London Waterloo international
 

On 13/08/2017 20:07, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 13/08/2017 16:18, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 10/08/2017 12:27, d wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 10/08/2017 09:34, d wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 09/08/2017 18:13, e27002 aurora wrote:
The platforms were the wrong height. Moreover, the track layout and
signalling may not have been appropriate for domestic traffic.
But, you are correct, in that after the international service moved to
Saint Pancras, DfT and Network Rail should have been considering
re-utilizing the station.


Who actually owned it?

British Railways Board after it closed. Don't know who owned it when it was
in service. However if network rail had asked to take it off their hands back
in 2007 I doubt there would have been too many objections.


There was for a while an idea that E* could use both terminals. Not
sure who dreamt that one up, possibly a southern edition of M Bell
(Tyneside) Ltd.

There was probably a reasonable argument to keep Waterloo in service for a
while after St P opened in case of teething problems either at the station
or on HS1 but I suppose the cost would have been prohibitive.o


It effectively was while HS1 was still in its testing phase but there
were proposals that it would be a good idea to continue a passenger
service into Waterloo for those who found the UndergrounD too exotic.


I thought at the time that a solution to the SWT-area passengers who felt
disadvantaged by E*'s move to St Pancras, would have been 1tph SET Javelin
from Ashford-or-beyond to Waterloo, with connecting E*s at Ashford.


No advantage over conventional trains.

Would conventional trains from Waterloo have been able to use the Fawkham
Junction route to HS1? If not, their route to Ashford would surely be
slower?


Not sure it would have made a significant difference to the timings.
Also the Javelins didn't exist at the time.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

London Waterloo international
 

Recliner wrote:
Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 10/08/2017 12:27, d wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 10/08/2017 09:34, d wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 09/08/2017 18:13, e27002 aurora wrote:
The platforms were the wrong height. Moreover, the track layout and
signalling may not have been appropriate for domestic traffic.
But, you are correct, in that after the international service moved to
Saint Pancras, DfT and Network Rail should have been considering
re-utilizing the station.


Who actually owned it?

British Railways Board after it closed. Don't know who owned it when it was
in service. However if network rail had asked to take it off their hands back
in 2007 I doubt there would have been too many objections.


There was for a while an idea that E* could use both terminals. Not
sure who dreamt that one up, possibly a southern edition of M Bell
(Tyneside) Ltd.

There was probably a reasonable argument to keep Waterloo in service for a
while after St P opened in case of teething problems either at the station
or on HS1 but I suppose the cost would have been prohibitive.o


It effectively was while HS1 was still in its testing phase but there
were proposals that it would be a good idea to continue a passenger
service into Waterloo for those who found the UndergrounD too exotic.


I thought at the time that a solution to the SWT-area passengers who felt
disadvantaged by E*'s move to St Pancras, would have been 1tph SET Javelin
from Ashford-or-beyond to Waterloo, with connecting E*s at Ashford.

Weren't the Javelins years in the future back then? Also, most Eurostars
don't stop at Ashford.



They were certainly planned; timetables can be amended.


Anna Noyd-Dryver

London Waterloo international
 

Roger Lynn wrote:
On 13/08/17 16:18, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
I thought at the time that a solution to the SWT-area passengers who felt
disadvantaged by E*'s move to St Pancras, would have been 1tph SET Javelin
from Ashford-or-beyond to Waterloo, with connecting E*s at Ashford.

Would a Javelin have any advantage on that route over whatever third rail
stock usually operates in that region? Presumably both would be restricted
to the same line speed, which I believe wasn't very high when Eurostars than
that way?

Roger


Part of HS1 was open and used by E*s to Waterloo; I was envisioning that
395s would use HS1 and then follow the route that E* used during that time.
OTTOMH I forget the junction names involved.


