On 2 Feb, 21:35, "Peter Masson" wrote:
Until the 1970s the platform numbers in the main shed omitted 4 and 9, so
the original main departure platform was No. 10.

That's interesting. Don't suppose you know the reasoning for that?

IIRC there were originally only 2 platforms (which is why the bridge
only caters to 1 & 8), arrival (on the eastern side, hence the cab
road), and departure on the west side (hence the waiting rooms). The
centre roads being used as stock sidings until the centre platform
(current 4&5) were added over them, and finally the other two. I cold
be wrong, but I'm fairly sure that's how it worked.

I seem to recall a old map online somewhere showing the KX area with
many more platforms...I'll see if I can find it again.

The problem with adding more longer platforms on teh site of the suburban
station is that this part of the station does not align well with the Gas
Works Tunnels, so a good track layout in the throat would be difficult to
achieve.

Bring back the eastern bore, then have the tracks running primarily
diagonally from the mouths to the platforms. Perhaps move some of the
pointwork to the maiden lane opening. I guess if you wanted to be
drastic...you could even contemplate opening up some of the gasworks
tunnels.

"Jamie Thompson" wrote ...
Bring back the eastern bore, then have the tracks running primarily
diagonally from the mouths to the platforms. Perhaps move some of the
pointwork to the maiden lane opening. I guess if you wanted to be
drastic...you could even contemplate opening up some of the gasworks
tunnels.

When they open the 'new' platform on the taxi road, are they still planning
to call it "Platform Y", or have they come to their senses and agreed to
renumber the existing platforms.

I think there was a fear of confusing the signals folk - apparently they
could re-sign the platforms, but they'd run out of dymolabels to sort out
the signals diagrams ...

.... or something equally stupid, unbelievable and Totally British Rail.
--

Andrew

On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 22:57:18 -0000, "Andrew Heenan"
wrote:

"Jamie Thompson" wrote ...
Bring back the eastern bore, then have the tracks running primarily
diagonally from the mouths to the platforms. Perhaps move some of the
pointwork to the maiden lane opening. I guess if you wanted to be
drastic...you could even contemplate opening up some of the gasworks
tunnels.

When they open the 'new' platform on the taxi road, are they still planning
to call it "Platform Y", or have they come to their senses and agreed to
renumber the existing platforms.

I think there was a fear of confusing the signals folk - apparently they
could re-sign the platforms, but they'd run out of dymolabels to sort out
the signals diagrams ...

... or something equally stupid, unbelievable and Totally British Rail.

I thought British Rail Cased some years ago ?

"martyn dawe" wrote
I think there was a fear of confusing the signals folk - apparently they
could re-sign the platforms, but they'd run out of dymolabels to sort out
the signals diagrams ...
... or something equally stupid, unbelievable and Totally British Rail.
I thought British Rail Cased some years ago ?

What on earth made you think that?

They live on in all but name, all over the country, doing loopy, stupid
things and blaming others afterward; look around you

- the failure to electrify Gospel Oak to Barking (and twenty other false
economies);
- restoring Barlow's magnificent train shed - and adding a flat roofed mess
at the end
- seriously planning an electric train dragging a diesel engine from London
to Scotland, rather than, er, attach it at Edinburgh for the onward journey.

I could go on, endlessly; BR is alive and well, but working in disguise.
--

Andrew

On Feb 3, 12:27*pm, "Andrew Heenan" wrote:
- the failure to electrify Gospel Oak to Barking (and twenty other false
economies);

That's territorial fighting. The UK freight resurgence is diesel-based
(the EMD Class 66 is the single best thing to happen to UK rail
freight in c.100 years: it's cheap and it Just Works) so there's no
benefit to freight operators in electrifying it. The only operator
who'd benefit is TfL, but they're not willing to pay the full cost
without any control over the infrastructure.

This is neither a situation that's particularly BR-ish, nor one that's
unique to the UK.

- restoring Barlow's magnificent train shed - and adding a flat roofed mess
at the end

I think you mean 'a sympathetic, low-profile extension that makes St P
useable without detracting from Barlow's architecture. I mean, what,
you'd've stuck up a giant pastiche shed extension or something?
YAQuinlanTerry[spit]AICMFP.

- seriously planning an electric train dragging a diesel engine from London
to Scotland, rather than, er, attach it at Edinburgh for the onward journey.

