Why don't trains on Platform 6/7 at Guildford open their doors into Platform 7?

[stuving]

I think that one factor in 6/7 being two-sided is lack of space to fit two lines in without shortening the platforms or extending them inconveniently northwards. The lines came out of the tunnel, past where the shed was and can only then spread out as they pass under the Farnham Road bridge. If there was then a further point to lead into double-track, the platform ends would be even further away. It is all a matter of compromise.

I suspect there is less to this than meets the eye, despite it having its origins around 1850, when the Farnham branch was built. The earliest map I can find in NLS is 1870s, so well after that initial enlargement, but before the building of the New Guildford Railway via Cobham and consequent rebuilding to roughly what is there now.

I also suspect that if you asked a Victorian railwayman about having one track/two platforms - is it a good or bad thing? - you'd get a blank look as it was not regarded as a thing at all. It's just what happens if you add an island platform to a station with side platforms.

I have some information about the RGRR (taken over by SER as soon as it was built) but almost none about the LSWR. So I'm rather guessing that the first station had two side platforms (2 and 3 - I'm using today's numbers) with buildings along the outside of P2. The RGRR relied on LSWR to build lines to Ash and Shalford, and had to twist their arms to get this done quickly. I guess LSWR had other priorities, but still would much rather build and thus own all the lines through their station. Does that mean what was built was entirely to LSWR's use, or did RGRR/SER have any input?

Assuming the 1871 map shows what was built in 1850, an island platform was built for the RGRR/Farnham traffic to use. This is a very large scale map - 1:500 - and the surveyors have included very detailed representations of the trackwork. However, trying to work out how the platform lines were used is probably trusting that detail too far, and indeed it does not make much sense if you try it. It does however look as if the track pairs from Ash and through Chalk Tunnel both merge to one line which then divides around the island.

In 1885 a further pair of tracks had to be accommodated for the Cobham line. This was led into what had been the main lines (P2&3), and those main lines were realigned to roughly where that P3&4 line had been. A new platform P5&6 was built, and a new (rectangular) island P7&8. Clearly at this stage the one track/two platforms feature was not worth eliminating then, presumably its advantages outweighed any drawbacks. As to what those advantages might be, we are all still guessing.

 

[yorksrob]

I think that one factor in 6/7 being two-sided is lack of space to fit two lines in without shortening the platforms or extending them inconveniently northwards. The lines came out of the tunnel, past where the shed was and can only then spread out as they pass under the Farnham Road bridge. If there was then a further point to lead into double-track, the platform ends would be even further away. It is all a matter of compromise.

Similar reason for Lewes' double sided platform being eliminated !

 

[devon_belle]

I had assumed such platforms ('gulley platforms'?) were to allow transfers between trains without using footbridge or subway. Examples at Yeovil Jnc and Exeter St Davids (both pre-rebuild) come to mind. At Yeovil the branch platform was in the middle, so transfer to main line trains was easier, and at Exeter LSWR-GWR transfers were cross platform, at least in one direction.

Not completely sure if the same logic could apply to Guildford and Woking, or whether I'm totally wrong.

 

[mmh]

I had assumed such platforms ('gulley platforms'?) were to allow transfers between trains without using footbridge or subway. Examples at Yeovil Jnc and Exeter St Davids (both pre-rebuild) come to mind. At Yeovil the branch platform was in the middle, so transfer to main line trains was easier, and at Exeter LSWR-GWR transfers were cross platform, at least in one direction.

Not completely sure if the same logic could apply to Guildford and Woking, or whether I'm totally wrong.

It always felt a deliberate design at Norwood Junction. When the station was built I think there'd have been all the space in the world to include an additional track, if it had been wanted. My guess is it was intended for slow to fast line changes. (Which it carried on being unofficially used for until the end of slam doors!)

 

[swt_passenger]

Stratford has 2 such tracks on the Central Line, deliberately designed to facilitate cross-platform interchange onto the GE main line platforms (now Elizabeth Line).

