On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:22:02 +0100, Barry Salter
wrote:

Allegedly the "farce" you mention at Euston is deliberate, in case sets
need to be swapped for whatever reason. If the peak services "always"
departed from the same platforms, then it'd cause even more chaos if
they did need to swap a set out, as they'd have to get all of the
regulars off of the "wrong" platform.

This is probably the reason, but it isn't a good one. Platform
alterations happen all the time in other stations, and do not
generally cause "chaos".

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Neil Williams wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:22:02 +0100, Barry Salter
wrote:

Allegedly the "farce" you mention at Euston is deliberate, in case sets
need to be swapped for whatever reason. If the peak services "always"
departed from the same platforms, then it'd cause even more chaos if
they did need to swap a set out, as they'd have to get all of the
regulars off of the "wrong" platform.

This is probably the reason, but it isn't a good one. Platform
alterations happen all the time in other stations, and do not
generally cause "chaos".

Euston isn't the ideal place to do that kind of thing. The only
interchange between platforms (assuming the subterranean tunnels are off
limits) is via the concourse, which is at a different level, and Euston
probably has a fair proportion of longer-distance travellers with
luggage, who will not only be slower than average, but will also get in
the way of others making their way from platform X to Y. With just a bit
of bad luck, chaos (for once) could turn out to be the best word to
describe the result.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p12198536.html
(50 011 at Birmingham New Street, 1979)

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 06:28:12 GMT, Chris Tolley put finger to keyboard
and typed:

Neil Williams wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:22:02 +0100, Barry Salter
wrote:

Allegedly the "farce" you mention at Euston is deliberate, in case sets
need to be swapped for whatever reason. If the peak services "always"
departed from the same platforms, then it'd cause even more chaos if
they did need to swap a set out, as they'd have to get all of the
regulars off of the "wrong" platform.

This is probably the reason, but it isn't a good one. Platform
alterations happen all the time in other stations, and do not
generally cause "chaos".

Euston isn't the ideal place to do that kind of thing. The only
interchange between platforms (assuming the subterranean tunnels are off
limits) is via the concourse, which is at a different level, and Euston
probably has a fair proportion of longer-distance travellers with
luggage, who will not only be slower than average, but will also get in
the way of others making their way from platform X to Y. With just a bit
of bad luck, chaos (for once) could turn out to be the best word to
describe the result.

It's always struck me that Euston is particularly badly designed, in
this respect. Given that the concourse is at a different level to the
platforms anyway, why not put the concourse *over* the platforms,
instead of well to the rear of them? That not only allows for multiple
routes down to each platform instead of just the one, but also makes
the walking distance from concourse to train considerably shorter and
gives you more concourse space.

I know that having the concourse above the tracks can lead to a rather
claustrophic platform area (compared to the airiness of, say, Kings
Cross), but Euston doesn't exactly feel spacious to begin with so a
lower roof over the platforms would hardly be a great loss.

Mark
--
http://www.railwaystations.info - creating a pictorial record of British railway stations

In article e.net,
(Mark Goodge) wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 06:28:12 GMT, Chris Tolley put finger to keyboard
and typed:

Neil Williams wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:22:02 +0100, Barry Salter
wrote:

Allegedly the "farce" you mention at Euston is deliberate, in case
sets need to be swapped for whatever reason. If the peak services
"always" departed from the same platforms, then it'd cause even more
chaos if they did need to swap a set out, as they'd have to get all
of the regulars off of the "wrong" platform.

This is probably the reason, but it isn't a good one. Platform
alterations happen all the time in other stations, and do not
generally cause "chaos".

Euston isn't the ideal place to do that kind of thing. The only
interchange between platforms (assuming the subterranean tunnels are
off limits) is via the concourse, which is at a different level, and
Euston probably has a fair proportion of longer-distance travellers
with luggage, who will not only be slower than average, but will also
get in the way of others making their way from platform X to Y. With
just a bit of bad luck, chaos (for once) could turn out to be the
best word to describe the result.

It's always struck me that Euston is particularly badly designed, in
this respect. Given that the concourse is at a different level to the
platforms anyway, why not put the concourse *over* the platforms,
instead of well to the rear of them? That not only allows for multiple
routes down to each platform instead of just the one, but also makes
the walking distance from concourse to train considerably shorter and
gives you more concourse space.

I know that having the concourse above the tracks can lead to a rather
claustrophic platform area (compared to the airiness of, say, Kings
Cross), but Euston doesn't exactly feel spacious to begin with so a
lower roof over the platforms would hardly be a great loss.

