Overcrowded trains

In article <6fli54Fc14qpU1@mid.>, tim@brettward.co.uk (Tim
Ward) wrote:

> "Peter Masson" <peter.masson1@> wrote in message
> news:4cidncaAd9clEgjVRVnyvwA@bt.com...
> >
> > In slam door days there were three options:
>
> 4 - everybody just got onto the right carriage in the first place,
> as per the notices and announcements at the point of embarkation -
> "front two coaches for x" etc.

As was invariably the arrangement for short platforms between Ely and
Lynn before electrification.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message <memo.20080803205415.352P@cam002297.rosenstiel.co. uk>, at
20:54:00 on Sun, 3 Aug 2008, Colin Rosenstiel <rosenstiel@cix.co.uk>
remarked:
>> There are apparently plans for an island platform, but that may be
>> more because they want to shift the terminus a couple of miles
>> north to Chesterton Sidings.
>
>No, it's because of the plan to run 12 cars on West Anglia. While there
>is or soon will be capacity for through 12 car trains (for a minimal
>extension of platform 1 and a slightly greater extension of platform 4)
>there is just no way of terminating the Liverpool St service, which uses
>platforms 2 and 3 pretty well entirely, if it comprises 12 car trains,
>without extra platforms.

Why can't they terminate at Chesterton Parkway?
--
Roland Perry

In message <memo.20080803213007.352T@cam002297.rosenstiel.co. uk>, at
21:30:00 on Sun, 3 Aug 2008, Colin Rosenstiel <rosenstiel@cix.co.uk>
remarked:
>> Why can't they terminate at Chesterton Parkway?
>
>Only one terminating platform. I'm not sure it will accommodate 12 car
>trains either.
>
>No planning has included 12 car trains on West Anglia until a very recent
>plan mainly concerned with issues nearer London but where Cambridge is
>the only practical termination point. At least that's my reading of it.
>I'm assured that the case for Chesterton Parkway is unaffected, mainly
>because CB1 depends on diverting the cars from the existing station.

So how will Chesterton Parkway work? Shuttling one unit down to
Cambridge to connect with the remainder... and with only one platform
it'll be challenging to have sufficiently regular trains to attract
commuters in their cars.
--
Roland Perry

In article <0cS8yPxXehlIFAVa@perry.co.uk>, roland@perry.co.uk (Roland
Perry) wrote:

> In message <memo.20080803213007.352T@cam002297.rosenstiel.co. uk>,
> at 21:30:00 on Sun, 3 Aug 2008, Colin Rosenstiel
> <rosenstiel@cix.co.uk> remarked:
> >> Why can't they terminate at Chesterton Parkway?
> >
> >Only one terminating platform. I'm not sure it will accommodate 12 car
> >trains either.
> >
> >No planning has included 12 car trains on West Anglia until a very
> >recent plan mainly concerned with issues nearer London but where
> >Cambridge is the only practical termination point. At least that's
> >my reading of it. I'm assured that the case for Chesterton Parkway
> >is unaffected, mainly because CB1 depends on diverting the cars from
> >the existing station.
>
> So how will Chesterton Parkway work? Shuttling one unit down to
> Cambridge to connect with the remainder... and with only one
> platform it'll be challenging to have sufficiently regular trains
> to attract commuters in their cars.

It will have two through platforms as well as a terminating bay. Some
trains will go through Cambridge to terminate there instead of at
Cambridge. I don;t think they will be 12-car though I don't recall it
being discussed in the Chesterton plans.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 3 Aug, 22:10, rosenst...@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
> In article <0cS8yPxXehlIF...@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland
>
>
>
> Perry) wrote:
> > In message <memo.20080803213007.3...@cam002297.rosenstiel.co. uk>,
> > at 21:30:00 on Sun, 3 Aug 2008, Colin Rosenstiel
> > <rosenst...@cix.co.uk> remarked:
> > >> Why can't they terminate at Chesterton Parkway?
>
> > >Only one terminating platform. I'm not sure it will accommodate 12 car
> > >trains either.
>
> > >No planning has included 12 car trains on West Anglia until a very
> > >recent plan mainly concerned with issues nearer London but where
> > >Cambridge is the only practical termination point. At least that's
> > >my reading of it. I'm assured that the case for Chesterton Parkway
> > >is unaffected, mainly because CB1 depends on diverting the cars from
> > >the existing station.
>
> > So how will Chesterton Parkway work? Shuttling one unit down to
> > Cambridge to connect with the remainder... and with only one
> > platform it'll be challenging to have sufficiently regular trains
> > to attract commuters in their cars.
>
> It will have two through platforms as well as a terminating bay. Some
> trains will go through Cambridge to terminate there instead of at
> Cambridge. I don;t think they will be 12-car though I don't recall it
> being discussed in the Chesterton plans.
>
> --
> Colin Rosenstiel

I don't know why they can't make the new island platform the same
length as the (extended) existing one, with the existing through
access line being used to provide access to both platforms on the new
face (or even just having a traditional pair of through lines
providing the access to both platforms per face). You could then also
have another pair of faces on the other side of the island for the
terminating Norwich/Ipswich services, removing conflicts with the
northbound services via Ely. That would give Cambridge 10 platforms (6
of which that could take 12 coach trains), with (if my guestimates are
good enough, still enough room for a freight line on the eastern side.
Additionally, I guess you could use the centre face of the island (the
one facing the existing face) for terminating services, leaving the
outer new face for though services south; centre terminating roads are
always useful as they don't cross either through line when entering or
exiting. That would also provide a pair of 12-car terminating
facilities at Cambridge for not much more than the cost of the island
anyway, as most of the additional work would mainly be trackwork and
signalling.

Thoughts?

In article
<5c83f3dc-ef8a-4b10-b6c7-280f878b5d45@z72g2000hsb..com>,
jamierocks@ (Jamie Thompson) wrote:

> I don't know why they can't make the new island platform the same
> length as the (extended) existing one, with the existing through
> access line being used to provide access to both platforms on the new
> face (or even just having a traditional pair of through lines
> providing the access to both platforms per face). You could then also
> have another pair of faces on the other side of the island for the
> terminating Norwich/Ipswich services, removing conflicts with the
> northbound services via Ely. That would give Cambridge 10 platforms (6
> of which that could take 12 coach trains), with (if my guestimates are
> good enough, still enough room for a freight line on the eastern side.
> Additionally, I guess you could use the centre face of the island (the
> one facing the existing face) for terminating services, leaving the
> outer new face for though services south; centre terminating roads are
> always useful as they don't cross either through line when entering or
> exiting. That would also provide a pair of 12-car terminating
> facilities at Cambridge for not much more than the cost of the island
> anyway, as most of the additional work would mainly be trackwork and
> signalling.
>
> Thoughts?

Sounds about the size of it. I've not seen the plans in enough detail to
know how they will use the scissors crossover with the new island
platform or how long the island will be. I understand that the through
freight lines will be retained.

--
Colin Rosenstiel