In our journey down the Brighton Main Line our last encounter was East Croydon. Instead of continuing southwards we remain at East Croydon and devote an entire article to something that at first glance might seem less than overwhelming – the new station footbridge. Footbridges don’t normally merit sufficient significance to be worthy of an article but this one is an exception.
In many ways this article complements the previous one in this series which was also about East Croydon. The footbridge is important because it is a vital part of the upgrade of the station – and therefore the Brighton Main Line as well. It is also a potentially significant part of the regeneration of Croydon. I would not be too much of an exaggeration to say that the regeneration of area is being built around the footbridge and the route from it to the centre of the shopping area.
The paid area side of the wide footbridge early on Sunday morning when it is quiet
It is somewhat tempting to say that the East Croydon footbridge is the mother of all railway footbridges, but in truth that accolade probably deserves to go to the footbridge at Reading. Nevertheless the new footbridge at East Croydon station is exceptionally wide and is much longer that one would generally expect from one that currently serves just three island platforms. We need to look into its history and future intended purpose to understand why East Croydon station has acquired such a behemoth.
The need for a new footbridge
When it was opened East Croydon only had one entrance. This was at the south end of the station on the road overbridge. By the end of the last century, however, increasing levels of passenger traffic resulted in the traditional station buildings being replaced by a very modern structure. The wider passageways which resulted were sufficient for the levels of demand in the 1990s and from the modern booking hall there were, and still are, three quite steep ramps leading to each island platform – technically step-free, but not disabled friendly by any means.
One of the ramps down to the subway shortly after decommissioning
To make interchange between the three island platforms easier there was also, for many years, a subway with ramps up from it to the platforms. The ramps were necessary as they permitted direct access to the platforms from the Royal Mail sorting office next to the station, which had its own subway that linked up with the one belonging to the station. In the days when a lot of mail went by rail the sight of mail sorting bags on trolleys at East Croydon was a regular occurrence.
General overview of Masterplan area showing new footbridge
By the start of 21st century passenger numbers had grown to such an extent that it became clear that neither the entrance nor the subway would remain fit for purpose for much longer. In 2011 a solution to this problem was finally revealed. The proposal was to replace the subway with a footbridge which would of course be wider. To ensure that this major interchange station had user-friendly disabled access the footbridge would also have lifts to each platform. What it wouldn’t have was escalators – or even one escalator per platform. With the benefit of hindsight and modern attitudes this does seem a bit shortsighted given the fact that the stairs are quite challenge for anyone not fully fit.
The stairs between footbridge and platform
The height of the resulting overbridge, as with all recent overbridges, has to allow for potential overhead electrification. The stairs each consist of three equal flights of steps with a short flat area between each one. A crude observation when a train is in the platform suggests that without the requirement to allow for the overhead wire only two of the flights would have been necessary.
And the need for a new entrance
An interchange footbridge might solve the problem of the capacity constraint of people interchanging but of course it would do nothing to reduce the capacity constraint on the original station entrance. This is where the benefits came from looking at the bigger picture. Many people were going to Croydon town centre, yet the route via the existing station entrance was needlessly long. By making a direct route available via a new entrance at the end of the footbridge, it was realised that not only would passengers would have a shorter and more pleasant walking route to the shops but this would also, very conveniently, take some of the pressure off the existing entrance.
… and a new platform
Those who have read the previous instalment in this series will be aware of the need for a new platform at East Croydon. Whilst it might seem obvious to build this and the footbridge at the same time, the need for better interchange facilities was too urgent. Especially as long term plans involving new platforms might never come to fruition. In the end it was decided to push ahead with the interchange work, but to do so with passive provision for a new platform in place.
2011 and plans are revealed
Whilst there clearly had been earlier discussions between various interested parties, “stakeholders” as we are now supposed to call them, it was only in 2011 that there was really any public inkling that the game was afoot. In 2011 Croydon Council and Network Rail both published their plans. Curiously they were very different.
Network Rail aims low
In 2011 Network Rail published their Route specification plan for Sussex. In it on page 8 they state:
East Croydon has six platforms and during the peak operates close to theoretical capacity with 36 peak direction services passing through in the high peak hour, 20 Fast line and 16 Slow line. With just three Fast line platforms available at the station, it is clear that even the eventual advent of ERTMS [European Rail Traffic Management System] will leave it difficult to squeeze additional Fast line services through the station.
For this reason the footprint for an additional track and platform has been protected by Network Rail on the Fast line side of the station, and this would need to be allied with an additional track between here and Windmill Bridge Junction and further grade separation at the junction to ensure a significant number of additional paths were created in this area. All of these interventions are outside CP5 timescales as a programme of train lengthening is anticipated to cater for growth in the medium term.
Now this is open to interpretation but note that they only refer to an additional track and platform in the singular. In fact this was the original plan. Incredible though it is to relate, Network Rail were actually thinking of having just one extra side platform to the west of the station. This does seem surprising as even the average commuter with no specialist railway knowledge could work out that having platforms 0 and 1 for up fast services and platforms 2 and 3 for down fast services where platforms 1 and 2 together form an island platform would create massive problems and be hugely unpopular.
Perhaps more surprising still, no reference was given to the issue of how this new platform was going to be accessed. In Network Rail’s eyes this was probably considered to be a minor detail. Possibly, they just thought in terms of extending the existing subway. There certainly didn’t seem to see the need for a major revamp of the station let alone to grasp the opportunity to make the station more easily accessible from the town centre.
Perhaps we push the point too far (the quote did, after all, come out of a route plan document) but the apparent failure of Network Rail to see the bigger picture in instances such as this is, its critics argue, symptomatic of Network Rail’s blinkered vision. It is hard to imagine TfL looking at the same issue and deciding to only do the minimum necessary to solve the immediate operational problem. “Customer Focus” appears to be lacking. To (perhaps mis-)quote Assembly Member Val Shawcross, “the trouble with Network Rail they think they are in the business of running trains when, in fact, they are in the business of moving passengers”.
The site for the potential new island platform
Unfortunately, Network Rail’s short-termism had a very real impact beyond the page. Expanding the station would require land and theoretically this should not have been a problem as Network Rail owned it. But their plan required less of it than they currently held and they thus internally safeguarded only enough of the site to the west of the station for a single platform. The rest was sold off.
Croydon Council aims high
As mentioned above, Network Rail were not the only body with clear ideas as to what should be done at East Croydon. In March 2011, before the publication of Network Rail’s Route Specification Plan, Croydon Council published their East Croydon Masterplan. This showed East Croydon with eight platforms (four island ones) that would be arranged, very sensibly, as Fast Up (pair), Fast Down (pair), Slow Up (pair), Slow Down (pair). The footbridge was shown in the context of the wider renewal of the town, with a second station entrance leading to the town centre via a new high quality pedestrian route.
The Masterplan didn’t stop at a second entrance. Recognising how much of a barrier the railway was for access from one side of the line to the other, the opportunity was taken to add on an unpaid (public access) area footbridge to the paid area (railway passengers) in order to enable people living on the eastern side of East Croydon to get to the town centre without having to go the long way round by road. This would be especially critical as many high rise tower blocks were planned in the vicinity of the station and a direct route to the town centre would be highly desirable.
The Council plan is chosen
Details of the negotiations between Network Rail and Croydon Council are not in the public domain but it is fairly reasonable to presume that, their eyes opened to the possibilities, Network Rail could now see the advantages of having a new island platform rather than a single side one. Indeed it wouldn’t be surprising if Network Rail had, by then, already come to the same conclusion. Fortunately the lack of additional land for this turned out not to be crucial and probably Network Rail had worked out that, if necessary, they could get an extra island platform in with a bit of reworking of one of the existing platforms. It may well be that, given the price of land around East Croydon, they did the right thing by selling off as much as they dared. Nevertheless it is a sobering thought that, given the extensive railway land that used to exist in central Croydon, Network Rail and its predecessors now have scarcely enough for the station that East Croydon really needs for the immediate future. Selling off land the railway no longer needs is perfectly reasonable, but erring on the side of caution should very much be the norm in working out what “unnecessary” means.
One feature of the council plans that appears not to have subsequently been implemented is the proposed green roof for the platforms awnings. These roofs are currently being upgraded with extensive use of glass which should reduce the slightly dark feel that the platforms currently have – and certainly will have if they become surrounded by high rise buildings.
A costly exercise
Time lapse video of bridge construction including push launch
It turns out that railway footbridges don’t come cheap by the time one takes into account materials, the difficultly of construction over a live railway and the provision of lifts and ticket gates. Indeed it is fortunate that East Croydon is designed to be able to be operated as half a station during quieter times (either platforms 1,2 and 3 or platforms 4, 5 and 6). This allowed preparatory work to be carried out on Sundays by implementing a slightly reduced timetable. Even so, the generally quoted cost for the footbridge was £20 million. Of this Croydon Council provided £6 million and this is generally regarded as the amount necessary to cover the additional cost of the unpaid area. TfL is reported to have paid £4.4 million towards the cost, though there does not seem to be any obvious reason why they should have had to do so. The rest of the bill was covered by Network Rail.
The bridge to nowhere
The new western entrance showing “the bridge to nowhere” on the right
The £20 million mentioned not only covers the cost of the bridge itself but, presumably, includes the current steps up to it from the western entrance. The pedestrian route from the nearby road which has been built to a high standard of urban design was provided by the developers of the adjacent sites. The steps down on the eastern side, which have been dubbed “Cherry Orchard Steps”, are due to be completed by a developer of the site to the east of the station. The plans are not clear but it appears that this will only lead to the public access (unpaid area) bridge. Anyone who in future wishes to enter the station from the east will probably need to double back upon reaching the western end of the bridge.
Unfortunately, the developer who will build the Cherry Orchard Steps has no obligation to build these steps and the two linking footpaths prior to completing their development and clearly has no incentive to do so. This is very frustrating for the council. They even explored the option of putting in temporary steps and footpaths in the meantime but a suggested cost of £2 million quickly put them off. As well as the obvious epithet of the bridge to nowhere, the situation, which involves works carried out under the Connected Croydon banner, has, inevitably, been referred to as Unconnected Croydon.
Now and the near future
The railway-side footbridge itself is complete and has been so for well over a year now. Whilst not quite as convenient and direct as the subway, it is hard to see how the subway could have continued to cope with the number of people using East Croydon station. The lifts are very popular yet, as always, there are people who struggle up the steps with suitcases who probably didn’t realise the lifts were there.
New entrance
The approach to the new entrance as one comes from the town centre
The new entrance opened in December 2013 and was an instant success. It is well used. There is no ticket office but that does not appear to be a huge problem. Ultimately there will be a more direct pedestrian route from the new entrance to the original entrance for anyone who cannot, or choses not to, use the ticket machines. The route to the town centre (and hence the new entrance) will probably be even more popular when the shopping centre is redeveloped and a pedestrian crossing installed to enable people to cross the busy Wellesley Road without using the subway – but that is another story for another day.
The ancillary work to transform East Croydon station is not complete but is due to be finished this summer. It mainly involves upgrading the platforms. In due course, as developers get their developments built and become liable to complete their section 106 obligations, the work surrounding the station will also, hopefully, largely be completed.
Provision for the new island platform
When the footbridge was being built it was made clear that provision had been made for the potential future island platform. This is true but slightly misleading. The bridge was actually designed with provision for a future side platform and single extra track. Unfortunately, as it is, it cannot accommodate an extra island platform and two extra tracks. Whilst for most of the length the safeguarded site would appear to have sufficient width that is not the case for all of it. It is by no means certain that funding will be given for the extra island platform but, should that happen, an extra island platform can be fitted in providing the adjacent island platform is shifted along a bit. This, fortunately, can be done as at the most constrained point there is still a larger than necessary gap between the current platforms 2 and 3 where there was once an additional track.
A problem appears if one were to shift the current island platform 1/2 to the east. At best the existing steps and lift will at located too close to the platform edge and at worst actually in the future trackbed. This is not a fundamental problem and the steps and lift can be rebuilt. This will be quite expensive but not much in the context of the other works necessary to have an new island platform and extra track to the north of the station.
The large gap between platforms 2 and 3
One may wonder why the existing platforms were not suitably realigned for provision of a future platform at the same time as when the bridge was built. It is hard to be sure but an obvious reason is that the extra island platform is not yet funded and it may not happen. However, if Gatwick were to acquire an extra runway, it is hard to imagine that the work would not go ahead. Another possible reason for not altering the platform in advance of the bridge construction may be that with all the Thameslink work going on it was felt that this work on top would be just too disruptive. As it is, the work, if it goes ahead, is unlikely to start until the 2020s which is well after the Thameslink Programme will have been completed.
Platform shuffle
Sequence of stages required to construct new island platform and modify and adjacent one
As is obvious from a sequence of diagrams in the Croydon Masterplan document, the practical problem of building the new platforms, modifying one of the existing ones and slewing track over appears to have been considered and a complex plan has evolved to make this possible without too much disruption to passengers. The concept is similar in principle to what happens to the Southeastern lines through London Bridge but is a lot easier to implement when you are increasing, rather than decreasing, the number of working platforms. Unfortunately there is nothing to indicate that these diagrams originated from Network Rail. Maybe they are just the musings of one of the people who put together the East Croydon Masterplan.
The long term future
If things go to plan then there won’t be any future space for further expansion
As many readers know, Network Rail plans are based on five year control periods. The current period up to 2019 is really about the Thameslink Programme as far as this region of Network Rail is concerned. Assuming the money is forthcoming, the next period (2019-2024) will centre on East Croydon and it is then that we may see the extra island platform built. Once that is complete, then the only way that East Croydon station can really expand is downwards. It must be hoped that with two entrances, a wide footbridge and eight platforms a future East Croydon station will be able to handle the passengers using it for many years to come. With East Croydon sorted one can then look at the Brighton Main Line as a whole and see what other capacity improvements can be made.