Wasn't the space above the tracks needed for parcels when Euston was
redesigned?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 22 Oct, 19:51, Mark Goodge
wrote:

It's always struck me that Euston is particularly badly designed, in
this respect. Given that the concourse is at a different level to the
platforms anyway, why not put the concourse *over* the platforms,
instead of well to the rear of them? That not only allows for multiple
routes down to each platform instead of just the one, but also makes
the walking distance from concourse to train considerably shorter and
gives you more concourse space.

It could also allow all platforms to be extended to 12 cars+, which
would be a real benefit.

Neil

On 22 Oct, 06:31, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:22:02 +0100, Barry Salter

wrote:
Allegedly the "farce" you mention at Euston is deliberate, in case sets
need to be swapped for whatever reason. If the peak services "always"
departed from the same platforms, then it'd cause even more chaos if
they did need to swap a set out, as they'd have to get all of the
regulars off of the "wrong" platform.

This is probably the reason, but it isn't a good one. *Platform
alterations happen all the time in other stations, and do not
generally cause "chaos".

In Germany they are sufficiently confident in their system to print
the platforms on the Abfahrt (departure) and Ankunft (arrival)
posters, and on www.bahn.de tickets. I have only once had a platform
change ... and that was because the preordained track was up for
renewal.

Is there any reason at all, except incompetence, why British railways
could not do the same?

Ian

On 22 Oct, 08:59, The Real Doctor wrote:

Is there any reason at all, except incompetence, why British railways
could not do the same?

German stations usually have more platforms than UK ones - but Euston
is a bit of an exception, as it could quite happily work with fewer
than the 17 it has.

Notably, the commuter operation practically never has platform
alterations, and the diagrammed platforms are displayed well in
advance. This allows one to go to the platform at leisure and spread
along it ready for the train to arrive. Far better.

Neil

On 2008-10-22 12:24:43 +0100, Neil Williams said:

On 22 Oct, 08:59, The Real Doctor wrote:

Is there any reason at all, except incompetence, why British railways
could not do the same?

German stations usually have more platforms than UK ones - but Euston
is a bit of an exception, as it could quite happily work with fewer
than the 17 it has.

Notably, the commuter operation practically never has platform
alterations, and the diagrammed platforms are displayed well in
advance. This allows one to go to the platform at leisure and spread
along it ready for the train to arrive. Far better.

Neil

For the last three years I have lived and worked in Munich and I can
confirm that the number of platforms available in the Hauptbahnhof (the
2 'wing' stations as well as the main hall) means that long distance
trains are ready for boarding for up to 30 minutes before departure.
(Apart from, of course, those that work to and from Salzburg and
reverse in the Hbf). At Muenchen-Pasing however there is one island
platform for the trains to and from both the Garmisch-Partenkirchen /
Innsbrück and to Buchloe / Kempten / Oberstdorf routes. Any delay and
trains have to be switched around - as this is an island the change is
not difficult, but you should listen to the complaints!

At Paddington in the peaks, because of the limited number of platforms
the longer distance trains have to turn round in about 15 to 25
minutes, or less if an arriving train is delayed. Effectively only
platforms 1 to 10 are available of which 6 and 7 are reserved for the
Heathrow Express, i.e. there are only 8 usable platforms. Muenchen Hbf
has more than 3 times as many.

So to reach German levels of boarding time the number of trains leaving
any platform in a given period has to be reduced. However to maintain
the same capacity, some other work has to be done. Either:

a) the trains, and therefore the platforms, have to be lengthened -
possibly also further down the line
b) if the trains are not lengthened then the number of platforms has to
be increased. As the station and its roof is listed this means that
station can only be widened.

However the simplest solution to increase dwell times to reduce the
number of trains and do nothing else - if ticket prices have to be
increased to match demand and supply then this is also the most
economic.

If (a) or (b) is selected, then someone (i.e., I and my fellow
taxpayers) will have to fork out serious money.

I'll chose the scramble for the trains...

By the way - Network Rail manages Paddington, not fGW. Complaints,
please, to the correct address.
--
Robert

On Oct 22, 2:17 pm, Robert wrote:
On 2008-10-22 12:24:43 +0100, Neil Williams said:

On 22 Oct, 08:59, The Real Doctor wrote:

Is there any reason at all, except incompetence, why British railways
could not do the same?

German stations usually have more platforms than UK ones - but Euston
is a bit of an exception, as it could quite happily work with fewer
than the 17 it has.

