Great, excellent.I have - really is a great place to wait for a train !
There’s a brand new swimming pool and leisure centre currently under construction as a replacement.Looks great to me. Shame there will be the loss of a public swimming facility, though - has a replacement been built elsewhere?
There’s a brand new swimming pool and leisure centre currently under construction as a replacement.
It's being built across town beside the Sands Centre. I think that the victorian baths which are beside the current swimming pool may be staying as the facility has just had a major refurbishment.There’s a brand new swimming pool and leisure centre currently under construction as a replacement.
There’s a brand new swimming pool and leisure centre currently under construction as a replacement.
Was browsing the local rag yesterday and stumbled upon this picture in the letters page, it’s an image of the proposed entrance on the swimming pool side:
I'm struggling to see the purpose of the railing. It just seems to make the platform narrower.Photos were taken on 18/12/21 and show the south end of platform 3 with platform 2 behind the railings on the right. It effectively reduces the length of the platform’s s useable section. It also means that the normal platform 2 face moves to the other side of the train (adjacent to platform 1.
It’s been installed due to a difference in platform levels where a step has been introduced to achieve the correct falls on each platform.I'm struggling to see the purpose of the railing. It just seems to make the platform narrower.
Thanks. Quite a step!It’s been installed due to a difference in platform levels where a step has been introduced to achieve the correct falls on each platform.
View attachment IMG_9500.MOVThanks. Quite a step!
You are ignoring the fact that the two tracks are not at the same level relative to each other. The project have done a good job but without overhauling the whole layout the track levels are what the civils have had to work to. Perhaps you’ve not been there.That looks a mess. You have two new platform edges that are set by the rail height, so all you do is put a straight line between them ( a bit of string, as used by brick layers for years) and then work out the drop for the drainage from both platform edges. No step no barriers.
Also why have the barriers going around the masts / uprights using approx. six uprights and eight corner returns and not in a straight line.
Well done to the building design team (was captain cock up in charge?).
That looks a mess. You have two new platform edges that are set by the rail height, so all you do is put a straight line between them ( a bit of string, as used by brick layers for years) and then work out the drop for the drainage from both platform edges. No step no barriers.
Also why have the barriers going around the masts / uprights using approx. six uprights and eight corner returns and not in a straight line.
Well done to the building design team (was captain cock up in charge?).
See post 103 for photos. Any water will run away from P3 to the linear drain on P2. I understand that plans for HS2 trains will see P2 filled in and P1&3 lengthened and a new P0 to cater for the Cumbrian coast services. But that’s in the future and a different pot of money when (& if) those plans come to fruition.It's true I've not been to Carlisle for a few months, in one of your photos it looks like that the main line has to climb over the M & C bay line to get to P1. ( I may have to go up there next year to see all of this for myself).
Also in one of your photos at the buffer stop end of the bay, it looks like the platform surfaces are at about the same height.
For all of the work that's been involved it may have been better to have closed the P2/3 interface and only used the P1/2 interface.
If I may ask a question where does the water run off P3 is it to the gully on P2? Or onto the track side.
I suspect you may also need to acquaint yourself with various recent safety incidents where the slope of a platform has been a major factor. "A straight line between them" as you put it will continue to result in platforms with characteristics that contribute to death and injury.
If you reread my post you will see that I mention the following "and then work out the drop for the drainage from both platform edges". So the platform will not be flat over it's width but will form a very gentle vee towards its centre.
Yes, it's on the RSSB website (you need a login). https://www.rssb.co.uk/standards-catalogueDo we know what the required standards are?
Separately, GIRT7020 says:9.2 Requirements for crossfall on a platform
9.2.1 For new platforms and alterations (as defined) to existing platforms, the surface shall be constructed to provide a fall away from the rear edge of the platform coper, or platform edge if there is no separate platform coper.
9.2.2 If copers are provided, for new or altered platforms they shall be nominally level from the platform edge to the rear of the coper.
9.2.3 The fall shall be at a nominal gradient of 1:50 and within the limits 1:80 to 1:40.
2.1.4 Where a new platform or an alteration (as defined) to an existing platform abuts an existing platform, any discrepancy in height of the platform shall be gradually tapered into the existing platform. The transition gradient shall not exceed 1:40.
With that much drop over that little distance the vee would be anything other than "gentle".If you reread my post you will see that I mention the following "and then work out the drop for the drainage from both platform edges". So the platform will not be flat over it's width but will form a very gentle vee towards its centre.
The gradual rebuild of the platforms for Chiltern at Oxford led to a step and railings down the middle of what is now P2 and P3; for the exact reasons you’ve explained. The temporary height difference was there for quite a time, a couple of years maybe?Yes, it's on the RSSB website (you need a login). https://www.rssb.co.uk/standards-catalogue
EDIT: Found the standards
RIS-7016-INS if you're interested, key part is here:
Separately, GIRT7020 says:
So if your two platforms are at sufficient different heights that the two gradients cannot be made to match within the limits set out, you need a vertical break and a railing.
Interestingly, Highbury and Islington manages to have the island platforms continuous at one end, then a step between the two with a handrail, then a railing and vertical drop nearest the footbridge. I thought the East London and North London lines were the same gradient at this point, so not sure why the platforms weren't just levelled up. But we're getting quite far off-topic from Carlisle.The gradual rebuild of the platforms for Chiltern at Oxford led to a step and railings down the middle of what is now P2 and P3; for the exact reasons you’ve explained. The temporary height difference was there for quite a time, a couple of years maybe?