Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Bushey
Sept 6, 2011 9:51:44 GMT
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2011 9:51:44 GMT
Which platform are Network Rail extending at Bushey - the existing 10 coach number 4 or the long disused number 3?
|
|
|
Bushey
Sept 6, 2011 10:22:40 GMT
Post by redbond on Sept 6, 2011 10:22:40 GMT
|
|
|
Bushey
Sept 6, 2011 12:35:32 GMT
Post by mrjrt on Sept 6, 2011 12:35:32 GMT
Yup. The existing mainline island already provides a southbound face on the fast lines, but the disused northbound platform has be out of use for gawd knows how long. Actually, I'd love to know if anyone can share! I know Hatch End's mainline platforms closed in 1963...but Bushey's look like it's been gone much longer than that...
|
|
|
Bushey
Dec 9, 2011 10:21:51 GMT
Post by trt on Dec 9, 2011 10:21:51 GMT
Platform 3 at Bushey has been rejuvenated and looks to be ready for operation. The wooden wall at the top of the steps to LO's platform 2 has gone, and there's an automatic gate there now, with oodles of CCTV cameras. The LM timetable also has late night Bushey stoppers marked as "front 4 coaches only".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Bushey
Dec 9, 2011 11:45:54 GMT
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2011 11:45:54 GMT
Yup. The existing mainline island already provides a southbound face on the fast lines, but the disused northbound platform has be out of use for gawd knows how long. Actually, I'd love to know if anyone can share! I know Hatch End's mainline platforms closed in 1963...but Bushey's look like it's been gone much longer than that... The Down Fast platform (3) at Bushey was destroyed as a result of a high speed derailment on Saturday 12th February 1980. The 2025 Euston to Manchester running under clear signals was derailed by a broken rail 180 yards before Bushey station and the loco and leading two coaches passed through the station before coming to a stand having destroyed the plafrom face. The remainder of the train was littered accross all other running lines and thankfully no fatalities were involved though a number of injuries were reported amongst the 150 passengers on board. My planned work on the Sunday was cancelled and being directed to the site. I was given th job of trying to get the DC lines up and running but with a number of coaches lying on their sides across the lines this proved fruitless. The presence of the Stratford steam breakdown crane was the added bonus including the large pile of coal that was deposited on the end of the down slow platform to feed the cranes hunger. The full accident report is on the Railway Archives site at www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/eventsummary.php?eventID=222
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Bushey
Dec 9, 2011 11:55:22 GMT
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2011 11:55:22 GMT
31 years to repair a platform! XF
|
|
|
Bushey
Dec 9, 2011 12:27:45 GMT
Post by trt on Dec 9, 2011 12:27:45 GMT
Thanks for that info, lnwrelectric. They've done a cracking job reinstating it - much more than I would have thought they would do. There's new lighting, CCTV, fencing etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Bushey
Dec 9, 2011 12:32:21 GMT
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2011 12:32:21 GMT
31 years to repair a platform! XF The difference is that in 1980 we only had peak hour stoppers and the management at the time were always short of cash. So it was never intended to reinstate the platform. But then as they say that is history..........
|
|
|
Bushey
Dec 9, 2011 14:14:43 GMT
Post by mrjrt on Dec 9, 2011 14:14:43 GMT
I've been discussing this elsewhere, and I figured from the length of reinstated platform that it would be suitable for 8-car trains, and I was somewhat surprised to find out that it's only good for 4 cars. To me, the reinstated section looks good for 8 cars...somewhat tight, but 8 cars. If not, then why not use the remaining out of use length on the southern end (about a car), and the 2 or 2.5 cars lengths on the northern end to make good for 8 cars? 12 cars would require a platform extension that would be complicated, so I could understand that...but 8 should be easy.
