On Tue, 22 May 2012 17:20:36 +0100
"Peter Masson" wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 May 2012 14:40:29 +0100
"Peter Masson" wrote:
Not the day after. The platforms would have had to be raised. And I
suspect

I don't remember them being low. Were they? Don't see the point if they
were,
there was no chance of a UIC guage train ever getting there.

Yes. E* platforms are lower than National Rail standard (though the NoL E*s

Wierd. I wonder what numpty thought that was a good idea.

B2003

On May 22, 6:20*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:
wrote in message

... On Tue, 22 May 2012 14:40:29 +0100
"Peter Masson" wrote:
Not the day after. The platforms would have had to be raised. And I
suspect

I don't remember them being low. Were they? Don't see the point if they
were,
there was no chance of a UIC guage train ever getting there.

Yes. E* platforms are lower than National Rail standard (though the NoL E*s
seemed to manage OK with standard height platforms, e.g. on the White Rose
service on the ECML). The International platforms at Stratford have been
temporarily heightened for use by the Javelin service.

While the stations associated with HS1 definitely have UIC platforms
for Eurostar, my memory of Waterloo International is that it had UK
type rather than UIC type platforms. Looking at some photos online,
it certainly gives the impression of having UK type platforms, but I
can't find a definite reference. Anyone have chapter-and-verse on
this?

Robin

On Wed, 23 May 2012 03:00:10 -0500, (Mark Brader) wrote:

Mark Brader:
And the authors of "Rails Through the Clay" were taken in by an
urban legend? I don't think so.

Specifically, what the book says is:

# GOVERNMENT DEEP SHELTERS
#
# The bombings of 1940, and intelligence reports of more powerful
# bombs and more efficient delivery systems, forced a reappraisal
# of the deep-shelter policy. At the end of October the government
# decided to construct a system of deep shelters linked to existing
# tube stations. London Transport was consulted about the sites,
# and was required to build the tunnels at the public expense[1],
# with the understanding that it was to have the option of taking
# them over for railway use after the war. With the latter point
# in mind, sites were examined on the routes of possible north-south
# and east-west express tube railways, as discussed in the previous
# chapter[2], but now comprising Bank--Holborn, Camden Town --
# Tottenham Court Road and Kennington--Balham.
#
# It was decided that each shelter would consist of two parallel
# tubes of 16ft 6in internal diameter and 1,400ft in length, with
# about two-thirds of its length lined with precast concrete and
# one-third with cast iron.

The book goes on to talk in some detail about the tunnels and
their use or non-use as shelters at different stages of the war and
afterwards, then the possible use for trains comes up one more time.
On the night of 21 May 1955 the deep shelter at Goodge Street,
now in use as an Army Transit Centre, was damaged by fire, and:

# The fire coincided with parliamentary consideration of a government
# Bill seeking to take over the shelters, (the Underground Works
# (London) Bill), and the Minister of Works assured the Commons
# they would not again be used for human occupation in peacetime
# (although no one was killed, the fire had caused some alarm and
# was difficult to extinguish). During the progress of the Bill, it
# was revealed that the option for railway use had been retained only
# on the three Clapham shelters and the adjacent one at Stockwell.

Okay?

This section of the book has footnotes referring to three Public
Record Office files, but the footnote marks are placed on sentences
that relate to specific shelter locations and the sentences referring
to future rail use aren't footnoted. However, for what it's worth,
the files a MT 6/2728, RAIL 1124/252, and HO 205/266.

Googling on "MT 6/2728", I find that www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
knows it under the title of "Air Raid Precautions: Deep level shelters:
London Underground Railways. File No: ZR.5/6/47". It can be viewed
at the records office in Kew, and print and digital copies can be
ordered but they won't quote a cost unless you contact them to ask
for it.

Searching on the same web site, I find that RAIL 1124/252 is a
"Highway development survey (Greater London): report by Sir Charles
Bressey and Sir Edwin Lutyens", while and HO 205/266 is "Shelters in
underground railways in London: contracts and costs." So it's
MT 6/2728 that's most likely to be the interesting one.


[1] The distinction is meaningful because from 1933 until 1947,
although London Transport had been forcibly unified and brought
under public control, its ownership was still private.