In fact they only have opening on both sides of the train on the Central in one direction, ie westbound, it was added when the concourse was improved to allow people arriving/departing by tube to enter from and leave the station directly. They already had cross platform interchange with the suburban services that would eventually become Elizabeth Line.

Eastbound the central is still just the normal side of an island. There was no room to do the same in both directions.

 

[Roger1973]

I had assumed such platforms ('gulley platforms'?) were to allow transfers between trains without using footbridge or subway. Examples at Yeovil Jnc and Exeter St Davids (both pre-rebuild) come to mind. At Yeovil the branch platform was in the middle, so transfer to main line trains was easier, and at Exeter LSWR-GWR transfers were cross platform, at least in one direction.

Not completely sure if the same logic could apply to Guildford and Woking, or whether I'm totally wrong.

I think that the platform arrangement at Ascot allowed for and was used for cross-platform transfers at one time - although I'm remembering this from when I was a smallish child travelling from home in south London to visit grand-parents in Reading, which was some time ago now.

If I remember right, the Waterloo - Reading service was much more 'fast' (in terms of calling at fewer stations) than it is now, and the trains from the Camberley direction ran through to / from Waterloo on a 'semi fast' basis, with a connection at Ascot, so that passengers from Reading could change on to the semi-fast if they wanted an intermediate station, and passengers from Camberley (etc) who wanted Waterloo could change on to the Reading train.

I'm sure this worked as a cross platform connection towards London, I'm not sure if trains from Waterloo to Reading could run via platform 1 to allow the same thing in the 'down' direction.

 

[Gloster]

I think that the platform arrangement at Ascot allowed for and was used for cross-platform transfers at one time - although I'm remembering this from when I was a smallish child travelling from home in south London to visit grand-parents in Reading, which was some time ago now.

If I remember right, the Waterloo - Reading service was much more 'fast' (in terms of calling at fewer stations) than it is now, and the trains from the Camberley direction ran through to / from Waterloo on a 'semi fast' basis, with a connection at Ascot, so that passengers from Reading could change on to the semi-fast if they wanted an intermediate station, and passengers from Camberley (etc) who wanted Waterloo could change on to the Reading train.

I'm sure this worked as a cross platform connection towards London, I'm not sure if trains from Waterloo to Reading could run via platform 1 to allow the same thing in the 'down' direction.

A look at various Pryer track and signalling plans makes me think that the arrangement had more to do with how they handled race crowds. The platform either side of the Up Road existed before the 1938 alterations, but the line the other side of 2 was a siding and 3 was the normal Down Main. On race days a train from Waterloo could run into 1, the engine could run round using the siding and then it could clear the platform for the next train. From 1938 2 became the Down Main and was reversible, but it couldn’t be reached off the Ash Vale line: only 1 and 4 could.

 

[Acathater]

One platform to board from and the other to alight to?

Usually this arrangement was to allow flat interchange between trains at junction stations. For example Yeovil Pen Mill and Ulverston both of which could get busy with suitcase bucket and spade traffic

 

[Big Jumby 74]

Ventnor was another similar location.

 

[devon_belle]

Obviously more common, but London Waterloo's South and Central stations had some terminal platforms with faces either side. I can't find an explanation of the reason, but small sliding footbridges were installed on at least one in the 1880s to help passengers avoid a long walk.

For example Yeovil Pen Mill

Now you mention it, all three Yeovil stations had a double faced through platform line at one stage. At Yeovil Town this would have been for transfer from GWR trains to LSWR Up trains.

Bristol Temple Meads used to have two island platforms under the main train shed roof, with single roads on the outer faces (so it went what is currently Platform 3 by the station entrance, single track, platform, double track, platform, single track, platform. This gave two single roads with platform faces on both sides. Looking at it now with just the outer platforms and four roads through you do wonder how they managed to fit it all in, presumably Platform 3 was a lot narrower. Given the curvature of the station it must have been a nightmare for the guard!

All were mixed gauge until the 1890s, so the double faced lines could only be boarded from both sides on Broad Gauge trains. From pics it looks like they extended out one of the faces (hopefully the island side!) to match.

