The nearby residents are really the only people who are going to be negative - but without a plan how do they know whether they care?
Using Google Maps measurement tool, I reckon the current far end of P17 to be 2.35m, and the new minimum length will be 2.8m. So it's either cantilever part of the new platform off the viaduct (which will affect the businesses below) or the track moves. I think we all know it'll be the former...
As we found out on Wednesday when I saw our train still in the platform with 2 minutes to go and a crowd on the stairs and at their foot on 16. We soon discovered the lift parks at platform level and is slow to come up, slow to open doors and close doors, then go down. And there were still a lot of people around the bottom. We missed it! 10 years ago and on my own I'd have caught that train. However 16 and 17 meet the fully accessible stations criteria, box ticked.
It's not a huge amount of cantilevering required if they chose to do that. If you were going to try to stay within the existing viaduct then it would appear to be possible to put the Platform 13 points closer to the platform end and slew everything across a bit.
That service is often 2-158 or 3-150 too, and there was a 2-195 on the circuit today.
It seems to be used for four coach Wigan services and 2/3 coach Knottingley services at present, I wonder what a "small extension" means - 5 or 6 coaches? And what use would the extra length be put to? I'd guess the extension would involve moving the buffers back?
I have a feeling there is something which doesn't fit at present but I am not sure what it is and don't have time to look it up immediately. Perhaps it's two two car 195s?
I did a typo; the new minimum *width* will be 2.8m, which is wider that what the country end of P17 is at the moment.
There is a door at platform level straight onto platform 17 but it's marked as "staff only" and is always locked. It's blindingly obvious that opening this to the public would solve the problem of passengers for P17 getting caught up in P16 passengers blocking the stairs and lifts, but then when did common sense have anything to do with the railway?
With escalators and lifts? Otherwise passengers heading to the airport will not be pleased that they are sent on a route that requires them to lug their suitcases up and down stairs.
I was going to make a joke about "78s"... but I won't... The lack of a public lift that side does confuse people; they jab at the buttons, spot the sign, and then try to hoik everything up the stairs instead of back along the platform (because it isn't well signed).
This, I suspect, would have been included in the new T station which we're all waiting for, with an improved circulation space above the platforms, improved access and a watering point for the flying pigs.
There is the small matter that customers wouldn’t pass through a gate line, meaning there would have to be manual checks
Certainly something closer to the standard the western footbridge sets- and able to be used by all, would be preferable. Even better if it could be accessed directly from the concourse (with a gateline of course) through the unit currently occupied by WH Smiths.
The problem with Leeds… one of the problems… one of the many problems is that the platforms are quite narrow, even in the centre. Lifts are difficult with it being built in viaducts over the river, escalators would be difficult to squeeze in at some points ( unless there were direct replacements for the current steps - but they didn’t do that in the western end).
The 9-11 island is pretty narrow (as is 16) but the rest don't seem too bad. I agree it isn't ideal for doing anything while the station is in use. The western footbridge had the advantage of plenty of blockades during the rebuild- and of course the old subway still being available at least at the start.
In my experience the vast majority people coming off trains on platform 17 are heading for the main exit/entrance, probably only 10-20% are using the Southern exit/entrance, so one exit gate on platform 17 should be adequate. Alternatively, seeing as there's almost always an on train ticket check on the Leeds-Barnsley-Sheffield route, why have a gate line at all?
LSSE was advertised as taking 20% of foot traffic. And you'd need two gates, in and out.
Key word highlighted
If you have no gate line on this platform, word will get around and people will soon come over from other platforms to use it to evade fares. This sort of thing happens at other stations with a main gate line and an open "side entrance" and is a big problem at Nottingham (where it's more intractable because the "side entrance" is part of a right of way).
You could make it exit only. Like those exits at Birmingham NS from the bridge at the Wolverhampton end.
From the satellite view, I don't really understand how moving the track would work - it looks like each track that you move will have further knock-on effects right across the station! If that is the plan, obviously I'm missing something! Maybe the tracks for P15/16/17 are actually a bit further apart presently than they really need to be for clearances, or something like that?
I was there also there yesterday. Very helpful and wide ranging discussion I wish I'd recorded. Slewing tracks just enough to allow 17 to be widened and extending tracks further to allow trains from the Sheffield direction to enter the station without crossing others. There's a new bridge to cross the station with better lifts.
Apparently so. At 15 mph terminating speeds units don't move from side to side as much as at 50 or 125 so require less clearance.