|
|
|
Bushey
Dec 9, 2011 14:19:06 GMT
Post by trt on Dec 9, 2011 14:19:06 GMT
I'm not sure. Maybe there's points further up or something? Or they restricted the operational area of the platform due to the need for lighting and CCTV? I doubt they need 8 car operation for the planned use, though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Bushey
Dec 9, 2011 19:17:49 GMT
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2011 19:17:49 GMT
I've been discussing this elsewhere, and I figured from the length of reinstated platform that it would be suitable for 8-car trains, and I was somewhat surprised to find out that it's only good for 4 cars. To me, the reinstated section looks good for 8 cars...somewhat tight, but 8 cars. If not, then why not use the remaining out of use length on the southern end (about a car), and the 2 or 2.5 cars lengths on the northern end to make good for 8 cars? 12 cars would require a platform extension that would be complicated, so I could understand that...but 8 should be easy. You may have noticed all the overhead line equipment planted on the north end of the platform that was put in for the West Coast Route Mod (WCRM). The ability of trains to operate Selective Door Opening (SDO) means that you don't need the platform to fit the train anymore. The down fast will only be used when the slow lines are blocked for night time engineering work. On a similar point we now have the fast line platforms fenced off at Harrow & Wealdstone so I hope LT who now staff the station remember to open the gates!
|
|
|
Bushey
Dec 9, 2011 21:04:14 GMT
Post by andypurk on Dec 9, 2011 21:04:14 GMT
I've been discussing this elsewhere, and I figured from the length of reinstated platform that it would be suitable for 8-car trains, and I was somewhat surprised to find out that it's only good for 4 cars. To me, the reinstated section looks good for 8 cars...somewhat tight, but 8 cars. If not, then why not use the remaining out of use length on the southern end (about a car), and the 2 or 2.5 cars lengths on the northern end to make good for 8 cars? 12 cars would require a platform extension that would be complicated, so I could understand that...but 8 should be easy. If you pass by Bushey, on a London Midland service which stops, it is obvious that the rebuilt section is only just over half the length of the original platform 3 and is only 4 cars long. Extending the original section to 8 cars would be expensive, as it is sandwiched between the Bushey Arches to the north and the DC lines to the south and there is well under the 160m space needed for 8 x 20m coaches.
|
|
|
Bushey
Dec 10, 2011 4:08:42 GMT
Post by mrjrt on Dec 10, 2011 4:08:42 GMT
If you pass by Bushey, on a London Midland service which stops, it is obvious that the rebuilt section is only just over half the length of the original platform 3 and is only 4 cars long. Extending the original section to 8 cars would be expensive, as it is sandwiched between the Bushey Arches to the north and the DC lines to the south and there is well under the 160m space needed for 8 x 20m coaches. I stand corrected. I've only seen the new work once, and it was twilight, but I swear it looked long enough. Having looked using Google maps with the ruler I am clearly mistaken. How strange. Still, You points about the arches and the DC lines are irrelevant, as there is ample room to extend to the required 160m northwards. As mentioned above, the new equipment installed on the disused platform is the primary problem I suspect (other than cost).
|
|
|
Bushey
Dec 10, 2011 13:58:37 GMT
Post by andypurk on Dec 10, 2011 13:58:37 GMT
If you pass by Bushey, on a London Midland service which stops, it is obvious that the rebuilt section is only just over half the length of the original platform 3 and is only 4 cars long. Extending the original section to 8 cars would be expensive, as it is sandwiched between the Bushey Arches to the north and the DC lines to the south and there is well under the 160m space needed for 8 x 20m coaches. I stand corrected. I've only seen the new work once, and it was twilight, but I swear it looked long enough. Having looked using Google maps with the ruler I am clearly mistaken. How strange. Still, You points about the arches and the DC lines are irrelevant, as there is ample room to extend to the required 160m northwards. As mentioned above, the new equipment installed on the disused platform is the primary problem I suspect (other than cost). With respect, the position of Bushey Arches isn't irrelevant if they wanted to build 8 car platforms, as they would have to build the northern end on the viaduct, where there was no platform in the past. This would have been more expensive than moving the OHLE. An interesting question would be whether the platform would have been extended to 6-7 coaches, if the rolling stock had SDO which worked per coach rather than per unit.