As ever another interesting article.
What it doesn’t mention is that the new footbridge is a mess in the wet. It is open to the elements at the side allowing rain to sweep in even though there is a roof. Whether that explains the lifts sometimes failing is for an electrical engineer.
The footbridge, and exit, is also about three coaches further north than the old subway at about coach seven of a southbound eight coach train and coach eight of a twelve coach one (the twelve coach stop board is further south then the 4-8 coach board). This has a number of effects.
1. Passengers who need to change at East Croydon are now, particularly on eight coach trains staying at the back, whereas previously they moved further forward. There seems to me to be more overcrowding towards the back of trains now – previously the forward subway and even further forward exit pushed passengers in the know towards the front of the train, so avoiding some of the 150 passengers on the last coach and none on the first phenomenon that is seen elsewhere (eg with trains for Lewisham).
2. For the mobile the one minute connection that was possible running down the subway and back up to platform 6 is no longer possible.
3. For the less mobile the footbridge places passengers, on all platforms, into an area with no awning. The subway was completely under cover. Together with the rain getting in as mentioned above the passenger experience, at least for me, is less good the the admittedly dingy subway provided.
4. Many trains on platforms 5 and 6 are four coaches. The footbridge now places passengers about three coaches away from the rear of a four coach train, making the connection less get-able, plus of course a longer walk, in the wet.
So while I can see why things have been done the new way I don’t think it is the best passenger experience possible.
The idea that the footbridge is an improvement for passengers changing trains is optimistic to say the least. Try getting from a four coach southbound train on platform 4 to an allegedly connecting service on platform 6. In the old days you could be under the subway on on the next train in a matter of seconds. Now, because the stairs point away towards the north you have to sprint some yards from the back of the train you got off, double back up the stairs, back down and double back again at the other end to see two red lights disappearing into the Purley-bound gloom. All the while you are dodging people coming the other way due to narrow platform space and obstructed by those with cases and kids, and the less able struggling up the stairs. The lifts are less than reliable.
In 35 years of using East Croydon, many of those years daily, I have never known the subway to be overcrowded or inconvenient. That now been replaced by something extraordinarily impractical and inconvenient. I remain convinced that no-one was looking when the design consultants did their powerpoint presentation and the project was rubber stamped.
@nickD. Great minds think alike!
In a place like Croydon with tall buildings doing funny things with the wind, it’s essential to have canopies and weather-protection that can cope with the unpredictable. I fear that in the current mania for lengthening trains, very little thought has gone into the serious issue of protecting passengers from bad weather. The practical operational result will be excessive dwell times during periods of heavy rain, with timekeeping suffering as the follow-on consequence.
I am far from a regular user of East Croydon but have done the “subway shuffle” in the past. I found it convenient to use and quick when in a hurry. While I recognise there was a risk of people being “silly” in how they used it it seems to be a backwards step to have got rid of it. I’ve not used the new entrance or bridge but am surprised it is “open sided” which seems mad. It’s also a pretty shoddy design when you’ve forked out £20m!
One thing that’s not clear to me is if the “unpaid” walkway to link east to west actually exists now or is to be added to the bridge later. I note the nonsense about the developer of the “Mental” (hah!) Tower refusing to cough up the money and Croydon Council feeling “obliged” to put in a 15 year temporary (!) link bridge. If they aren’t careful they’ll end up with a temporary entrance like Walthamstow Central that’s still there nearly 40 years on.
The exit is great for the town centre but I agree with others about the difficulties in doing the 3 to 6 or 4 to 1 sprint. It can still be done but the steps mean you potentially have an extra 100m to run and I’m no Usain bolt and that extra 20 or so seconds can be the differences between throwing yourself through the doors and a cold 10 minute wait for the next purley train.
I have to agree with Robert and Nick the new footbridge is a massive retrograde step. Not only is it dangerous and slippery in the wet. Trying to get to it from the middle of the train with the stairs facing the wrong direction against the flow of passengers making there way to the main entrance. Signage is extremely bad as well and both it plus the passenger information screens are so small you need to be right up to them to read.
I used to be able to catch quick connections via the excellent subway, now the awkward stairs are adding to the crossing time so I miss trains and get rewarded with long waits. Hopefully they will see their error and add South facing stairs.
Why they didn’t complete the East Croydon works before forcing hundreds of extra passengers to change at ECR due to cutting of London Bridge trains I’ll never understand.
It is hard to imagine TfL looking at the same issue and deciding to only do the minimum necessary to solve the immediate
Presumably the subway is still there, boxed in? Will it get revived in a few years like the disused subways at Stratford and Finsbury Park?
A single additional platform still appears to have been an option as late as last year
“Scheme providing an additional 1 or 2 platforms under development.”
p22 of NR’s – Brighton Main Line Emerging Capacity Strategy for CP6 Pre-Route Study Report for DfT (2014)
Platform rebuilding sequence – I had long wondered where that came from as I was dubious as to how it could work in practice (unless only operating using 5 platforms) doing it with that sequence.
Having done some quick sketches on a 1:2500 OS map I would suggest the following might be the way to do it and keep 6 platforms open:
Step 0 Renumber P3-6 as P5-8
Step 1+2 as per master plan
Step 3 Construct new track 1 and P1/2 island [conveniently the full width of P1+2 will be constructable]. Slew alignment etc to bring new P1 into action.*
Step 4 Demolish canopy over the existing P1/2 island, Remove lift and steps on the new footbridge. cut back old P1 face so the so the new P3 edge is approximately along the centre line of the current P1/2 island along the canopied part.
Step 5 Bring new P2 into use (track could be the old track 1 as it may hardly have to move in places).
Step 6 take existing P2 out of use, demolish ramp, slew track 2 (new4) to the east in the “gap” where there used to be 1/2 tracks (sidings and through road for steam locomotive swaps and watering) between existing track 2 and 3.
Construct new P3/4 island, ramp to South entrance and
newrelocated lift and steps to northern footbridge footbridge.Step 7 Bring new P3/4 into use.
*Obviously at some points will need to be addressed between stages at time as well.
Prerequisites would probably involve having the extra track(s) to Windmill Bridge Jn completed first.
Given how escalators have developed and are now standard fittings in many shops I fail to see why they are not included as standard on projects like this whose main aim to to move people .
In fact the presence of escalators would surely aid those on here needing to change platforms as they would have their speed and speed of escalators to reduce interchange times .
As for running costs of escalators well at Canary Wharf they have the new style escalators that slow down and just tick over when empty but speed up to normal speed once someone boards the escalators !
This question of future platforms and need for more capacity begs the question as to whether any non stop through lines not platform served could be squeezed into current layout ?
I fail to see why the new bridge is not weather proof especially given we now have new materials as used on the new Canary Wharf Shopping Centre above the Crossrail Station due to open on Friday and Birmingham New a Street Station . This seems to be penny pinching which ends up costing pounds to fix in the longer term !
From the photos, it looks very Heath-Robinson. And no escalators! It’s all very well saying use the lifts, but with busy trains this can mean waiting for some time, as families and other groups fill them up (as they should).
Yep – another ergonomic disaster in the style of Farringdon.
@Melvyn – “As for running costs of escalators well at Canary Wharf they have the new style escalators that slow down and just tick over when empty but speed up to normal speed once someone boards the escalators!” – Well, they were new style all over Germany – but back in the 1960’s on railed transport systems, or at least a variant of that was, where they actually stopped when empty. Have a look to see if the name “Schindler” features on the tread plates at the tops and bottoms of those Canary Wharf escalators. I bet it does. They have known the technology for decades and I can only think that there must have been a regulation preventing operation of them over here until now. Why, they even run out up to pavement level from U-Bahn systems into the snow/leaves, whatever, rather than leave that final flight of steps so common over here!
Related to that, I would love to know what the power consumption has been of running all those empty escalators at full pelt for much of the day at City Thameslink over the years.
It’s ironic that the new Reading bridge is mentioned here, especially with the part 7 article highlighting that Reading only has 2/3 the train movements of East Croydon. How do the passenger numbers compare?
The new Reading bridge – and the scheme in general – is everything the work East Croydon should be but isn’t.
Paddington has been another recent disappointment from NR, with platform 12 an ugly conflicted mess of commuters running for trains and taxi rank users struggling with luggage, plus the incredible achievement of making the Hammersmith line station more awkward to access than it already was.
@WW – The only clash in the subway tended to be in the morning peaks if things were up the creek and e.g. folk were turfed off one platform because the incoming train was for London Bridge instead of Victoria so they had to make their way to another platform, whilst another lot on that other platform were expecting a London Bridge train and were told that the next one was for Victoria, so they’d best make their way to the platform where the London Bridge train was coming in! If that still happens now, I foresee a few heart attacks using those footbridge stairs.
The only other problem with the subway was that there was a slight dip in it that tended to collect rainwater if the drainage was blocked. Apart all that, it worked fine over the ‘countless’ years I used it and was far quicker than climbing and descending the ramps at the front (south) end of the station.
The “unpaid” walkway to link east to west actually exists now but is blocked out of use as you cannot exit the east side. Described here:
http://www.southernelectric.org.uk/features/infrastructure/east-croydon/ecr08.html
Note the final comment!
The bridge actually follows the line of route of a rejected draft proposal for Croydon’s Tramlink connecting West and Central Croydon with the station and Addiscombe. The logic behind that, strange to relate, was to relieve the pressure at the main, south entrance to the station! Instead of the footbridge, one would have had a glamorous tramway interchange over the railway. Now, they are proposing a relief tramway extension to run in Dingwall Road beside the railway to meet up with the west end of the footpath leading to the footbridge…
I believe the reason escalators are sometimes run slowly in “standby” rather than stopped completely is to indicate what direction they’re set to run in.
I’ve seen the full stopped standby on the continent as well, presumably they just expect people to respect the colour signals at each end of the escalator, and if anyone steps on it at the wrong end it will slowly start pushing them backwards?
Escalators exposed to the elements seem to crop up on the continent as well, something else we seem intent on avoiding in London.
P.S. PoP says: “TfL is reported to have paid £4.4 million towards the cost, though there does not seem to be any obvious reason why they should have had to do so.”
In view of what I have just said regarding the Dingwall Road Tramlink work, I wonder whether that has something to do with it.
@T’Other Paul
Indeed, a colleague working in Stockholm related to me her surprise with their Metro’s escalators open to the snow and rain, whilst ours in Toronto (and as in London) never do. Her Stockholm experience (not a Syndrome) was that the escalators were actually in use more than the weather sheltered ones in Toronto!
Further to the slowing/stopping escalators, in one Toronto subway station a slowing escalator was used for a few years (covered from the elements of course!) but replaced with a standard, one speed one, as it was found that the slowing escalator required considerably more maintenance, more than offsetting the electricity savings…
@The Other Paul – I was told that less current is used if the escalators run slowly in standby mode rather than stopping and then starting from standstill. I’m not entirely convinced. The way Schindler do it with one of their models is to stop a slow-running escalator (perhaps “dawdling” is a better term) if there have been no people at all on the escalator and it has been dawdling for a pre-set period of time.
If somebody steps on the treadle at the other end of an escalator set to run in the opposite direction, then it simply won’t run. On the other hand, if the escalator is automatically reversible, as I have also seen on short escalator rises in mainland Europe and Japan, it all depends on who steps on their respective treadle plate first and the direction indicators change accordingly as the escalator starts up!
The point is that there are no escalators at all at East Croydon, the stairs face the wrong way and the platform canopies do not extend as far as the footbridge, so that, for all sorts of reasons but especially when it is bucketing down, the footbridge as a platform exchange medium is less useful than the covered ramps at the main entrance end of the station, whilst the subway is missed for such purpose.
A bit off-topic although alluded to in the article: the future of the Brighton Main Line.
Why not a high-speed tunnel from a central London terminal (not necessarily Victoria) to somewhere south of Coulsdon, linking in to the Quarry Line.
Expensive I know, but the capacity constraints in London and the South East coupled with predicted population and economic growth forecasts seems to be demanding expensive solutions.
Usual excellent article, well done.
I haven’t used East Croydon regularly since the 1980’s, but can relate to the comments above, which, unusually for this site, are almost wholly negative. It’s obvious that no one thought through how East Croydon is used as an interchange, or they would have retained and modernised the subway which I too have used in the way other commentators have described. Now the die has been cast, I dont see a cheap way out. However, if Croydon does develop, I would buy a new station though an over station development. The circulating area would be immediately above the platforms with escalators, stairs and lifts down to the platforms, and entrances to Dingwall Road, Cherry Orchard Road, and the existing entrance on the road/tram bridge. Then the tower block(s) could be on top!
@Julian W
“A bit off-topic although alluded to in the article: the future of the Brighton Main Line.
Why not a high-speed tunnel from a central London terminal (not necessarily Victoria) to somewhere south of Coulsdon, linking in to the Quarry Line.”
Oi! That was my idea. Got discussed on the bakerloo article and got stopped by the owners because someone used the “crayon” word.
For what it is worth… It is an excellent idea. It would be only 2km longer than the existing Stratford International to St Pancras tunnel I use everyday.
I’ll be using the footbridge in about 5 min. It is open to the elements, the lifts are badly signposted on the platforms and the on bridge indicators are very small. But it opens the north end of the platforms to Croydon and ends the horrible crush for me at the old station entrance.
And it cuts my commute by 5 mins at each end so that’s an overall win for me.
Re Julian W and Briantist
Victoria (southern) is fairly full so you would probably end up having to build a new underground station and/or Crossrail scheme as well to cope with all the trains that could go through the tunnel. Longer distance “Southern” services will get a significant capacity boost from Thameslink in the short term.
