ONscotland ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

I was sure that barriers were placed on the footbridge too...

Quite a few of 'em, it would seem.

ONscotland ) gurgled happily, sounding much like

they were saying :

I was sure that barriers were placed on the footbridge too...

Yes there are LU barriers on the footbridge, but they are placed so
they 'enclose' two of Paddington's suburban platforms from which First
Great Western Link services run (the gates are obviously programmed to
allow FGWL tickets as well as LU tickets). However you can also access
these suburban platforms by walking up one of them from the main
Paddington concourse - and this is the route that isn't gated.

LU knows about this route as the have provided Oyster readers on the
H&C platforms for those Pre-Pay passengers who enter via this route. I
presume the placement of the LU gates on the footbridge was determined
in part by space and safety considerations, and they could not merely
have enclosed the H&C platforms. As for why there are no gates on the
route from the concourse to the FGWL platforms, I don't know. But I don
know there arn't any, at the moment at least.

My ASCII skills are rubbish but here is an attempt to illustrate the
situation:

= is the footbridge
/ is the LU gates
_ are the stairs down from footbridge to platforms
'H&C' is the Underground H&C island platform s
'FGWL' is the FGWL suburban island platforms, with ungated access to
the concourse.


FGWL H&C
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
===/===_=====_

In message .com, at
01:34:32 on Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Mizter T remarked:
ONscotland ) gurgled happily, sounding much like

they were saying :

I was sure that barriers were placed on the footbridge too...

Yes there are LU barriers on the footbridge, but they are placed so
they 'enclose' two of Paddington's suburban platforms from which First
Great Western Link services run (the gates are obviously programmed to
allow FGWL tickets as well as LU tickets). However you can also access
these suburban platforms by walking up one of them from the main
Paddington concourse - and this is the route that isn't gated.

LU knows about this route as the have provided Oyster readers on the
H&C platforms for those Pre-Pay passengers who enter via this route.

I wonder if these are new? When I was there a year ago it was very
difficult to find an Oyster reader having just got off a local FGW from
Ealing Broadway. I eventually discovered one hidden away near the ticket
office.

I presume the placement of the LU gates on the footbridge was
determined in part by space and safety considerations, and they could
not merely have enclosed the H&C platforms.

And also the relative position of the ticket office and the barriers
(the office overlooks the barriers). See below.

As for why there are no gates on the
route from the concourse to the FGWL platforms, I don't know. But I don
know there arn't any, at the moment at least.

The layout predates any barriers for national rail trains at Paddington.

My ASCII skills are rubbish but here is an attempt to illustrate the
situation:

= is the footbridge
/ is the LU gates
_ are the stairs down from footbridge to platforms
'H&C' is the Underground H&C island platform s
'FGWL' is the FGWL suburban island platforms, with ungated access to
the concourse.


FGWL H&C
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
===/===_=====_
TTT

T=ticket office.
--
Roland Perry

In article , Jack Taylor
writes
The H&C line stations were originally part of the GW, with connections to
the West London Railway, together with the crossovers at Paddington allowing
through working (reputedly even a Windsor to Aldgate service at one time!).

Even a train to Aldgate that slipped a coach into Paddington main line
station!

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

Jack Taylor:
The H&C line stations were originally part of the GW, with connections to
the West London Railway, together with the crossovers at Paddington allowing
through working (reputedly even a Windsor to Aldgate service at one time!).

The original H&C Railway was a GWR subsidiary at first. It started at
a junction with the GWR at what is now Westbourne Park, and ran south
to Hammersmith, with a branch soon added connecting to the WLR to
reach what is now Kensington (Olympia). It was used from the outset
for through running from the Metropolitan (i.e. the north side of the
Circle) -- initially using GWR tracks between what are now Paddington
(H&C) and Westbourne Park -- and soon became part of the Met for operating
purposes.

Clive Feather:
Even a train to Aldgate that slipped a coach into Paddington main line
station!

Yeah, once.

Incidentally, District trains also ran through onto the GWR to Windsor
for a little while, using a connecting track at Ealing Broadway. This
service operated from 1883 to 1885. The District itself at that time
consisted of two separate pieces connected by the LSWR tracks (now
District and Piccadilly) from Hammersmith to Turnham Green, so these
trains had to change railways three times on each trip.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Whatever you are, be out and out,
| not divided or in doubt." -- Brand (Ibsen)

My text in this article is in the public domain.

On Tue, 31 May 2005 22:46:56 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Tue, 31 May 2005, Dave Arquati wrote:

I wondered whether Crossrail could take over Hammersmith - Paddington;

Yes, i've heard that idea mentioned by others. Strikes me as a good one,
basically.

Aren't the stations a bit too close together for a Crossrail-type
line? At times they seem to approach DLR proximity...

And no doubt people would be up in arms if their local station were to
close.

Frequency on the northern side of the Circle could be maintained by
extending Wimblewares through to Whitechapel etc.

Or how about adding a service running Ealing Broadway (or Richmond) -
Earl's Court - Edgware Rd - Aldgate/Whitechapel. That would also
supplement the rather meagre service on those branches.


Here's another idea... why not combine the Hammersmith idea with the
(scrapped) proposal to take over the Richmond branch, by reinstating
the connection at Hammersmith (Grove Road)?

Part of the viaduct still exists. Trains could run Paddington -
Latimer Road - Hammersmith (Grove Road?) - Turnham Green - Richmond -
Kingston.

In article ,
lid (asdf) wrote:

Here's another idea... why not combine the Hammersmith idea with the
(scrapped) proposal to take over the Richmond branch, by reinstating
the connection at Hammersmith (Grove Road)?

Part of the viaduct still exists. Trains could run Paddington -
Latimer Road - Hammersmith (Grove Road?) - Turnham Green - Richmond -
Kingston.

Part being the operative word. I have a feeling there's a substantial
office block in the way.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message ,
Colin Rosenstiel writes

Here's another idea... why not combine the Hammersmith idea with the
(scrapped) proposal to take over the Richmond branch, by reinstating
the connection at Hammersmith (Grove Road)?

Part of the viaduct still exists. Trains could run Paddington -
Latimer Road - Hammersmith (Grove Road?) - Turnham Green - Richmond -
Kingston.

Part being the operative word. I have a feeling there's a substantial
office block in the way.

There is - a damn big thing too. I also suspect that would cause
problems with the Piccadilly too as it would come out right in the
middle of the 'fast' lines.
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

In message , Clive D. W. Feather
writes
Even a train to Aldgate that slipped a coach into Paddington main line
station!
When you say "Slipped" do you mean unattached on the move and brought to
a stand by the guard?
--
Clive

In article , Clive
writes
Even a train to Aldgate that slipped a coach into Paddington main line
station!
When you say "Slipped" do you mean unattached on the move and brought
to a stand by the guard?

Yes.

That is the normal meaning of the term, after all.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: