Cambridge North first day and the end of 365s to King's Lynn.

[G***@live.co.uk]

A few photos from a brief visit this afternoon:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/***@N02/albums/72157682149631600

There appears to be no ticket office but there are ticket gates, implying a permanent staff presence.

Train service is a bit odd because on Sundays, only GA trains call: 1 tph from Liverpool Street, which terminates, and the hourly Norwich - Cambridges. On weekdays, the hourly GN stopping service, plus the new GN Kings Cross - Ely fasts, call, and both stoppers from Liverpool Street are extended to terminate.

Also, Saturday 20th marked the last day (officially!) of 365s to King's Lynn; here's a photo from that day:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/***@N02/33991133403/in/dateposted-public/

Plus a couple of 365s in NSE livery in 2003 long after NSE had ceased to exist:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/***@N02/33940425624/in/dateposted-public/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/***@N02/33940410604/in/dateposted-public/

And in FCC days:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/***@N02/34396661010/in/dateposted-public/

King's Lynn station has been done up very nicely and is worth a visit if you're in the area.

[Roland Perry]

Post by G***@live.co.uk
There appears to be no ticket office but there are ticket gates,
implying a permanent staff presence.
Train service is a bit odd because on Sundays, only GA trains call: 1
tph from Liverpool Street, which terminates, and the hourly Norwich -
Cambridges.

Which are probably plenty for the number of passengers on a regular
Sunday.

Post by G***@live.co.uk
On weekdays, the hourly GN stopping service,

Most stations stopper, no-one in their right mind would catch that from
London to either of the Cambridge stations.

Post by G***@live.co.uk
plus the new GN Kings Cross - Ely fasts, call,

They aren't entirely new, having been gradually phased in the last year
or two. And there are gaps in the morning peak (eg from 0728 to 1019).

Post by G***@live.co.uk
and both stoppers from Liverpool Street are extended to terminate.

Only one (the slower).

Post by G***@live.co.uk
Also, Saturday 20th marked the last day (officially!) of 365s to King's

I was pleasantly surprised they delivered on this promise, having seen
very few Electrostars north of Cambridge the last few weeks.

Post by G***@live.co.uk
King's Lynn station has been done up very nicely and is worth a visit if you're in the area.

[G***@live.co.uk]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by G***@live.co.uk
There appears to be no ticket office but there are ticket gates,
implying a permanent staff presence.
Train service is a bit odd because on Sundays, only GA trains call: 1
tph from Liverpool Street, which terminates, and the hourly Norwich -
Cambridges.

Which are probably plenty for the number of passengers on a regular
Sunday.

Post by G***@live.co.uk
On weekdays, the hourly GN stopping service,

Most stations stopper, no-one in their right mind would catch that from
London to either of the Cambridge stations.

Post by G***@live.co.uk
plus the new GN Kings Cross - Ely fasts, call,

They aren't entirely new, having been gradually phased in the last year
or two. And there are gaps in the morning peak (eg from 0728 to 1019).

Post by G***@live.co.uk
and both stoppers from Liverpool Street are extended to terminate.

Only one (the slower).

Post by G***@live.co.uk
Also, Saturday 20th marked the last day (officially!) of 365s to King's

I was pleasantly surprised they delivered on this promise, having seen
very few Electrostars north of Cambridge the last few weeks.

Post by G***@live.co.uk
King's Lynn station has been done up very nicely and is worth a visit
if you're in the area.

--
Roland Perry

Thanks for the correction about the Liverpool Street stoppers. As I see it, the logic is that by having one fast GN service and the hourly GN and GA stoppers call, that caters for both the London and intermediate stations traffic. The semi-fast GN service to Cambridge connects in the down direction into the hourly Norwich and the hourly Liverpool Street stopper connects into the up GN semi-fast. The only through journeys that are not possible are to Waterbeach (where I imagine the traffic potential is low, in any case) and to Stansted Airport but in this case I presume there were insufficient paths to allow those to be extended to CMB.

Given the amount of nearby housing within walking distance, I imagine this will become a popular station.

[Basil Jet]

Post by G***@live.co.uk
As I see it, the logic is that by having one fast GN service and the hourly GN and GA stoppers call, that caters for both the London and intermediate stations traffic. The semi-fast GN service to Cambridge connects in the down direction into the hourly Norwich and the hourly Liverpool Street stopper connects into the up GN semi-fast. The only through journeys that are not possible are to Waterbeach (where I imagine the traffic potential is low, in any case) and to Stansted Airport but in this case I presume there were insufficient paths to allow those to be extended to CMB.

ISTR that extending the Norwich Cambridge trains to Stansted is a
franchise commitment, presumably as soon as bi-mode trains are available.

[Roland Perry]

Post by G***@live.co.uk
As I see it, the logic is that by having one fast GN service and the hourly GN and GA stoppers call, that caters for both the London and
intermediate stations traffic. The semi-fast GN service to Cambridge connects in the down direction into the hourly Norwich and the hourly
Liverpool Street stopper connects into the up GN semi-fast. The only through journeys that are not possible are to Waterbeach (where I imagine
the traffic potential is low, in any case) and to Stansted Airport

Or to any stations on the Ely-Lynn line.

Post by G***@live.co.uk
but in this case I presume there were insufficient paths to allow those to be extended to CMB.

GA have plans to extend their Norwich-Cambridge service to Stansted when
their fleet is upgraded in a couple of years time.

I'm also expecting the XC DMUs to stop at Cambridge North when that
franchise is re-let, also in 2019.

Post by G***@live.co.uk
Given the amount of nearby housing within walking distance, I imagine this will become a popular station.

There isn't much housing in walking distance, in the grand scheme of
things. It's expected that quite a lot of passengers will be abstracted
from Cambridge station, and I would chuck in abstraction from Waterbeach
too. However, commuter traffic to London is likely to be slow to take
off due to the patchy stopping pattern of through trains in the morning
peak.

[Jim Chisholm]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by G***@live.co.uk
As I see it, the logic is that by having one fast GN service and the
hourly GN and GA stoppers call, that caters for both the London and
intermediate stations traffic. The semi-fast GN service to Cambridge
connects in the down direction into the hourly Norwich and the hourly
Liverpool Street stopper connects into the up GN semi-fast. The only
through journeys that are not possible are to Waterbeach (where I imagine
the traffic potential is low, in any case) and to Stansted Airport

Or to any stations on the Ely-Lynn line.

Post by G***@live.co.uk
but in this case I presume there were insufficient paths to allow
those to be extended to CMB.

GA have plans to extend their Norwich-Cambridge service to Stansted when
their fleet is upgraded in a couple of years time.
I'm also expecting the XC DMUs to stop at Cambridge North when that
franchise is re-let, also in 2019.

Post by G***@live.co.uk
Given the amount of nearby housing within walking distance, I imagine
this will become a popular station.

There isn't much housing in walking distance, in the grand scheme of
things. It's expected that quite a lot of passengers will be abstracted
from Cambridge station, and I would chuck in abstraction from Waterbeach
too. However, commuter traffic to London is likely to be slow to take
off due to the patchy stopping pattern of through trains in the morning
peak.

Not (currently lots within walking (say 1 mile or 20 min walk) but huge
amount within easy cycling distance (3 miles), {includes all of Milton
for example} especially when the Abbey Chesterton cycle/footbridge is
open next year when most of Abbey ward, Fen Ditton and the new 'Wing'
developments will all be with 20 min cycling of the station.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Jim Chisholm

Post by Roland Perry

Post by G***@live.co.uk
As I see it, the logic is that by having one fast GN service and the
hourly GN and GA stoppers call, that caters for both the London and
intermediate stations traffic. The semi-fast GN service to Cambridge
connects in the down direction into the hourly Norwich and the hourly
Liverpool Street stopper connects into the up GN semi-fast. The only
through journeys that are not possible are to Waterbeach (where I imagine
the traffic potential is low, in any case) and to Stansted Airport

Or to any stations on the Ely-Lynn line.

Post by G***@live.co.uk
but in this case I presume there were insufficient paths to allow
those to be extended to CMB.

GA have plans to extend their Norwich-Cambridge service to Stansted when
their fleet is upgraded in a couple of years time.
I'm also expecting the XC DMUs to stop at Cambridge North when that
franchise is re-let, also in 2019.

Post by G***@live.co.uk
Given the amount of nearby housing within walking distance, I imagine
this will become a popular station.

There isn't much housing in walking distance, in the grand scheme of
things. It's expected that quite a lot of passengers will be abstracted
from Cambridge station, and I would chuck in abstraction from Waterbeach
too. However, commuter traffic to London is likely to be slow to take
off due to the patchy stopping pattern of through trains in the morning
peak.

Not (currently lots within walking (say 1 mile or 20 min walk) but huge
amount within easy cycling distance (3 miles), {includes all of Milton
for example}

All of Milton!! How many of the 4,500 population are of working age and
wanting to commute to London?

Post by Jim Chisholm
especially when the Abbey Chesterton cycle/footbridge is open next year
when most of Abbey ward, Fen Ditton and the new 'Wing' developments
will all be with 20 min cycling of the station.

What people need more than a station predicted to have 3,000 passengers
a day (compared to 30,000 a day at Cambridge), is places to work
locally.

It's good that it has lots of cycle parking though, as long as that
discourages people from taking their cycles *on* the train.

The first train on Sunday had six cycles rammed into the space allocated
for two (as well as numerous others in non-designated places throughout
the train).

And you couldn't make this up: cyclists moaning about problems with the
pedestrian bridge, that make it harder for them to anti-socially take
their bikes on the train.

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Jim Chisholm
especially when the Abbey Chesterton cycle/footbridge is open next year
when most of Abbey ward, Fen Ditton and the new 'Wing' developments
will all be with 20 min cycling of the station.

What people need more than a station predicted to have 3,000 passengers
a day (compared to 30,000 a day at Cambridge), is places to work
locally.

Isn't part of the motivation for this station that it is convenient for the science park? I expect part of the intention is that it will attract people commuting to the science park from points north (and south) away from Cambridge Station, potentially who currently use a bike-on-the-train to get from Cambridge station to the science park.

Robin

[Roland Perry]

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Jim Chisholm
especially when the Abbey Chesterton cycle/footbridge is open next year
when most of Abbey ward, Fen Ditton and the new 'Wing' developments
will all be with 20 min cycling of the station.

What people need more than a station predicted to have 3,000 passengers
a day (compared to 30,000 a day at Cambridge), is places to work
locally.

Isn't part of the motivation for this station that it is convenient for
the science park?

Apparently not. It's not named after the Science Park, nor apparently
was the Park's management interested in promoting the station. Greater
Anglia note that it's a 3/4 mile walk.

Some commentators were hyping up the possibility of important folk
flying in to Stansted for the day from Europe, and taking the train to
the Science Park. But the timetabling for that's a joke and they will
(if they even exist) continue to get a limo transfer.

Post by r***@gmail.com
I expect part of the intention is that it will attract people commuting
to the science park

The Cambridge Business Park (which is on the road between the station
and the main Milton Road) is where the train company thinks people will
be working.

Post by r***@gmail.com
from points north (and south) away from Cambridge Station, potentially
who currently use a bike-on-the-train to get from Cambridge station to
the science park.

If you are travelling from points north to the Science Park and intend
using a bike for the last couple of miles, then interchanging at
Waterbeach is just as good as Cambridge central, already.

There aren't very many trains from points north which stop at Cambridge
North, especially in the morning rush. And unless you've come from
Thetford/Brandon direction a change at Ely is required.

I's a bit better from the Royston direction with perhaps two through
trains which might suit in the morning, but the first through train from
the Whittlesford direction doesn't arrive until 0901.

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Jim Chisholm
especially when the Abbey Chesterton cycle/footbridge is open next year
when most of Abbey ward, Fen Ditton and the new 'Wing' developments
will all be with 20 min cycling of the station.

What people need more than a station predicted to have 3,000 passengers
a day (compared to 30,000 a day at Cambridge), is places to work
locally.

Isn't part of the motivation for this station that it is convenient for
the science park?

Apparently not. It's not named after the Science Park, nor apparently
was the Park's management interested in promoting the station. Greater
Anglia note that it's a 3/4 mile walk.

So a fair bit closer than Cambridge station is to the city centre. Just because the Science Park management hasn't promoted it, doesn't make it unattractive.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by r***@gmail.com
I expect part of the intention is that it will attract people commuting
to the science park

The Cambridge Business Park (which is on the road between the station
and the main Milton Road) is where the train company thinks people will
be working.

Right, so that area there are significant local employers, where the station would be within walking distance for inward commuters.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by r***@gmail.com
from points north (and south) away from Cambridge Station, potentially
who currently use a bike-on-the-train to get from Cambridge station to
the science park.

If you are travelling from points north to the Science Park and intend
using a bike for the last couple of miles, then interchanging at
Waterbeach is just as good as Cambridge central, already.

But you just said it was 3/4 of a mile, not a couple of miles. I would regard 3/4 of a mile as walking rather than cycling distance (as opposed to the main Cambridge station to the science park, which is definitely cycling rather than walking distance).

Post by Roland Perry
There aren't very many trains from points north which stop at Cambridge
North, especially in the morning rush. And unless you've come from
Thetford/Brandon direction a change at Ely is required.
I's a bit better from the Royston direction with perhaps two through
trains which might suit in the morning, but the first through train from
the Whittlesford direction doesn't arrive until 0901.

Right, but there is considerable potential to revise the timetable to allow for better use of the station. As is common with new openings, it will take a while for traffic flows both of passengers and of trains stopping to settle into their long term steady state.

Robin

[Roland Perry]

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by Roland Perry

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Jim Chisholm
especially when the Abbey Chesterton cycle/footbridge is open next year
when most of Abbey ward, Fen Ditton and the new 'Wing' developments
will all be with 20 min cycling of the station.

What people need more than a station predicted to have 3,000 passengers
a day (compared to 30,000 a day at Cambridge), is places to work
locally.

Isn't part of the motivation for this station that it is convenient for
the science park?

Apparently not. It's not named after the Science Park, nor apparently
was the Park's management interested in promoting the station. Greater
Anglia note that it's a 3/4 mile walk.

So a fair bit closer than Cambridge station is to the city centre.

What's that got to do with anything?

Post by r***@gmail.com
Just because the Science Park management hasn't promoted it, doesn't
make it unattractive.

Nor would promoting it make a "killer app". Most people drive to work,
at the Science Park.

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by Roland Perry

Post by r***@gmail.com
I expect part of the intention is that it will attract people commuting
to the science park

The Cambridge Business Park (which is on the road between the station
and the main Milton Road) is where the train company thinks people will
be working.

Right, so that area there are significant local employers, where the
station would be within walking distance for inward commuters.

About 1500, which is a drop in the ocean.

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by Roland Perry

Post by r***@gmail.com
from points north (and south) away from Cambridge Station, potentially
who currently use a bike-on-the-train to get from Cambridge station to
the science park.

If you are travelling from points north to the Science Park and intend
using a bike for the last couple of miles, then interchanging at
Waterbeach is just as good as Cambridge central, already.

But you just said it was 3/4 of a mile, not a couple of miles. I would
regard 3/4 of a mile as walking rather than cycling distance (as
opposed to the main Cambridge station to the science park, which is
definitely cycling rather than walking distance).

I'm responding to earlier comments about cycling commuters - and which
stations they might use as a railhead. With ~2tph and an absolute
maximum (which exceeds the cycle policy anyway) of about a dozen bikes
on each train, you'll pardon me if I don't get too excited about the
prospect of having spent £50m to build a station for 30 such people to
get to work easier.

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by Roland Perry
There aren't very many trains from points north which stop at Cambridge
North, especially in the morning rush. And unless you've come from
Thetford/Brandon direction a change at Ely is required.
I's a bit better from the Royston direction with perhaps two through
trains which might suit in the morning, but the first through train from
the Whittlesford direction doesn't arrive until 0901.

Right, but there is considerable potential to revise the timetable to
allow for better use of the station. As is common with new openings,
it will take a while for traffic flows both of passengers and of trains
stopping to settle into their long term steady state.

The stopping patterns are heavily constrained by the number of paths,
just one reversing platform, and the flat junction at the south of the
station. The train companies already know what the passenger flows are
likely to be - that's one of the reasons why it costs megabucks
commissioning consultants to build a business case for even constructing
the station.

Then there's the existing crush loading of trains to cope with - in the
morning, people can be left behind at Waterbeach, so what's the point of
stopping just to leave more people behind at Cambridge North? Similarly,
many peak trains northbound are packed from Cambridge to Waterbeach and
Ely, thus filling them up with even more people just wanting the small
hop to Cambridge North is not the best idea in the world.

[TimB]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by Roland Perry

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Jim Chisholm
especially when the Abbey Chesterton cycle/footbridge is open next year
when most of Abbey ward, Fen Ditton and the new 'Wing' developments
will all be with 20 min cycling of the station.

What people need more than a station predicted to have 3,000 passengers
a day (compared to 30,000 a day at Cambridge), is places to work
locally.

Isn't part of the motivation for this station that it is convenient for
the science park?

Apparently not. It's not named after the Science Park, nor apparently
was the Park's management interested in promoting the station. Greater
Anglia note that it's a 3/4 mile walk.

So a fair bit closer than Cambridge station is to the city centre.

What's that got to do with anything?

Post by r***@gmail.com
Just because the Science Park management hasn't promoted it, doesn't
make it unattractive.

Nor would promoting it make a "killer app". Most people drive to work,
at the Science Park.

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by Roland Perry

Post by r***@gmail.com
I expect part of the intention is that it will attract people commuting
to the science park

The Cambridge Business Park (which is on the road between the station
and the main Milton Road) is where the train company thinks people will
be working.

Right, so that area there are significant local employers, where the
station would be within walking distance for inward commuters.

About 1500, which is a drop in the ocean.

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by Roland Perry

Post by r***@gmail.com
from points north (and south) away from Cambridge Station, potentially
who currently use a bike-on-the-train to get from Cambridge station to
the science park.

If you are travelling from points north to the Science Park and intend
using a bike for the last couple of miles, then interchanging at
Waterbeach is just as good as Cambridge central, already.

But you just said it was 3/4 of a mile, not a couple of miles. I would
regard 3/4 of a mile as walking rather than cycling distance (as
opposed to the main Cambridge station to the science park, which is
definitely cycling rather than walking distance).

I'm responding to earlier comments about cycling commuters - and which
stations they might use as a railhead. With ~2tph and an absolute
maximum (which exceeds the cycle policy anyway) of about a dozen bikes
on each train, you'll pardon me if I don't get too excited about the
prospect of having spent £50m to build a station for 30 such people to
get to work easier.

Why do you assume 'cycling commuters' would take their bikes on peak trains? That money was also spent on a large amount of cycle parking at Cambridge North, don't you think they might use it?

[Roland Perry]

Post by TimB

Post by Roland Perry
I'm responding to earlier comments about cycling commuters - and which
stations they might use as a railhead. With ~2tph and an absolute
maximum (which exceeds the cycle policy anyway) of about a dozen bikes
on each train, you'll pardon me if I don't get too excited about the
prospect of having spent £50m to build a station for 30 such people to
get to work easier.

Why do you assume 'cycling commuters' would take their bikes on peak trains?

Because I see them doing it, every time I travel, and by happenstance I
walk past the station many times a week and see them coming and going.

There's a clue in the way they wheel their bikes through the doorway to
the Ely booking office, when the cycle racks are outside the building at
the far end of the car park.

Post by TimB
That money was also spent on a large amount of cycle parking at Cambridge
North, don't you think they might use it?

A similar new secure bike storage facility at Ely doesn't seem to have
persuaded sufficient of the commuters not to take their bikes onto the
trains.

I'm not suggesting the cycle racks aren't used at all, nor complaining
about the quantity of folding bikes in the trains (although they do tend
to block the vestibules/doors too) but it's the rump of perhaps a dozen
full-size bikes on each full and standing peak train which causes the
problems.

Including of course the infamous "EXXCUUUUSE me" shout as a some of the
more over-entitled thrust their bikes into the crowd already standing in
the vestibule, expecting them to somehow divide like the Red Sea.

[TimB]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Jim Chisholm

Post by Roland Perry

Post by G***@live.co.uk
As I see it, the logic is that by having one fast GN service and the
hourly GN and GA stoppers call, that caters for both the London and
intermediate stations traffic. The semi-fast GN service to Cambridge
connects in the down direction into the hourly Norwich and the hourly
Liverpool Street stopper connects into the up GN semi-fast. The only
through journeys that are not possible are to Waterbeach (where I imagine
the traffic potential is low, in any case) and to Stansted Airport

Or to any stations on the Ely-Lynn line.

Post by G***@live.co.uk
but in this case I presume there were insufficient paths to allow
those to be extended to CMB.

GA have plans to extend their Norwich-Cambridge service to Stansted when
their fleet is upgraded in a couple of years time.
I'm also expecting the XC DMUs to stop at Cambridge North when that
franchise is re-let, also in 2019.

Post by G***@live.co.uk
Given the amount of nearby housing within walking distance, I imagine
this will become a popular station.

There isn't much housing in walking distance, in the grand scheme of
things. It's expected that quite a lot of passengers will be abstracted
from Cambridge station, and I would chuck in abstraction from Waterbeach
too. However, commuter traffic to London is likely to be slow to take
off due to the patchy stopping pattern of through trains in the morning
peak.

Not (currently lots within walking (say 1 mile or 20 min walk) but huge
amount within easy cycling distance (3 miles), {includes all of Milton
for example}

All of Milton!! How many of the 4,500 population are of working age and
wanting to commute to London?

Post by Jim Chisholm
especially when the Abbey Chesterton cycle/footbridge is open next year
when most of Abbey ward, Fen Ditton and the new 'Wing' developments
will all be with 20 min cycling of the station.

What people need more than a station predicted to have 3,000 passengers
a day (compared to 30,000 a day at Cambridge), is places to work
locally.
It's good that it has lots of cycle parking though, as long as that
discourages people from taking their cycles *on* the train.
The first train on Sunday had six cycles rammed into the space allocated
for two (as well as numerous others in non-designated places throughout
the train).
And you couldn't make this up: cyclists moaning about problems with the
pedestrian bridge, that make it harder for them to anti-socially take
their bikes on the train.
--
Roland Perry

You might call it anti-social, but it's entirely normal and legal to take bikes on trains, so could you please just get a grip?

[Charles Ellson]

Post by TimB

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Jim Chisholm

Post by Roland Perry

Post by G***@live.co.uk
As I see it, the logic is that by having one fast GN service and the
hourly GN and GA stoppers call, that caters for both the London and
intermediate stations traffic. The semi-fast GN service to Cambridge
connects in the down direction into the hourly Norwich and the hourly
Liverpool Street stopper connects into the up GN semi-fast. The only
through journeys that are not possible are to Waterbeach (where I imagine
the traffic potential is low, in any case) and to Stansted Airport

Or to any stations on the Ely-Lynn line.

Post by G***@live.co.uk
but in this case I presume there were insufficient paths to allow
those to be extended to CMB.

GA have plans to extend their Norwich-Cambridge service to Stansted when
their fleet is upgraded in a couple of years time.
I'm also expecting the XC DMUs to stop at Cambridge North when that
franchise is re-let, also in 2019.

Post by G***@live.co.uk
Given the amount of nearby housing within walking distance, I imagine
this will become a popular station.

There isn't much housing in walking distance, in the grand scheme of
things. It's expected that quite a lot of passengers will be abstracted
from Cambridge station, and I would chuck in abstraction from Waterbeach
too. However, commuter traffic to London is likely to be slow to take
off due to the patchy stopping pattern of through trains in the morning
peak.

Not (currently lots within walking (say 1 mile or 20 min walk) but huge
amount within easy cycling distance (3 miles), {includes all of Milton
for example}

All of Milton!! How many of the 4,500 population are of working age and
wanting to commute to London?

Post by Jim Chisholm
especially when the Abbey Chesterton cycle/footbridge is open next year
when most of Abbey ward, Fen Ditton and the new 'Wing' developments
will all be with 20 min cycling of the station.

What people need more than a station predicted to have 3,000 passengers
a day (compared to 30,000 a day at Cambridge), is places to work
locally.
It's good that it has lots of cycle parking though, as long as that
discourages people from taking their cycles *on* the train.
The first train on Sunday had six cycles rammed into the space allocated
for two (as well as numerous others in non-designated places throughout
the train).
And you couldn't make this up: cyclists moaning about problems with the
pedestrian bridge, that make it harder for them to anti-socially take
their bikes on the train.
--
Roland Perry

You might call it anti-social, but it's entirely normal and legal to take bikes on trains, so could you please just get a grip?

Is it ? It is no more "entirely" legal than the old cliche "perfectly"
legal.
http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations_destinations/cyclists.aspx

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Roland Perry]

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by TimB

Post by Roland Perry
And you couldn't make this up: cyclists moaning about problems with the
pedestrian bridge, that make it harder for them to anti-socially take
their bikes on the train.

You might call it anti-social, but it's entirely normal and legal to
take bikes on trains, so could you please just get a grip?

Is it ? It is no more "entirely" legal than the old cliche "perfectly"
legal.
http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations_destinations/cyclists.aspx

Exactly. These rules are widely ignored. For example:

o Cycles are not carried during periods of restriction as listed below

By implication this includes trains with compulsory reservations. The
Cross Country trains local to me are Turbostars and have just two
reservations-only spaces, however this is completely ignored by both
passengers and staff.

o Please label your cycle clearly

I have never ever seen that done.

o Please cover your folded cycle

Maybe one in a hundred?

o Cycles must be carried in the designated area on trains and must not
obstruct doors or aisles

See above for the Turbostars, a second route operated by which has no
reservations required, but as a straw poll had the bikes I mentioned
earlier, four stuffed in the area outside the disabled toilet and
another two in the adjoining vestibule.

Cycles have no specific designated space on the Liverpool St and Kings
Cross outer suburban trains, and are usually stored blocking the doors,
and more often than not also blocking aisles.

More photo evidence:

https://twitter.com/Durendal__/status/866216148701990912

[Roland Perry]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by G***@live.co.uk
Also, Saturday 20th marked the last day (officially!) of 365s to

I was pleasantly surprised they delivered on this promise, having seen
very few Electrostars north of Cambridge the last few weeks.

Then again, the train from Ely to London today, that I put some visitors
aboard, (1T37) was an 8-car 365.

[r***@gmail.com]

<snip>

IISTR something about the paintwork on the Networkers (465/466 as well as 365) having a manufacturers guarantee or similar that meant they weren't repainted in the early days of privatisation. Connex got around the problem by adding yellow vinyls over the red and white stripes to give the blue and yellow livery while WAGN just left theirs in NSE.

Robin

[Graeme Wall]

Post by r***@gmail.com
<snip>
IISTR something about the paintwork on the Networkers (465/466 as well as 365) having a manufacturers guarantee or similar that meant they weren't repainted in the early days of privatisation. Connex got around the problem by adding yellow vinyls over the red and white stripes to give the blue and yellow livery while WAGN just left theirs in NSE.

IIRC SWT just added some vinyls initially.

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by r***@gmail.com
<snip>
IISTR something about the paintwork on the Networkers (465/466 as well as 365) having a manufacturers guarantee or similar that meant they weren't repainted in the early days of privatisation. Connex got around the problem by adding yellow vinyls over the red and white stripes to give the blue and yellow livery while WAGN just left theirs in NSE.

IIRC SWT just added some vinyls initially.

365/465/466 have never operated on SWT. At privatisation, the only power-door stock on SWT was 455, 158 and 442.

Robin

[Graeme Wall]

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by r***@gmail.com
<snip>
IISTR something about the paintwork on the Networkers (465/466 as well as 365) having a manufacturers guarantee or similar that meant they weren't repainted in the early days of privatisation. Connex got around the problem by adding yellow vinyls over the red and white stripes to give the blue and yellow livery while WAGN just left theirs in NSE.

IIRC SWT just added some vinyls initially.

365/465/466 have never operated on SWT. At privatisation, the only power-door stock on SWT was 455, 158 and 442.

The story at the time was it was something to do with paint guarantees.

[Recliner]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by r***@gmail.com
<snip>
IISTR something about the paintwork on the Networkers (465/466 as well
as 365) having a manufacturers guarantee or similar that meant they
weren't repainted in the early days of privatisation. Connex got
around the problem by adding yellow vinyls over the red and white
stripes to give the blue and yellow livery while WAGN just left theirs in NSE.

IIRC SWT just added some vinyls initially.

365/465/466 have never operated on SWT. At privatisation, the only
power-door stock on SWT was 455, 158 and 442.

The story at the time was it was something to do with paint guarantees.

Yes, and that applied to Turbostars as well. But I don't think it applied
to any SWT stock. Vinyls are used because they're quicker and cheaper.