Much cheaper (and quicker) to sort East Croydon and Windmill Bridge Jn etc. which will add a bit of extra capacity and well as extra resilience and journey time reduction for all the existing services. (Joureny time reduction will also improve passenger capacity overall)
With population growth occurring within London it might be better to focus any crossrail scheme on Victoria Southern Metro services which might relieve the A23 corridor and the huge number of buses on it that will struggle to be increased further?
@Graham F
“On the other hand, if the escalator is automatically reversible, as I have also seen on short escalator rises in mainland Europe and Japan, it all depends on who steps on their respective treadle plate first and the direction indicators change accordingly as the escalator starts up!”
I encountered one of these at Rotterdam Centraal earlier this month. And it rose to pavement level too.
To comment on the some of the issues raised…
Protection from the elements
This is bad and was particularly noticeable in the wet winter we had a year ago. Yet it is clear the design allows for more enclosure. This is especially true on the overbridge itself where you can see in the first photo there is absolutely no structural reason why the glass cannot be continued down the entire length. Whether there are wind issues, as at Blackfriars, is another matter.
One may not like the design but it is not a cheapskate construction and the issue about the elements seems to be a minor one related to the amount of enclosure one chooses to do on the existing construction rather than any fundamental problem (similar to London Bridge terminating platforms).
Steps facing the wrong way
I think this needs to be looked at differently. The steps don’t face the wrong way. It is that some of the trains that are currently too short. One has to think long term.
When we have the class 700 Thameslink stock there will be very few short trains at East Croydon. Personally I think the spreading of passengers (helped by the better waiting rooms to the north of the platform) has improved considerably. There is also less bunching by the bottom of the ramps leading to the original entrance. I think one only has to go to Wimbledon to see that the arrangement at Croydon is not that bad.
Subway was perfectly adequate
This is the sort of comment that always irritates me because it shows a lack of foresight. Yes the subways were adequate but East Croydon has seen a massive increase in passengers. The point is that even if they could have just about coped with 2015 levels they wouldn’t have been able to do so in future – and certainly not if a second runway were to be built at Gatwick. Everyone here complains about the lack of planning for the future but want it both ways and then moan when the arrangements don’t suit them. Which leads on to …
Interchange Takes Longer
None of us likes this but get over it. As passenger numbers rise it becomes necessary to spread the load and have more buffer space. We got complaints about Paddington (Hammersmith & City) and no doubt when London Bridge is completed we will get them about mainline/tube interchange. This is going to be a necessary evil of modern life as the railway has to move more passengers.
Reuse the subways
Not a chance. Although the subway appears to be still there, the ramps have been infilled and the lifts are now located where they were.
Add south facing stairs
Cant do that without major redesign because:
a) that is where the lifts are
b) you have the problem of the unpaid area
Unpaid area exposed to the elements
When I first realised this a while ago I was rather disappointed but then I couldn’t really see much point in enclosing it if users would be exposed to the elements at each end. I suspect this may well be a policy decision so as not to attract homeless people congregating and using it as a place to sleep.
Through tracks
No point even if one could find space for them. The only reason trains are not timetabled to stop at East Croydon are because they are freight trains or Gatwick Express. I suspect even with Gatwick Express they would stop at East Croydon nowadays if the timetable could be accommodated to allow this. This may yet happen if the extra two platforms appear.
Tunnel from Coulsdon to central London
This was in fact the original plan in Network Rail’s Route Utilisation Study as reported in part 7. It was probably the long term nature of this that prompted a rethink of the arrangements at East Croydon and the junctions to the north of the station.
General
I think Anonymous 08:53 sums up the situation nicely. Those who are unhappy seem entirely to be existing interchange users. Putting it bluntly, it’s not all about you. For people who could really do with using a lift or for those that want to leave the station and go to the town centre the situation is a dramatic improvement.
@Briantist
“Why not a high-speed tunnel from a central London terminal (not necessarily Victoria) to somewhere south of Coulsdon, linking in to the Quarry Line.””
As others have commented, the logjam is terminal capacity. This is why Crossrail 2 is favoured over the alternative plan of a tunnel (or a fifth track on the surface) between Surbiton and Clapham Junction) A tunnel from Coulsdon to – say – Welwyn (Crossrail 4 – or maybe Thameslink 2) might work, but it will have to join the queue. Maybe with hindsight it would have been cheaper and less aggravating than the Thameslink-2000-and-counting project.
@ngh
“it might be better to focus any crossrail scheme on Victoria Southern Metro services ”
Surely removing the long-distance traffic would achieve this, by freeing up space on the existing network for more Metro services.
@poP
“There is also less bunching by the bottom of the ramps leading to the original entrance. I think one only has to go to Wimbledon to see that the arrangement at Croydon is not that bad.”
Quite so – East Croydon’s platform access, even before the new bridge, was far better than Wimbledon’s. Only one steep flight of steps to each of the five island platforms (Eight faces are in normal use, and a new bay is currently being added to platform 10. And unlike East Croydon, all trains and trams using five – soon to be six – of those faces terminate, so all passengers have to change trains – and, unless changing between Thameslink and tram, have to use the bridge).
The bottom of the steps less than five feet away from frequent fast-moving non-stop services on platforms 6 and 7. Desperate measures have included deliberately moving the stopping points for trains further towards the London end of the platforms, so that passengers congregate away from the steps (which, like EC’s main entrance, are at the extreme country end of the platforms), and fencing off platforms 6 and 7, reducing the flexibility of the station by making it almost impossible for trains to call at those platforms.
I’m sure a basic footbridge could be built for a lot less than £200m, even if it has to span five islands instead of EC’s three. During the accessibility upgrade works, perfectly serviceable temporary footbridges sprung up seemingly overnight at many stations
Constructing new bridges without matching canopies seems to be becoming a Network Rail habit.
At Newport South Wales the original Great Western buildings had long canopies on each platform connected by lifts/subways towards the middle. When a new station building and bridge was constructed at the West end of the station the canopy on platform 4, unlike the one on platform 2/3, wasn’t extended to meet it. In consequence a change from Inter City to local services often involves a walk in the pouring rain on platform 4.
Unfortunately there just seems to be an inability to design buildings that provide a pleasant experience for passengers.
Re Timbeau,
The 5 tracking would still occur Wimbledon – Clapham Jn even with CR2 happening. The current Clapham Memorial Bridge and associated works (rebuilding embankments and retaining walls between the 2 adjacent bridges) is 5 track ready with passive provision for a 6th.
A CR1/2 type clone (stopping services through cross Zone 1 tunnel) makes the most sense for a Southern Crossrail unless you go express tunnel to Victoria approaches for the Long distance services and CR tunnel from Victoria approaches to north of Marylebone / Baker Street / somewhere north of Z1…
Re Anonymous 28 April 2015 at 11:03
In the case of East Croydon all the canopies will be replaced at some point so why bother going for a “temporary” short term option (I’m sure the accountants won that argument)
Whilst the work done at Reading is by no means perfect (eg. poor signage, split ticket halls etc.), it is good example of National Rail, the TOC’s, the local authority and developers working together for a better solution. The contrast with East Croydon is rather startling – no escalators really beggars belief. Of course, the Reading scheme was a *lot* more expensive, but I wonder how much money will be wasted at East Croydon by making incremental changes to it over the next couple of decades.
Fandroid:
Winds from odd directions – like exactly contrary winds @ London Bridge, caused by vast eddies round the Shard, you mean?
I have been to East Croydon sevearal time since this halfway-good/two-thirds bad design opened.
I suspect I’ll giv it a miss if it’s raining & I need to go that way!
PoP
Subway – could still have been left open & have a (fully enclosed) footbridge, couldn’t it?
“Interchange takes longer” – you claim this is a necessary evil & quote the ghastly H&C platforms example @ Padders.
I venture to agree with the other Paul & disagree with you – again.
It adds to aggravation & frayed tempers, so not a good move, actually.
@ngh
“The 5 tracking would still occur Wimbledon – Clapham Jn even with CR2 happening. The current Clapham Memorial Bridge and associated works (rebuilding embankments and retaining walls between the 2 adjacent bridges) is 5 track ready with passive provision for a 6th”
Just because it’s been designed to allow eventual five- or even six-tracking does not mean there are definite plans to do it – note the clearance for overhead cables allowed for in the bridge at East Croydon. Plenty of other examples of future-proofing that never materialised – the over-long overrun Fleet Line tunnels at Charing Cross, the design of the old Hounslow Town MDR station all ready for a foray into Twickenham, the step plate junctions at South Kensington.
To return to the slow/standby escalator tangent:
One problem with escalators that stop completely to save money is that passengers may assume that the escalator simply isn’t working. I remember once at the very deep Botanique station on the Brussels Metro, seeing an elderly and obviously local woman reacting with horror to the stationary escalator and about to struggle up the long fixed staircase. It took me, the foreign tourist, to realise what was going on and start the escalator for her.
Greg,
I really cannot see that there was any practical way of keeping the subways open as well as having the bridge and the lifts. Both really need to be located at the widest point. Both the stairs and the ramps occupied/occupy a surprisingly large footprint.
Also with increasing numbers I am not sure that they would have wanted to keep the subway open – too much potential for ramp width worth of descending passengers meeting an equivalent number of ascending ones. The fact that an accident hasn’t happened in the past is no reason to be complacent.
You and I will always disagree about less convenient interchanges. With the sheer numbers of people around today I cannot see how we can safely have the very convenient interchanges of the past – something has to give. As for frayed tempers, most people manage to accept this without getting wound up by it.
I see myself agreeing with Greg for once. The design of this Bridge was not sensible and as they have filled in the Subways for supports then consideration for Southern direction stairs should have been allowed for. The other [main] exit with their long ramps are very inconvenient.
I do agree with the point about when the 12-coach 700’s start calling they will benefit. However the Tattenham branch will have 8-coach 700’s and I’d expect a proportion of the others will be 8-coach too so many shorter trains will still call. When you are tying to connect to/from 4 coach trains (which ours are much of the day) then both exits are in the wrong place.
I don’t agree with the argument that if there are more passengers then you have to have longer changing between platforms, I would have thought that if there are too many passengers changing then you add facilities to allow them to change faster – an extra footbridge perhaps for stations with longer trains like East Croydon. (Don’t start me on the inadequacies of exit options at West Brompton’s platform 4)
Lastly on my stations local rail users forum, East Croydon has become a hated station, the level of complaints are extraordinary. Forcing more people to change there during the London Bridge works when the station is half rebuilt with limited signage (especially as most have to change platforms) is a PR disaster
@Greg Tingey:
As conventional lifts require a pit area beneath the ground floor level, building these over the old ramps would have saved a lot of time and work.
Croydon is in a valley. Subways and their ilk require ongoing pumping, drainage and associated maintenance just to keep the water table from filling them up, so removing one of these from East Croydon station also has the advantage of reducing ongoing costs.
The reason the station feels half-done is because it is.
Re Anomnibus (Lewisham People’s Front [Catford Branch]) 28 April 2015 at 14:14 “The reason the station feels half-done is because it is.”
Probably more like a quarter or a third hence to early to pass judgement.
If the non 12 car stop markers are moved further north for northbound services interchanging via the new footbridge will make much more sense for those passengers (and possibly help reduce platforms reoccupation times for short services due to interlocking issues?)
We (or NR and/or TfL) obviously need a “Footbridge Crayonista”
Not mentioned so far is that the bridge offers a straight(ish) route to West Croydon Station, particularly the new entrance/exit on Platform 4. There are no signs of course, but anyone with a map or a knowledge of Croydon will work out that it can be walked in six or seven minutes.
The stopping trains from Victoria to West Croydon and Sutton are not evenly spaced. They are grouped within ten minutes around the hour and half-hour, leaving two 20 minute gaps. If one has just missed the last stopper of a group, it is possible to catch a fast to East Croydon, walk the link to West Croydon and catch that very same stopper!
The walkway from the bridge to Dingwall Road is beginning to attract ‘events’. On April 23rd (St George’s Day) it was host to morris dancers, dragons, a stilt walker and various food stalls. I forsee pressure to have a roof put over the walkway and a ‘covered market’ to spring up.
RayL 28 April 2015 at 15:09
“Not mentioned so far is that the bridge offers a straight(ish) route to West Croydon Station, particularly the new entrance/exit on Platform 4. There are no signs of course, but anyone with a map or a knowledge of Croydon will work out that it can be walked in six or seven minutes.”
Should provide a good backup for getting to Gatwick tomorrow morning if Southern cancel any of the few services connecting Norwood Jn and East Croydon in the very early am peak (has only run to plan once of 5 times tried to so far in 2015). I’ve previously always jogged with laptop ruck sack from West Croydon to the main entrance at East Croydon just because I know that route (too well) and wasn’t going to risk attempting a new route in a hurry. The West Croydon P4 entrance as sometimes been closed early in the morning with only the main entrance open.
The footbridge is quite frankly a nightmare for commuters. The subway provided a far simpler, quicker and easier means of getting between platforms for persons of all ability. Now passengers with pushchairs or heavy luggage, wheelchair users and bike users queue up for the single lift.
My understanding is that this £20m footbridge, far from being necessary to passengers or the eventual increase in capacity here, is linked with the Westfield development as it will provide access to the shopping centre, much as is the case with the bridge at Stratford. To add insult to injury the tram line is now going to be extended around the shopping centre in the guise of an “upgrade” but really another sop to Westfield.
I started changing (Southern > Thameslink) at Haywards Heath instead but now they’re building an enormous footbridge there as well…
It predates the Hammersfield scheme, but it was built for the benefit of two earlier schemes. For a bit background see
http://insidecroydon.com/2012/07/05/unconnected-croydon-and-the-20m-footbridge-to-nowhere/
I like “Seamless and efficient interchange space”
@Anomnibus (Lewisham People’s Front [Catford Branch])
I spoke to a Manager at East Croydon about 6 months ago, and was assured that whilst the slopes are infilled, the actual subway below the tracks is still there and is accessed by lift. Regrettably, I cannot recollect what the subway is used for, but it obviously has to be kept dry.
