1506 wrote:

AFIK extending the Bakerloo is fading back into obscurity. I don't
see any negative issues. But mixing tube with mainline and subsurface
stoke means that the platforms have to be compromise height. Better
in my view to keep the Bakerloo as is, and extend the East London Line.

That didn't seem to be a problem for the 65 years (1917-1982) that the
Bakerloo ran to Watford Junction. And of course it remains the situation
from Queens Park to Harrow & Wealdstone.

Peter Beale

Peter Beale wrote:

1506 wrote:

AFIK extending the Bakerloo is fading back into obscurity. I don't
see any negative issues. But mixing tube with mainline and subsurface
stoke means that the platforms have to be compromise height. Better
in my view to keep the Bakerloo as is, and extend the East London Line.

That didn't seem to be a problem for the 65 years (1917-1982) that the
Bakerloo ran to Watford Junction. And of course it remains the situation
from Queens Park to Harrow & Wealdstone.

That's true, but we have a more enlightened attitude to disabled
passengers than our predecessors, so it isn't persuasive.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p13857135.html
(09 025 at Brighton, 20 Apr 1996)

On 5 June, 10:07, Chris Tolley (ukonline
really) wrote:
Peter Beale wrote:
1506 wrote:

AFIK extending the Bakerloo is fading back into obscurity. *I don't
see any negative issues. *But mixing tube with mainline and subsurface
stoke means that the platforms have to be compromise height. *Better
in my view to keep the Bakerloo as is, and extend the East London Line..

That didn't seem to be a problem for the 65 years (1917-1982) that the
Bakerloo ran to Watford Junction. And of course it remains the situation
from Queens Park to Harrow & Wealdstone.

That's true, but we have a more enlightened attitude to disabled
passengers than our predecessors, so it isn't persuasive.


But all the platforms north of Harrow are still at compromise height,
with a step down from the 313s. Any provision for disabled passengers
could be taken into account by having a raised section in the northern
end of the platforms where the LO services stop and a lowered section
at the southern end, where only the Bakerloo line trains would have
doors; these short sections would have to be in the same spot at each
station and could line up with the areas of the trains with wheelchair
spaces etc.

Such raised sections have already started to appear on the Victoria
line, as part of the upgrade. It's quite unusual not having to step
down from the train.

On Jun 5, 12:04*pm, wrote:

[snip]

But all the platforms north of Harrow are still at compromise height,
with a step down from the 313s. Any provision for disabled passengers
could be taken into account by having a raised section in the northern
end of the platforms where the LO services stop and a lowered section
at the southern end, where only the Bakerloo line trains would have
doors; these short sections would have to be in the same spot at each
station and could line up with the areas of the trains with wheelchair
spaces etc.

Such raised sections have already started to appear on the Victoria
line, as part of the upgrade. It's quite unusual not having to step
down from the train.

Not only the Victoria line, they're appearing at other stations on the
LU network as well - the Northern line at London Bridge sticks in my
mind, but there are other places too.

On 5 June, 12:21, Mizter T wrote:
On Jun 5, 12:04*pm, wrote:



[snip]

But all the platforms north of Harrow are still at compromise height,
with a step down from the 313s. Any provision for disabled passengers
could be taken into account by having a raised section in the northern
end of the platforms where the LO services stop and a lowered section
at the southern end, where only the Bakerloo line trains would have
doors; these short sections would have to be in the same spot at each
station and could line up with the areas of the trains with wheelchair
spaces etc.

Such raised sections have already started to appear on the Victoria
line, as part of the upgrade. It's quite unusual not having to step
down from the train.

Not only the Victoria line, they're appearing at other stations on the
LU network as well - the Northern line at London Bridge sticks in my
mind, but there are other places too.

Of course, I knew I'd seen one somewhere else, but I couldn't remember
where!!

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:07:31 +0100
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:


Peter Beale wrote:

1506 wrote:

AFIK extending the Bakerloo is fading back into obscurity. I don't
see any negative issues. But mixing tube with mainline and subsurface
stoke means that the platforms have to be compromise height. Better
in my view to keep the Bakerloo as is, and extend the East London Line.

That didn't seem to be a problem for the 65 years (1917-1982) that the
Bakerloo ran to Watford Junction. And of course it remains the situation
from Queens Park to Harrow & Wealdstone.

That's true, but we have a more enlightened attitude to disabled
passengers than our predecessors, so it isn't persuasive.

So if disabled can't be accomodated then the best solution is that no one is?
Is that what you're saying?

B2003

On 5 June, 12:21, Mizter T wrote:
On Jun 5, 12:04*pm, wrote:



[snip]

But all the platforms north of Harrow are still at compromise height,
with a step down from the 313s. Any provision for disabled passengers
could be taken into account by having a raised section in the northern
end of the platforms where the LO services stop and a lowered section
at the southern end, where only the Bakerloo line trains would have
doors; these short sections would have to be in the same spot at each
station and could line up with the areas of the trains with wheelchair
spaces etc.

