This mornings Radio London breakfast was live from Boxpark, they were painting a completely different picture of Croydon as a city, implying everything was rosy and on the ascendancy….Croydon is in decline as a shopping and employment centre. It is growing as a dormitory for commuters to London and elsewhere - witness the large number of tall flats being built within walking distance of East and West Croydon stations.
There wouldn't be any technical issues, but there is no way the step distances which exist north of Queens Park would be allowed now. It's either one type of train or the other.It would depend on the final design, although there should not be any major technical issues as the existing Bakerloo line inter-works with Overground services "north" of Queen's Park, on Network Rail tracks.
Croydon could well be on the ascendancy as its not difficult to improve from such an awful position !. Box park is almost the only venue for young people left in Croydon. Oh and Croydon never achieved city status. Basically I would say that the idea Croydon is any good indicates how far Croydon council or others promoting Croydon have their head stuck in the sand. For instance if Croydon council is so good how come they have gone bankrupt twice (or is it three times ?) and have put council tax up by 15%. Tramlink is a very good thing but no justification for much expansion.This mornings Radio London breakfast was live from Boxpark, they were painting a completely different picture of Croydon as a city, implying everything was rosy and on the ascendancy….
Its a tempting alternative for the Sutton loop but I think its true the direct Thameslink service to London trumps a tram alternative. Even if the Thameslink service got no further than Blackfriars it would still trump any alternative use of the Sutton loop. I recall that if it did terminate at Blackfriars it would remove a conflicting to the South of Blackfriars. Instead the Sevenoaks service does not make it into the core.The easiest looking and most reasonable Tramlink conversion/extension would be the west side of the Sutton loop as that would allow the under utilised line to gain a better service than 2tph however there may be controversy due to the loss of a direct link to Central London, I remember there being some sort of outcry over initial Thameslink Programme plans to terminate the service at Blackfriars. I know it isn't Croydon but it would not be completely isolated from the rest of the network, there would be a connection at Wimbledon.
Other, possibly more realistic, options for shared stations are platforms on both sides of the train (mainline stock would open the doors on e.g, the left hand side and tube stock on the right) or double-length platforms with a ramp in the middle (I believe this what is used in Rotherham for stations shared with the Sheffield trams).There wouldn't be any technical issues, but there is no way the step distances which exist north of Queens Park would be allowed now. It's either one type of train or the other.
Unless it was an extremely bumpy platform with alternate doors locked out depending on which sort of train it is. Or a movable platform
I would agree, those both seem far more plausible options than moving or bumpy platforms but they still seem problematc.Other, possibly more realistic, options for shared stations are platforms on both sides of the train (mainline stock would open the doors on e.g, the left hand side and tube stock on the right) or double-length platforms with a ramp in the middle
station in the singular. The tram-train extension to Supertram only has two stations (Rotherham Central and Rotherham Parkgate) and only one of them (Rotherham Central) is an interchange.(I believe this what is used in Rotherham for stations shared with the Sheffield trams).
Platforms on both sides would require a station with 2 side platforms and an island platform. That's 5m wider in the centre of the tracks than a normal station, with the accompanying flare outs etc. End-to-end on the Hayes branch would be interesting given the existing platform lengths. Are there any gauging problems with tube stock on mainline-spec platforms? (Assuming the Watford DC share platforms are basically tube-spec only)I would agree, those both seem far more plausible options than moving or bumpy platforms but they still seem problematc.
Platforms on both sides might be ok if you were building stations from scratch, but doing it on an existing line would mean basically rebuilding all the stations. Platforms placed end to end might be ok at some places, but at others I can see cases where either there would simply not be enough space, or where it would create long walks for passengers.
Fitting in platforms like this would certainly be more challenging than just rebuilding the existing platforms, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's impossible (and if only certain stations are tricky then one or the other service could skip them).Platforms on both sides would require a station with 2 side platforms and an island platform. That's 5m wider in the centre of the tracks than a normal station, with the accompanying flare outs etc. End-to-end on the Hayes branch would be interesting given the existing platform lengths. Are there any gauging problems with tube stock on mainline-spec platforms? (Assuming the Watford DC share platforms are basically tube-spec only)
All in all, more trouble than it's worth. Given the intended frequencies and difficulties in marrying up the two different services.Fitting in platforms like this would certainly be more challenging than just rebuilding the existing platforms, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's impossible (and if only certain stations are tricky then one or the other service could skip them).
The Watford DC shared platforms are I believe compromise height - it's certainly a step down into a Bakerloo line train and a step-up into a London Overground train. Tube-gauge trains run past sub-surface height platforms all the time without any issues (battery locos are tube gauge and go all-over the system, the 1938 stock train semi-regularly runs all-over the sub-surface network, including recently to Amersham, etc past platforms that are also served by Chiltern services), Piccadilly line trains occasionally run over the District lines between Acton and Barons Court, and very occasionally get diverted into Ealing Broadway District line platforms.
For the record, neither suggestion was serious. I forgot to put a smiley at the endI would agree, those both seem far more plausible options than moving or bumpy platforms but they still seem problematc.
Long-term, surely this will need to be addressed for accessibility purposes. I would suggest a solution inspired by the Harrington Humps: raise one section of the platform to Overground train height and lower another to Bakerloo line train height. Presumably it would be possible to identify two positions which can be identical across all shared stations which don't obstruct any passageways leading to/off the platforms, and which are not directly next to each other?The Watford DC shared platforms are I believe compromise height - it's certainly a step down into a Bakerloo line train and a step-up into a London Overground train.