Anna Noyd-Dryver

London Waterloo international
 

Graeme Wall wrote:
On 13/08/2017 16:18, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 10/08/2017 12:27, d wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 10/08/2017 09:34, d wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 09/08/2017 18:13, e27002 aurora wrote:
The platforms were the wrong height. Moreover, the track layout and
signalling may not have been appropriate for domestic traffic.
But, you are correct, in that after the international service moved to
Saint Pancras, DfT and Network Rail should have been considering
re-utilizing the station.


Who actually owned it?

British Railways Board after it closed. Don't know who owned it when it was
in service. However if network rail had asked to take it off their hands back
in 2007 I doubt there would have been too many objections.


There was for a while an idea that E* could use both terminals. Not
sure who dreamt that one up, possibly a southern edition of M Bell
(Tyneside) Ltd.

There was probably a reasonable argument to keep Waterloo in service for a
while after St P opened in case of teething problems either at the station
or on HS1 but I suppose the cost would have been prohibitive.o


It effectively was while HS1 was still in its testing phase but there
were proposals that it would be a good idea to continue a passenger
service into Waterloo for those who found the UndergrounD too exotic.


I thought at the time that a solution to the SWT-area passengers who felt
disadvantaged by E*'s move to St Pancras, would have been 1tph SET Javelin
from Ashford-or-beyond to Waterloo, with connecting E*s at Ashford.


No advantage over conventional trains.


Other than use of HS1 for part of the journey, and that there are no trains
from Waterloo to Ashford...


Anna Noyd-Dryver

London Waterloo international
 

Graeme Wall wrote:
On 13/08/2017 20:07, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 13/08/2017 16:18, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 10/08/2017 12:27, d wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 10/08/2017 09:34, d wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 09/08/2017 18:13, e27002 aurora wrote:
The platforms were the wrong height. Moreover, the track layout and
signalling may not have been appropriate for domestic traffic.
But, you are correct, in that after the international service moved to
Saint Pancras, DfT and Network Rail should have been considering
re-utilizing the station.


Who actually owned it?

British Railways Board after it closed. Don't know who owned it when it was
in service. However if network rail had asked to take it off their hands back
in 2007 I doubt there would have been too many objections.


There was for a while an idea that E* could use both terminals. Not
sure who dreamt that one up, possibly a southern edition of M Bell
(Tyneside) Ltd.

There was probably a reasonable argument to keep Waterloo in service for a
while after St P opened in case of teething problems either at the station
or on HS1 but I suppose the cost would have been prohibitive.o


It effectively was while HS1 was still in its testing phase but there
were proposals that it would be a good idea to continue a passenger
service into Waterloo for those who found the UndergrounD too exotic.


I thought at the time that a solution to the SWT-area passengers who felt
disadvantaged by E*'s move to St Pancras, would have been 1tph SET Javelin
from Ashford-or-beyond to Waterloo, with connecting E*s at Ashford.


No advantage over conventional trains.

Would conventional trains from Waterloo have been able to use the Fawkham
Junction route to HS1? If not, their route to Ashford would surely be
slower?


Not sure it would have made a significant difference to the timings.

Surely it would save at least 15 mins?

Also the Javelins didn't exist at the time.

Yes, as I pointed out earlier, they were years away; not sure if they'd
even been ordered back then.

London Waterloo international
 

In article , (Anna
Noyd-Dryver) wrote:

Roger Lynn wrote:
On 13/08/17 16:18, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
I thought at the time that a solution to the SWT-area passengers who
felt disadvantaged by E*'s move to St Pancras, would have been 1tph SET
Javelin from Ashford-or-beyond to Waterloo, with connecting E*s at
Ashford.
Would a Javelin have any advantage on that route over whatever third
rail stock usually operates in that region? Presumably both would be
restricted to the same line speed, which I believe wasn't very high when
Eurostars than that way?

Part of HS1 was open and used by E*s to Waterloo; I was envisioning that
395s would use HS1 and then follow the route that E* used during that
time. OTTOMH I forget the junction names involved.