Steven Taylor,
That would explain why the lift shafts are so deep. I had wondered about this. I suspect it is/will be a very useful cable route. That is what these things usually end up as.
@ Melvyn – the issue with escalators is that they need space in the platform and bridge structure for machinery and also sufficient run off space because you are depositing people off a moving step to solid ground. All of this costs money and I strongly suspect there was no appetite to incur such expenditure at East Croydon given some of the platforms may be realigned and because there’s no “vision” to make the station substantially more attractive and effective for its users.
@ PoP – I am afraid I found your long list of “reasons” rather like a tedious list of excuses from Network Rail and Property Developers. Things like weather proofing, canopies and the volume of circulating space all spring from a basic principle of how you want to treat your customers. If you don’t really care or you just think that because they’ll only be on your property for an average low number of minutes then you don’t believe a quality solution is the right thing to do so you don’t bother. I haven’t used East Croydon since the bridge was opened so have no direct experience of it but the photos of it plus all the comments here show that we’re a very long way from something that is satisfactory *now*. There may very well be a long term vision of what the place will look like when Croydon is eventually revamped but that’s no reason to allow people to get rained on, frozen stiff and have to use ill considered infrastructure. It could well be somewhere between 15-25 years before the “vision” (or nightmare depending on your view) of Skyscraper Croydon in the last picture of the article is achieved. Do we really think it’s correct that people are left with a third or half finished station for that period of time? I certainly don’t if you are correct (no reason to doubt you btw) about booming passenger numbers and growing congestion now.
When the Dutch decide to rebuild their stations they do it properly with wide platforms, big circulating areas, lifts and escalators and everything else. Why on earth we can’t emulate that I don’t know. If we genuinely have a growing railway then there are far more people now and in the future to whom benefits will accrue over the life span of a substantive investment such as in stations. I am left wondering whether business cases are correctly considering this increase.
For those wondering about TfL’s funding of the bridge it is possible that it is TfL local borough grant funding that Croydon Council receives from TfL each year but it is the council who decides what it gets spent on. I’m doubtful that TfL would otherwise directly fund a bridge at East Croydon.
Walthamstow Writer,
I am trying to objectively report on what is going on. Where people raise issues that could have an explanation other than the one provided or a different viewpoint or what they are saying simply can’t be done or is impractical I try and say so. You give the impression that I appear to you as some kind of Council/Network Rail lackey giving their excuses. I would like to think that not once have I given a personal opinion on what I think about this. I am quite sure you have very little idea what my personal opinion is. I will merely say I have not spelt it out because it would smack of crayonista/stationista.
Reading the article, and the comments, it would appear to be a bit string of bad planning, no foresight, Network Rail still living in the 60s, and easily annoyed commuters.
I’ve used the bridge. It’s a bit crappy to climb all the stairs, and the lifts are incredibly badly signposted.
In addition the display boards on the bridge are absolutely tiny! You can barely read them unless you are standing right by them. Whoever bought them should be fired.
The sell off of land that would have made things a lot simpler in the end is stupid, and Network Rail in a nutshell.
This ‘mania’ for footbridges is a blight on the travelling public. The new ones at both New Cross and New Cross Gate are vertiginous and daunting for someone like me who has to grip the hand rail and creep down the stairs for fear of falling headlong to the bottom. I am an infrequent user of East Croydon station, but always found the incline up and down to the platforms much easier to negotiate and if necessary, I could break into a run for the incoming train. These days having more leisure and less money, I tend to travel by bus and tram to Croydon so won’t be forced to use the new footbridge.
Re Sykobee 28 April 2015 at 18:01
“and easily annoyed commuters.”
Have you been reading today’s Evening Standard?
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/london-commuters-are-more-stressed-than-those-in-any-major-european-city-10209190.html
@WW – one reason why nothing is done at NR stations compared with TfL ones is that the methods of appraisal are different. With TfL stations, ease of movement is part of the investment case because TfL put a value on the whole journey time. NR appraisal doesn’t do this: individual elements, such as escalators are only included if they can be shown to have a positive business effect(or NR can persuade a developer to bankroll them as part of the price for getting the office space or whatever). In the case of East Croydon, we had certainly identified it in NSE days as a target for redevelopment and would have expected the developers to pay for escalators and other improvements, although the engineers were cautious as to whether the escalators could be accommodated easily without shifting the existing raft further south. At that time- c1993 – the estimated value of any rafting over office block was c£80m – thought to give us a comfortable margin to upgrade the station. In happier times, surely one of the BR priorities.
@PoP- “Subway was perfectly adequate” – You proceed to demolish this argument without considering that the subway could have been widened or duplicated.
“Add south facing stairs – Can’t do that without major redesign because: a) that is where the lifts are; b) you have the problem of the unpaid area”
OK, agree without major redesign but that’s not the point, is it? It should have been designed better in the first place. For example, the footbridge could have been widened in the paid area above the platforms (a) to accommodate a landing to south-facing stairs that would pass beneath the unpaid path of the bridge before descending to platform level, whilst (b) still accommodating the lifts.
The foot of today’s north-facing stairs cannot be far short of only 4 cars from the end of the platform, so not exactly designed for an even spread throughout even of full-length trains.
In short, it appears that, notwithstanding the great advantage of linking Central Croydon’s offices and shops in an improved way, a grave error has been made in not taking very seriously the platform interchange traffic, which, so far, is still greater than those actually using the entrance (I judge that from standing in the evening peak at the Dingwall & Lansdowne Roads intersection whilst chatting to my old office companions and watching the somewhat meagre flow of folk on the footpath leading to the bridge).
I know that the station platform canopies and facilities below are to be replaced (again) but nowhere have I yet seen any design that shows them to extend as far as the footbridge stairs.
I like your comment referring to the ‘waiting rooms’! Even Southern recognised the vast inconvenience of the inadequate shelters formerly provided near the north end of the platforms but their replacements are hardly waiting rooms in the traditional sense.
@Anomnibus – “Croydon is in a valley. Subways and their ilk require ongoing pumping, drainage and associated maintenance just to keep the water table from filling them up” – But the East Croydon area is not at the bottom of that valley; the underground watercourses from that area flow down towards the Old Town and the River Wandle.
“The rest was sold the rest off.” – Interrupted while editing, perhaps.
[Oops. Corrected. Thanks PoP]
@RayL
“Not mentioned so far is that the bridge offers a straight(ish) route to West Croydon Station, particularly the new entrance/exit on Platform 4. There are no signs of course, but anyone with a map or a knowledge of Croydon will work out that it can be walked in six or seven minutes”
There are places (St Pancras, I’m looking at you) where interchanges within the same station take longer than that.
(Is E/W Croydon an OSI?)
East Croydon was my normal station for many many years and the closest once Addiscombe closed. (i.e. these comments are written from the perspective of someone who almost never changed trains there). I’m with the critics on this one. I much prefer subways to footbridges because the footbridges have to be so high. The new one at East Croydon is a fine example of this. The lack of weather protection on it is unforgivable in England. It’s in completely the wrong place on the platform for anything other than a 12 car train. If you look at platform 1, even 8 car trains now stop a long way up the platform from the bottom of the ramp. The back coach is heavily overloaded and you get a jam on the platform (and hence increased station dwell times) as people can’t get off the train due to the number of people who’ve moved up the platform from the bottom of the ramp. 2/10 overall for whoever specified and designed this – and that’s being generous.
The irony of the comparison with Reading is that from around 1990 onwards, Reading had a new (fully weatherproof) footbridge which also provided public access (albeit a bit grim on the north side) across the station. That was in addition to a subway. The footbridge was provided with escalator access to the ticket hall and to all but two platforms out of the 10 then existing (9 and 10 had a lift only). The escalators fed the platforms at sensible points, also fully under cover.
When ticket barriers were installed, the bridge was split lengthwise with a barrier, so still allowing unpaid access across the station (the general public did have to use steps – the paying passengers could use escalators). The subway (for paid-up passengers) still existed after ticket barriers came in, and very useful it was when the signallers played their regular games of ‘Platform Alteration’.
That subway has now been converted into the public access route, and the ‘old’ footbridge demolished and the new one, ‘the transfer deck’, replaces it, fully accessed by both lifts and escalators and all under cover.
Compare and contrast!
I have just noticed that the illustration at the top of the article looks as if it’s a photograph of the sort of spray effect that occurs on motorways during heavy rain. Is it an unconscious admittance of the lack of weatherproofing provided for Network Rail’s ultimate paymasters?
@Graham Feakins,
Hence my later comment “ I am quite sure you have very little idea what my personal opinion is. I will merely say I have not spelt it out because it would smack of crayonista/stationista.” There are loads of alternatives. You could have kept the ramps, widened the subways and had steps on the other side. You could then have had an additional footbridge (with lifts) further north if this had been thought about much earlier. This could have had the unpaid route. You could have done a Clapham Junction and decked over much more. Why did the unpaid route have to be part of the same bridge and get in the way? Why not keep the route to the town centre at high level instead of requiring pedestrians to cross Wellesley Road on the level? Why can’t you get from the footbridge to the original entrance (assuming that you moved the unpaid footbridge elsewhere)?
I suspect nearly all these options are impractical because they cost too much and because this was all thought about too late. Hence the comment in the article about how TfL would have approached this differently (and thanks to Graham H for backing me up). But then conversely we hear from Graham H that Network SouthEast tried the holistic approach and we actually ended up with nothing.
I also suspect part of the problem was that really they should have started with the pedestrian walking routes (including footbridge(s) and/or subways) and designed the redevelopment around it. What appears to me to have happened is they designed the redevelopment and then attempted to fit the pedestrian movements in. Also at the end of the day it comes down to money and if a simple pedestrian bridge costs £20m then how much are all the fanciful suggestions going to cost? At this rate Croydon Footbridge(s)/subways would cost more than reinstating the London Overground between Surrey Quays and Clapham Junction.
Re timbeau,
East – West OSI?
NR journey planner frequently recommends I get to Gatwick early in the morning by getting a train to West Croydon, then tram to East Croydon, then train East Croydon to Gatwick. I’ve walked between the 2 instead and my NR paper ticket as worked all the gates fine so it might be?
I have read that if you use an Oyster to travel between stations forming an OSI (e,g bus between East Putney and Putney, or presumably tram between East & West Croydon) Oyster treats the two train/tube journeys as separate.
In other words, after you touch out, the OSI clock starts, but it only registers an OSI if the very next touch-in is at the partner station and is within the time limit for that pair of stations. Touching in anywhere else effectively times you out.
That is certainly an astounding amount of money to spend on a footbridge.
I have wondered for a while why Wimbledon does not have a 2nd footbridge between platforms – if this is how much they cost, then I can see why it’s not practical.
Looking at the ‘indicative’ render of the masterplan, and reading some of the above posts, it does seem surprising that Network Rail did not propose oversite development of the station as part of the East Croydon Masterplan process. Especially so given that other stations on the BML are currently the subject of Network Rail property development schemes. East Croydon would probably be one of the least controversial stations at which to adopt this approach and tying in a scheme with the redevelopment of the adjoining land would most likely have produced benefits all round; a much larger improved station; significant capital returns for Network Rail; better returns for adjoining developers and an improved urban realm for Croydon.
If the disposal of adjoining land, and its subsequent development has rendered an oversite scheme impracticable or unviable, then that’s a sale which may have lost Network Rail many tens of millions of pounds in potential profits from the sale or lease of the air rights above the station. If, as seems to be the case, the disposal has also increased the cost and difficulty of adding extra platforms, improving services and enhancing capacity on the BML then one really has to question the rationale behind it.
I really struggle with the argument that interchanges must be made less convenient “to cope with the volume of passengers”. It feels like a massive non sequitur to me. Rather like the 1960s gyratory schemes that made traffic take a longer route supposedly to relieve congestion, it might provide a short term benefit by spreading the traffic around the available space, but it’s an illusion because the extra infrastructure ultimately gets consumed by more traffic with no net benefit.
Fundamentally, whether in cars or on foot, enforcing everyone to take longer journeys cannot possibly reduce traffic or congestion. The idea just doesn’t logically add up. It can only make it worse, and require unnecessary spending on needless additional infrastructure to accommodate the longer route that everyone has to take.
If this is the current groupthink at TfL/NR it needs challenging and soon. The way to increase capacity is to get people through the system and out the other end as quickly as possible, not to engineer ways to hold them up inside it.
There is access to the subway from the platform 5 and 6 lift. It requires a key. The subway always had some gated access beyond platform 6 so presumably this is still accessed that way. Also the lifts have sn awkward 90 degree turn from entrance to exit which just seems wrong. All said it makes it easier to go into the town centre and if my wife still worked would have cut gr commute by at least 5 minutes each way.
The Other Paul says ‘I really struggle with the argument that interchanges must be made less convenient “to cope with the volume of passengers”. It feels like a massive non sequitur to me. ‘
If that were the argument, then I agree it would be a non-sequitur.
But it is not. The correct argument would be more like “In order to cope with the volume of passengers, interchange routes must be improved. These improvements (widening, removing awkward corners, adding lifts, etc) may sometimes unavoidably make them longer, in distance and/or time.
Returning to the specifics of East Croydon, PoP indicated that, in his view, other ways of catering for the increased volume (e.g. duplicating the subway) might have been possible. We do not know exactly why they were not done, but cost seems a plausible conjecture.
In other words, no-one is seeking to make interchanges longer as a deliberate objective. What is happening is that making them longer is a price that apparently has to be paid, at least sometimes, when trying to cater for more passengers, trying to improve accessibility, and trying not to spend too much.
The lengthening of the interchanges is never an objective, but just a frequent unfortunate side-effect.
@PoP 28 April at 13:06
‘too much potential for ramp width worth of descending passengers meeting an equivalent number of ascending ones.’
I am puzzled. Is there something magical about stairs that prevents the same from happening? My experience is that most of the time most people manage to avoid crashing when on foot. It seems to me that the scenario that you describe fits only with intoxicated groups ( opposing teams fans being the only example that I can think of offhand).
RayK,
Yes, stairs have intrinsically less capacity than the same width of passageway – even on a slope. So they act as a throttle stopping so many people entering. There have been loads of studies on this.
The critical thing about the footbridge it is wide. So you are unlikely to get serious conflicts like you would have in future in the subway if it was still there. Even if the stairs got congested there is space at the top and bottom for people to wait.
Anomnibus/PoP
OK – I take your points about the subway (unfortunately?) having to go, for various good reasons.
But, that is no excuse for what appears to be a completely half-arsed/incompetent/unfinished/unthought-out [delete as appropriate] so-called “design” to be inflicted on the paying public.
No escalators, either – surely Reading provided a model of how it should be done, so what went worng?
The Other Paul
Double Plus Good!
Seriously, if you speed/ease the flow, you are, by definition easing congestion.
Think about venturis too – high speed low pressure / low speed high pressure.
Not the “conventional wisdom” of making people go all-around-the houses is simply wrong from both the people-management & a “physics” view-point.
But – Malcolm – agreed, but “They” are deliberately making things more difficult, rather than the “unavoidably” you mention.
I suspect a straw-man argument is in process here (Not from you, I hasten to add)
Though: In other words, no-one is seeking to make interchanges longer as a deliberate objective.
Are we really sure about that?
The Paddington & King’s Cross cases are especially egregious.
Greg,
My personal belief is, in this situation, that you get what you pay for. These things are generally a lot more expensive than people imagine especially when installing on a live railway. So, I suspect, for a mere £20 million they did quite well.
Of course, in years to come we may well find that Croydon’s rather hit and miss affair with backing different forms of transport (1960s car – miss, 1990s tram -hit) has failed to really understand the importance of designing with pedestrians (and foot passengers) in mind and people will be asking why the footbridge was built without at least an up escalator – or at least some passive provision for it.
re ngh 28 April at 18:10
‘Have you been reading today’s Evening Standard?
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/london-commuters-are-more-stressed-than-those-in-any-major-european-city-10209190.html‘
There are many reasons to discount this ‘report’. Not least is the efforts of the Evening Standard to support, encourage and reinforce stress amongst it’s readership by the way it presents issues. Would it even be reasonable to suggest that the ES is the most effective stress raiser in the capital?
@RayK
“I am puzzled. Is there something magical about stairs that prevents the same [ramp width worth of descending passengers meeting an equivalent number of ascending ones] from happening? ”
One advantage of escalators is that they enforce separation of flows. On arrival of a crowded train at a busy station (try Surbiton in the evening peak) you often see a tide of humanity sweeping off the train and up the stairs, with a lone person trying to catch said train vainly swimming against the tide.
@TayK
“Four out of five workers in the capital say they are delayed by hold ups on their daily journey at least once a month, while 47 per cent admit to being late two or three times a month.”
In what utopia are these people living? We have had cancellations on my line, with the consequent delays, two or three times a WEEK ever since the New Year.
Maybe they could install a Fireman’s Pole from the footbridge, so at least getting back down to platform level would be quick.
The platforms might not have been wide enough for escalators. Escalators are usually dual-file (walking/standing) and result in large groups waiting at the bottom for the single up escalator – this could have been unsafe in a station environment. The staircases can take a good six people at a time (and that is also rate limited by many people having to come from behind the stairs and turning around – oh, maybe that negates my point about large groups waiting…).
Ultimately, it does seem that if the stairs and the public walkway had their locations switched, people (here) would have been a lot happier. Exchange via the footbridge is a pain if you can see your train on the other platform, but it’s still better than exchange via the ramps to the main station.
I’m not a fan of crowded subways, as any Clapham Junction user would agree. Subway widening (into a concourse) under a live railway sounds very expensive, and I think the development plan would have been quite different and resulted in 8 platforms at the end (two platforms out of service for each section of concourse development).
I’m still banging my head at the sell off of land making station expansions really complex though…
Re Ray K
Sensationalism sells* unfortunately.
*Advertising space rather than the newspaper itself these days.
The most questionable bit for me was
However their VP does talk a lot of sense about an integrated transport policy:
For all its benefits, it is worth pointing out that the Reading project cost £850million, although of course, that provided a lot more than just a new footbridge. Whilst the cost of the Reading Transfer Deck is not listed separately, £20million for a new footbridge is probably not so bad.
The Reading project had a wide range of benefits –
– Additional platforms to reduce platform contention, so reducing delays
– Wider platforms, new transfer deck and more escalators to reduce platform congestion
– Down main flyover to reduce delays on the west side station approaches
– Local road improvements to improve access to, and around, the station
– New northern entrance to provide better access to the station
– New subway to provide access across the station to non-railway users
– Greatly improved ambience in an area of the town in dire need of redevelopment
This is all stuff that East Croydon station could benefit from. In Reading, everyone seems to have come together to design a good overall solution to many problems, and get it funded. In contrast, East Croydon seems saddled with a piecemeal approach, which will leave users of the station, users of the Brighton mainline and local residents all the poorer. As PoP said, you get what you pay for.
Re Timbeau,
Utopia indeed.
I now go into the office an hour earlier than this time last year to minimise issues at London Bridge. My new regular service has the highest PPM of 0700-0900 arrivals at LBG from my local station and is the only service to almost meet the utopia criteria in the article – all the others are worse / far worse.
I bet this didn’t cost £20m.
http://www.watercressline.co.uk/article.php/251/harry-potter-footbridge-opens-at-the-watercress-line
Would have done 90% of what the new Croydon bridge does.
@ngh ‘ I am humbled to hear that you ‘now go into the office an hour earlier than this time last year to minimise issues at London Bridge.’ If only everyone were so thoughtful of others. Er! That is what you meant isn’t it?
@PoP:
“You could have kept the ramps, widened the subways and had steps on the other side.”
The footbridge was built that way so that it could be pushed out across an operational railway. Widening the subway would have been vastly more disruptive, and a lot more expensive too. It would also have done nothing to improve the problem of the steep ramps, which didn’t meet modern accessibility requirements.
As you said yourself in a later post: You get what you pay for. Reading cost only £150m shy of a billion pounds and was almost as complete a rebuild as the current work at London Bridge. East Croydon’s shiny new bridge cost “just” £20m.
The words “apples” and “oranges” spring to mind.
When you consider that the cost of an ‘ordinary footbridge’ to replace a level crossing is quoted at £1m+ then this seems like a bargain.
Yep, you could install 42.5 footbridges for the cost of Reading.
The issue here isn’t that the footbridge cost too much but that not enough money has been spent on this major station. What is to stop NR working with the developer to regain some of the land sold in return for over station rights? The “cheap” bridge would only be temporary helping out when the southern entrance is being rebuilt.
Just a few additions/corrections to Jim Cobb’s list of work at Reading:
The public access across the station already existed (via the old footbridge) so the subway conversion was an improvement not a new feature.
Other additional railway features were:
an expanded and completely relocated rolling stock maintenance depot.
A reinstated dive-under below the main tracks on the up side
Three (possibly four) rebuilt/expanded road under-bridges
A new main entrance on the town side and a proper entrance with ticket office on the north side (the 1990 version had a small ticket office, but it closed many years back).
The ‘transfer deck’ was a fairly small component of a massive project.
The road works on the town side were funded and managed by Reading BC, and are probably not included in the Network Rail project cost.
@Fandroid – Okay, perhaps I should have said “step-free” access across the station as the users of the old footbridge had to use steps. It also wasn’t terribly obvious to the casual user. Some of the road works were funded by NR and others by Reading BC. The northern exit also has a fairly decent bus interchange, which was partially funded by Reading Buses.
The point is all the joined-up thinking to improve the facilities for the travelling public, and of course, the rather large bill. Note also that this was all done without any developer money, which is unusual these days. Development is now starting to happen around the station, but it is fitting in with the rebuilt transport hub, rather than the other way around.
What helped the business case for the Reading rebuild was that the whole line was due for resignalling. A traditional time for the railways to consider ‘other’ works on the railway. This soon snowballed into electrfication, combine this with the fact Reading was the source of a considerable number of delays on the entire, then the case for serious expansion was more easily made.
I use Reading reguarly when I change trains to the South Coast to visit my family and it is now a joy to use. It never seems crowded it is so easy to transfer trains with the mutiple escalators and 2 lifts per plastform (yes 2!). Plus the huge transfer deck, which is still huge despite the shops down the centre. My only complaint. the shops on the transfer deck close by 7pm or 8pm, which can be a pain after you’ve dashed home from work and flung your case into a cab and had no time for something to eat. (So only a tiny quibble really)
I suspect some at Network rail will come to rue the day they built the new Reading station. It will become the standard for every overloaded interchange station across the country and the various sub standard much cheaper schemes they will try and build instead will be met with ‘but look at what Reading has got’.
But of course money is the root of all problems, but imagine Croydon with a proper transfer deck and escalators (even in single file rather than side by side). But then we’d be looking at least £100 million and even with the relatively flush network rail era , money does not grow on trees.
Rational Plan says “after you’ve dashed home from work and flung your case into a cab and had no time for something to eat”
I am having difficulty with the timing of this particular story. Where are you when you are regretting this shop-closing time? On the Reading Transfer Deck, at home, or in a cab with your case? Or possibly all three simultaneously?
More seriously, it does sound as if Reading has got the bit of infrastructure which the rest of the country would give it’s eye teeth for (whatever they are). Is it only cynical me who wonders which powerful person or people live nearer to Reading than, say, Croydon?
As trains from Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, Bristol, Bath, Wiltshire, Gloucestershire, Wales, Oxfordshire, Worcestershire, Herefordshire, etc pass through Reading there may be one or two powerful people whose trains previously waited outside Reading for a platform.
Re Rational Plan,
“What helped the business case for the Reading rebuild was that the whole line was due for resignalling. A traditional time for the railways to consider ‘other’ works on the railway. This soon snowballed into electrfication, combine this with the fact Reading was the source of a considerable number of delays on the entire, then the case for serious expansion was more easily made.”
Looking at East Croydon on the same metrics:
East Croydon and as good chunk adjacent of the BML (Norbury & Penge to Horley) is due for resignalling in CP6 (2019-2024).
East Croydon and the approaches (just travelling in the direction of ECR) making up 30% of TSGN delay hot spots south of Victoria / Blackfriars
Hence extra platforms, approach tracks and grade separation etc. around East Croydon being on the agenda for CP6.
Well I finish work at 6pm at heathrow and I’m home within 30 to 45 minutes. Then I need to change and an overnight case.
My parents live on the Isle of Wight and the train from Reading gets into Southampton just as the ferry to Cowes is leaving so by the time you get to the Ferry terminal (via mini cab) you have to wait another 50 minutes for next ferry. So an 8pm train from Slough would get me to Southampton by 21.40 just missing the ferry and so not getting to Cowes till 11.15 pm.
If I really push and am lucky with the buses I can catch an earlier train, but time for food is not one of them. With my shift pattern at Work with three days on and then three off, it’ would be a waste losing half a day on traveling.
Re Dan / Malcolm,
As it is only 40miles from Croydon till the coast there just isn’t the catchment area (for influential people or long distance travellers).
A major justification for the Reading scheme that East Croydon doesn’t have is freight. Far cheaper to add a 2km viaduct west of Reading to allow more container trains from Southampton to run to Oxford (and beyond) without getting in the way of the passenger services on the GWML than widening the A34 to 3 lanes each way!
Reading was an obvious single bottleneck on the GWML, the BML has many bottlenecks so so the justification to spend big on any of them is a lot smaller.
@Rational Plan. Sorry, I didn’t mean to probe into your life, and in doing so I was also not setting a very good example on the staying-on-topic dimension either. Thank you for the explanation, anyway!
@Rational Plan. I thought that Upper Crust on the Reading Transfer Deck stayed open a reasonable amount later than the others. (I know – I too find a dry baguette a bit of a turn-off).
The adjacent redevelopment at Reading has been planned for absolutely ages. The recession brought all activity to a halt. I suspect that Reading BC was hoping for something to help with their road changes in that area, but were keen enough on the station rebuild for them to plough their own resources into the local improvements. The demolition to enable redevelopment has only just started.
Whilst I can see that NR want to raise cash by selling off “surplus” land I very much concur that they are way too short-term in deciding which land meets their criteria. More effectively though, why not lease the land on 99-year terms (or whatever) in order that they can retain ultimate control?
The east entrance fiasco would seem to be solvable by LB Croydon making it a planning requirement a la s106.
@AlisonW call me short-termist if you like, but I cannot get very excited about the difference between outright sale and a 99-year lease. The opportunity for Network Rail or its successor to develop East Croydon station in a different way from the year 2115 does not strike me as much of a goal to strive for.
As for making something (presumably the timely completion of the bridge-to-nowhere) a planning requirement, that is now only a solution if we can find a way to roll back time. Otherwise, it is just another of those might-have-beens. Planning permission, once given, is normally not subject to change-of-mind by the authority. Probably just as well, in the overall scheme of things.
