| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Paddington barriers again
[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.) |
Paddington barriers again
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 |
Paddington barriers again
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 |
Paddington barriers again
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 |
Paddington barriers again
On Jul 8, 1:58*pm, Neil Williams wrote: On 8 July, 13:42, Mizter T wrote: CTA? (Common ticketed area?) Compulsory ticket area. Of course, d'oh! (I should add that I've never claimed to know what I'm talking about!) 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. OK. There's also the ramp and stairs up from platforms 8 & 9 - these platforms are ungated at the concourse end (and of course platform 1, by it's nature, is ungated, as you suggest). The HEx platforms could I suppose have the reverse arrangement of what currently exists on the overbridge for platforms 2-5 - but this doesn't tackle the issue of the overbridge as a public access route from that northern entrance (where gates would frustrate wannabe HEx pax as well as many others), and they would block off the option of wannabe HEx pax jumping out the taxi (on the cab road next to Eastbourne Terrace) and heading to the HEx platforms via the overbridge instead of the concourse. I'm only focusing on HEx issues here as I'm sure that's what BAA would fuss about - I think the issue of public access to the northern entrance would be more of an issue, more on that in a mo... (I suspect, like other things, this was not an issue prior to the teacup). Interesting - if so, there might be something of a left-hand (FGW) right-hand (LU) situation here - but it would be interesting to hear more from regular users of these gates, or indeed see the usage stats before and after, so as to be surer as to what degree the new Circle/ teacup line arrangement may have affected matters. 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 NRE "Stations Made Easy" plan of Paddington is very useful here as it comprehensively illustrates the situation: http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/statio...Overview.xhtml So, there's a ramp up from platforms 8 & 9 - these platforms are ungated at the concourse end. The northern entrance/exit is more of a side-door, but it is signed as an exit within the station (to "Harrow Rd") via both platform 1 and platforms 8 & 9. It serves the large new- ish Paddington Basin development, and to some extent St Mary's Hospital, as well as providing a route north to Harrow Rd and beyond. I suppose that one could put forward the case that it's used by regular users, such as commuters, who are likely to have a season ticket or Oyster card - and the gates could be configured to provide 'free passage' through the CTA (though such an arrangement is open to abuse, with bods touching-out on the gate but not walking through it, and instead staying within the CTA so as to board a train to wherever). And as you pointed out in your original post (and I understand the reference now), such a gating scheme would allow people to gain access to the main (non-surburban) platforms, for the cost of an unresolved journey - FGW might consider than an issue, especially with the possibility of some pax innocently and unthinkingly assuming they could use Oyster PAYG to get to say Slough or Reading. 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. Must admit that I was a bit surprised when the Teacup/ Lasso (whatever!) went ahead without there being any changes at Paddington H&C platforms - I recall alighting there some time before the changes, not during the rush-hour either (poss. shoulder-peak), and standing right at the back of a queue of people waiting to climb the stairs (I was in no rush) - the number of people hauling luggage up the stairs (and not holding up for a moment for the non-luggaged folk to go first) was a significant contributory factor, but even without the luggage the number of people would have prevented a quick escape. I spoke to the platform assistant on duty and he said it was always like that! One last thing - I dunno how it would compare to using the Circle/H&C line (slower I'm sure), but one alternate option for a Paddington to Euston journey might be the 18 (bendy) bus that traverses Harrow Road - you'd need to use the aforementioned northern exit from Paddington, and use the pedestrian subway under the road. The 18 is a busy route, though it might be ok in the contra-peak direction. Just and idea - though it might well be more useful in a snafu situation as opposed to during the normal course of events (when others might be heading to the front of Paddington for the 205 bus). |
Paddington barriers again
On Jul 8, 10:45*pm, Duncan wrote:
In article 6f1f7d2d-2fde-4d01-97e6- , says... 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. Must admit that I was a bit surprised when the Teacup/ Lasso (whatever!) went ahead without there being any changes at Paddington H&C platforms - I recall alighting there some time before the changes, not during the rush-hour either (poss. shoulder-peak), and standing right at the back of a queue of people waiting to climb the stairs (I was in no rush) - the number of people hauling luggage up the stairs (and not holding up for a moment for the non-luggaged folk to go first) was a significant contributory factor, but even without the luggage the number of people would have prevented a quick escape. I spoke to the platform assistant on duty and he said it was always like that! I can't see why the Circle line changes should have made any difference to people exiting at Paddington. Sure the overall numbers arriving per hour will have increased, but has the number of passengers exiting per train really changed? Most people joining at stations like King's Cross heading to Paddington got on the first service regardless of whether it was a Hammersmith & City or Circle service. Therefore I would have expected the pinch point on the stairs following the arrival of a service to be the same now as before the changes. The problem isn't so much the number of passengers arriving at Paddington on these platforms, but that there will be more passenger using these platforms to travel east from Paddington having arrived on a FGW service. Before the changes it was generally best (depending slighlty on whether you were at the front or the rear of the train) to goto the Circle / District platform if heading east (for either a Circle train or to change at Edgware Road), but now it is best to goto platform 16, as this is where the only through trains leave from. |