Fawkham Junction was involved at one end or the other of the link.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

London Waterloo international
 

Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 13/08/2017 20:07, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 13/08/2017 16:18, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 10/08/2017 12:27, d wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 10/08/2017 09:34, d wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 09/08/2017 18:13, e27002 aurora wrote:
The platforms were the wrong height. Moreover, the track layout and
signalling may not have been appropriate for domestic traffic.
But, you are correct, in that after the international service moved to
Saint Pancras, DfT and Network Rail should have been considering
re-utilizing the station.


Who actually owned it?

British Railways Board after it closed. Don't know who owned it when it was
in service. However if network rail had asked to take it off their hands back
in 2007 I doubt there would have been too many objections.


There was for a while an idea that E* could use both terminals. Not
sure who dreamt that one up, possibly a southern edition of M Bell
(Tyneside) Ltd.

There was probably a reasonable argument to keep Waterloo in service for a
while after St P opened in case of teething problems either at the station
or on HS1 but I suppose the cost would have been prohibitive.o


It effectively was while HS1 was still in its testing phase but there
were proposals that it would be a good idea to continue a passenger
service into Waterloo for those who found the UndergrounD too exotic.


I thought at the time that a solution to the SWT-area passengers who felt
disadvantaged by E*'s move to St Pancras, would have been 1tph SET Javelin
from Ashford-or-beyond to Waterloo, with connecting E*s at Ashford.


No advantage over conventional trains.

Would conventional trains from Waterloo have been able to use the Fawkham
Junction route to HS1? If not, their route to Ashford would surely be
slower?


Not sure it would have made a significant difference to the timings.

Surely it would save at least 15 mins?

Also the Javelins didn't exist at the time.

Yes, as I pointed out earlier, they were years away; not sure if they'd
even been ordered back then.


Class 395 ordered 2005; Waterloo international closed 2007, after the first
395 had been delivered for testing (first service trains 2009).


Anna Noyd-Dryver

London Waterloo international
 

In uk.railway Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Other than use of HS1 for part of the journey, and that there are no trains
from Waterloo to Ashford...

Only every half an hour, taking 1h17:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/sear...8/14/0600-2000

What would a hypothetical Waterloo-Ashford Javelin via HS1 do it in?

Theo

London Waterloo international
 

Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Roger Lynn wrote:
On 13/08/17 16:18, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
I thought at the time that a solution to the SWT-area passengers who felt
disadvantaged by E*'s move to St Pancras, would have been 1tph SET Javelin
from Ashford-or-beyond to Waterloo, with connecting E*s at Ashford.

Would a Javelin have any advantage on that route over whatever third rail
stock usually operates in that region? Presumably both would be restricted
to the same line speed, which I believe wasn't very high when Eurostars than
that way?

Roger


Part of HS1 was open and used by E*s to Waterloo; I was envisioning that
395s would use HS1 and then follow the route that E* used during that time.
OTTOMH I forget the junction names involved.

I think the first part of HS1 just went to Ashford, and the Eurostars went
via Tonbridge; it was then extended to Fawkham Junction, for the route via
Swanley to Waterloo. It was then completed to St Pancras, whereupon
Eurostar moved from Waterloo, and the Fawkham Junction link was no longer
used (it's now out of service).

London Waterloo international
 

wrote:
In article , (Anna
Noyd-Dryver) wrote:

Roger Lynn wrote:
On 13/08/17 16:18, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
I thought at the time that a solution to the SWT-area passengers who
felt disadvantaged by E*'s move to St Pancras, would have been 1tph SET
Javelin from Ashford-or-beyond to Waterloo, with connecting E*s at
Ashford.
Would a Javelin have any advantage on that route over whatever third
rail stock usually operates in that region? Presumably both would be
restricted to the same line speed, which I believe wasn't very high when
Eurostars than that way?

Part of HS1 was open and used by E*s to Waterloo; I was envisioning that
395s would use HS1 and then follow the route that E* used during that
time. OTTOMH I forget the junction names involved.

Fawkham Junction was involved at one end or the other of the link.