I’m close to the project, and one thing no-one seems to have mentioned is that the new island platform and the rebuilt 1/2 island will have to move substantially north to allow the junctions to go south of the platforms but north of the tram/road bridges – there’s only room for six tracks through those bridges, so the fast lines will need to come through as a pair and then split into four. Regardless of the length of trains, this will make the fast line access to the new bridge about three coach lengths nearer the south end of the train. Therefore, the slow line platforms will be north of the centre of a 8 car train, but the fast line platforms south, so the bridge seems pretty well positioned to me. Stopping points will probably be tweaked for four car trains in time too – we haven’t got the initial signalling design yet so I don’t know.
The time relationship between the two additional platforms and the sixth track to Windmill Bridge junction is not clear yet, though both are proposed within CP6. It’s likely that the station will lead the track if they’re not delivered together.
Re anon 29 April 2015 at 23:43
Thanks for the info. When doing the construction sequence sketch noted in my comment above* it was fairly obvious that the new platform islands (1/2 & 3/4) would have to be 50-80m further north, with 1/2 being further north than 3/4, but then you start making assumptions about platform widths and whether you have waiting room or not etc. Plenty of width further north on the site by using the tamper /MPV sidings.
The extra single platform option will presumably still have been popular with NR as it presumably could just have been positioned along the opposite side of track 1 to the current platform and an new island and 2 tracks constructed where the current 1/2 island, track 2 and the gap are, making it a much quicker / easier / cheaper option.
* https://www.londonreconnections.com/2015/a-study-in-sussex-part-8-if-you-bridge-it-they-will-come/#comment-246016
@timbeau: “Why not a high-speed tunnel from a central London terminal (not necessarily Victoria) to somewhere south of Coulsdon, linking in to the Quarry Line.””
As others have commented, the logjam is terminal capacity.
Not according to A study in Sussex Part 4, which points out that platform utilisation at Victoria is low, and capacity could be increased with a rework of the station approaches, which hasn’t yet been tackled because of the constraints further down the line – most notably at East Croydon. Waterloo is a different case.
@Phillip: One problem with escalators that stop completely to save money is that passengers may assume that the escalator simply isn’t working
Worse, they may start walking up the stationary escalator anyway, only to discover halfway up that it is set to go down and someone has just activated it at the top…
On escalators generally: it is well worth reading Jonathan Roberts’ comment on the report he did to (successfully) argue for escalators to be provided at Custom House Crossrail station, especially the statistic that “3 out of 4 PRM [passengers with reduced mobility] would have happily used escalators, based on live surveys at Custom House DLR station”.
@Malcolm: These improvements (widening, removing awkward corners, adding lifts, etc) may sometimes unavoidably make them longer, in distance and/or time.
Another one that could be added to your list is reducing conflicts between flows of people heading in different directions, which may mean diverting people off the shortest possible route to their destination (much to the annoyance of the easily-annoyed).
@ngh: there just isn’t the catchment area (for influential people or long distance travellers)
True, though at least one BR Chairman used to commute through East Croydon from his home in East Grinstead.
@Anonymous and ngh just above – This view shows the approach to East Croydon from the southern end, with the track curving on the left to Platform 1, with Platform 6 on the right:
https://folkestonejack.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/73202-at-east-croydon-041210.jpg
The obvious gap under the bridge with the track leading to Platform 3 is where a seventh track went. In fact, prior to the 1960-70’s track realignment, island platform 3/4 was somewhat narrower and the line of track visible today was a siding and head shunt (formerly leading into Fairfield Goods Yard), so in effect everything was shifted over a bit with removal of the siding (itself doubling on the London side of the bridge and hence today’s gap between the tracks serving Platforms 2 & 3).
Platforms 5 & 6 at that time extended under the bridge to beyond the two concrete bases supporting the (original station*) columns visible in the photo. *The rebuilt station above was done on the cheap.
You will appreciate that the bridge abutment on the left-hand side could be, barring expense, opened out to ease access to Platform 1 and any new platforms on that side but somebody might have to get around to renewing what is still the original road bridge, which also extends under the station building, at the same time.
Finally, the green object on the bridge is one of Croydon’s trams, showing the good interchange facility there, whilst a Class 73 loco is the highlight of the foreground.
Re Graham F et al.
1954 1:2500 OS map on the National Library of Scotland site showing much of what Graham notes and also how much has been sold off!
http://maps.nls.uk/view/102905083
And the track map from the previous Sussex article for roughly the same era (1954/5 was also the time of previous resignalling scheme and hence many changes)
http://cdn.londonreconnections.com/2013/1954-layout1.png
And track map based on the proposed NR CP6 changes:
http://cdn.londonreconnections.com/2013/NR-proposed-CP6-solution-revised.png
No sign that there is any plan to tackle the bridge (or station building) in any of the plans.
East Croydon is very fortunate to have a nice, new, shiny footbridge. You only need to go to Clapham Junction to see why subways are worse than footbridges (and even the footbridge has seen better days). Even just this morning with the electrical supply problems outside Clapham Junction people were being told not to use the subway due to congestion.
East Croydon doesn’t realistically need escalators, they would have been a nice addition, but they are not essential. People are also forgetting that Reading has 15 platforms and East Croydon has 6 (maybe 8 at some point) so the need for better interchange is more essential. Clapham Junction on the other hand could probably do with a Reading style footbridge….
Re Kingston Commuter
“People are also forgetting that Reading has 15 platforms and East Croydon has 6 (maybe 8 at some point) so the need for better interchange is more essential. Clapham Junction on the other hand could probably do with a Reading style footbridge….”
But there are currently circa 15% more trains using East Croydon than Reading…
(1195 vs 1027 on weekdays.)
The author fails to mention the old post office overbridge which used to cross the station in much the same place. That, rather than the subway, was used for mail trolley transfers and was provided with lift towers but no stairs and, after a right angle and a left dog-leg at the east end, had an elevated southerly extension over Blinton Hill to reach the Post Office building. I would expect the foundations if not parts of the old towers themselves were used for the new bridge support structures on each platform, it certainly appears from the NR – BAM Nuttal video they are in exactly the same place. Presumably the subway also forms part of those foundations. The current Bing Maps aerial and birds-eye imagery shows the old bridge, fully enclosed with no windows in place, but doesn’t provide a date. When I worked in the London area in the early noughties I remember it still standing after many years out of use, but I don’t know its date of removal.
One benefit of the new bridge and particularly moving the stepped access northwards is the removed subway ramp areas should free up some additional undercover platform waiting space to be made available under the canopies.
Mark Townend,
I didn’t mention this other overbridge because I did not know about it and in any case it would not have been of any relevance. On the other hand the subways were used for mailbags and used to continue further eastward to link up with the sorting office. The reasons the mailbags were mentioned is because it is why there had to be a ramp to the subway rather than steps.
@PoP – I expect the subway would have been used for platform to platform transfers, either mail or railway parcels traffic, with the overbridge, once built (1960s or 70s?), being only for items going to or from the post office itself. I have no personal recollection of an additional east end access for the subway, but something like that that would make sense for parcels and mail traffic before the overbridge appeared. On the old OS map ngh links to: http://maps.nls.uk/view/102905083, apart from and slightly north of the post office there are some buildings marked warehouse between the station and Cherry Orchard Road. I could imagine these plausibly might have been railway small goods or parcels offices that would have needed to access the platforms.
My recollection (possibly faulty after 25-odd years) is that the ramp at the east end of the subway was either added or substantially reconstructed in the late 1980s — at the same time that the disused platform adjacent to the sorting office (visible to the east of the station in the 1954 map) was filled in. Before that, the subway continued east from the platform 5/6 ramp, but ended (IIRC) at a blank wall.
@John Elliott
My memories match yours – I think I remember that the subway was constructed in the 80s. I also think I remember the old bridge to the sorting office, but, again, it could be a false memory.
Are you on about the Post Office conveyor?
http://www.southernelectric.org.uk/features/infrastructure/east-croydon/index.html
@NickD, 30 April 2015 at 23:15
Yes that’s the one. I didn’t realise it had a conveyor in it! A similar installation at Bristol Temple Meads was removed this year which I remember seeing working years ago. So no lifts and trolleys required but did these installations also allow post office staff to walk across the bridges for access between platforms and to and from the associated sorting offices?.
The Croydon Head Post Office (including Sorting Office) mail bag conveyor system serving all platforms at East Croydon was constructed in 1969 and remained in full use until the railways stopped general conveyance of mails by rail. The conveyor traffic to all platforms was two-way. I sometimes used a long-standing public facility in the form of a Royal Mail post box on platform 4 in the wall of the refreshment room, which required an extra ‘railway’ stamp for late collection for onward conveyance by a night mail train.
The warehouse that Mark Townend mentions was nothing to do with the P.O. but I think that of Hall & Co., Builders Merchants, who had their own private sidings with loco to the north-east of platform 6, although it did change hands after the decline of Hall & Co.’s own traffic. “Postal Platform 7”, opposite Platform 6 and beside the Station Hotel aka the Porter & Sorter, remained for use by Southern’s battery-electric vans – Motor Luggage Vans or “MLV’s” on postal work until the demise of designated postal trains altogether. MLV’s described here with a view in Royal Mail livery:
http://www.semgonline.com/gallery/class419_01.html
The postal traffic was often sufficient for two such MLV’s to be coupled together at East Croydon, part of the network that included Redhill and Tonbridge.
Only maintenance staff had access to the Post Office conveyor route itself at East Croydon. It was, of course, constructed to take mail bag traffic on trolleys out of the subway and was loaded/unloaded by the postal workers. Only the bags were conveyed and not the trolleys and thus I suggest what PoP could have seen were the postal trolleys that didn’t actually normally leave their platform after the conveyor was constructed. They were often to be seen ‘awaiting work’ in the otherwise unused area just north of the subways and just in front of the doors to the conveyor.
I forget the exact wording but above the entrance to the subway extension was a notice saying something like no access for passengers – Post Office use only. Maybe my memory is playing tricks but I thought I had seen those doors used for a small electric tractor towing mailbag trolleys.
If I might turn back to the current bridge for a moment. . .
Looking on Google Earth, the birdseye view shows the stairs at odd angles to the bridge. I can think of two possible reasons for this. Firstly the bridge may have been designed with equal spans for cost effectiveness. (No odd sizes required) On the other hand. Did someone have half an eye on future intended platform positions? I suppose we need to be careful not to read too much into the appearance.
Graham Feakins says “It [the conveyor] was, of course, constructed to take mail bag traffic on trolleys out of the subway…”
On first reading I understood this to mean that mail bag traffic on trolleys, having come out of the subway, would then go onto the conveyor. Odd. Then I realised that there was an entirely different, and more probable reading, viz “Once the conveyor was in use, there was no more need for mail bag traffic on trolleys to use the subway.”
I just though I’d say, in case anyone else made the same misreading as I did!
Re Ray K,
It very much looks like someone had an excellent eye on the “new” bridge…
The Bridge isn’t perpendicular to the tracks/platforms so the stairs will have to be angled any way at which point it makes sense to go for equal spans and a slight variation in steelwork on the landing at the top of each set of stairs.
The stairs/lifts for current 3,4,5,6 (future 5,6,7,8) probably wont ‘t change. Future new P3/4 island – the stairs will probably have to go 1 structural span (also conveniently equivalent to 5 window panes) to the East (thus matching the current spacing between 3/4 and 5/6 stairs!). The new set of stairs for the future P1/2 island might have to be have the current larger P1/2 to P3/4 spacing and be roughly where the temporary steps are on goggle earth (depending on platform width and waiting rooms or not etc on the rebuild platforms – the bridge caters for all options on this…)
From the video, it looks like the bridge could accommodate stair connections or other building interfaces of any size at any position without having to coincide with a structural grid. Brackets could be attached anywhere along the front beam on either side with the non-structural edge fencing/screening adjusted as necessary. The brackets only have to support a short link-span connecting the main bridge to the self-supporting stair-tower. The bridge strength is all in the massive central truss.
RE ngh,
I wonder if that excellent eyed person also saw that there would be considerable advantage in widening all the platforms to the North of the bridge (and perhaps a little to the South). The Lifts could stay where they are. There would be more space for passengers off the stairs and off longer trains. And you can still have a new island platform to the West. The new platform would still be the starting point as this would free up other platforms for working on in their turn as at London Bridge. (but with less disruption)
@Kingstoncommuter – Reading had 11 platforms before the rebuild, but only 4 of these were through platforms and some of the bay platforms were rarely used. Bay platforms add greatly to the interchange traffic, but have a much lower occupancy than the through platforms, so Reading as fewer trains but far more interchanges than East Croydon. Nevertheless, the rebuild was over-engineered for today’s traffic, but that results in a station that is far nicer to use and will still be good for may years to come, which is a huge benefit to its customers.
With Reading, there was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to improve the whole station environment, and that opportunity was taken, in a way that doesn’t really seem “British” ! With East Croydon, I can’t help feeling that the opportunity has been squandered, and we are left with the usual make-do type solution, which no-one really likes, and may or may not be suitable in the future. Anyone want to bet that they change their minds about the new layout and find they have to replace the bridge ?
@Jim Cobb
“Anyone want to bet that they change their minds about the new layout and find they have to replace the bridge ?”
Sooner or later they will, but probably on the timescale of London Bridge (the bridge that was removed recently was “only” 40 years old)
Surely a lot of the bridge design commonality is down to Network Rail’s policy of using modular components wherever they can? The cladding might well be different in different locations but I suspect that things like lift towers, stairs etc are all to a standard design with a small range of stair widths to cater for differing circumstances.
@Jim Cobb.
Unless I am confusing it with something from another thread, (quite possible) someone said earlier that the area is due for resignalling during CP6. That will be when East Croydon’s time will come and anything before that will be just to tide things over.
Re Ray K,
Yes CP6 for resignalling.
Correct me if I’m wrong but it was my understanding that the the footbridge at London Bridge isn’t going to be replaced.
I don’t think it is yet certain how much of Croydon’s redevelopment will happen. Gavin Barwell MP said at the recent hustings that the Compulsary Purchase Order still has to be signed but other candidates and audience questions fleshed out that things like environmental impact of construction is also outstanding. The Croydon populace is divided: one part is desparate for Westfield; the other part thinks years of misery during development isn’t worth it for expensive stores unsuited to Croydon.
As a developer, I would also be getting cold feet right now. As others have mentioned, East Croydon used to be a decent station. It’s now close to dire with narrow, cramped platforms, inadequate passenger information at times, frequent delays and a very poor footbridge.
If , however, the Westfield development does go ahead in the next couple of years, that’s the time the platforms need to be reworked. Once / if Westfield and associated developments are complete then simply put East Croydon will be too busy to stand the sort of works being discussed on this post.
@@Jim Cobb
“Anyone want to bet that they change their minds about the new layout ?”
@me
“Sooner or later they will, but probably on the timescale of London Bridge”
@Kingston commuter
“it was my understanding that the footbridge at London Bridge isn’t going to be replaced”
Sorry I was unclear – I was referring to the LB remodelling as a whole (last done in the 1970s). The footbridge went in then and came out again as part of the current work.
Jim Cobb
With East Croydon, I can’t help feeling that the opportunity has been squandered, and we are left with the usual make-do type solution, which no-one really likes, and may or may not be suitable in the future.
Like Blackfriars, you mean?
[Jim and Greg, Can we avoid making, or endorsing, sweeping statements such as “which no-one really likes”? No only does it show a level of arrogance in claiming to speak for others, it tends to distract from having content of any value. If you don’t like East Croydon station for a reason please feel free to mention that on an article on East Croydon and give your reasons. I don’t want this to degenerate into a vox-pop about who likes what and who they claim to speak for. PoP]
Having been someone who travels through East Croydon a lot the current state of the station is dire. The Footbridge is nowhere near as practical or easy to use when changing trains as the subway was – it has extended platform swapping times as you just have to go higher and can’t run with the overcrowding, plus signage is not good at all.
However why do they split the station into two the way they do?
What I mean is there is 3 lines for the fasts and 3 for the slows. So the middle of each group can be an either direction line meaning you are forcing passengers to change platforms more often. Why not platform 1/2 for northbound, platforms 3/4 for southbound and leaving 5/6 for the slows.
Obviously you would need to change the way trains flow through the station to reduce the number of trains on the slows. For example East Grinstead to Victoria flows could use platform 4 southbound and then cross to the slows – which means an extra conflict as they cross the slow northbound track on the flat but removes the conflict back at Windmill Bridge junction which also crosses the West Croydon lines. Same in the reverse northbound service using platform 2. Similar with Horsham/Tonbridge/Reigate services using the fast into ECR and crossing to the slows further South especially as many don’t call at Purley in the peak so could use Stoats Nest.
Then for passengers changing trains no more running from platform 2 to 3 or 1 to 4 as it will become cross platform 1/2 Northbound and 3/4 Southbound – unless of course to get Cat/Tat’s, Uckfield’s or Milton Keynes services still using the slows.
T33,
I could give a much longer answer but the short answer is that surely the long term plan is designed to substantially reduce the need to change platforms and this is just the first stage of the project. You will never totally eliminate the need to change.
@Greg and T33:
The work at East Croydon isn’t done yet. This is just a stop-gap measure to gain some breathing space. This is more comparable to the recent work at Birmingham New Street, which did little for the station at platform level, but did involve building it a shiny new hat. East Croydon’s new footbridge is akin to that new hat: it is just the first step on East Croydon’s journey, not the destination.
There is lots more work to be done in the area yet, given the problems with the Brighton Main Line and the other lines through Croydon itself. You may want to re-read the article as it explicitly mentions the station likely gaining a new island platform in future. Other articles on this route also include diagrams showing the changes planned for the nearby Windmill Bridge Junction, near Selhurst Depot.
@T33, @PoP – Whilst platform 4 can be used for down fast trains now, it is not done routinely because the current track layout at the north end results in such an arrival conflicting with an up slow departure leaving platform 5. There is a similar conflict at the south end, although the additional slow reversible line could be used by the up slow trains to avoid it. Also, two platforms alone on the slow side would probably not cope with the current volume of slow traffic, even if the junction design facilitated it.
@PoP – Sorry for my comment – I am suitably chastised. It was not my intent to make a sweeping statement – I was basing my view on the other participants of this thread and a few comments elsewhere, most of which appeared to be critical, whilst I have seen very little praise anywhere.
Further to Jim’s comment/apology, I would not willingly add to the criticism (moi?) but I had already reflected on PoP’s earlier comment:
“Steps facing the wrong way – I think this needs to be looked at differently. The steps don’t face the wrong way. It is that some of the trains that are currently too short. One has to think long term.
When we have the class 700 Thameslink stock there will be very few short trains at East Croydon.”
and then I thought, hold on, will there not be more 8-car than 12-car Class 700’s running around? Surely all the 8-car versions won’t be confined to the beloved Wimbledon Loop?!
My conclusion is that, taking into account also the services from Victoria, there will still be more 8-car or 10-car services stopping at East Croydon than 12-car ones. Lest anyone should forget, my critique of the footbridge solely concerns the platform interchange aspect and not the benefit the bridge is said to provide to link another part of Central Croydon with the station. Even should the platforms be extended further northwards at any time that is unlikely to help because of the annoying habit of Network Rail of stopping northbound trains up towards the north end (leaving a fair trot from the foot of the main ramps for most trains today), whilst stopping the southbound ones at or near the southbound end (thus leaving a fair trot from the footbridge to reach the rear of many trains).
Jim Cobb,
It was meant to be a very mild chastisement. I would have let it go (we all word things less than perfectly at times) but for Greg’s follow-up comment about Blackfriars. I actually like Blackfriars very much.
Graham Feakins,
Clearly the Cats and Tats will still be 8-car in a Thameslink world. I am pretty sure even an 8-car train will extend well to the north of the new steps.
Fortunately Network Rail haven’t yet got into the habit of stopping northbound at the north end of the platform at East Croydon yet. One hopes they don’t and really cannot see any reason why they should.
Will 12 car tràins be used off-peak on Thameslink àswell because I feel that would be a bit unnecessary (speaking as an infrequent off-peak Thameslink user)
I didn’t actually realise the subway existed until after the footbridge was built, my thinking being that the footbridge provided the first interchange between the platforms other than via the station building (I only ever used to get on at the ends of the trains closest to the entrance/exit ramps)
Thank you for your points. PoP & Lewisham Front, the problem with East Croydon is today not the wonderful station that may appear in 2022 or later. Currently due to diversions and cutting of trains travellers from the Redhill route are routinely required to change at East Croydon as part of their commute. Being involved with the local rail users association the biggest complaint about the 4 years of amended services is for so many they have to change at East Croydon, where you generally arrive on platform 4 in the morning then need to leave from 1 or 2 requiring the footbridge. In the evenings it’s arrive at 2 or 3 then depart from 5 or 6. The general feeling is that we need improvement next week not in many years. Why wasn’t something done before pushing an extra 1,000 passengers an hour into East Croydon from Redhill in the peak as they did in January?
Part of my thought process was to remove the East Grinstead and Horsham trains from the slow lines to ensure two platforms is enough? Having stood on platform 6 in the evenings with a Milton Keynes train in Platform 5 it seems a single platform face for slow trains can cope. I can understand if the current track layout makes this difficult as Mark Townend explained – but how much crayonista work would be required to fix that (which in itself says it won’t happen anyway).
I accept we won’t be reusing the subway but there is a clear need to access the Bridge from the Southern side which to access the footbridge in the peak is very difficult. Especially when you are getting off a train which has many passengers leaving for the bus/tram entrance you are squeezed going opposite directions along a narrow section between the train and the footbridge.
It seems common at the moment not to look at flows along platforms when constructing these new passenger bridges especially with the massive increases in passenger numbers. For example I feel London Bridge will have the same issues with the central accesses on platforms 5/6 overloaded every time a train comes in – then the loss of northern exit across Tooley Street is also going to become a pinch point as hundreds of passengers try to cross a busy road (don’t forget all Brighton Line passengers will be moved to new platform 5 and then down to street level whereas currently they go across the footbridges to London Bridge). Is there something wrong with the design process or do they not just not design peak periods?
@T33
“getting off a train which has many passengers leaving for the bus/tram entrance you are squeezed going opposite directions along a narrow section between the train and the footbridge”
Not a new problem – the stairs from the platforms down to the subway at Waterloo face the wrong way – and have done for 100 years – causing a choke point three car lengths from the barrier past which everyone, whether heading for the barrier or the subway, has to squeeze.
@Kingstoncommuter
“12 car tràins off-peak on Thameslink would be a bit unnecessary ”
The class 700 units will be indivisible (in the same way you can’t run a 4 car train of S stock) so unless there will be enough of the 8-car sets to run the entire offpeak timetable, 12-car off-peak services will be inevitable
@ T33 – “Is there something wrong with the design process or do they not just not design peak periods?” I think it’s clear that they *try* to design things properly but there are inevitable compromises. There may not be enough land / space, the perfect solution may cost too much or may simply be unachieveable. None of that will make you any happier but there are also issues that force compromises. I’m no expert on East Croydon but it strikes me that there is no quick fix possible given the space available. Rejigging the place will take many years and even that is unlikely to provide “perfection”.
I think the biggest tactical error has already been made and that was selling off too much railway land. The second tactical error has been not realising they need some of that land back and making the necessary demands to get it back / secure space under whatever development is proposed to allow for more tracks and platforms than currently envisaged. The third tactical error may or may not have been made and that’s to ensure that a willingness to deck over the station / permit development to fund significantly better rail facilities is notified to the local authorities so their plans for Croydon take account of it. From the little bit I’ve read about development in Croydon it all seems very involved in terms of who owns what and which local “important people” have interesting links with particular land owners and developers. I suspect that doesn’t make life any easier either. If the full scale of planned redevelopment happens in Croydon I’d guess that neither East nor West Croydon stations will be able to cope with the demand.
Had a look at the footbridge as I was crossing today – waiting for the lift to Platform 5 and 6. I had a nose through the gate into the unused section beyond the stairs on the east and how it links in with the unpaid section. It does look like there will be an exit here as well. There is a gap between the two sections clearly wide enough for a gate line. 8 coach trains do go north of the bridge. Getting on at Clapham, you would need to be near the subway there. I was in coach 5 and the door stopped perfectly opposite the lift, so coaches 7 and 8 would be north of the bridge. I would think this spreads the East Croydon load a bit, as the front 4 coaches were always full leaving London and relatively empty upon arriving at Croydon.
Key stations such as East Croydon should have an agreed masterplan. The idea being that each marginal change helps to shift it towards an overall improvement without creating blockages that frustrate that overall idea or cost money that does not contribute to the ‘final’ planned layout.
@Alison, 29 April: s106 is increasingly being negated by developers who can prove that it would be unfeasible (uneconomic) for them to implement whatever stipulation a planning committee required. This is why new housing developments that are supposed to provide ‘social/affordable/whatever’ units are often completed with a much smaller quotient or none at all.
@ Lady Bracknell – the other side of the S106 “problem” is that local authorities are underfunded and have had to lose staff / expertise in recent years. They are therefore struggling to properly analyse submissions from developers to give a fair and rational assessment of the underlying assumptions, plans, proposals and analysis. This will affect not only housing but it will impact on transport infrastructure and service provision issues. London is fairly lucky in that TfL has a role too and has resource to analyse S106 submissions and they have processes and policies in place to determine what TfL itself needs / wants to support any particular development. Given the linkage back to City Hall there is probably a bit more leverage in place than for many local authorities. However TfL is not immune to political influence either given who it is accountable to! There are other issues with S106 / community infrastructure levy but they’re beyond the scope here.
Some (rather old) picture of Waterloo illustrating my point.
http://www.oldstratforduponavon.com/sitebuilder/images/waterloo32-620×413.jpg
http://cache1.asset-cache.net/gc/464418575-waterloo-station-london-1960-1972-elevated-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=GkZZ8bf5zL1ZiijUmxa7Qf%2B8Q40SD9MmbKyLnvrttxlg6WXLTo0O4CQ2Nr36IPvK8FIXRUm767ZYRSx0ZORh4g%3D%3D
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Waterloo_station_platforms_15_and_16_looking_west.JPG
In the last image the location of the (closed) subway entrance is marked by the platform number signs.
Anyone leaving the train from the third or further carriages from the buffers has to pass though the constriction in the width of the platform formed by the stairwell to reach either the stairs themselves or the barrier line. This further incentivises passengers to crowd into the front part of up trains.
@Timbeau 20:52
Lovely images of a Waterloo I do remember, with the old platform entrances.
Your first link shows Platforms 1/2 and 3/4 before they were narrowed and shortened at the far end. (I remember them being shortened )
And now the original length will be re-instated for 10 carriages by 2017.
The flexibility of the bridge design impresses me. In addition to the flexible positioning of stairways, supporting columns and lift towers might also be replaced as the structure clearly can be supported at any point along its length, as revealed by its slide into place. Perhaps also in the final configuration the unpaid and railside areas might be swapped when the platform canopies and buildings between the two entrances are replaced in due course. The current position of the stairways leaves the space to the south of the bridge free for the construction of such facilities, which could also include escalators and additional lifts, whilst retaining access to and from and between all platforms. The stairs might be retained as emergency exits from the platforms to the unpaid side of the bridge following such developments.