There was no ownership, it was a statutary corporation.

[2] Over the period 1936-39, a considerable number of plans were
examined for express tube lines generally paralleling existing routes.

On Wed, 23 May 2012 09:36:43 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2012 17:20:36 +0100
"Peter Masson" wrote:

Yes. E* platforms are lower than National Rail standard

Wierd. I wonder what numpty thought that was a good idea.

What is the height on the continent compared to National Rail?

--
jhk

"bob" wrote in message
...


While the stations associated with HS1 definitely have UIC platforms
for Eurostar, my memory of Waterloo International is that it had UK
type rather than UIC type platforms. Looking at some photos online,
it certainly gives the impression of having UK type platforms, but I
can't find a definite reference. Anyone have chapter-and-verse on
this?

They aren't quite the same as NR standard.

The 2005 SRA/Arup report on Waterloo International re-use discusses this in
great detail, but unfortunately I cannot find a live link to it. This is
the summary:

"5.5.2 Platform Clearances
Stepping distances for passengers between platform and trains are a critical
safety factor. The platforms are designed and maintained to suit the
Eurostar trains. The main sections of the platforms form part of the station
structure. There were concerns that with this form of construction combined
with platform curvature the different platform clearances and stopping
distances required to meet Network Rail standards with domestic trains may
be difficult to achieve.

"NR provided some limited gauging information for several of the WIT
platforms. Although somewhat out of date it provided an opportunity to
determine the likely extent of any problems. It indicated that the platform
edges did not fully comply with NR standards and that work would be
required. However, the variations in dimensions were quite small. The
platform edges have conventional coping stones which can quite easily be
taken up and reset to meet future requirements. Therefore, platform
clearances do not appear to be a significant issue in conversion of WIT to
domestic use.

"As part of any conversion scheme, a detailed gauging survey will be
required, together with work to realign and reset the platform edge copers
to NR standards."

I believe the copings were adjusted on P20 when it was (theoretically) made
available to SWT a couple of years back..

Paul

On Thu, 24 May 2012 14:56:37 +0100
"Paul Scott" wrote:
structure. There were concerns that with this form of construction combined
with platform curvature the different platform clearances and stopping
distances required to meet Network Rail standards with domestic trains may
be difficult to achieve.

Sounds like the typical british can't-do attitude these days.

Unless the eurostar trains are smaller than normal UK stock which is highly
unlikely then a uk profile train will fit and its just a matter of whether
the step from door to platform is too great which can be discovered by driving
various train types in there and having a look.

B2003

On Thu, 24 May 2012 14:03:06 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Thu, 24 May 2012 14:56:37 +0100
"Paul Scott" wrote:
structure. There were concerns that with this form of construction combined
with platform curvature the different platform clearances and stopping
distances required to meet Network Rail standards with domestic trains may
be difficult to achieve.

Sounds like the typical british can't-do attitude these days.

Unless the eurostar trains are smaller than normal UK stock which is highly
unlikely then a uk profile train will fit and its just a matter of whether
the step from door to platform is too great which can be discovered by driving
various train types in there and having a look.

I didn't think the platforms were the main issue. It's the routes for
both the trains and the people to them that's the problem.

"Recliner" wrote in message
...

I didn't think the platforms were the main issue.

Precisely - but the only point I was making is that the platforms are not
quite to NR standards, which was what 'bob' wanted to know earlier.

Paul

So it is no longer coming down as part of HS2? *That, and the link to
OOC and the GW line to Birmingham were the best parts of HS2. *I was
look forward to a decent looking station closer to Euston Road and
linked to Euston Square.

I think its safe to say that Euston will be rebuilt - there were plans
to do so anyway, but HS2 will make sure of it.

Chris

On May 24, 9:09*pm, Chris Sanderson wrote:
So it is no longer coming down as part of HS2? *That, and the link to
OOC and the GW line to Birmingham were the best parts of HS2. *I was
look forward to a decent looking station closer to Euston Road and
linked to Euston Square.

I think its safe to say that Euston will be rebuilt - there were plans
to do so anyway, but HS2 will make sure of it.

Chris

Let's hope they put it in the right place, about 50% closer to Euston
Road. And we need a station on the Circle Line, either an enlarged
and connected Euston Square, or a new one.