It's at the western, third-rail end of the now-disused link. The eastern,
25 kV end connects to HS1 at the grade-separated Southfleet Junction.

London Waterloo international
 

On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 08:36:47 +0100, e27002 aurora
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 03:29:29 -0500,
wrote:

In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

On 10 Aug 2017 11:10:54 +0100 (BST), Theo
wrote:

In uk.railway Basil Jet wrote:
I'm not sure exactly what the difference is, except for the pretty
roof. But imagine that the east half of Victoria was tarted up, and
they decided to build a flyover so the Brighton lines could use it.
Then twenty years later the west half is tarted up to be nicer than the
east half, so they demolish the flyover. Then twenty years later they
tart up the east side again and rebuild the flyover. Even Michael Bell
wouldn't dream of advocating such athing.

Losing the flyover would enable reinstatement of an 8th track through
Queenstown Road (where it goes from 8 down to 7 to accommodate it, then 8
once the flyover has merged). I don't know enough about the (complex)
track layout and platforming to know if that would give any useful
increase in capacity.

Historically, IIRC, there were four tracks between Waterloo and
Barnes. I do not know how much the reduction around the Nine Elms
flyover reduced needed capacity.

Historically the constraint is at Queenstown Road Battersea (previously
Queens Road Battersea). It only ever had 3 platforms (the side platform has
long been out of use) and 3 passenger tracks. A fourth track, between the
two up tracks, served the late lamented Nine Elms Goods Station. There was
an attempt to work up a scheme to have one up and two down tracks there (to
ease ECS moves from Waterloo to Clapham Yard) but the cost of rebuilding the
station was found to be prohibitive.

So, the absence of a fourth track for the Windsor lines approach to
Waterloo is not really an issue. That is good.

After TfL's Northern Line reaches Battersea, will Queenstown Road
still be needed?

You think everybody needs London Underground ?

It is a pity the tube could not have reach Battersea Park.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

London Waterloo international
 

Theo wrote:
In uk.railway Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Other than use of HS1 for part of the journey, and that there are no trains
from Waterloo to Ashford...

Only every half an hour, taking 1h17:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/sear...8/14/0600-2000

What would a hypothetical Waterloo-Ashford Javelin via HS1 do it in?



Well I must admit I was so focussed on Waterloo main station I'd forgotten
all about Waterloo East!! D'oh :/


Anna Noyd-Dryver

London Waterloo international
 

Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\08\10 21:55, Recliner wrote:

Note the 10:22 Addlestone train on the board is shown as the "Front 8
coaches of the train".

I wish they'd say "Near" and "Far": I never know what "Front" means!


At certain locations I can understand your confusion - though 'near' and
'far' don't help either if the entrance to the platform is in the middle,
or if it's a multi-platform through station whether or not your train is
already present when you arrive on the platform (especially if it's an
unfamiliar location and you don't know which direction the train will
depart).

However at a terminus station where you walk past stop blocks to get to the
platform I'd have thought that 'front' and 'rear' were fairly obvious
descriptors?


Anna Noyd-Dryver

London Waterloo international
 

On 2017\08\14 09:43, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\08\10 21:55, Recliner wrote:

Note the 10:22 Addlestone train on the board is shown as the "Front 8
coaches of the train".

I wish they'd say "Near" and "Far": I never know what "Front" means!


At certain locations I can understand your confusion - though 'near' and
'far' don't help either if the entrance to the platform is in the middle,
or if it's a multi-platform through station whether or not your train is
already present when you arrive on the platform (especially if it's an
unfamiliar location and you don't know which direction the train will
depart).

However at a terminus station where you walk past stop blocks to get to the
platform I'd have thought that 'front' and 'rear' were fairly obvious
descriptors?

Obvious to the guy sat at the pointy end! But in general, the front of
something is the side that's facing me, and the back is the side that's
facing away from me. It's a bit different with cars because they are
asymmetrical: the business end is always the front even if it's facing
away from you. The front of a train coming into the terminus is the back
leaving, so while it's stationary it doesn't have a front or back.

