Paddington platform 13 & 14

[ess]

Was there ever a possibility of extending these platforms down towards the south entrance like the rest of the platforms? They are frustratingly far away just like the suburban platforms at Kings Cross


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hornet]

Was there ever a possibility of extending these platforms down towards the south entrance like the rest of the platforms? They are frustratingly far away just like the suburban platforms at Kings Cross


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The H&C Lines get in the way. These Platforms were used by District Line trains between Southend and Windsor plus Freight services passed through to service Smithfields meat market at Farringdon.

 

[jopsuk]

The Kings Cross suburban platforms feel rather less of a trek now the concourse is on the side of the building

 

[swt_passenger]

The H&C Lines get in the way. These Platforms were used by District Line trains between Southend and Windsor plus Freight services passed through to service Smithfields meat market at Farringdon.

I dug out a drawing from the H&C station planning application, the red arrow shows how the widest part of P12 backs onto the H&C west bound line, confirming your explanation that there's no space at all.

Until you see a diagram like this it isn't at all obvious that the smoothest curve heading into the Bishops Rd station from the Edgware Rd direction would have been into P13 - the present layout through P15/16 only has quite significant reverse curves.

 

[joeykins82]

According to the CP5 enhancements delivery plan, platforms 12 & 13 at Paddington are going to be combined in to a 260m platform (10-car IEP capable) and the current platform 14 extended to 240m. (Page 95)

Not sure how that impacts on the original point of the thread, but it's interesting nontheless

 

[swt_passenger]

According to the CP5 enhancements delivery plan, platforms 12 & 13 at Paddington are going to be combined in to a 260m platform (10-car IEP capable) and the current platform 14 extended to 240m. (Page 95)

Not sure how that impacts on the original point of the thread, but it's interesting nontheless

Combining 12 and 13 leads to a different situation I think - basically 14 can come a bit closer and be the other side of an island with the combined P12&13 (wonder if they'll renumber of just lose P13 btw?) but it still cannot go all the way to the front of the station as originally asked; because the escalators and lifts for the new taxi rank etc would be in the way.

I did see that news about P12/13/14 in the enhancements plan and I think the lengthened P14 will start roughly where I added that arrow to the drawing, and then extend outside the station somehow to achieve the full planned length.

As an aside, the confirmation of the alterations does suggest a concentration on long trains in the station, hence less likelihood of some of those regularly suggested 'good ideas' such as running Chiltern DMUs into the station, post Crossrail...

 

[mr_jrt]

I would still like to see the original layout restored, with 4 platforms on the H&C lines. An increase in frequency on the H&C line would be quite useful, and for that you would ideally need to use 14 & 15 for terminating services, leaving 13 & 16 for the current through services. Admittedly, I'd also like to see a new branch alongside Crossrail to OOC that would make good use of the capacity, but there you go.

 

[David Goddard]

I would still like to see the original layout restored, with 4 platforms on the H&C lines. An increase in frequency on the H&C line would be quite useful, and for that you would ideally need to use 14 & 15 for terminating services, leaving 13 & 16 for the current through services. Admittedly, I'd also like to see a new branch alongside Crossrail to OOC that would make good use of the capacity, but there you go.

Makes a lot of sense that plan, with Crossrail taking a lot of the suburbans out then National Rail will not wont need 13-14

 

[joeykins82]

I would still like to see the original layout restored, with 4 platforms on the H&C lines. An increase in frequency on the H&C line would be quite useful, and for that you would ideally need to use 14 & 15 for terminating services, leaving 13 & 16 for the current through services.

Terminating from which direction? Once the SSL resignalling is done the nominal service pattern will be 16tph Hammersmith-Baker St (8tph H&C, 8tph Circle). Are you suggesting a Hammersmith-Paddington shuttle to bolster the western arm? that would be the only viable option but it's not hugely helpful in the grand scheme of things. You can't run more trains east of Baker Street because the Metropolitan line services join, and short of turning Baker Street in to a terminus for the Met line (good luck getting that one past the consultation) you can't reduce the number of Met through services to Moorgate/Aldgate.

 

[jopsuk]

the flat junctions at Praed Street, Baker Street, Moorgate (for terminating services), Aldgate and Aldgate East all constrain H&C capacity far, far more than anything west of Praed Street. If you want higher frequencies, get a time machine and go back to ask the Victorians to build the entire circle as a four-track formation with grade separated junctions. That would let the Circle be an unbroken service whilst letting the other SSL services not interfere with each other.

 

[mr_jrt]

Terminating from which direction?

The west, primarily. You'd have to make the call as to whether creating two west-facing bays to give a U-shaped single platform surface would be preferable to retaining the flexibility to both terminate from the east as well as overtake services at he platforms, etc.

Once the SSL resignalling is done the nominal service pattern will be 16tph Hammersmith-Baker St (8tph H&C, 8tph Circle). Are you suggesting a Hammersmith-Paddington shuttle to bolster the western arm? that would be the only viable option but it's not hugely helpful in the grand scheme of things.

Depends how pushed for capacity the Hammersmith branch gets, doesn't it?16tph is a bit less than the planned 32tph on the northern Circle. Terminal capacity at Hammersmith would be the primary constraint on a Hammersmith-Paddington shuttle, but I think it would be worthwhile. As I say, I also would like to see the contention about stations east of OOC on Crossrail dealt with by building a new branch of the H&C alongside it to at least OOC (if not Ealing Broadway via Acton mainline or sharing with the Central out via Greenford) with stations at Royal Oak, Westbourne Park, Kensal, and OOC, leaving Crossrail to sail though whilst still serving those areas.

