On Dec 14, 8:45*pm, allantracy wrote:
It's getting noisier at Marylebone now! Tonight both 67 018 "Keith Heller"
and 67 014 "Thomas Telford" were sitting on the stops, at platforms 1 and 3
respectively and at the head of the 18:06 Banbury (blue and greys) and the
18:30 Wrexham (WSMR). The real trains return!

Who would have thought Marylebone would ever end up being the place to
be for cranks?

In my younger trainspotting days, the first time we ever visited
London (for Deltics, Hydraulics and much else all in the same town), I
received great derision from my colleagues after including Marylebone
in our itinerary.

The place was dead, no sign of any retail outlets and no staff
whatsoever in sight, just a couple of DMU sets parked up in one of the
platforms.

“What the **** have we come here for this is worse than Lichfield
City” I never heard the last of it, even months after it was still a
standing joke.

At its low point, off peak, there couldn’t have been more than a
couple of departures an hour and 100% suburban DMUs.

There’s a Video 125 cab-ride production of those pre-privatisation
days that I pretty much ignored when it came out that is now looking,
with the passage of time and all that’s changed, like an absolutely
fascinating must buy – single track, semaphores and a class 50 over
the Paddington bit.

Even in those days I had a soft spot for Marylebone. Its concourse
built for ten platforms and portico link to the GC Hotel spoke of a
company with vision. It was awful seeing the goods yards disappear.

Perhaps worse was the loss of the original platforms 3 and 4 when the
cab road was removed. Now they have been rebuilt but are much
shorter. We would be better off today if the original platforms had
been kept and renumbered 5 and 6.

On Dec 15, 1:47*pm, 1506 wrote:

Perhaps worse was the loss of the original platforms 3 and 4 when the
cab road was removed. *Now they have been rebuilt but are much
shorter. *We would be better off today if the original platforms had
been kept and renumbered 5 and 6.

They were, briefly, before they were removed. Marylebone had never in
it's history had more than four platforms before that time, and I
doubt if there was any reason to think that it wold need more in the
future. The redevelopment didn't reduce the capacity of the station,
it just eliminated the very wide and unneeded cab road. Why was it
built that wide in the first place?

"Stephen Furley" wrote

The redevelopment didn't reduce the capacity of the station,
it just eliminated the very wide and unneeded cab road. Why was it
built that wide in the first place?

Most London termini used to have a cab road alongside or between the arrival
platform(s), where cabs used to line up - and they had tom be wide enough so
that the locos wouldn't frighten the horses.

The last station where the cabs did line up along the cab road was
Paddington (between platforms 8 and 9 - and at one time there was another
cab road between 10 and 11).

Peter

On 2010\12\15 23:07, Peter Masson wrote:


"Stephen Furley" wrote

The redevelopment didn't reduce the capacity of the station,
it just eliminated the very wide and unneeded cab road. Why was it
built that wide in the first place?

Most London termini used to have a cab road alongside or between the
arrival platform(s), where cabs used to line up - and they had tom be
wide enough so that the locos wouldn't frighten the horses.

The last station where the cabs did line up along the cab road was
Paddington (between platforms 8 and 9 - and at one time there was
another cab road between 10 and 11).

Cabs still line up alongside the platform at Liverpool Street.

In message
,
Stephen Furley writes

They were, briefly, before they were removed. Marylebone had never in
it's history had more than four platforms before that time, and I
doubt if there was any reason to think that it wold need more in the
future. The redevelopment didn't reduce the capacity of the station,
it just eliminated the very wide and unneeded cab road. Why was it
built that wide in the first place?

I think it was just used to fill the space left when the original plans
for 10 platforms were scaled back to just 4, because of the escalating
cost of the GCR.
--
Paul Terry

On Dec 16, 9:05*am, Paul Terry wrote:
In message
,
Stephen Furley writes

They were, briefly, before they were removed. *Marylebone had never in
it's history had more than four platforms before that time, and I
doubt if there was any reason to think that it wold need more in the
future. *The redevelopment didn't reduce the capacity of the station,
it just eliminated the very wide and unneeded cab road. *Why was it
built that wide in the first place?

I think it was just used to fill the space left when the original plans
for 10 platforms were scaled back to just 4, because of the escalating
cost of the GCR.

The Cab road was always intended to be such. The other six platforms
were to be to the west of those actually built for the GCR. That is
the reason for the very wide concourse.

On Dec 15, 11:13*pm, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2010\12\15 23:07, Peter Masson wrote:



"Stephen Furley" wrote

The redevelopment didn't reduce the capacity of the station,
it just eliminated the very wide and unneeded cab road. Why was it
built that wide in the first place?

