In article , (Tim
Ward) wrote:

"Peter Masson" wrote in message
...

In slam door days there were three options:

4 - everybody just got onto the right carriage in the first place,
as per the notices and announcements at the point of embarkation -
"front two coaches for x" etc.

As was invariably the arrangement for short platforms between Ely and
Lynn before electrification.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article
,
() wrote:

On Aug 3, 10:17*am, "Brian Watson" wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message

...

In message . uk,
at
23:36:00 on Sat, 2 Aug 2008, Colin Rosenstiel

remarked:
07:15 Cambridge London Kings Cross * * 176%
07:45 Cambridge London Kings Cross * * 164%
17:45 London Kings Cross Kings Lynn * *164%

Due to be 12 car trains

20 extra carriages are apparently to be supplied to FCC, but not
necessarily all for use on the Cambridge line. I'll be interesting
to see what sort those are. Displaced from elsewhere, presumably.

from May 2009 (at least I think so in the third case).

Does that mean their stopping pattern will change?

If those are average rather than worst snapshot figures they will
still have standing passengers.

Why cannot more mainline trains be a little longer (by a carriage or
two) and overhang platforms at the back?

It happens on various rural routes and seems to present no problem.

Apart from the issues already described by others, one major problem
on certain routes is platform length at the terminus or key
intermediate stations. Waterloo is a good example, where many
platforms can only handle 8-car trains (and most others only 12-car of
20 m or 10-car of 23 m) and the platforms cannot be lengthened in the
country direction owing to signalling issues, or reduction in capacity
of flexibility.

Other stations similarly constrained include London Bridge (no
platform can take more than 12 cars), Liverpool Street, Kings Cross
and Cambridge. Glasgow Central also has a number of short platforms.

King's Cross has two platforms (1 and 6) longer than the others. The
North of London Eurostar sets could only use them when on the White Rose
services a few years back.

The advent of 12-car trains on the West Anglia route is why the Cambridge
island platform scheme has suddenly come to the fore.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at
16:10:03 on Sun, 3 Aug 2008, Chris Tolley
remarked:
The through platform at Cambridge needs extending by about half a
carriage (either end) to accommodate 12-car trains in the Thameslink
plan [maybe they were originally designed for a loco +10]. But if
they are thinking of running 12-car trains then presumably these
will be made of 4-cars from Kings Lynn joining the rear of a fresh
8-cars, and the northern half of the platform will therefore be
blocked by this operation for five minutes. [And the converse in
the evening].

How about building another platform, as at Wolverhampton and Rugby, or
is there something sacred about the Cambridge layout?

There are apparently plans for an island platform, but that may be
more because they want to shift the terminus a couple of miles
north to Chesterton Sidings.

No, it's because of the plan to run 12 cars on West Anglia. While there
is or soon will be capacity for through 12 car trains (for a minimal
extension of platform 1 and a slightly greater extension of platform 4)
there is just no way of terminating the Liverpool St service, which uses
platforms 2 and 3 pretty well entirely, if it comprises 12 car trains,
without extra platforms.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message . uk, at
20:54:00 on Sun, 3 Aug 2008, Colin Rosenstiel
remarked:
There are apparently plans for an island platform, but that may be
more because they want to shift the terminus a couple of miles
north to Chesterton Sidings.

No, it's because of the plan to run 12 cars on West Anglia. While there
is or soon will be capacity for through 12 car trains (for a minimal
extension of platform 1 and a slightly greater extension of platform 4)
there is just no way of terminating the Liverpool St service, which uses
platforms 2 and 3 pretty well entirely, if it comprises 12 car trains,
without extra platforms.

Why can't they terminate at Chesterton Parkway?
--
Roland Perry

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as
gently breathed:

Glasgow Central also has a number of short platforms.

But makes up for it by also having some very long ones - I believe 15
Mk1s + loco will fit in Platform 11, though that might involve the loco
and leading coach blocking one (of two) exits from Platform 10.

--
- DJ Pyromancer, Black Sheep, Leeds. http://www.sheepish.net

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = http://www.wytches.net = The UK's Pagan ISP!
http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk http://www.revival.stormshadow.com

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message . uk,
at 20:54:00 on Sun, 3 Aug 2008, Colin Rosenstiel
remarked:
There are apparently plans for an island platform, but that may be
more because they want to shift the terminus a couple of miles
north to Chesterton Sidings.