Notably, the commuter operation practically never has platform
alterations, and the diagrammed platforms are displayed well in
advance. This allows one to go to the platform at leisure and spread
along it ready for the train to arrive. Far better.

Neil

For the last three years I have lived and worked in Munich and I can
confirm that the number of platforms available in the Hauptbahnhof (the
2 'wing' stations as well as the main hall) means that long distance
trains are ready for boarding for up to 30 minutes before departure.
(Apart from, of course, those that work to and from Salzburg and
reverse in the Hbf). At Muenchen-Pasing however there is one island
platform for the trains to and from both the Garmisch-Partenkirchen /
Innsbrück and to Buchloe / Kempten / Oberstdorf routes. Any delay and
trains have to be switched around - as this is an island the change is
not difficult, but you should listen to the complaints!

At Paddington in the peaks, because of the limited number of platforms
the longer distance trains have to turn round in about 15 to 25
minutes, or less if an arriving train is delayed. Effectively only
platforms 1 to 10 are available of which 6 and 7 are reserved for the
Heathrow Express, i.e. there are only 8 usable platforms. Muenchen Hbf
has more than 3 times as many.

So to reach German levels of boarding time the number of trains leaving
any platform in a given period has to be reduced. However to maintain
the same capacity, some other work has to be done. Either:

a) the trains, and therefore the platforms, have to be lengthened -
possibly also further down the line
b) if the trains are not lengthened then the number of platforms has to
be increased. As the station and its roof is listed this means that
station can only be widened.

or c) put in some underground platforms and call it Crossrail.
Tim

On 2008-10-23 17:08:42 +0100, TimB said:

On Oct 22, 2:17 pm, Robert wrote:
On 2008-10-22 12:24:43 +0100, Neil Williams said:

On 22 Oct, 08:59, The Real Doctor wrote:

Is there any reason at all, except incompetence, why British railways
could not do the same?

German stations usually have more platforms than UK ones - but Euston
is a bit of an exception, as it could quite happily work with fewer
than the 17 it has.

Notably, the commuter operation practically never has platform
alterations, and the diagrammed platforms are displayed well in
advance. This allows one to go to the platform at leisure and spread
along it ready for the train to arrive. Far better.

Neil

For the last three years I have lived and worked in Munich and I can
confirm that the number of platforms available in the Hauptbahnhof (the
2 'wing' stations as well as the main hall) means that long distance
trains are ready for boarding for up to 30 minutes before departure.
(Apart from, of course, those that work to and from Salzburg and
reverse in the Hbf). At Muenchen-Pasing however there is one island
platform for the trains to and from both the Garmisch-Partenkirchen /
Innsbrück and to Buchloe / Kempten / Oberstdorf routes. Any delay and
trains have to be switched around - as this is an island the change is
not difficult, but you should listen to the complaints!

At Paddington in the peaks, because of the limited number of platforms
the longer distance trains have to turn round in about 15 to 25
minutes, or less if an arriving train is delayed. Effectively only
platforms 1 to 10 are available of which 6 and 7 are reserved for the
Heathrow Express, i.e. there are only 8 usable platforms. Muenchen Hbf
has more than 3 times as many.

So to reach German levels of boarding time the number of trains leaving
any platform in a given period has to be reduced. However to maintain
the same capacity, some other work has to be done. Either:

a) the trains, and therefore the platforms, have to be lengthened -
possibly also further down the line
b) if the trains are not lengthened then the number of platforms has to
be increased. As the station and its roof is listed this means that
station can only be widened.

or c) put in some underground platforms and call it Crossrail.
Tim

Absolutely, it would help a little bit more if Heathrow Express also
went underground. The reason I didn't mention Crossrail was that
earlier in the thread there was a suggestion that the inability to
offer consistent platform allocation and longer boarding times was
partly due to incompetence. I was trying to show that this was not
necessarily the case.

Anyway, if we assume that the traffic using Platforms 11 to 14 at
Paddington is transferred to Crossrail and the platforms could be
converted to accommodate longer trains that still gives a total of only
14 platforms compared to the 36 surface platforms in Munich. There is
also an underground island platform on the S-Bahn which pumps out 28 to
30 trains per hour in each direction in the peaks for the local
traffic; the surface platforms really are used for the outer-suburban
and long distance trains only.

So even with 14 full length platforms at Paddington it will be
difficult to match German long distance dwell times. And Munich has a
population of only 1.35 million compared to London's 10 million.

I think we'll still have to rush....
--
Robert