This is interesting to me as it suggests the layout wasn't arranged so that both standard and broad gauge carriages had a level cross platform interchange on the central islands.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

London Waterloo's South and Central stations had some terminal platforms with faces either side.

This would have been part of the original station that still existed prior to the 1920's rebuild. Back then platforms were numbered by structure, not by operational platform face. Platforms 1 & 2 as was then (where todays plats 7/8 are located approximately) had a single track between them, the main line departure road as was, platform 1 at that time having the main station buildings along its length (at about right angles to the main station buildings on the concourse of today) and what was also the original horse drawn cab road, which ran down a steep slope to Waterloo Road (as we know it today).

Similarly platforms 3 & 4 were (where todays plats 11 /12 are approximately) also had a single 'arrival' road between them.

To understand the present day operation of Waterloo, which drives the overall timetable decision making to a large degree, one has to understand the infrastructure underneath the tracks (bridge structures etc), and the general limitations of the station footprint/track layout as it has evolved over the years, based as with more recent times, on changing/increasing demand over the years.

I would very highly recommend some of the published works by the South Western Circle for those who either have just an interest in same, or for those such as myself, who have both an interest in, but also a past career involving the station.

South Western Circle - Home Page

lswr.org

 

[nw1]

If I remember right, the Waterloo - Reading service was much more 'fast' (in terms of calling at fewer stations) than it is now, and the trains from the Camberley direction ran through to / from Waterloo on a 'semi fast' basis, with a connection at Ascot, so that passengers from Reading could change on to the semi-fast if they wanted an intermediate station, and passengers from Camberley (etc) who wanted Waterloo could change on to the Reading train.

What happened around the shoulder-peaks and contra-peak-flow (1982/83 timetable) is that the fasts and slows alternated Reading and Guildford via Camberley, and the fast would overtake the slow at Ascot. From Waterloo the pattern was xx05 (fast, Guildford); xx22 (slower, Guildford); xx35 (fast, Reading) and xx52 (slower, Reading). There were variations but the fasts were typically Feltham, Staines and Ascot only. The slower trains had the typical off-peak pattern of Clapham Junction, Richmond, Feltham, Staines then all stations. The peak peak would have this basic pattern but with some further extras, and in some cases the slows would not be held and overtaken at Ascot, to avoid slowing down the peak services too much.

So between 1700 and 1800 there were:
1705 Guildford fast - did not call at Feltham, but did call at Egham, Virginia Water, Sunningdale
1720 Reading fast - peak additional - called at Richmond and Sunningdale but not Feltham or Ascot
1722 Guildford slower, not looped at Ascot. Called Ashford in addition to standard pattern
1734 Reading via Hounslow fast, but with altered stopping pattern (Hounslow, Virginia Water, Sunningdale, Ascot)
1736 Camberley fast (Richmond, Feltham, Staines, Egham, Sunningdale) - thus rather than having just one 1735 fast there were two fasts serving different stations
1750 Aldershot fast - peak additional, Richmond, Staines, Sunningdale
1752 Reading slower, not looped at Ascot. Called Ashford but not Richmond

Sunningdale appeared to be the winner when it came to peak services!

Off-peak the Ascot-Guildford shuttle ran, with a connection out of Reading services departing Waterloo at xx28/xx58. However, and reprising a common topic on here, even the through Guildford-Waterloo via Ascot services were announced at Guildford as terminating Ascot; I would see one such contra-peak service daily at the time.

See Timetable World, BR 1982 Timetable, table 148: https://timetableworld.com/ttw-viewer.php?token=132730db-8ad2-4152-9459-9d410b64c1ea

This was replaced in 1985 with a pattern of xx00, xx20 and xx40 Reading and xx10, xx30, and xx50 towards Aldershot or Guildford, but with the off-peak pattern remaining unchanged. IIRC the Readings were all relatively fast but not so much so that they caught up the preceding Camberley line service before Ascot. It's possible this was achieved by the Readings focusing on the Staines-Ascot stops and the Guildfords focusing on the Greater London stops, but I might have got that wrong. Additionally I seem to remember two of the Camberley services carrying a Weybridge via Chertsey portion - presumably 2EPB as it was second class only.

