Claphan Junction Disused platform 1

Was platform 1 at Clapham Junction ever used?

There are a load of disused sidings behind it so the right of the Putney
line looking towards Putney. What were these for?

Is the disuse related to the ghost platform at Queenstown Road all
painted blue with 'don not alight here'

Just curious. I always like to know why things fall into disuse.

mf

Paul Scott wrote:
> "Mystery Flyer" <n2007@mysteryflyer.com> wrote in message
> news:0PednW6Vac48zBzbnZ2dnUVZ8t-nnZ2d@bt.com...
>> Was platform 1 at Clapham Junction ever used?
>>
>> There are a load of disused sidings behind it so the right of the Putney
>> line looking towards Putney. What were these for?
>>
>> Is the disuse related to the ghost platform at Queenstown Road all painted
>> blue with 'don not alight here'
>>
>> Just curious. I always like to know why things fall into disuse.
>>
>
> I don't believe the changes were are in any way connected, but I cannot
> recall the exact usage of CJ platform 1.
>
> The platform arrangement at Queenstown Rd changed when the track usage was
> altered to allow for the Stewarts Lane/Nine Elms flyover for Eurostar. The
> 4 tracks for the WIndsor direction used to reduce to 3 just west of
> Queenstown Rd, now they effectively reduce to the 2 platform lines, leaving
> the single line on the north side of the formation for empty stock moves
> between Eurostar's North Pole depot and the International platforms.
>
> Paul
>
>

Thanks very much Paul most informative..

mf

In message <0PednW6Vac48zBzbnZ2dnUVZ8t-nnZ2d@bt.com>, Mystery Flyer
<n2007@mysteryflyer.com> writes

>Was platform 1 at Clapham Junction ever used?

Yes, IIRC it was the original departure platform for services leaving
via the West London line (originally just to Kensington, but later there
were a number of others, such as the LSWR's roundabout route from
Clapham Junction to Richmond via Kensington and Hammersmith).

Trains would arrive at platform 2, detrain, and then pull into the
carriage sidings to the west of the station, where the engine could run
round the carriages and then pull back into platform 1 for departure.

--
Paul Terry

On Jun 27, 5:40 am, Paul Terry <nos...@musonix.> wrote:
> Yes, IIRC it was the original departure platform for services leaving
> via the West London line (originally just to Kensington, but later there
> were a number of others, such as the LSWR's roundabout route from
> Clapham Junction to Richmond via Kensington and Hammersmith).
>
> Trains would arrive at platform 2, detrain, and then pull into the
> carriage sidings to the west of the station, where the engine could run
> round the carriages and then pull back into platform 1 for departure.

Is this platform planned to be brought into use by TfL as part of any
new Overground services to Clapham Junction?

In message <1183168455.340010.155820@n60g2000hse. .com>,
TheOneKEA <theonekea@> writes

>Is this platform planned to be brought into use by TfL as part of any
>new Overground services to Clapham Junction?

I think it will when the East London Line Extension reaches Clapham
Junction. The likely scenario seems to be that London Overground
services running anticlockwise (i.e. on the ELLE) will use platform 2,
while those running clockwise (i.e. on the West London Line) will move
across to platform 1, thus offering cross-platform interchange.

--
Paul Terry

Paul Terry wrote:

>>It should produce a more robust service if the trains *do* continue around
>>the circle, after a suitable wait... that way problems which affect the
>>clockwise can't affect the anti and vice versa.

> I don't think that the Orbirail project will ever run a fully circular
> service, because of the potential for serious delays (like the circle line
> but infinitely worse).

Maybe not a complete circular service, but some through services running
across Clapham Junction would have clear attractions, especially as it would
reduce the interchange pressure and give passengers a better indication of
how long it will take to get to their destination. Back to back terminuses
aren't as attractive for passengers - look at buses where there are mancy
cases of two services on what is basically a single long route overlapping
rather than having all the changeover in one place.

That said I'm not sure where the natural terminuses for a reasonable service
running across Clapham are.

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 15:24:18 +0100, "Paul Scott"
<notvalidpmscott@> wrote:

>
>"Paul Corfield" <aooy65@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
>news:ifnc83p86a05uefsh2e541vvmtgfqk312k@.. .

>> Circular services are only a problem when you try to run them with
>> inadequate infrastructure or schedules that are too tight - are that
>> would be why can't run them in this country then!
>
>I believe thats the background to the T-cup proposals for the circle line
>and H&C isn't it?

It may be but my point is that circular services can run properly if you
get non conflicting junctions and adequate signalling capacity. This is
what Berlin has got on its S Bahn and the service runs fine. The LU
proposals are an attempt to create reliability without the huge
construction costs of removing conflicting junctions of which there are
many on the Circle / District line.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

In message <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707011943520.4809@urchin.earth.li> , Tom
Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> writes

>There is another option - if trains didn't visit Clapham Junction at
>all, they could go from Imperial Wharf to Wandsworth Road directly,
>without reversing. I don't have a track map to hand, but ISTR that this
>can be done without conflicting movements across other tracks.

That is certainly true, but loss of connection at Clapham Junction
(Britain's busiest railway station) would be a serious loss and would
need the retention of the now popular Clapham-Willesden service, thus
restricting the viability of an 'orbirail' service that by-passed
Clapham Junction.
--
Paul Terry

Paul Terry wrote:
>
> I don't think that the Orbirail project will ever run a fully
> circular service, because of the potential for serious delays (like
> the circle line but infinitely worse). Nothing's decided, AFAIK,
> but clockwise services from Clapham Junction may terminate at
> Stratford for the Olympics, and at Barking thereafter, although it
> has also been suggested that they may (as at present) go no further
> than Willesden Junction.

Where have you seen that suggestion? I thought that 8 tph on the North
London Line east of Willesden Junction was a key feature of TfL's
proposals in order to reduce overcrowding on the WJ-Stratford section.
If the CJ-WJ shuttle stays in place, how would they achieve 8 tph east
of
WJ?
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Mr Thant wrote:
> On Jul 1, 9:25 pm, "Richard J." <rjnews1...@blueukder.co.yon> wrote:
>> Where have you seen that suggestion? I thought that 8 tph on the
>> North London Line east of Willesden Junction was a key feature of
>> TfL's proposals in order to reduce overcrowding on the
>> WJ-Stratford section. If the CJ-WJ shuttle stays in place, how
>> would they achieve 8 tph east of WJ?
>
> East of Camden Road is what they care about, not WJ. This can
> handily be done by the proposed Queen's Park to Stratford service,
> or in a pinch a Camden Road - Stratford shuttle, as already
> operates in the peaks.

The Queen's Park - Stratford service ia a post-2012 development that
requires extra stock on the Bakerloo Line, and assumes that the Clapham
J. - Willesden J. service will run via an electrified GOBLIN to Barking.
Your suggestion that all "they" care about is Camden Road - Stratford
doesn't fit well with the efforts they are making to create an orbital
rail service.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)