Such raised sections have already started to appear on the Victoria
line, as part of the upgrade. It's quite unusual not having to step
down from the train.

Not only the Victoria line, they're appearing at other stations on the
LU network as well - the Northern line at London Bridge sticks in my
mind, but there are other places too.

Presumbably the raised lumps are mostly likely to appear at stations
served by the JLE, since those would have been made accessible
anyway. Anywhere else, there would be little chance of reaching the
platform in the first place.

On the Bakerloo thing, the platforms are at compromise height which
according to my impression is slightly less of a step up from the
Bakerloo than a step down from a 313. Has anyone got measurements to
confirm this?

On 5 June, 13:46, wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:07:31 +0100
Chris *Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:







Peter Beale wrote:

1506 wrote:

AFIK extending the Bakerloo is fading back into obscurity. *I don't
see any negative issues. *But mixing tube with mainline and subsurface
stoke means that the platforms have to be compromise height. *Better
in my view to keep the Bakerloo as is, and extend the East London Line.

That didn't seem to be a problem for the 65 years (1917-1982) that the
Bakerloo ran to Watford Junction. And of course it remains the situation
from Queens Park to Harrow & Wealdstone.

That's true, but we have a more enlightened attitude to disabled
passengers than our predecessors, so it isn't persuasive.

So if disabled can't be accomodated then the best solution is that no one is?
Is that what you're saying?

More that the disabled will never be accommodated and will continue to
be ignored unless new works have to meet certain standards. There are
centuries of precedent for this and they've had enough. Sometimes the
requirements seem to go too far, but I understand why.

On 5 June, 13:53, MIG wrote:
On 5 June, 12:21, Mizter T wrote:





On Jun 5, 12:04*pm, wrote:

[snip]

But all the platforms north of Harrow are still at compromise height,
with a step down from the 313s. Any provision for disabled passengers
could be taken into account by having a raised section in the northern
end of the platforms where the LO services stop and a lowered section
at the southern end, where only the Bakerloo line trains would have
doors; these short sections would have to be in the same spot at each
station and could line up with the areas of the trains with wheelchair
spaces etc.

Such raised sections have already started to appear on the Victoria
line, as part of the upgrade. It's quite unusual not having to step
down from the train.

Not only the Victoria line, they're appearing at other stations on the
LU network as well - the Northern line at London Bridge sticks in my
mind, but there are other places too.

Presumbably the raised lumps are mostly likely to appear at stations
served by the JLE, since those would have been made accessible
anyway. *Anywhere else, there would be little chance of reaching the
platform in the first place.


No, because the JLE stations already have the train floor level with
the platforms, so there is no step up or down into the train. The
raised areas will be needed on the original Jubilee line though.

On the Bakerloo thing, the platforms are at compromise height which
according to my impression is slightly less of a step up from the
Bakerloo than a step down from a 313. *Has anyone got measurements to
confirm this?

I think it depends on the station and any cant at the location.

On the Rayners Lane to Uxbridge line, which also has compromise
platform heights, and used to only have a limited Piccadilly service,
it is my impression that the gap is larger stepping up from a
Piccadilly line train than down from a Met line train.

On 5 June, 14:12, wrote:
On 5 June, 13:53, MIG wrote:





On 5 June, 12:21, Mizter T wrote:

On Jun 5, 12:04*pm, wrote:

[snip]

But all the platforms north of Harrow are still at compromise height,
with a step down from the 313s. Any provision for disabled passengers
could be taken into account by having a raised section in the northern
end of the platforms where the LO services stop and a lowered section
at the southern end, where only the Bakerloo line trains would have
doors; these short sections would have to be in the same spot at each
station and could line up with the areas of the trains with wheelchair
spaces etc.

Such raised sections have already started to appear on the Victoria
line, as part of the upgrade. It's quite unusual not having to step
down from the train.

Not only the Victoria line, they're appearing at other stations on the
LU network as well - the Northern line at London Bridge sticks in my
mind, but there are other places too.

Presumbably the raised lumps are mostly likely to appear at stations
served by the JLE, since those would have been made accessible
anyway. *Anywhere else, there would be little chance of reaching the
platform in the first place.

No, because the JLE stations already have the train floor level with
the platforms, so there is no step up or down into the train. The
raised areas will be needed on the original Jubilee line though.

I meant that at a station like London Bridge, the lumps were needed to
make the Northern Line platforms usable, but there would have been no
point unless the whole station had been made accessible for the JLE.



On the Bakerloo thing, the platforms are at compromise height which
according to my impression is slightly less of a step up from the
Bakerloo than a step down from a 313. *Has anyone got measurements to
confirm this?

I think it depends on the station and any cant at the location.

True. My impression was based on Kensal Green, which is straight and
level.