 

[Sean Emmett]

What happened around the shoulder-peaks and contra-peak-flow (1982/83 timetable) is that the fasts and slows alternated Reading and Guildford via Camberley, and the fast would overtake the slow at Ascot. From Waterloo the pattern was xx05 (fast, Guildford); xx22 (slower, Guildford); xx35 (fast, Reading) and xx52 (slower, Reading). There were variations but the fasts were typically Feltham, Staines and Ascot only. The slower trains had the typical off-peak pattern of Clapham Junction, Richmond, Feltham, Staines then all stations. The peak peak would have this basic pattern but with some further extras, and in some cases the slows would not be held and overtaken at Ascot, to avoid slowing down the peak services too much.

So between 1700 and 1800 there were:
1705 Guildford fast - did not call at Feltham, but did call at Egham, Virginia Water, Sunningdale
1720 Reading fast - peak additional - called at Richmond and Sunningdale but not Feltham or Ascot
1722 Guildford slower, not looped at Ascot. Called Ashford in addition to standard pattern
1734 Reading via Hounslow fast, but with altered stopping pattern (Hounslow, Virginia Water, Sunningdale, Ascot)
1736 Camberley fast (Richmond, Feltham, Staines, Egham, Sunningdale) - thus rather than having just one 1735 fast there were two fasts serving different stations
1750 Aldershot fast - peak additional, Richmond, Staines, Sunningdale
1752 Reading slower, not looped at Ascot. Called Ashford but not Richmond

Sunningdale appeared to be the winner when it came to peak services!

Off-peak the Ascot-Guildford shuttle ran, with a connection out of Reading services departing Waterloo at xx28/xx58. However, and reprising a common topic on here, even the through Guildford-Waterloo via Ascot services were announced at Guildford as terminating Ascot; I would see one such contra-peak service daily at the time.

See Timetable World, BR 1982 Timetable, table 148: https://timetableworld.com/ttw-viewer.php?token=132730db-8ad2-4152-9459-9d410b64c1ea

This was replaced in 1985 with a pattern of xx00, xx20 and xx40 Reading and xx10, xx30, and xx50 towards Aldershot or Guildford, but with the off-peak pattern remaining unchanged. IIRC the Readings were all relatively fast but not so much so that they caught up the preceding Camberley line service before Ascot. It's possible this was achieved by the Readings focusing on the Staines-Ascot stops and the Guildfords focusing on the Greater London stops, but I might have got that wrong. Additionally I seem to remember two of the Camberley services carrying a Weybridge via Chertsey portion - presumably 2EPB as it was second class only.

Amazing detail, thx.

I was brought up in Ascot and remember the major timetable change with the fast trains happening in 1977. I have a leaflet somewhere.

Yes there were 4tph off peak to Ascot, with stopper being caught up by the fast trains which called at Feltham and Staines only.

Fast / slows alternated between Reading and Guildford.

The fasts went via Richmond on the down, but Hounslow on the up.

The trains to/fromReading used 'platforms 1 & 2' at Ascot i.e. P1 the North side up platform and P2 the North side of the island, ehicj involved stepping over the conductor rail.

Guildford trains used P3 (now P2) i.e. the South side of the island.

P4 (now P3 for the Aldershot terminators) was seldom used, but a couple of peak hour fasts to Camberley rumbled through non-stop at 20 mph.

Highlight was the sole down Reading train that sped thro P3 (now P2) at 60 mph.

This pattern lastest for a few years, then no fast trains until a limited provision in the early 1980a calling Clapham Jn & Richmond - rather than Staines in Feltham.

On these 'even time' could be achieved between Ascot & Richmond. Not bad for a line with a 70 mph limit and a half mile crawl at 20 mph thro Staines.

 

[nw1]

Amazing detail, thx.

No worries!

I was brought up in Ascot and remember the major timetable change with the fast trains happening in 1977. I have a leaflet somewhere.

Yes there were 4tph off peak to Ascot, with stopper being caught up by the fast trains which called at Feltham and Staines only.

Fast / slows alternated between Reading and Guildford.

The fasts went via Richmond on the down, but Hounslow on the up.

I think that's come up on here before - the pattern that was limited to shoulder-peak and contra-peak only by 1982 was all day in the late 70s.

Highlight was the sole down Reading train that sped thro P3 (now P2) at 60 mph.

This pattern lastest for a few years, then no fast trains until a limited provision in the early 1980a calling Clapham Jn & Richmond - rather than Staines in Feltham.

On these 'even time' could be achieved between Ascot & Richmond. Not bad for a line with a 70 mph limit and a half mile crawl at 20 mph thro Staines.

What's "even time"? One mile per minute?

This sounds like the 1988 timetable change, which did indeed have a fast service calling at Clapham Junction, Richmond and Ascot only, then all. It also saw the restoration of through Guildfords via Camberley.

Specifically off-peak had:
xx00 Reading fast, Clapham, Richmond, Ascot and all
xx03 Guildford, standard 1982 off-peak pattern (see above) plus Twickenham
xx30 Reading semi-fast, standard 1982 off-peak pattern (see above). I think Longcross was omitted

There was also a Guildford-Ascot-Reading making a 20-min interval Ascot-Reading, with timings at Ascot specifically to maximise connections between all the services. For example the xx03 to Guildford connected at Ascot with the ex-Guildford to Reading and the xx30 to Reading connected there with the Reading-Guildford.

 

[Sean Emmett]

Even time yes mile a minute, 60 mph or more.

Have posted this before, but Ascot - Waterloo in 40 mins timetable and under 34 mins achieved seem like a dream now.

When looking after mum until quite recently I often took the 07.29 from Ascot to Waterloo.

Not much progress compared with the M7 tanks in 1922.

 

[Roger1973]

See Timetable World, BR 1982 Timetable, table 148: https://timetableworld.com/ttw-viewer.php?token=132730db-8ad2-4152-9459-9d410b64c1ea

Thanks.

The 2 minutes (down) / 3 minutes (up) connection at Ascot from the Waterloo - Reading train to the Ascot - Guildford train implies that must have used the cross platform connection, and platform 1 (the double sided platform) must have been used by trains both to and from Reading, and the Ascot - Guildford trains platform 2 (rather than expecting people to cross from platform 1 or 2 to platform 3 in that short a time.)

That would match what I remember - generally, I would have done the journey - with one or both parents and in school holidays of course - on a weekday leaving SE London after 0930 or whatever the start time for off peak returns was then, so we wouldn't have left Waterloo (main) until probably after 10, then would usually leave grandparents' home after the evening peak. Or sometimes on Saturdays, but probably at similar sort of times.

We didn't do it much after the mid 80s as grandparents moved to Dorset after grandfather retired, and the other Berkshire relatives also moved away fairly soon after that, so the journey to grandparents took longer but involved 4 REP then 33/1...

 

[nw1]

Thanks.

The 2 minutes (down) / 3 minutes (up) connection at Ascot from the Waterloo - Reading train to the Ascot - Guildford train implies that must have used the cross platform connection, and platform 1 (the double sided platform) must have been used by trains both to and from Reading, and the Ascot - Guildford trains platform 2 (rather than expecting people to cross from platform 1 or 2 to platform 3 in that short a time.)

Coincidentally I was reading a book on the Southern Region one day recently and read about the unusual layout at Ascot. There was a discussion on the arrangements in around 1983 with a photo and it did indeed suggest almost everything used Platforms 1 and 2, with Platform 3 barely used.

I'd forgotten about the unusual layout at Ascot but it now rings a bell - the one and only time I went that way during daylight hours was in May 1988 shortly after the timetable change, when I used one of the Guildford-Ascot-London through services, and seem to remember seeing it.