[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

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 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).

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.

Duncan

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.

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

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 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.