Wouldn't say failed in the platform,perhaps they had trouble coupling or some other issue? Still if they had they would have run it as a five?
Think both failed. Both units for the 1615 arrived in the usual Platform 19, while the next service at 1752 left from the usual Platform 15. That points to both units failing, as there is no point moving the same unit around like that, unless platforms were desperately needed.
In addition, the next services planned to use P19, the 1619 from Windsor/out again as 1628 and the 1634 from Reading/out again as 1650, both used P17 instead of 19, the next service to use 19 was the 1704 arrival from Reading.
I know about it and the fact the beacon has not moved very far to where it originally was.What is the problem if the train is in?
Is the platform a bit iffy at the back?
Hmmm another thing is they don't like the train too near the signal at the front.
Maybe the thing about the signal explains it, as they appear to keep a certain distance from it unless absolutely necessary, and increasing the amount of SDO allows that distance to be kept. Isleworth both platforms have a massive "CHECK SIGNAL" next to the stop marker for 8-455s, which is actually on the same post as the signal!
At least both Isleworth and Feltham have no space to extend the platforms. Egham, Virginia Water and Addlestone do but haven't been done for some reason.
Nor has Syon Lane, however half the length of the platform at the end that has space to extend doesn't appear to meet the current minimum platform width rules. Could they have had to increase that width if the extension in length was done? On Friday on my train only 7 rather than 8 managed to open there.
Hounslow is another with space at one end, but has a trailing crossover in the way. Again another time I've seen only 7 rather than 8 open there.
Chertsey can only extend about one or two coaches at one end before reaching a road bridge, the other end has a level crossing. Can see why it isn't considered extending just that little bit.
)