No, it's because of the plan to run 12 cars on West Anglia. While
there
is or soon will be capacity for through 12 car trains (for a minimal
extension of platform 1 and a slightly greater extension of platform
4)
there is just no way of terminating the Liverpool St service, which
uses platforms 2 and 3 pretty well entirely, if it comprises 12 car
trains, without extra platforms.

Why can't they terminate at Chesterton Parkway?

Only one terminating platform. I'm not sure it will accommodate 12 car
trains either.

No planning has included 12 car trains on West Anglia until a very recent
plan mainly concerned with issues nearer London but where Cambridge is
the only practical termination point. At least that's my reading of it.
I'm assured that the case for Chesterton Parkway is unaffected, mainly
because CB1 depends on diverting the cars from the existing station.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message . uk, at
21:30:00 on Sun, 3 Aug 2008, Colin Rosenstiel
remarked:
Why can't they terminate at Chesterton Parkway?

Only one terminating platform. I'm not sure it will accommodate 12 car
trains either.

No planning has included 12 car trains on West Anglia until a very recent
plan mainly concerned with issues nearer London but where Cambridge is
the only practical termination point. At least that's my reading of it.
I'm assured that the case for Chesterton Parkway is unaffected, mainly
because CB1 depends on diverting the cars from the existing station.

So how will Chesterton Parkway work? Shuttling one unit down to
Cambridge to connect with the remainder... and with only one platform
it'll be challenging to have sufficiently regular trains to attract
commuters in their cars.
--
Roland Perry

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message . uk,
at 21:30:00 on Sun, 3 Aug 2008, Colin Rosenstiel
remarked:
Why can't they terminate at Chesterton Parkway?

Only one terminating platform. I'm not sure it will accommodate 12 car
trains either.

No planning has included 12 car trains on West Anglia until a very
recent plan mainly concerned with issues nearer London but where
Cambridge is the only practical termination point. At least that's
my reading of it. I'm assured that the case for Chesterton Parkway
is unaffected, mainly because CB1 depends on diverting the cars from
the existing station.

So how will Chesterton Parkway work? Shuttling one unit down to
Cambridge to connect with the remainder... and with only one
platform it'll be challenging to have sufficiently regular trains
to attract commuters in their cars.

It will have two through platforms as well as a terminating bay. Some
trains will go through Cambridge to terminate there instead of at
Cambridge. I don;t think they will be 12-car though I don't recall it
being discussed in the Chesterton plans.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 3 Aug, 22:10, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
In article , (Roland



Perry) wrote:
In message . uk,
at 21:30:00 on Sun, 3 Aug 2008, Colin Rosenstiel
remarked:
Why can't they terminate at Chesterton Parkway?

Only one terminating platform. I'm not sure it will accommodate 12 car
trains either.

No planning has included 12 car trains on West Anglia until a very
recent plan mainly concerned with issues nearer London but where
Cambridge is the only practical termination point. At least that's
my reading of it. I'm assured that the case for Chesterton Parkway
is unaffected, mainly because CB1 depends on diverting the cars from
the existing station.

So how will Chesterton Parkway work? Shuttling one unit down to
Cambridge to connect with the remainder... and with only one
platform it'll be challenging to have sufficiently regular trains
to attract commuters in their cars.

It will have two through platforms as well as a terminating bay. Some
trains will go through Cambridge to terminate there instead of at
Cambridge. I don;t think they will be 12-car though I don't recall it
being discussed in the Chesterton plans.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

I don't know why they can't make the new island platform the same
length as the (extended) existing one, with the existing through
access line being used to provide access to both platforms on the new
face (or even just having a traditional pair of through lines
providing the access to both platforms per face). You could then also
have another pair of faces on the other side of the island for the
terminating Norwich/Ipswich services, removing conflicts with the
northbound services via Ely. That would give Cambridge 10 platforms (6
of which that could take 12 coach trains), with (if my guestimates are
good enough, still enough room for a freight line on the eastern side.
Additionally, I guess you could use the centre face of the island (the
one facing the existing face) for terminating services, leaving the
outer new face for though services south; centre terminating roads are
always useful as they don't cross either through line when entering or
exiting. That would also provide a pair of 12-car terminating
facilities at Cambridge for not much more than the cost of the island
anyway, as most of the additional work would mainly be trackwork and
signalling.

Thoughts?

On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 14:03:48 +0100, David Hansen
wrote:

On lines equipped with conductor rails the result might be worse.

With very few exceptions, the conductor rail at stations, and station
approaches, is on the side furthest from the platform face.


--
Bill Hayles
http://www.rossrail.com