Re Mark Townend,
The lift tower positioning is potentially the tricky part unless you want to move & replace a lateral floor beam (not the biggest issue but you would probably end up with significantly more steel work going in instead) so it makes sense to have the beams positioned where you would be very unlikely to want to put a lift shaft at any point in time, which it they have done for the 8 platform option. (And any sensible person would want to align the stairs and lift within the platform width so it doesn’t feel like a slalom or maze for passengers)
Two thoughts occurred to me which I don’t think have been mentioned….could the existing tunnels have been used for the public route between east and west as it must extend far enough or very close to being far enough? (I know pedestrian subways are unpopular but I am sure a good enough design could be made to work). The benefit would be (a) a likely saving to the reported £6m cost of the public walkway and / or (b) that walkway could be used as an additional paid area with potential for south facing stairs or escalators.
The second thought is that in general the scheme looks like a very good idea but as with so many station improvements why do they have to be so poorly designed?! All the recent ones I can think of – here, New Cross Gate, Denmark Hill for example all look like entirely engineering and logistics-led with aesthetics completely forgotten about. Trivial example – the circular help point in the photo of the west side which overhangs the side of the lift opening!. (The open walkways at Denmark Hill (with 3 lifts) cost £6.2m by comparison – against a budget of £4.18m) – source:
http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1152339,page=2
Re Brockley Mike,
Graham F will probably be along at some point to explain again why Denmark Hill went very over budget. (A very big live MV* cable that wasn’t on any plans???)
* Medium Voltage in engineering terms is between 1-35KV (IEC60038)
@ngh & Brockley Mike- Yes and here I am. There was high voltage cabling (considered “MV” today) that I long knew about embedded somewhere in and along the Denmark Hill cutting. It originally connected the South London Electric Supply Corporation’s Bengeworth Road power and substation at Loughborough Junction with Deptford power station and I believe then formed part of the early LBSCR AC electrification network. I had no reason to believe that that interconnector was out of use and I mentioned it to someone involved before the Denmark Hill work started on the ground, who was clearly either disbelieving or not sufficiently au fait to realise the import of what I was saying.
Re GF,
Oooh just checked there are multiple cables + HV too that could be routed that way!
Bengeworth Road – Deptford is 132KV! (up for replacement ASAP)
Bengeworth Road – Chadwick Street* (adjacent to Peckam Rye Jn) 33KV & 11KV
*LBSCR AC OHLE feedpoint?
ngh
From “London’s Elevated Electric Railway” Geoff Goslin/Pub. Connor & Butler 2002:
Electricity purchased from the London Electricity Suppy Corp @ Deptford was delivered at 6.7kV by underground cable to Queen’s Rd (Peckaham) for metering & thence to a manned switch-cabin @ Denamrk Hill.
[ Diributed further to un-manned subsidairy switch cabins, apparently ]
@ngh/Graham F
If they ignored/didn’t believe you, how did they eventually discover it? The traditional JCB-blacks-out-the-area method?
Re Timbeau,
Not sure but Graham’s original post (August ’13) is here:
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2013/in-pictures-tottenham-court-road-station-work/#comment-120965
LBSCR London, Brighton and South Coast Railway, for those like me who forgot what it stood for.
Did I read somewhere (on LR) that the existing entrance/exit ramps are to be lengthened to reduce the slope? If I am not imagining things, won’t that push even more passengers over the footbridge during works, possibly more than the bridge steps can cope with?
Theban,
I think I have read that too but not on LR. All the more reason for the steps to be on the north side of the new bridge. And if the bridge steps and lifts couldn’t cope I am pretty sure the subway couldn’t have done either.
I suspect this either isn’t an issue or isn’t a major issue as you could open the two new platforms with the more gentle slope and temporarily close the current platforms 1/2 whilst you reprofile the slope. You may be able to jiggle the platforms around further whilst doing it on the other platforms. Alternatively if you had something in kit form you could probably lay the new slope on top of the old one in a weekend and, if necessary, do a more permanent job over a series of Sundays.
@timbeau – Let’s just say it was ‘unearthed’.
@PoP – The original E. Croydon station ramps were replaced piece-by-piece working from top to bottom with only slight constriction at the point of work and thus without, so far as I recall as a daily user then, any closure. They even managed to iron out the ‘invisible’ dips in the grade which caught everyone out part-way down.
An engineering solution without taking platforms out of use for significant periods to lengthen the ramps to reduce the grade (not that many complain about it and those who do probably confuse that with the present length in the first place), would be to construct the added length, tack it on the bottom in hinged fashion, level with the platform, and then jack the whole lot up to the desired grade.
@Graham Feakins, 7 May 2015 at 00:28
“Let’s just say it was ‘unearthed’”
. . . and then became ‘earthed’ via the excavator rather rapidly?
Regarding the ramps at East Croydon, another cock-up of recent years was the smooth flooring which became quite lethal on rainy days as shoes brought in water. Eventually the flooring was replaced with the present design featuring diagonal channels and grooves but once again it points to a lack of any sensible forethought.
Whilst the north facing stairs to the new footbridge might be better located for the new platforms 1 & 2 to the north, they still remain ‘wrong’ for the platforms that remain, IMO.
If I was being whimsical, I might ask why the public unpaid side is to the south of the footbridge, rather than to the north. Perhaps the BAM contractor, in charge of constructing the bridge from its kit of parts had the plan upside down. When it was time to push the structure in, the (paid) stairs had to go on the north side.
I hope that whimsy is ‘allowed’. But the serious point is that it wouldn’t have been a ‘bad thing’ for the unpaid side to have been on the north, would it ? The landing points on either side are hardly fixed features, particularly as the Cherry Orchard east side is currently unlinked.
@Graham Feakins/Mark Townend
“Let’s just say it was ‘unearthed’”
. . . and then became ‘earthed’ via the excavator rather rapidly?
For some reason, that reminds me of the reference in The Complete Plain Words by Ernest Gowers to a suggestion that electric cables can only “undergrounded” and never “buried” … because they are live!
@Petras409 – “Perhaps the BAM contractor, in charge of constructing the bridge from its kit of parts had the plan upside down” – Oddly enough, that occurred to me, too. A parallel that actually happened was when one of my clients in the concrete industry had designed replacement overbridges for the M1 but when delivered, instead of each bridge having a right-handed and a left-handed arrangement as intended to mate in the middle, the manufacturers only supplied left-handed arrangements! This was only discovered when the first set was ready to be installed. And there were 50 of them already produced….
Maybe I’m missing something, but surely the reason the steps are on the north side of the bridge is that once it was decided to site the lifts on the mail conveyor foundations, there was not enough room for the internal footbridge and south facing stairs without demolishing part of the platform canopy and possibly the north end of the waiting rooms?
Another point that hasn’t been mentioned is that when there is disruption (frequently lately – they are having a bad run!), most people tend to congregate on the footbridge, seemingly for three reasons:-
1) To assess the stops on each train on differing platforms (the Platform all-train indicators only show destination).
2) To be able to position themselves appropriately for the next service/platform that they need.
3) To see when a S/B service from the north is actually arriving – sometimes the information shown can be a bit fanciful!
What all this does is turn the overbridge into a circulating concourse, something it clearly wasn’t designed for. During the frequent disruptions, the overbridge gets extremely crowded and is subject to heavy tidal flows every time there’s a change of information, which doesn’t help others going the opposite way.
My view is that the unpaid side of the overbridge should be brought into use, and possibly have another staircase on the opposite side – this would open the overbridge area for much better circulation and double the vretical capacity down to the platforms. As stated ealier, use the subway for public access through the station.
@Travertine
A sight commonly seen at Waterloo East, Clapham Junction, and doubtless other places too
“people tend to congregate on the footbridge, seemingly to assess the stops on each train on differing platforms (the Platform all-train indicators only show destination).”
A common problem at many places – the strange assumption that the ultimate destination is all we need to know. In many cases the ultimate destination is obvious (any “up” train on SWT is going to Waterloo). What we need to know is where, if at all, it’s going to call on the way. Is it going to call at my station? If I’m actually going all the way, is it a fast train or an all-stations?
Should I crowd onto this overloaded one in the platform, or wait for the one two minutes away in the hope that it will also call at my stop? Should I let this stopper in the platform go in the hope that the one behind is a fast one?
I’m going to Clandon – which of the three Guildford trains is mine? (If I actually want to go to Guildford, I’d be better using a Portsmouth train!)
@timbeau – “What we need to know is where, if at all, it’s going to call on the way. Is it going to call at my station?”
Pretty useless to rely on that information early on the route at times of disruption. Or at any other point, for that matter. You’ll probably find the train going non-stop through a number of its booked stops. If you’re lucky, the driver might even tell you about it. Apparently they may be talking with the signaller, thus leaving them unable to communicate with the passengers on the train – according to the SouthEastern twitter feed. (OK, trains through East Croydon aren’t generally DOO, but I bet the comms is no better)
MikeP, timbeau
Actually my experience of trains via East Croydon not stopping at scheduled calling points on Southern is very good. They always announce them clearly both in the train and at the platforms and there really is no reason not to know about it. The displays (both screen and platform) are usually updated too.
It is not just because of late running. A critical points failure can cause the same effect when they have to divert your slow train to the fast lines.
Also rare but not unknown is not stopping at various stations (e.g. Coulsdon South) due to no train conductor – although the reason give is operational problems or something like that.
Having said all that, they are pretty limited in their options when it comes to late running. A common one is to miss out South Croydon and Purley Oaks. Also fast from Purley to Caterham if the following train is not many minutes behind.
Very rare but a delight for me is when delays mean a train runs fast from Purley to London Bridge. I think this is done because the train is already overcrowded rather than to make up time. The best one due to points failure that I have experienced is non-stop Blackfriars to West Croydon – on an occasion when I wanted to travel from Blackfriars to Croydon Town Centre.
@PoP That’s interesting. I didn’t know that, on lines where Driver Only Operation (DOO) is not the normal arrangement, it can occasionally happen anyway. Does that mean that all drivers have the relevant training? I guess that a driver cannot be obliged to do this, but is allowed to answer yes if requested? (And, by implication of your message, would only be asked if the train is going to stop only at staffed platforms).
In my experience they do usually tell you at some point that the train is going to be run fast – although information to the people already on board is less reliable – not helped by the tendency of passengers to ignore all onboard announcements because so many of them are unnecessary (and live announcements are often far quieter than the routine recorded ones).
But whether a train was originally scheduled to be fast, or has subsequently been changed, the summary screen and “2nd /3rd train” displays are silent about it. All we get is a long list of trains all going to Waterloo. Which ones are all-stations (and by which route) and which ones are non-stop, is kept a secret until the train has arrived.
There is enough space on each line of the screens for the extra ten characters (maximum, including spaces) needed for “via Epsom”, “via Woking”, “via Cobham” or “non-stop”. But they don’t use it.
Diversions are made both for overcrowding reasons and for making up time/getting the stock/crew in place to try to preserve the next trip.
There are plenty of DOO trains through East Croydon.
If a train is DOO the driver will make a PA if diversions/running fast is to occur. If it’s not DOO, the guard will make that announcement. Hopefully this information will already have been displayed/announced at stations for those not already on the train.
Passengers have been known to ignore announcements or be too absorbed in their personal entertainment to take any notice.
Diversions due to points failures may miss out particular stations because there are no platforms on the diverted routes. Or some platforms require staff due to locked gates or absence of DOO despatch methods and thus cannot be used at short notice – only when planned such as during engineering works.
DOO cannot be undertaken on routes where it is not agreed unless proper measures are in place; a 12 car train cannot run DOO unless it is a trip such as Vic-Clapham-East Croydon where staff are available at each stop for dispatch; however it could not continue beyond that point. If it were an 8 car it would depend on the route; 8 cars can run to Brighton DOO but not East Grinstead – a guard would have to be picked up no later than East Croydon. The most restrictive condition in a given combination of rules applies.
Re GTR Driver,
Any news on the expansion of DOO to more services and 12 car as documented in the TSGN ITT?
(or is at the bottom of their to do list!)
No. The driver is invariably the last to know about anything, as a rule!
People may be interested to know that the architects who designed the East Croydon bridge are also working with TfL / LU on the future design of London Underground station refurbishments. They have an exhibition running this week which people can visit. I hope to pop in tomorrow. Given what people think of the bridge let’s hope the future of LU is rather better designed. 😉
TfL press release – https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2015/london-underground-showcases-the-station-design-of-the-future
PR on the EC bridge – http://egretwest.com/projects/infrastructure/east-croydon-bridge/#more-186
The new bridge, modern and shiny as it is, is halfway to Norwood. As others have pointed out you have to walk along a narrow part of the platform to get to it and are often going against the traffic of people getting off trains or coming off the steps and making the walk back into Croydon from the new bridge!
The subway was a much quicker way to change between platforms and was never even vaguely busy (like the one at Clapham Junction get for instance.) Why don’t they leave this open as well and then see virtually nobody use the bridge.
Also what is going on at ECR for the rest of the refurbishments? What a mess that’s been like it for years now with seemingly nothing happening. The metalwork above the platforms looks like a school metalwork project. Poor thin tube frames with untidy welding. I’ve seen sturdier Ikea Lampshades?
I happened to be in the Oval Tavern this week and I realised how important it is to get the east side entrance in. It will open up a new pedestination route for a whole swathe of East Croydon.
Tonight (Tuesday 19th January 2016) the southbound Thameslink got into Platform 5 at East Croydon at about 1750 after the usual dawdle through the suburbs. A colleague and I got in the lift and the button was pressed for ‘Deck Level’ (footbridge). Instead of up, the lift went down. The doors opened and a woman with a shopping trolley or wheeled suitcase got in. She was not in uniform and had no other sign that she was an employee. Behind her I glimpsed the subway, looking grey and dusty. The button was pressed again and the lift ascended to the footbridge, with that awkward right-angle turn on the way out.
Obviously the lift can be called from that lower level. Indeed it seemed that such a call will overide the buttons in the lift. The woman must have come from the subway, but what was she doing there? And how did she get there in the first place? Very odd.
(no supernatural suggestions please)