I'll give you that one. I don't *entirely* blame people who've seen
loco-switching operations in the dying days of CrossCountry, or EMU
+loco operations from Chester to Holyhead, for viewing this as
unworkable - however, it *should* be as easy and effective as
splitting and joining units on the Southern.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

"John B" wrote ...
On Feb 3, 12:27 pm, "Andrew Heenan" wrote:
- the failure to electrify Gospel Oak to Barking (and twenty other false
economies);

That's territorial fighting. The UK freight resurgence is diesel-based
(the EMD Class 66 is the single best thing to happen to UK rail
freight in c.100 years: it's cheap and it Just Works) so there's no
benefit to freight operators in electrifying it. The only operator
who'd benefit is TfL, but they're not willing to pay the full cost
without any control over the infrastructure.

Very wrong; the 'resurgence' needn't be diesel-based, and with a few infill
electrifications, much of the containerised freight (the only part that's
actually resurging (!), could be entirely electric. And not territorial
fighting; I'd argue exactly the same for a dozen similarly sized schemes
(see the railway magazines - they feature regularly). And the argument for
GOB preceded the overground by several years.I don't blame the operators for
diesel; many of them would jump at the chance to run electric - but they'd
have few diversionary routes, and some key lines would be unreachable.

Much European freight is electric; if they didn't have four voltages and
five signalling systems, probably the 66 would not have been needed in
Europe!

I think you mean 'a sympathetic, low-profile extension that makes St P
useable without detracting from Barlow's architecture. I mean, what,
you'd've stuck up a giant pastiche shed extension or something?

There's absolutely nothing sympathetic about it; it's brutal.

I'll give you that one. I don't *entirely* blame people who've seen
loco-switching operations in the dying days of CrossCountry, or EMU
+loco operations from Chester to Holyhead, for viewing this as
unworkable - however, it *should* be as easy and effective as
splitting and joining units on the Southern.

And of course, electrification - already planned by Scotland - will remove
the need anyway

--
Andrew

On Tue, 3 Feb 2009, Andrew Heenan wrote:

"John B" wrote ...
On Feb 3, 12:27 pm, "Andrew Heenan" wrote:
- the failure to electrify Gospel Oak to Barking (and twenty other false
economies);

That's territorial fighting. The UK freight resurgence is diesel-based
(the EMD Class 66 is the single best thing to happen to UK rail freight
in c.100 years: it's cheap and it Just Works) so there's no benefit to
freight operators in electrifying it. The only operator who'd benefit
is TfL, but they're not willing to pay the full cost without any
control over the infrastructure.

Very wrong; the 'resurgence' needn't be diesel-based,

But it *is* diesel-based.

Everyone, in every camp (except diesel trainbuilders), would like it if it
was electric-based, and the necessary bits of line were electrified to
make that possible, but that hasn't happened, and nobody feels like paying
for it, so it hasn't happened. So the growth of freight *is*, whether you
like it or not, diesel-based.

tom

--
Tristan Tzara offered to create a poem on the spot by pulling words at
random from a hat. A riot ensued and Andre Breton expelled Tzara from
the movement.

On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 22:57:18 -0000, "Andrew Heenan"
wrote:

"Jamie Thompson" wrote ...
Bring back the eastern bore, then have the tracks running primarily
diagonally from the mouths to the platforms. Perhaps move some of the
pointwork to the maiden lane opening. I guess if you wanted to be
drastic...you could even contemplate opening up some of the gasworks
tunnels.

When they open the 'new' platform on the taxi road, are they still planning
to call it "Platform Y", or have they come to their senses and agreed to
renumber the existing platforms.

I think there was a fear of confusing the signals folk - apparently they
could re-sign the platforms, but they'd run out of dymolabels to sort out
the signals diagrams ...

... or something equally stupid, unbelievable and Totally British Rail.

Isn't it the cost and complication of altering the 'theatre' signal
route indicators?

Andrew



--
Peter Lawrence

"Peter Lawrence" wrote :
When they open the 'new' platform on the taxi road, are they still
planning
to call it "Platform Y", or have they come to their senses and agreed to
renumber the existing platforms.
I think there was a fear of confusing the signals folk - apparently they
could re-sign the platforms, but they'd run out of dymolabels to sort out
the signals diagrams ...
... or something equally stupid, unbelievable and Totally British Rail.
Isn't it the cost and complication of altering the 'theatre' signal
route indicators?

Quite conceiveably; though why that would affect the 'public' signage, with
all the distress and confusion that will entail for tourists and 'first
timers', is another matter.

The public will insist on getting in the way of running a smooth railway,
won't they?

;o)

On 2 Feb, 22:30, Jamie Thompson wrote:
I seem to recall a old map online somewhere showing the KX area with
many more platforms...I'll see if I can find it again.

Ah, here we go:
http://british-railways.org/_wp_gene...cd62e12_0f.jpg

Looks like you're right, I count 17.