"Mrs Redboots" wrote in message
...

I thought that back then platform 1 was reserved for Channel trains, as
there were customs facilities?

The Night Ferry used platform 2, because it was long enough and because it
had access to the customs and immigration offices. Platform 2 was also used
for Royal Trains - State Visits often came in to Gatwick, and the visting
Heads of States were conveyed to Victoria by Royal Train, and then taken in
a carriage procession to Buckingham Palace. Also used for the Royal Train to
Tattenham Corner on Derby Day.

Platform 1 could be closed off from platform 2 by the folding gates along
the length of the platform. It was certainly used for commuter trains after
the 1967 timetable alterations.

Peter

In article , Mrs Redboots
wrote:
It actually left Victoria at 10.00 pm (9.00 pm during GMT). The up
train was booked to leave Dover at 7.20 am and run via Chatham and
Catford. More often than not it ran in its late path, 8.10 am from
Dover via Tonbridge and Kent House, arriving Victoria 9.38 am.
Commuters whose train was routed into platform 1 at Victoria used to
curse it, as they had to leave by the side gate into Hudson Place,
making for a long walk round to the Underground.

I thought that back then platform 1 was reserved for Channel trains, as
there were customs facilities?

The Night Ferry was the only train using the customs facilities - certainly
when I worked at Victoria in 1963.

--
__ __ __ __ __ ___ _____________________________________________
|__||__)/ __/ \|\ ||_ | / Acorn StrongArm Risc_PC
| || \\__/\__/| \||__ | /...Internet access for all Acorn RISC machines
___________________________/

"Troy Steadman" wrote in message
m...
Didn't there used to be trains that instead of disgorging their
passengers at the docks actually drove (drove?) steamed on to sidings
on the decks of ships then steamed off Stena-like to continue their
journey across Europe?

Still happens today.

There's a regular service between Denmark & Germany where diesel trains
leave Copenhagen & the same train continues to Hamburg (and possibly
further) with a sea journey as part of the trip.

CW

"Troy Steadman" wrote in message
m...
Didn't there used to be trains that instead of disgorging their
passengers at the docks actually drove (drove?) steamed on to sidings
on the decks of ships then steamed off Stena-like to continue their
journey across Europe?

See link & third picture down

http://www.scandlines.de/en/infocent...ategory3-1.htm

Soemthing i discovered when looking on the web for something else today:

I had seen the train ferrys in Denmark for the services to Copenhagan (is
the railway section of the bridge complete yet?) when on holiday in the
early 90s.

I had often been confused when in material on the tay bridge disaster the
train was either reffered to as a Burntisland to Dundee Mail train or as an
Edinburgh to Dundee train.

What I didn't know was that as well as hes fatally flawed Tay Bridge he also
developed along with other sturdier bridges (which is what i was lookngi for
and found nothing) the Cassions used in contruction and Train Ferrys for
getting passengers from Edinburgh over the forth to Burntisland.

"Troy Steadman" wrote in message
m...
Didn't there used to be trains that instead of disgorging their
passengers at the docks actually drove (drove?) steamed on to sidings
on the decks of ships then steamed off Stena-like to continue their
journey across Europe?

In article , Troy Steadman
wrote:
Didn't there used to be trains that instead of disgorging their
passengers at the docks actually drove (drove?) steamed on to sidings
on the decks of ships then steamed off Stena-like to continue their
journey across Europe?

When the channel tunnel was started, that thoroughly commercial organisation,
British Railways, started a programme of bringing goods waggons into this
country by ship to build up traffic for when the tunnel opened. The tunnel
took longer to build than planned, so this built up to quite a traffic; I saw
a lot of Italian goods vehicles in Luton. But BR didn't live to harvest the
fruits of its labours - and were there any?

It's ironical to remember how the pundits said that the building of the
channel tunnel would bring vast traffic and make British Railways safe. But
as I understand it, goods traffic, like passenger traffic, has been
disappointing. It's strange how things turn out, not the opposite of what was
expected, but at a slant that makes the forecasts and their negations both
irrelevant.

Michael Bell

--

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 07:05:54 +0000, Michael Bell
wrote:

In article , Troy Steadman
wrote:
Didn't there used to be trains that instead of disgorging their
passengers at the docks actually drove (drove?) steamed on to sidings
on the decks of ships then steamed off Stena-like to continue their
journey across Europe?

