to post a sign.

IMU the purpose of the Highways Act signs was to do away with the
faffing about of closing one day a year and allowing people to pass
only after being granted permission to do so. Where a path/road on
railway land was not a highway before 1949 it is statute-barred from
becoming a highway by prescription anyway (s.57 British Transport
Commission Act 1949 as referred to in
http://www.nelincs.gov.uk/committees...tFileFromDB ).

On 10 July, 00:58, Neil Williams
wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 11:09:59 +0100, "Peter Masson"

wrote:
If the peak congestion is intolerable, the only quick fix I can POthink 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 hI safety
management.

The disused bridge to 13-14 may well be of use here -

Indeed, otherwise you would still have the over-crowding on the stairs
to/from platforms 15/16; which are woefully inadequete for bi-
directional passenger flows.

The problem with restricting it to one direction-only during the peaks
is that the queues often build up right back to the barriers and this
in turn slows down everyone coming up the stairs, in short it must be
a nightmare to manage, especially when there is
A) disruption to tfl services
B) disruption to fgw services
C) passengers with tickets that don't work the barriers properly

Any of the above, and it's really not pleasant, surprise surprise!

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.

Bruce wrote on 09 July 2010 10:53:35 ...
On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 01:56:21 -0700 (PDT), Mizter
wrote:

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.

That is also my recollection.

Mine too, and it wasn't just cabs on that road. I often used to drive
down the ramp from Bishop's Bridge, park on the road between platforms 8
& 9 and meet friends arriving by train from the west.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 11:22:44 +0100, "Richard J."
wrote:
Bruce wrote on 09 July 2010 10:53:35 ...
On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 01:56:21 -0700 (PDT), Mizter
wrote:

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.

That is also my recollection.

Mine too, and it wasn't just cabs on that road. I often used to drive
down the ramp from Bishop's Bridge, park on the road between platforms 8
& 9 and meet friends arriving by train from the west.


I did that once in the mid-1970s, driving my VW Beetle to meet my
girlfriend off a train from Bristol, but I think by the late 1970s it
was taxis only.

On Jul 10, 12:22*pm, Bruce wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 11:22:44 +0100, "Richard J."
wrote:

Bruce wrote on 09 July 2010 10:53:35 ...
On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 01:56:21 -0700 (PDT), Mizter
wrote:

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.

That is also my recollection.

Mine too, and it wasn't just cabs on that road. *I often used to drive
down the ramp from Bishop's Bridge, park on the road between platforms 8
& 9 and meet friends arriving by train from the west.

I did that once in the mid-1970s, driving my VW Beetle to meet my
girlfriend off a train from Bristol, but I think by the late 1970s it
was taxis only.

Was driven through there in the mid/late 80's, though that doesn't
mean it wasn't supposed to be taxis only! (Can't recall if it was or
wasn't.)

On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 05:26:23 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:
On Jul 10, 12:22*pm, Bruce wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 11:22:44 +0100, "Richard J."
wrote:
Mine too, and it wasn't just cabs on that road. *I often used to drive
down the ramp from Bishop's Bridge, park on the road between platforms 8
& 9 and meet friends arriving by train from the west.

I did that once in the mid-1970s, driving my VW Beetle to meet my
girlfriend off a train from Bristol, but I think by the late 1970s it
was taxis only.

Was driven through there in the mid/late 80's, though that doesn't
mean it wasn't supposed to be taxis only! (Can't recall if it was or
wasn't.)


I have a habit of ignoring vehicle restrictions and have ended up in
all sorts of strange places as a result - mainly bus stations. ;-)

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. :-(

"D DB 90001" wrote in message
...

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...r=09/09265/LBC

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

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



"D DB 90001" wrote in message
...

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...r=09/09265/LBC

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)

I managed to find a more detailed plan of the H&C arrangement - it looks
very odd. As you say three staircases in a row which all have a direct
90 degree turn at the top towards the gateline then a further 90 degree
turn to the unpaid area.

I appreciate they're working in a very constrained site but you have to
wonder whether any of this could be described as an improvement in
overall terms within the Paddington station complex.

I suppose a main aim is that pax from LU and FGW suburbans who aren't
interchanging will not NEED to mix on the existing footbridge, which will
only be in FGW's paid area, but it seems strange to me that the existing
'non-paid area' bridge, the one with the bend in it paralleling the 'paid'
footbridge, isn't being made a major pedestrian route - as it lends itself
to being part of a main route from the lawn, up the P8/9 ramp towards the
new H&C concourse. What they seem to have assumed is that the main flow
will be along the side of the new cab rank, accessed from the buffer stop
end of the suburban platforms via what they call the 'vertical circulation
core'... (yuk).

[Of course that application is separate to the NR span 4 work - so for all
we know the final solution to the 'NR bridges' could be different to that
shown.]

Paul S

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.


--
Nick

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.

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

Duncan