Paddington barriers again
On 08/07/10 15:04, Mizter T wrote:
Must admit that I was a bit surprised when the Teacup/ Lasso (whatever!) went ahead without there being any changes at Paddington H&C platforms - I recall alighting there some time before the changes, not during the rush-hour either (poss. shoulder-peak), and standing right at the back of a queue of people waiting to climb the stairs (I was in no rush) - the number of people hauling luggage up the stairs (and not holding up for a moment for the non-luggaged folk to go first) was a significant contributory factor, but even without the luggage the number of people would have prevented a quick escape. I spoke to the platform assistant on duty and he said it was always like that! Would it help if District and Circle trains were able to terminate at Baker Street instead of Edgware Road so that passengers could continue east on the Met? I suppose terminating trains at Baker Street or adding platforms to do so would be hopelessly impractical? The gaps in service on the Circle route between Edgware Road and Baker Street, and Aldgate and Tower Hill have always struck me as being quite quite odd. Roger |
Paddington barriers again
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. |
Paddington barriers again
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. |
Paddington barriers again
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 07:04:30 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote: Interesting - if so, there might be something of a left-hand (FGW) right-hand (LU) situation here - but it would be interesting to hear more from regular users of these gates, or indeed see the usage stats before and after, so as to be surer as to what degree the new Circle/ teacup line arrangement may have affected matters. It has put a lot of extra passengers onto the bridge, who (like me) might not have been there before. That said, it is a more convenient service, with about 12tph to Euston instead of 6, and better spaced. I suppose that one could put forward the case that it's used by regular users, such as commuters, who are likely to have a season ticket or Oyster card - and the gates could be configured to provide 'free passage' through the CTA (though such an arrangement is open to abuse, with bods touching-out on the gate but not walking through it, and instead staying within the CTA so as to board a train to wherever). That option is already available at any London terminal to anyone holding a Travelcard with Zone 1 on it. Sometimes it is necessary to exit through a manual gate, but it is a valid ticket to be on the station. I've used it to use the bogs at City Thameslink before :) It is a complication, though, as you say. Must admit that I was a bit surprised when the Teacup/ Lasso (whatever!) went ahead without there being any changes at Paddington H&C platforms - I recall alighting there some time before the changes, not during the rush-hour either (poss. shoulder-peak), and standing right at the back of a queue of people waiting to climb the stairs (I was in no rush) - the number of people hauling luggage up the stairs (and not holding up for a moment for the non-luggaged folk to go first) was a significant contributory factor, but even without the luggage the number of people would have prevented a quick escape. I spoke to the platform assistant on duty and he said it was always like that! They've started blocking people from going down when the platform is dangerously full, and this seems to work, though they can only do it for so long because it can create a crowd problem on the bridge if it reaches back to the barriers. (Indeed, on the way in, the barriers perhaps moderate this a bit, so there's one thing in favour of them). This seems to work, though it's annoying if you have to let a train go. They did it for the first time I've seen this morning - but the infrastructure is still not up to it - a second set of stairs on the other side is still needed. One last thing - I dunno how it would compare to using the Circle/H&C line (slower I'm sure), but one alternate option for a Paddington to Euston journey might be the 18 (bendy) bus that traverses Harrow Road - you'd need to use the aforementioned northern exit from Paddington, and use the pedestrian subway under the road. The 18 is a busy route, though it might be ok in the contra-peak direction. Just and idea - though it might well be more useful in a snafu situation as opposed to during the normal course of events (when others might be heading to the front of Paddington for the 205 bus). I did wonder which way the 18 went. Might give it a go tomorrow. Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK To reply put my first name before the at. |
Paddington barriers again
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 22:45:08 +0100, Duncan wrote:
I can't see why the Circle line changes should have made any difference to people exiting at Paddington. Sure the overall numbers arriving per hour will have increased, but has the number of passengers exiting per train really changed? It is now the case that two trains worth of people can build up on the platform (the second arriving while the first is still clearing). It is at its worst when this happens. At 12tph-ish, if it takes 10 minutes to clear the platform (this has happened) you might even get a third train if you are unlucky. Most people joining at stations like King's Cross heading to Paddington got on the first service regardless of whether it was a Hammersmith & City or Circle service. Possibly. But I think going away from Padd that people would as a whole "default" to the Circle Line, just because that's the known quantity. Commuters, of course, will have their own way of doing things, but there would at least be some split. Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK To reply put my first name before the at. |