When the channel tunnel was started, that thoroughly commercial organisation,
British Railways, started a programme of bringing goods waggons into this
country by ship to build up traffic for when the tunnel opened. The tunnel
took longer to build than planned, so this built up to quite a traffic;

Sorry Michael, but that's nonsense. Train ferries were in use for the
transport of goods long before British Railways came into existence.
They only ceased when the Channel Tunnel opened, finally robbing them
of their reason for existence. You might wish to read George
Behrend's and Gary Buchanan's excellent book "Night Ferry" ; a superb
account of the history of these services.


I saw
a lot of Italian goods vehicles in Luton. But BR didn't live to harvest the
fruits of its labours - and were there any?

It's ironical to remember how the pundits said that the building of the
channel tunnel would bring vast traffic and make British Railways safe. But
as I understand it, goods traffic, like passenger traffic, has been
disappointing. It's strange how things turn out, not the opposite of what was
expected, but at a slant that makes the forecasts and their negations both
irrelevant.

The train ferry services and railway-owned container ships were
carrying about 3.2 million tonnes of freight a year before the Channel
Tunnel opened. I understand the current figure for Channel Tunnel is
about 1 million tonnes. It was substantially more, but the problem
with illegal immigrants cost the railways a lot of business. The cost
of using the Channel Tunnel has put off a lot of potential business
too, IMO.


--

Regards

Mike

mikedotroebuckatgmxdotnet

"Mike Roebuck" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 07:05:54 +0000, Michael Bell
wrote:

In article , Troy Steadman
wrote:
Didn't there used to be trains that instead of disgorging their
passengers at the docks actually drove (drove?) steamed on to sidings
on the decks of ships then steamed off Stena-like to continue their
journey across Europe?

When the channel tunnel was started, that thoroughly commercial
organisation,
British Railways, started a programme of bringing goods waggons into this
country by ship to build up traffic for when the tunnel opened. The tunnel
took longer to build than planned, so this built up to quite a traffic;

Sorry Michael, but that's nonsense. Train ferries were in use for the
transport of goods long before British Railways came into existence.
They only ceased when the Channel Tunnel opened, finally robbing them
of their reason for existence. You might wish to read George
Behrend's and Gary Buchanan's excellent book "Night Ferry" ; a superb
account of the history of these services.


I saw
a lot of Italian goods vehicles in Luton. But BR didn't live to harvest
the
fruits of its labours - and were there any?

It's ironical to remember how the pundits said that the building of the
channel tunnel would bring vast traffic and make British Railways safe.
But
as I understand it, goods traffic, like passenger traffic, has been
disappointing. It's strange how things turn out, not the opposite of what
was
expected, but at a slant that makes the forecasts and their negations both
irrelevant.

The train ferry services and railway-owned container ships were
carrying about 3.2 million tonnes of freight a year before the Channel
Tunnel opened. I understand the current figure for Channel Tunnel is
about 1 million tonnes. It was substantially more, but the problem
with illegal immigrants cost the railways a lot of business. The cost
of using the Channel Tunnel has put off a lot of potential business
too, IMO.


--

Regards

Mike

mikedotroebuckatgmxdotnet
It's heading towards the million and a half tonne mark now, I believe. Just
looking at the tonnage figures gives an understated view of the level of
traffic carried- some of the longest-serving trains carry relatively
low-density products, so that the Ford Dagenham - Silla train (which has
been loading 40+ boxes per day per direction) only GROSSES about 1100t,
suggesting a load of about half that. Likewise, the car trains are 750m
long, but probably load about 400t maximum. The stowaway problem dented
things very badly, but subsequently the continuing labour-relations problems
at SNCF have also caused the loss of a lot of container traffic, which takes
the short-sea route to Belgium and then goes forward by rail to Italy.
Brian

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 13:30:06 +0000, Mike Roebuck
wrote:

about 1 million tonnes. It was substantially more, but the problem
with illegal immigrants cost the railways a lot of business. The cost
of using the Channel Tunnel has put off a lot of potential business
too, IMO.

There is also the problem of having to travel through France, which
isn't exactly part of the brave new world of open access operators
leasing Class 66s and trying to grow the railfreight market.

Recently there was some fairly serious(?) talk of starting a Belgium -
UK train ferry, so that rail operators wouldn't have to deal with SNCF
and the French unions.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

In article , Arthur Figgis
URL:mailto [snip]

Recently there was some fairly serious(?) talk of starting a Belgium -
UK train ferry, so that rail operators wouldn't have to deal with SNCF
and the French unions.

That's really bad!

Michael Bell

--