please empty your brain below
|
|
2: If you're lucky enough to see a 969 you may not even know it's a 969 as the blind frequently shows other numbers or destinations or even no destinations.
ap | 30.10.25 - 9:42 a.m. | #
|
|
15 - Victoria particularly grating, because they're basically brand new. I don't even use the lifts and I've noticed how often they're out of service. Clearly they were mis-specced for the duty cycle they endure. (My own workplace has had a lift out since April)
Chz | 30.10.25 - 10:22 a.m. | #
|
9 - Unless it's been removed quite recently there is one remaining ST JAMES' PARK roundel. It used to be mid-platform on the eastbound but was relocated to a less prominent spot under a staircase some years back, possibly a smart move by the then heritage manager to reduce the risk of an insensitive corporate identity bod spotting it and insisting it be updated.
dg writes: indeed
Andrew S | 30.10.25 - 10:37 a.m. | #
|
|
No 20. If I read it rightly the requester is suggesting Purley Oaks is step free. The requester has clearly never been to Purley Oaks. It is not step-free.
Robert Butlin | 30.10.25 - 10:39 a.m. | #
|
|
20: I get for the tube maps request, maybe he/ she is a map designer or something and needs them though the Step-free stations request is something I think Londoners need to have transparency for - atleast for the important enquiries asked. I don’t think they would’ve been refused had they been standalone requests.
AC | 30.10.25 - 12:00 p.m. | #
|
|
And yeah, I don’t think Purley Oaks is Step-free currently either. Woolwich Dockyard & Erith as far as I’m aware are Step-free in one direction only, though the Access for All may upgrade them like Shortlands, Catford, Petts Wood, St Mary Cray & Plumstead have been upgraded in that area in the past couple of years, so won’t be surprised is those are next on their plans.
AC | 30.10.25 - 12:08 p.m. | #
|
9. i recall one sign at St James's Park with the second 'S' missing. it rankled slightly when i went that way regularly.
kudos to whomever had put it right, if that's triggered the question. the tiniest nit to pick all round, well done everyone.
Peter T | 30.10.25 - 12:13 p.m. | #
|
|
13) The difference between 915 and 1100mm is a substantial step. As the E line calls at numerous national rail stations, doesn't this cause problems at those? Also, why is Heathrow so different?
kev | 30.10.25 - 12:23 p.m. | #
|
|
9: I think the term muppet could apply to quite a few people demanding FOI requests from TfL
Simon | 30.10.25 - 3:30 p.m. | #
|
|
20. I suspect the person who submitted this request has left at least one comment today.
diamond geezer | Homepage | 30.10.25 - 3:32 p.m. | #
|
12 - There are two different operators at Edgware, TfL have added them together.
If you count 24 hour routes as two routes and include school buses then Cricklewood operates 19 routes, 17 if you exclude school buses and 15 if you count 24 hour routes as one route. The total for Battersea is 23/21/17 depending on 'the rules'.
TfL treat the night element of a 24 hour route separately in their data. So Stockwell would operate 18 routes, New Cross 19 routes, River Road 23 routes.
Just saying...
Still Anon | 30.10.25 - 3:33 p.m. | #
|
13. Platform height does indeed cause problems.
One of the most notorious examples is at Ealing Broadway, where the eastbound platform has an enormous gap both vertically and horizontally, due to the platform being older and (AIUI) slightly below the standard height. The track also curves slightly and therefore has a cant (angle) that tilts trains away from the platform, increasing the gap.
There have been numerous accidents, several of which have gained media coverage.
IIRC, Heathrow's platforms were built at 1100mm height because, at the time they were designed, low-floor trains didn't really exist yet. Having level boarding on at least one end was seen as a positive thing.
Of course the sensible thing to do as part of the Crossrail project would have been to lower Heathrow's platforms to match the national standard and then design the 'core' platforms to that height too. But alas, they decided to build the latter to Heathrow's non-standard height - consigning the Elizabeth line to poorer accessibility outside the 'core', probably in perpetuity.
It may have had something to do with being unable to force Heathrow Airport to change their infrastructure (as the Heathrow brand is not Network Rail owned), but the Crossrail Act should have given them the power to force modifications through.
FL360 | 30.10.25 - 4:03 p.m. | #
|
20. At the risk of setting the author of 20 on another wid goose chase: Although Erith, Belvedere and Woolwich Dockyard are on Thameslink's Rainham to Luton route, their trains don't stop at these stations,becuase the platforms are too short.
Thank you. I'll get my anorak and leave.
Boneyboy | 30.10.25 - 4:19 p.m. | #
|
20. Instead of wasting TfL's time with 44 FOI requests, if the requestor really cared about getting step-free blobs right for their own map-crayoning hobby then perhaps they should visit the actual stations and have a look themselves. It's unlikely their obsession with Tube maps is for anything other than a hobby; they'd perhaps benefit from getting out more and looking at the real world that maps depict.
I note that there are plenty of FOIs asking how much it costs to answer FOIs. The latest notes TfL answered 4207 in total in 2024. If every request took an hour to answer then at the £25/h quoted that'd cost £105k. Many of these will have been multi-part questions requiring much more time so the real cost is probably considerably more than this, up to an upper bound of £1.5m at the £450/request cap. By comparison, the vinyl map / heritage poster saga was supposed to save £21k/year.
Suffolker | 30.10.25 - 5:23 p.m. | #
|
|
20 – yikes
TW | 30.10.25 - 6:50 p.m. | #
|
|
20... all of "a metaphorical line has to be drawn", "it's probably been drawn appropriately in this instance" and "we can nevertheless avoid being unkind to the neurodiverse" can simultaneously be true.
Chris | 30.10.25 - 10:03 p.m. | #
|
|
13. So the Heathrow rail really did wag the dog.
Simon | 31.10.25 - 11:41 a.m. | #
|
|
|
TridentScan v2.10.0 | Privacy Policy
|