|
|
|
Bushey
Dec 10, 2011 19:34:24 GMT
Post by mrjrt on Dec 10, 2011 19:34:24 GMT
With respect, the position of Bushey Arches isn't irrelevant if they wanted to build 8 car platforms, as they would have to build the northern end on the viaduct, where there was no platform in the past. This would have been more expensive than moving the OHLE. I disagree. 160m gets you to just before the end of the embankment, where on Google Map's current imagery there is a large tree. You can clearly see a widening of the formation that appears to be the old platform (or suitable for it). I'd be interested to learn the length of the old platform An interesting question would be whether the platform would have been extended to 6-7 coaches, if the rolling stock had SDO which worked per coach rather than per unit. Agreed.
|
|
|
Bushey
Dec 23, 2011 8:44:39 GMT
Post by abe on Dec 23, 2011 8:44:39 GMT
So when was the restored platform 3 recommissioned? Was it from the introduction of the new timetable on 11 December?
|
|
|
Bushey
Dec 23, 2011 22:27:22 GMT
Post by andypurk on Dec 23, 2011 22:27:22 GMT
With respect, the position of Bushey Arches isn't irrelevant if they wanted to build 8 car platforms, as they would have to build the northern end on the viaduct, where there was no platform in the past. This would have been more expensive than moving the OHLE. I disagree. 160m gets you to just before the end of the embankment, where on Google Map's current imagery there is a large tree. You can clearly see a widening of the formation that appears to be the old platform (or suitable for it). I'd be interested to learn the length of the old platform Sorry, been busy away from the forum for the last couple of weeks. Are you measuring from the bottom of the ramp at the southern end of the station, where platform 2 and 3 join. I ask because the large tree actually at the bottom of the embankment, if you look on street view, you can see the white section at the top of the wall south of the bridge over the roundabout. It can also clearly be seen that the fenced off land (the light grey area on the satellite view) is at a lower level than the Down Fast line. So there wouldn't be 160m of space, but only 140-150m. I will be heading that way tomorrow and will see if I can grab a picture of the Down Fast side there.
|
|
|
Bushey
Dec 23, 2011 22:32:11 GMT
Post by andypurk on Dec 23, 2011 22:32:11 GMT
So when was the restored platform 3 recommissioned? Was it from the introduction of the new timetable on 11 December? Last week, on the 16th December at least, trains were still not serving the platform when running on the Down Fast. There were apologies from the guard saying that due to Engineering Work, the 23.34 train won't be calling Bushey and to change at Harrow & Wealdstone for a London Overground connection.
|
|
|
Bushey
Dec 30, 2011 15:23:06 GMT
Post by wildcard on Dec 30, 2011 15:23:06 GMT
One other thing - there is a large sign on the platform saying "Alighting passengers only" or similar . So I assume you are not meant to catch the train Northwards - although I can't see how this can be prevented. I would have thought this is could be a useful interchange if your LO was due into WJ a few minutes after the LM but got to Bushey a few minutes before - also not so far to walk even if the train appears on platform 5 !
|
|
|
Bushey
Dec 30, 2011 18:43:31 GMT
Post by andypurk on Dec 30, 2011 18:43:31 GMT
One other thing - there is a large sign on the platform saying "Alighting passengers only" or similar . So I assume you are not meant to catch the train Northwards - although I can't see how this can be prevented. I would have thought this is could be a useful interchange if your LO was due into WJ a few minutes after the LM but got to Bushey a few minutes before - also not so far to walk even if the train appears on platform 5 ! This seems to have appeared, on the London Midland engineering work webpage, for late evening trains serving Bushey from 9th January. Until then trains are still shown as not calling due to engineering works. The set down only would mean that if you miss the train, for example due to re-platforming at Bushey, London Midland don't have to arrange alternative transport. Anyone heading north from Bushey at the times when the platform would be in use shouldn't have any particular difficulty in getting to Watford (or Harrow).
|
|