London Waterloo international
 

Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\08\14 09:43, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\08\10 21:55, Recliner wrote:

Note the 10:22 Addlestone train on the board is shown as the "Front 8
coaches of the train".

I wish they'd say "Near" and "Far": I never know what "Front" means!


At certain locations I can understand your confusion - though 'near' and
'far' don't help either if the entrance to the platform is in the middle,
or if it's a multi-platform through station whether or not your train is
already present when you arrive on the platform (especially if it's an
unfamiliar location and you don't know which direction the train will
depart).

However at a terminus station where you walk past stop blocks to get to the
platform I'd have thought that 'front' and 'rear' were fairly obvious
descriptors?

Obvious to the guy sat at the pointy end! But in general, the front of
something is the side that's facing me, and the back is the side that's
facing away from me. It's a bit different with cars because they are
asymmetrical: the business end is always the front even if it's facing
away from you. The front of a train coming into the terminus is the back
leaving, so while it's stationary it doesn't have a front or back.


There's also the issue that I think Roland raised: if you're walking from
the back of the train, how do you know when you've got to the front eight
cars unless there's a sign (on the platform or train door display) to tell
you? You might remember how many cars you've walked past, but how do you
know how many lie ahead in a long platform.

Regarding the front or back, I'm always amazed at how many people (usually
female) board a train at the terminus and then ask which way it'll be
going.

London Waterloo international
 

In message , at 08:43:18 on Mon, 14 Aug
2017, Anna Noyd-Dryver remarked:

Note the 10:22 Addlestone train on the board is shown as the "Front 8
coaches of the train".

I wish they'd say "Near" and "Far": I never know what "Front" means!

At certain locations I can understand your confusion - though 'near' and
'far' don't help either if the entrance to the platform is in the middle,
or if it's a multi-platform through station whether or not your train is
already present when you arrive on the platform (especially if it's an
unfamiliar location and you don't know which direction the train will
depart).

However at a terminus station where you walk past stop blocks to get to the
platform I'd have thought that 'front' and 'rear' were fairly obvious
descriptors?

Mot normals will see the driver's cab near the buffers and conclude
that's the "front" of the train.
--
Roland Perry

London Waterloo international
 

In message
-sept
ember.org, at 10:00:43 on Mon, 14 Aug 2017, Recliner
remarked:

Regarding the front or back, I'm always amazed at how many people (usually
female) board a train at the terminus and then ask which way it'll be
going.

While I might take issue with you over the gender bias, a lot of people
(especially the press) think that a driver's cab with 50 seats behind it
is a "locomotive".

They don't even consider the possibility that other coaches could be
'powered'.

--
Roland Perry

London Waterloo international
 

On 14/08/17 11:00, Recliner wrote:
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\08\14 09:43, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\08\10 21:55, Recliner wrote:

Note the 10:22 Addlestone train on the board is shown as the "Front 8
coaches of the train".

I wish they'd say "Near" and "Far": I never know what "Front" means!

At certain locations I can understand your confusion - though 'near' and
'far' don't help either if the entrance to the platform is in the middle,
or if it's a multi-platform through station whether or not your train is
already present when you arrive on the platform (especially if it's an
unfamiliar location and you don't know which direction the train will
depart).

However at a terminus station where you walk past stop blocks to get to the
platform I'd have thought that 'front' and 'rear' were fairly obvious
descriptors?

Obvious to the guy sat at the pointy end! But in general, the front of
something is the side that's facing me, and the back is the side that's
facing away from me. It's a bit different with cars because they are
asymmetrical: the business end is always the front even if it's facing
away from you. The front of a train coming into the terminus is the back
leaving, so while it's stationary it doesn't have a front or back.

There's also the issue that I think Roland raised: if you're walking from
the back of the train, how do you know when you've got to the front eight
cars unless there's a sign (on the platform or train door display) to tell
you? You might remember how many cars you've walked past, but how do you
know how many lie ahead in a long platform.