You can't run more trains east of Baker Street because the Metropolitan line services join, and short of turning Baker Street in to a terminus for the Met line (good luck getting that one past the consultation) you can't reduce the number of Met through services to Moorgate/Aldgate.

Agreed, unrelated to what I'm proposing

the flat junctions at Praed Street, Baker Street, Moorgate (for terminating services), Aldgate and Aldgate East all constrain H&C capacity far, far more than anything west of Praed Street. If you want higher frequencies, get a time machine and go back to ask the Victorians to build the entire circle as a four-track formation with grade separated junctions. That would let the Circle be an unbroken service whilst letting the other SSL services not interfere with each other.

Agreed, unrelated to what I'm proposing

I'm proposing turning Paddington H&C into another Baker-Street. TfL services from further afield would normally terminate in 14&15 (which should handle a fair few tph, being non-conflicting central terminating roads), and 16tph of through services would operate normally using 13&16. Basically, I'm proposing operating the H&C a bit more like the Met, i.e. S8s running out to West Ruislip or Ealing Broadway.

A future project to build a new tunnel from Praed Street Junction to Edgware Road would enable more through services to operate that far for interchange with the services there more conveniently than at Paddington, but you would struggle as IIRC, the best you could manage at Edgware Road would be 5 platforms, giving you just 3 down from the current 4 for terminating services from Royal Oak as well as High Street Kensington. I suspect just terminating at Paddington as proposed above would be the best you would get - I don't see Praed Street being sorted within my lifetime.

 

[Busaholic]

Please read Barry Doe in the current 'Rail' mag concerning TfL's apparent reluctance to let intending passengers find where Hammersmith H&C station is situated, so perhaps they don't want more passengers using the line. Anyone know how many extra passengers Westfield has brought to it?

 

[jopsuk]

if you wanted an efficient "mid line" terminus, you actually want something roughly like Aldgate, but with headshunts beyond. This would mean that (eg at your proposed Paddington) all westbound trains would depart from the one island platform . Baker Street is as inefficient as could be, with three possible platforms for northbound trains and trains terminating or departing crossing the through lines.

 

[swt_passenger]

Makes a lot of sense that plan, with Crossrail taking a lot of the suburbans out then National Rail will not wont need 13-14

Quite wrong. National Rail need the extra long platforms for the enhanced IEP service, such as the 4 tph Bristol trains.

 

[David Goddard]

Quite wrong. National Rail need the extra long platforms for the enhanced IEP service, such as the 4 tph Bristol trains.

OK fair do's, forgot about those. Sorry

 

[HowardGWR]

Quite wrong. National Rail need the extra long platforms for the enhanced IEP service, such as the 4 tph Bristol trains.

I'm wondering, with the recent data on flatlining of long distance traffic, if there will not be possible overkill with these plans. Of course I hope my fears are unfounded.

 

[mr_jrt]

if you wanted an efficient "mid line" terminus, you actually want something roughly like Aldgate, but with headshunts beyond. This would mean that (eg at your proposed Paddington) all westbound trains would depart from the one island platform . Baker Street is as inefficient as could be, with three possible platforms for northbound trains and trains terminating or departing crossing the through lines.

Ok, I left the word "idealised" out of my post, but I thought it fairly clear from my description...but yes, you would end up with three platforms for westbound passengers with two terminal centre roads. The head shunt is an interesting idea and a definite improvement IMHO, but of course, would prohibit the 'U' shaped single platform layout. I've often wondered why TfL have never investigated knocking though platform 4 at Baker Street to create another through line, enabling platform 3 to be used as a non-conflicting bay. No such luck for platform 1 thanks to the circle platforms, but you would think that removing the conflicts that you can would be beneficial enough to warrant the work. Ho hum.

 

[swt_passenger]

I'm wondering, with the recent data on flatlining of long distance traffic, if there will not be possible overkill with these plans. Of course I hope my fears are unfounded.

Well there's other logical reasons for going for longer platforms anyway, if rumours are correct about 8 and 12 car EMU stock becoming the norm for semi-fast services such as Oxford or Newbury, and maybe even eventually the mooted Basingstoke - Paddington peak busters. Although it is being paid for as an IEP work stream, that doesn't mean only IEPs will benefit.

 

[simple simon]

Ideally Baker Street needs more platforms. Then either trains from Wimbledon or the western side Circle Line could terminate there rather than Edgware Road. A new westbound platform would free the existing westbound platform for terminating trains.

I've no idea if passenger demand warrants running extra local trains Paddington - Hammersmith. 16 trains an hour is still pretty frequent!

If extra trains can be justified between Hammersmith and Paddington then what about the Wimbledon - Edgware Road route? If there is no space for them at Edgware Road so maybe some trains could terminate / reverse at Paddington District / Circle platforms? Ideally the platform used by trains travelling towards Notting Hill Gate. Most passengers on these trains want Paddington, so it will not matter which platform they arrive at. At busy times stepping back may be needed to enable what will now be a southbound train to stop for barely a minute without delaying other trains coming from Edgware Road.

Simon

 

[mr_jrt]

I've no idea if passenger demand warrants running extra local trains Paddington - Hammersmith. 16 trains an hour is still pretty frequent!

I'm sure a few extra trains would indeed be justified, but I agree - I'm not so sure you'd need something like an extra 16tph - that was just an illustration. You'd only really need that level of capacity if you laid my proposed new tracks to OOC.