Most London termini used to have a cab road alongside or between the
arrival platform(s), where cabs used to line up - and they had tom be
wide enough so that the locos wouldn't frighten the horses.

The last station where the cabs did line up along the cab road was
Paddington (between platforms 8 and 9 - and at one time there was
another cab road between 10 and 11).

Cabs still line up alongside the platform at Liverpool Street.

Glad to hear it. I cannot fault the reconstruction of Liverpool
Street Station. Would that our architects had taken the same care
with our other termini.

On Dec 16, 10:38*am, 1506 wrote:
On Dec 16, 9:05*am, Paul Terry wrote:

In message
,
Stephen Furley writes

They were, briefly, before they were removed. *Marylebone had never in
it's history had more than four platforms before that time, and I
doubt if there was any reason to think that it wold need more in the
future. *The redevelopment didn't reduce the capacity of the station,
it just eliminated the very wide and unneeded cab road. *Why was it
built that wide in the first place?

I think it was just used to fill the space left when the original plans
for 10 platforms were scaled back to just 4, because of the escalating
cost of the GCR.

The Cab road was always intended to be such. *The other six platforms
were to be to the west of those actually built for the GCR. *That is
the reason for the very wide concourse.

I suspect that Marylebone is probably handling more trains, in and
out, now than it ever has in the past; does anyone know if this is
indeed the case? It now has 50% more platforms, and of course DMUs,
and even push-pull sets can be turned around more quickly than
conventional steam houled trains can be. The trains are probably
shorter today then when the station opened, but there are a lot of
them. How does the number of passengers compare as well?

If it had closed in the '80s as planned, would Paddington have been
able to cope with the extra trains from the High Wycombe line?

The closure of Snoww Hill also seems a bit odd. The fact that Moor
Street wasn't closed at the same time seems to suggest that New Street
didn't have the capacity to handle even the small number of trains
that served Moor Street at the time, and almost as soon as Snow Hill
closed there was talk of re-opening it.

On Dec 16, 2:10*pm, Stephen Furley wrote:
On Dec 16, 10:38*am, 1506 wrote:





On Dec 16, 9:05*am, Paul Terry wrote:

In message
,
Stephen Furley writes

They were, briefly, before they were removed. *Marylebone had never in
it's history had more than four platforms before that time, and I
doubt if there was any reason to think that it wold need more in the
future. *The redevelopment didn't reduce the capacity of the station,
it just eliminated the very wide and unneeded cab road. *Why was it
built that wide in the first place?

I think it was just used to fill the space left when the original plans
for 10 platforms were scaled back to just 4, because of the escalating
cost of the GCR.

The Cab road was always intended to be such. *The other six platforms
were to be to the west of those actually built for the GCR. *That is
the reason for the very wide concourse.

I suspect that Marylebone is probably handling more trains, in and
out, now than it ever has in the past; does anyone know if this is
indeed the case? *It now has 50% more platforms, and of course DMUs,
and even push-pull sets can be turned around more quickly than
conventional steam houled trains can be. *The trains are probably
shorter today then when the station opened, but there are a lot of
them. *How does the number of passengers compare as well?

The numbers are not to hand. I am sure you are correct: Marylebone
Station almost certainly handles more passengers today than it ever
has. OTOH, it handles much less freight, parcels, and newspapers off
course, :-).

If it had closed in the '80s as planned, would Paddington have been
able to cope with the extra trains from the High Wycombe line?

Absolutely not, moreover the planned Amersham to Aylesbury shuttle
would have been very inconvenient. TfL would have had difficulty
handling the extra passengers on Met. Line trains.

The closure of Snoww Hill also seems a bit odd. The fact that Moor
Street wasn't closed at the same time seems to suggest that New Street
didn't have the capacity to handle even the small number of trains
that served Moor Street at the time, and almost as soon as Snow Hill
closed there was talk of re-opening it.

Those were strange times. We had a corrupt minister of transport and
a raving axe wielder.

Stephen Furley wrote:

The closure of Snoww Hill also seems a bit odd. The fact that Moor
Street wasn't closed at the same time seems to suggest that New Street
didn't have the capacity to handle even the small number of trains
that served Moor Street at the time, and almost as soon as Snow Hill
closed there was talk of re-opening it.

Moor Street was built when the North Warwickshire line opened, and
served as a terminus for those services, and also the local services on
the main line. Snow Hill was closed when there was no longer any through
traffic and no westbound local services (which went when the Stour
Valley line was electrified, as did the long-distance main line
serivces). At the time, it would have seemed eccentric and expensive to
keep Snow Hill going.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p10907024.html
(60 033 at Longsight, 9 Feb 2002)