Regarding the front or back, I'm always amazed at how many people (usually
female) board a train at the terminus and then ask which way it'll be
going.

Returning to (most of) the subject line, in my commuting days the
announcements at Waterloo (Main) were quite clear: "The front 8 coaches,
furthest from the ticket barrier" formed the Basingstoke stopper. At
Woking, the rear 4 were detached very smartly to form the Alton service.

I agree that it's more of a problem where there are no buffer stops.
Platforms 1a and 1b are a good attempt but the boundary between them
will shift between trains. I've also seen coloured zones, but I think
only to distinguish intercity[1] carriages with the same destination but
different accommodation.

Many (CHX-)Waterloo East-Ashford services are for "Ramsgate & Ramsgate".
They split at Ashford into a main train for Ramsgate via Canterbury and
a portion for Ramsgate via Dover. That must cause confusion.

[1] generic term, but including the late InterCity

London Waterloo international
 

On 14/08/2017 12:04, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-sept
ember.org, at 10:00:43 on Mon, 14 Aug 2017, Recliner
remarked:

Regarding the front or back, I'm always amazed at how many people
(usually
female) board a train at the terminus and then ask which way it'll be
going.

While I might take issue with you over the gender bias, a lot of people
(especially the press) think that a driver's cab with 50 seats behind it
is a "locomotive".


In Switzerland it could be.

They don't even consider the possibility that other coaches could be
'powered'.



--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

London Waterloo international
 

On 13/08/17 20:07, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 13/08/2017 16:18, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
I thought at the time that a solution to the SWT-area passengers who felt
disadvantaged by E*'s move to St Pancras, would have been 1tph SET Javelin
from Ashford-or-beyond to Waterloo, with connecting E*s at Ashford.

No advantage over conventional trains.

Would conventional trains from Waterloo have been able to use the Fawkham
Junction route to HS1? If not, their route to Ashford would surely be
slower?

I'd forgotten about the possibility of Javelins running along to HS1 to get
to Ashford. Shame it couldn't get from Waterloo into Ebbsfleet. That would
make the connection faster. A connection with the North Kent Line would have
helped too.

Roger

London Waterloo international
 

Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\08\14 09:43, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\08\10 21:55, Recliner wrote:

Note the 10:22 Addlestone train on the board is shown as the "Front 8
coaches of the train".

I wish they'd say "Near" and "Far": I never know what "Front" means!


At certain locations I can understand your confusion - though 'near' and
'far' don't help either if the entrance to the platform is in the middle,
or if it's a multi-platform through station whether or not your train is
already present when you arrive on the platform (especially if it's an
unfamiliar location and you don't know which direction the train will
depart).

However at a terminus station where you walk past stop blocks to get to the
platform I'd have thought that 'front' and 'rear' were fairly obvious
descriptors?

Obvious to the guy sat at the pointy end! But in general, the front of
something is the side that's facing me, and the back is the side that's
facing away from me. It's a bit different with cars because they are
asymmetrical: the business end is always the front even if it's facing
away from you. The front of a train coming into the terminus is the back
leaving, so while it's stationary it doesn't have a front or back.


The front of a stationary train is the end towards which it will next be
moving, surely? If it's a through station, or you enter at the middle of
the platform, I can understand the confusion - but surely walking onto the
platform past the end of the track and a huge set of stop blocks should
help you know which way the train will move?

Perhaps the solution we need is the Swiss 'Sektoren A B C D' or even BR's
own Gold, Orange, Blue etc zones, the last remnants of which have recently
been erased from the GWML.


Anna Noyd-Dryver

London Waterloo international
 

In article , (Certes) wrote:

On 14/08/17 11:00, Recliner wrote:
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\08\14 09:43, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\08\10 21:55, Recliner wrote:

Note the 10:22 Addlestone train on the board is shown as the "Front
8 coaches of the train".

I wish they'd say "Near" and "Far": I never know what "Front" means!

At certain locations I can understand your confusion - though 'near'
and 'far' don't help either if the entrance to the platform is in the
middle, or if it's a multi-platform through station whether or not
your train is already present when you arrive on the platform
(especially if it's an unfamiliar location and you don't know which
direction the train will depart).

However at a terminus station where you walk past stop blocks to get
to the platform I'd have thought that 'front' and 'rear' were fairly
obvious descriptors?

Obvious to the guy sat at the pointy end! But in general, the front of
something is the side that's facing me, and the back is the side that's
facing away from me. It's a bit different with cars because they are
asymmetrical: the business end is always the front even if it's facing
away from you. The front of a train coming into the terminus is the
back leaving, so while it's stationary it doesn't have a front or back.

There's also the issue that I think Roland raised: if you're walking
from the back of the train, how do you know when you've got to the front
eight cars unless there's a sign (on the platform or train door display)
to tell you? You might remember how many cars you've walked past, but
how do you know how many lie ahead in a long platform.

Regarding the front or back, I'm always amazed at how many people
(usually female) board a train at the terminus and then ask which way
it'll be going.

Returning to (most of) the subject line, in my commuting days the
announcements at Waterloo (Main) were quite clear: "The front 8 coaches,
furthest from the ticket barrier" formed the Basingstoke stopper. At
Woking, the rear 4 were detached very smartly to form the Alton service.

I agree that it's more of a problem where there are no buffer stops.
Platforms 1a and 1b are a good attempt but the boundary between them
will shift between trains. I've also seen coloured zones, but I think
only to distinguish intercity[1] carriages with the same destination but
different accommodation.

Many (CHX-)Waterloo East-Ashford services are for "Ramsgate & Ramsgate".
They split at Ashford into a main train for Ramsgate via Canterbury and
a portion for Ramsgate via Dover. That must cause confusion.

[1] generic term, but including the late InterCity

The 1814 from Kings Cross to King's Lynn causes confusion too. The rear
4-car unit of three is detached at Royston and follows the rest as far as
Ely, stopping at all stations. Passengers for Cambridge to Ely get on the
back unit at King's Cross not realising they get a slower journey. If they
want Cambridge North which the Lynn portion doesn't stop at, they are still
better off changing cross-platform at Cambridge to a Norwich train than
using the back portion.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

London Waterloo international
 

On 16.08.2017 6:23 PM, wrote:
On 16.08.17 16:00, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
wrote:
In article , Anna Noyd-Dryver
wrote:
The front of a stationary train is the end towards which it will next be
moving, surely? If it's a through station, or you enter at the middle of
the platform, I can understand the confusion - but surely walking onto
the platform past the end of the track and a huge set of stop blocks
should help you know which way the train will move?

When I worked at Victoria I was often asked, by someone standing right by
the stop blocks, which way would the train be going.


Indeed. It's a staple amusement on the 'railway staff laugh at stuff
passengers say' groups/forums.

My personal favourite is being asked, at a terminal platform (passenger had
walked past the buffer stops), which of the two trains would be going
first. (Yes sir this one's going to grow legs, climb onto the platform,
walk around the other one and jump back down). The fact that the two trains
were going to totally different destinations didn't seem to matter...


Anna Noyd-Dryver

I was on a first-generation M-series train out of Grand Central
Terminal, on the Hudson Line. Those trains are the ones with the
half-width cabs, giving passengers a full forward view.

Anyway, I am standing there and a yuppie approaches me and demands that
I move as it wanted to use the toilet. It was only after explained that
the toilet was actually a cab and that this was the train's front that
it realised the mistake.

Talk about oblivious to one's surroundings.


It? Really?

We're into dangerous sociopath territory here...

Which end of the train (was London Waterloo international)
 

On 16.08.2017 6:25 PM, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\08\16 03:04, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\08\15 19:14, wrote:
In article , Anna Noyd-Dryver
wrote:
The front of a stationary train is the end towards which it will next be
moving, surely? If it's a through station, or you enter at the middle of
the platform, I can understand the confusion - but surely walking onto
the platform past the end of the track and a huge set of stop blocks
should help you know which way the train will move?

When I worked at Victoria I was often asked, by someone standing right by
the stop blocks, which way would the train be going.

Surely they meant "Is this train with Sutton on the front going via
Hackbridge or Waddon?"

Incidentally, by "front" I meant the end facing the buffers... see what
I mean about the confusion. For me, the front of a stationary train is
the end facing me! I'm sure I'm not alone in this.

Since trains usually only have doors open on one side, they could just
say "the left end" and "the right end". This tells you where on the
platform to stand before the train is even in sight, and before you know
which way the train will arrive, which way it will depart, whether the
train normally reverses, and whether these things have changed today
because of engineering work.


If the platform has two faces you'll get people going to the wrong platform
if you try 'left end/right end'.

I think at Greenford the doors used to open on both sides, but I'm not
sure they do that any more, and I doubt there are ever two trains in
Greenford platform at the same time.

They only open one side.

Are there any stations where NR
trains have doors open on both sides?


Unlikely, as it'd need dispatch staff on both sides. Also on most modern
stock (certainly the ex BR power door units) the guard's 'door close'
button closes the doors on both sides of the train, and you can't watch
both sides at once.

I thought I saw boarding/alighting on both sides somewhere on NR, maybe
Doncaster... Might have been old stock though.

Of course, non NR, it's common on airport terminal shuttle type services.
And don't DLR trains open the doors on both sides at Canary Wharf?

(And here on the continent with the old style speed activated door locking
and a rather more "self preservation is your own problem" safety culture,
it's quite common to use the doors on both sides to board/alight whether
there's a platform on both sides or not...)

Which end of the train (was London Waterloo international)
 

Clank wrote:
On 16.08.2017 6:25 PM, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\08\16 03:04, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\08\15 19:14, wrote:
In article , Anna Noyd-Dryver
wrote:
The front of a stationary train is the end towards which it will next be
moving, surely? If it's a through station, or you enter at the middle of
the platform, I can understand the confusion - but surely walking onto
the platform past the end of the track and a huge set of stop blocks
should help you know which way the train will move?

When I worked at Victoria I was often asked, by someone standing right by
the stop blocks, which way would the train be going.

Surely they meant "Is this train with Sutton on the front going via
Hackbridge or Waddon?"

Incidentally, by "front" I meant the end facing the buffers... see what
I mean about the confusion. For me, the front of a stationary train is
the end facing me! I'm sure I'm not alone in this.

Since trains usually only have doors open on one side, they could just
say "the left end" and "the right end". This tells you where on the
platform to stand before the train is even in sight, and before you know
which way the train will arrive, which way it will depart, whether the
train normally reverses, and whether these things have changed today
because of engineering work.


If the platform has two faces you'll get people going to the wrong platform
if you try 'left end/right end'.

I think at Greenford the doors used to open on both sides, but I'm not
sure they do that any more, and I doubt there are ever two trains in
Greenford platform at the same time.

They only open one side.

Are there any stations where NR
trains have doors open on both sides?


Unlikely, as it'd need dispatch staff on both sides. Also on most modern
stock (certainly the ex BR power door units) the guard's 'door close'
button closes the doors on both sides of the train, and you can't watch
both sides at once.

I thought I saw boarding/alighting on both sides somewhere on NR, maybe
Doncaster... Might have been old stock though.

Of course, non NR, it's common on airport terminal shuttle type services.
And don't DLR trains open the doors on both sides at Canary Wharf?

(And here on the continent with the old style speed activated door locking
and a rather more "self preservation is your own problem" safety culture,
it's quite common to use the doors on both sides to board/alight whether
there's a platform on both sides or not...)


Ah, the Asian approach:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/12906280495/in/album-72157641801963124/lightbox/