Paddington barriers again
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 |
Paddington barriers again
|
Paddington barriers again
|
Paddington barriers again
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.) |
Paddington barriers again
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"? |
Paddington barriers again
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. |
Paddington barriers again
On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 01:56:21 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
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. |
Paddington barriers again
On 8 July, 13:58, Neil Williams wrote:
I'm saying the whole overbridge should be within a common barriered area containing both LUL and the mainline. * Not possible - that bridge is a pedestrian right of way from the canal path to Eastbourne Terrace, and can't be completely gated - which is why the gates on the bridge to the platforms are as they are. |
Paddington barriers again
On Jul 9, 11:02*am, Chris wrote: On 8 July, 13:58, Neil *Williams wrote: I'm saying the whole overbridge should be within a common barriered area containing both LUL and the mainline. * Not possible - that bridge is a pedestrian right of way from the canal path to Eastbourne Terrace, and can't be completely gated - which is why the gates on the bridge to the platforms are as they are. Is it actually a right of way? I wouldn't be so sure that it is. |
Paddington barriers again
wrote in message
... There is no Circle service from King's Cross to Paddington any more! You have to change at Edgware Road. If you are lucky it's cross-platform. There are 6 tph from Kings Cross to Paddington H&C. Unless you are thinking ahead to the engineering works... Paul S |
Paddington barriers again
"Mizter T" 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. 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. You're right about the cab road coming from Bishop's Bridge down the ramp and along platforms 8/9. In the far distant past there was also a cab road down platforms 10/11. When I was working for BR (WR London DMO) in 1967 I recall a reference to Paddington E Booking Office which I was led to believe was the one on Bishop's Bridge, but that it had closed some little time before. The rearrangement of the tracks, moving the westbound H&C to from 13 to 15 happened later in 1967. 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. Peter |
Paddington barriers again
|
Paddington barriers again
wrote in message ... In article , (Paul Scott) wrote: wrote in message ... There is no Circle service from King's Cross to Paddington any more! You have to change at Edgware Road. If you are lucky it's cross-platform. There are 6 tph from Kings Cross to Paddington H&C. Unless you are thinking ahead to the engineering works... I was thinking of Paddington (Circle and District), not the one half way to Ealing. Yeah, right... Paul S |
Paddington barriers again
On Jul 9, 12:59*pm, wrote: (Paul Scott) wrote: wrote: There is no Circle service from King's Cross to Paddington any more! You have to change at Edgware Road. If you are lucky it's cross-platform. There are 6 tph from Kings Cross to Paddington H&C. Unless you are thinking ahead to the engineering works... I was thinking of Paddington (Circle and District), not the one half way to Ealing. What, you mean Paddington? |
Paddington barriers again
On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 03:07:29 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote: On Jul 9, 11:02*am, Chris wrote: On 8 July, 13:58, Neil *Williams wrote: I'm saying the whole overbridge should be within a common barriered area containing both LUL and the mainline. * Not possible - that bridge is a pedestrian right of way from the canal path to Eastbourne Terrace, and can't be completely gated - which is why the gates on the bridge to the platforms are as they are. 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. |
Paddington barriers again
On Jul 9, 7:01*pm, Charles Ellson wrote: On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 03:07:29 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T wrote: On Jul 9, 11:02*am, Chris wrote: On 8 July, 13:58, Neil *Williams wrote: I'm saying the whole overbridge should be within a common barriered area containing both LUL and the mainline. * Not possible - that bridge is a pedestrian right of way from the canal path to Eastbourne Terrace, and can't be completely gated - which is why the gates on the bridge to the platforms are as they are. 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. Which I *think* there might be somewhere along there (the 'not dedicated as a public R-O-W one). |
Paddington barriers again
"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. Peter |
Paddington barriers again
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. The disused bridge to 13-14 may well be of use here - perhaps this could be the exit and the main one the entrance. But I'm sure I read about existing overcrowding issues on those platforms as well. Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK To reply put my first name before the at. |
Paddington barriers again
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 ). |
Paddington barriers again
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. |
Paddington barriers again
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) |
Paddington barriers again
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. |
Paddington barriers again
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.) |
Paddington barriers again
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. :-( |
Paddington barriers again
"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 |
Paddington barriers again
"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 |
Paddington barriers again
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 |
Paddington barriers again
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 08:53 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk