If you go to Paddington main line station and follow the signs to platform 14 you eventually end up at short curved platform located almost at the far end of the station. All of Paddington’s other platforms are long and, for the most part, straight. Moreover, they are easily directly accessible from the main concourse providing building work is not going on (which it currently is affecting platforms 11 and 12).
There is not much point in going to platform 14 because, as far as we can tell, no passenger train in service is ever scheduled to arrive or depart from this platform on a regular basis. Yet the rails aren’t rusty, the platform is maintained, it is signalled and it appears in the Timetable Planning Rules for ‘Wales and Western’ (warning: 3MB PDF). An entry in Timetable Planning Rules should be a reliable test to determine if a platform is still officially in use. So, why does it exist and why is it not apparently used?
To add to the mystery, the platform appears to be too short to be of much practical benefit for use by passenger trains. According to the aforementioned timetable planning rules, the entry for platform 14 at Paddington is:
| Length in Metres | Comments |
| 147 | Length from the buffer stop to signal |
| 144.2 | Length from the stop line to signal |
This would suggest that it is too short of any passenger train that uses Paddington other than a 5-car Class 80x GWR platform 14 InterCity Express Train.
At this point we have to remind you that we have recently had suspicions as to how correct the platform lengths quoted in the Timetable Planning Rules for ‘Wales and Western’ are. There are extremely good reasons to believe that platform 14 can actually accommodate a 163-metre-long train which is the length a GWR Class 387 EMU consisting of two units.
To find the length of a platform quoted to the nearest tenth of a metre is surprising. This does seem to be a measurement that is precise but probably not at all accurate.
showing Paddington layout and platform lengths
However, salvation is at hand in another Network Rail document which can be considered the definitive source for details of the railway layout. This gives the length of platform 14 as 171 metres which is almost certainly the correct value.
History and The Answer to This ‘Unused’ Platform
To understand how and why we are in the situation we are in now, we need to look at a surprising amount of railway history. For those who wish to skip this and get to the reason for why this short, awkwardly located platform still exists, you are going to be disappointed – we really don’t have a definite answer. However, we will look at how and why we got here and how, but for one or two probably showstopper issues, a platform 14 could serve a useful purpose.
We also discover if platform 13 ever existed and, if it did, what happened to it.
The Start of It All
The story goes all the way back to the beginning of the Metropolitan Railway and the opening of the first underground railway in the world in 1863. Indeed, our story is as much about the Metropolitan Railway as it is about the original Great Western Railway and its modern-day namesake.
In 1863 the Metropolitan Railway opened between Bishop’s Road station and Farringdon Street. At this stage it is important to realise two things. Bishop’s Road station was a completely separate station to Paddington main line station with its only entrance in Bishop’s Road (today’s Bishop’s Bridge Road). And opening the railway between Bishop’s Road and Farringdon Street was not the plan.
Bishop’s Road Station
Bishop’s Road Station was the original two platform terminus of the Metropolitan Railway service running from there to Farringdon Street. However, it was not a terminal station and had through running lines, which were broad gauge, to join up with GWR just west of Paddington station. This connection was essential. In the first place, the connection was needed to remove spoil from the running tunnels being built. Subsequently, on opening, GWR provided the trains that formed the services on the Metropolitan Railway. The station was never intended to be the terminus hence why there were only two platforms and no run-round loop.
The description of how the original station was rather unsatisfactorily shoe-horned into the Paddington site cannot be described better than two sentences contained within its entry on the Heritage Gateway website – amusingly the entry has a category of “Post Medieval”.
Bishop’s Road occupied an awkward position between the main line station and the Great Western Railway coal depot alongside Paddington canal basin, further restricted by an approach road to the Great Western goods depot. Bishop’s Road bridge was partially demolished to make room for the station building, set back behind a forecourt for cabs and omnibuses.
Bishop’s Road Station page on the Heritage Gateway Website
The Intended Original Underground Railway
GWR features rather a lot in the part of our story concerning today’s Hammersmith & City line so it is not too much of a digression to have a close look at their involvement from the outset.
For a bit of the original history of what is today’s Hammersmith & City line west of Paddington one can do little better than read a previous article by guest author Rog entitled The Unknown Hammersmith & City Construction Calamity.
In essence, it was intended that the opening would be a line from Farringdon Street to a station at Hammersmith. Significantly, this involved running over three separate railway company’s lines
- The Metropolitan Railway to a location close to Bishop’s Road station
- GWR from its boundary with the Metropolitan Railway joining the Great Western Main line (GWML) on the north side of the GWML to a location at what today is Westbourne Park and leaving the GWML on the south side
- The Hammersmith, Paddington and City Junction Railway which, despite its name, would run from the GWML at Westbourne Park to a station at Hammersmith
As is common at the time, the Hammersmith, Paddington and City Junction Railway was basically set up by another railway, actually two railways in this case, the Metropolitan and GWR. The two companies behind it did not provide the investment but did provide the impetus behind it.
Subsequent Independence from the Great Western Main Line
Not surprisingly, relying on running trains along the Great Western Main Line for the two miles between just west of Paddington and the approximate location of today’s Westbourne Park station was highly undesirable. GWR were persuaded to provide two tracks to the north of the GWML so that the Metropolitan service to Hammersmith was not so dependent on the GWML. These two tracks opened in 1871.
It seems a bit strange that the extra two tracks would be thought to improve matters as the trains still had to cross the entire GWML. Indeed, one could argue that an arrangement that enabled Metropolitan trains to ‘go with the flow’ was better than one where it crossed all the tracks on a flat crossing.
Not surprisingly, the Board of Trade (who in those days was the government department which oversaw railways) did not like this arrangement of a flat crossing and made strong objections. The result was a dive-under below the GWML opened in 1878 which is in use to this day.
By now the Metropolitan Railway was running over not only its own tracks but also over both GWR tracks and tracks belonging to the Hammersmith, Paddington and City Junction Railway which itself was now jointly owned by the Metropolitan Railway and GWR.
The Owners of Bishop’s Road Station
Not made clear earlier is the fact that in 1863 GWR also actually owned Bishop’s Road station. In fact, they also owned 12 chains of track (just over 241 metres) to the east of the station. This may seem a bit ridiculous but, as explained, Bishop’s Road was never intended to be a terminus and also GWR owned the land on which the station was built.
More difficult to explain is why the GWR owned the underground section for 12 chains eastward of Bishop’s Road station. A partial explanation can be ascertained by the fact that it appears that he boundary between the two companies is the western location at which the railway is built under the public highway at a bend in South Wharf Road. In all probability GWR owned this land as well. They would not have been able to build the railway under the public highway as that right would have been conferred only on the Metropolitan Railway under the relevant act of parliament.
Although there were occasional serious disputes, the Metropolitan and GWR worked closely together for many years and GWR had substantial running rights over the Metropolitan Railway. These were not restricted to passenger trains and included a limited number of freight trains.
The running rights of GWR were specified in the Metropolitan Railway Act of 1854. As this act was specific to the line from Bishop’s Road to Farringdon Street, the Metropolitan Railway argued that GWR rights only extended to Farringdon Street. In 1882 this interpretation was upheld in the courts on appeal.
In fact, getting ahead of ourselves, GWR trains continued to pass through Bishop’s Road station all the way to the City terminating beyond Farringdon Street until shortly after the outbreak of World War II. As soon as the Metropolitan Railway was electrified these trains were hauled on the Metropolitan Railway by Metropolitan electric locomotives.
Meanwhile at Paddington…
As would be expected, alterations have been made to Paddington station over the years. Of some, but not much, significance to our story is the 1909-1915 alterations which included a footbridge spanning platforms 1-8 thereby linking 1-9 platforms at western (country) end of the station. The footbridge continued, rather awkwardly, beyond platform 8 by changing direction and continuing in the direction of Bishop’s Road station but there was no connection, for the public at least, between the two stations. This lack of a connection could be considered as a lost opportunity but it also appears to show that there was no desire to attempt to unify the two stations.
The 12 long platforms under the arched roof at Paddington were now much as they are today although they were slightly shorter and have been repositioned laterally from time to time. This, with the two platforms at Bishop’s Road, gave a total of 14 platforms.
Further Alterations at Paddington…
More significant changes since then took place at Paddington in 1930-1933 when platforms 2-11 were lengthened at the country end and shortly afterwards the semaphore signalling throughout was replaced by colour light signalling. The changes enabled the concourse circulating area, which for various historical reasons of disputed origin is known as ‘the lawn’, to be extended pushing the buffer stops slightly to the west. To achieve this, the platforms needed to extend beyond the original arched Bishop’s Bridge (which carried Bishop’s Road over the main line railway tracks). This was now possible as the bridge had been rebuilt with iron girders in 1909. The rebuilt bridge also enabled a more flexible track layout to be commissioned. One consequence of these changes was that platform 12 became significantly shorter.
Highly significantly, the footbridge was replaced with a better wider one linking all the Paddington platforms as well as the Bishop’s Road platforms.
…And Bishop’s Road
The 1930-1933 alterations also saw substantial changes to Bishop’s Road station including a name change. As owners, GWR had almost ‘carte blanche’ to do what they wanted provided they maintained the Metropolitan Railway’s running rights. In fact, the Metropolitan Railway was soon to become the Metropolitan line of London Transport which would inherit these rights.
GWR needed more platforms at Paddington. Their plan was to run their suburban services, of which there weren’t that many, to and from Bishop’s Road. Of course, they had the big advantage that they owned the surrounding land so extending the station was not a significant problem.
The work involved replacing the two side platforms at Bishop’s Road with two much longer island platforms of double the original length (630ft as opposed to 315ft). Because they were much longer and were extended eastward, the platforms were now closer to Paddington. Much more significantly, the platforms at the two stations were now linked.
Partly to cater for passengers from the main station at Paddington, a new booking office was opened at the same level as the footbridge above platform 8. There was still an entrance to Bishop’s Road station from Bishop’s Road but this ticket office had been replaced by a minimal ticket office of the ‘passimeter’ type indicating that GWR were not expecting many passengers to enter Bishop’s Road station from Bishop’s Road itself.
The entrance in Bishop’s Bridge Road became rather dilapidated and uninviting as can be seen in this 1950 photo below.
However, at least in 1950 the entrance off Bishop’s Bridge Road was well advertised. Contrast this with approximately same location today and note the minuscule low-level signs directing you to either the main station or Underground one.
Platforms 13 to 16
As a result of the 1933 alterations, Bishop’s Road station now had four platforms and the station was better linked to the main Paddington station. It made sense to label these platforms as platforms 13-16 following on from platform 12, the highest number platform in the existing Paddington station. Furthermore, it was felt that ”Bishop’s Road” was now an inappropriate name for the station and it was renamed to ‘Paddington (Suburban)’.
At this time, the outer platforms (13 and 16) were used for Metropolitan Railway trains to and from Hammersmith and the inner platforms (14 and 15) were used to terminate GWR’s steam suburban services from places like such as Uxbridge and Slough.
Platforms 14 and 15 had London Transport’s fourth rail electrification installed. Any GWR engine runaround necessary supposedly utilised one of the three potentially available platform lines.
The diagram above shows an ‘loco spur’. In those accounts that mention this, it is described as an electric locomotive spur which makes a lot of sense. On arrival from the suburbs a through GWR train would have a loco detached at the front and ‘run around’ to go to either the turnback siding ready to take a fresh train back to the suburbs or would return to the engine shed via the Down engine and carriage line. Once it had run around a Metropolitan Railway locomotive, or subsequently a London Transport locomotive, leaves the ‘engine spur’ and attaches at the City end. The reverse process would take place in the other direction.
For GWR terminating trains at Paddington (Suburban) platforms 14 and 15 the process was much simpler with no electric loco involved.
War Intervenes
Some of the substantial changes made to Bishop’s made in 1933 were made redundant only days after the outbreak of World War II when all GWR passenger services between Bishop’s Road and the Metropolitan line were withdrawn and never returned. The ‘engine spur’ would have probably been mothballed as it wasn’t currently being used and its future use was unknown.
Relations between the the Metropolitan Railway and GWR must have improved in the intervening years following the initial opening of the line because withdrawal of the through GWR trains (usually terminating at Moorgate) marked the ending of many years of unbroken service – probably to the relief of London Transport who may well have hoped it would forever stay that way.
Despite running rights only extending to Farringdon Street, because at the time of the agreement that was the eastern terminus of the Metropolitan Railway, GWR trains terminated at Moorgate or Liverpool Street. At Liverpool Street Underground GWR trains would have terminated at platform 3 which was a side platform that no longer exists. There probably would have been substantial spare capacity here as it was normally only used by the infrequent service from Chesham.
A few, very few, trains were extended even further to Aldgate as can be seen in the 1934 London Transport Metropolitan line extract below. A probable explanation for this is the unavailability of terminating slots at the previous stations.
The reason for some GWR trains being extended beyond Farringdon Street is unclear. Once the line was extended to Moorgate, Farringdon was probably no longer a practical option. Terminating some trains at Liverpool St could be down to operational difficulties terminating all trains at Moorgate or, more likely, was because the Metropolitan Railway and GWR had patched up whatever animosity there was in the past.
A Change in the Platform Arrangement
Until 1967 the above track arrangement for platforms 13 to 16 continued with only minor changes. Direct GWR trains to the City had long gone and GWR steam trains from the suburbs were replaced by British Rail DMUs. The ‘engine spur’ would have disappeared by now as it no longer served any purpose. Then an overdue change was made and platform 15 became the Westbound Metropolitan platform while platform 16 continued to be the Eastbound Metropolitan one.
Platforms 13 and 14 were very short by main line standards and really only suitable for suburban trains. By now these lines had buffer stops at the end of the platforms. In consequence, the Metropolitan line (nowadays the Hammersmith & City line at this location) was severed entirely from the British Rail network at Paddington. This meant that needlessly conflicting moves were eliminated. It also enabled today’s Hammersmith & City line to be independently signalled from British Rail.
The Direct Footbridge Link Disappears
The direct link between the main line station and the Underground station was severed in 2009. It was still possible to access the Underground station via the footbridge but it now involved going outside to what most people would intuitively not regard as part of Paddington main line station and entering the Underground station via a new entrance.
The Taxi Rank is Relocated
At the time, in preparation for Crossrail, substantial works were undertaken to move the location of the taxi rank to the north of the main station with an entrance and exit for taxis only off Bishop’s Bridge Road. As a small digression, the taxi new rank was really busy at around the time of its opening and for a few years afterwards with long queues forming for the plentiful taxis. In contrast, the taxi queues today remain but demand seems to have plummeted which we presume is down to Crossrail running to Heathrow direct from central London.
The Underground Station is Rebuilt
Also in 2009, the Circle line’s reliability was by now so appalling that TfL decided to bring forward proposal to ‘Uncircle the Circle line’ prior to planned resignalling. This necessitated rebuilding of Paddington Underground station (Hammersmith & City line and now also the Circle line) to handle the considerable number of extra passengers. As a consequence of this rebuilding, passengers now have to exit the Underground station into the taxi rank area before entering the main line station either via the footbridge which now has an entrance in the taxi rank area or a new main line station entrance on the north side of the station.
One curiosity about the present day platforms 15 and 16 is that their assigned platform numbers have been retained despite being now completely independent from Paddington Main Line station once again. Also, the Hammersmith & City line trains arriving at Paddington (Hammersmith & City and Circle lines) are announced as ‘the train now arriving at platform 15 …’ (or 16 as appropriate).
Platform 13 Bites the Dust
At platform level, things had remained stable in this part of the unified Paddington station for around 50 years but in 2016 significant changes came. The next issue was one common to many London termini – the trains were becoming too long for the existing platforms. It was the GWR Intercity Express Trains which replaced the old HSTs (High Speed Trains) which were causing the initial problems. This, coupled with a proposed more frequent service to Wales, would mean that a solution was necessary.
Platform 13 was extremely short by modern standards and there was no possibility of it being extended. This made it practically useless and platform 14 was potentially not much better. The situation was not helped by platform 12 at that time in the main train shed not being that much longer than platforms 13 or 14.
The solution to the short platforms in a restricted space was the time honoured one of sacrificing a short platform to make another of the platforms significantly longer. By sacrificing platform 13, platform 12 could be made sufficiently long for just about any train expected to terminate at Paddington. In the picture below there is an 8-car Class 387 EMU in platform 12. The platform is temporarily shortened at the buffer end by about two carriages due to rebuilding works and still the train looks to be a long way away.
One could argue it would be more accurate to state that platforms 12 and 13 were merged. Certainly, at the country end of platform 12 you can see small buildings on the platform, clearly older than 2016 when the new platform 12 was created. These buildings were located on the original two-sided platform that was designated platform 13 on one side and platform 14 on the other.
Network Rail did an excellent job of combining the platforms and there is no obvious physical indication that there ever was a platform 13 other than the fact that 13 is missing in the numerical sequencing of platforms.
Platform 14 gets a Stay of Execution
Platform 14 could be extended a short distance by setting back the buffer stops enabling it to be used by an 8-car ‘Electrostar’ EMU train – as would subsequently appear at Paddington in the form of a Class 387 EMU. This is what was done at the same time platform 13 was eliminated and may be the origin of the discrepancy in the stated platform length.
There was also an element of longer term thinking in this change and this related to Crossrail. TfL Rail were taking over Heathrow Connect services and planning to run the replacement service at 4tph. They were also planning to take over GWR stopping services to Reading which would mean a further 4tph in the peak periods. These services would terminate at Paddington and it would be desirable to have adjacent dedicated platforms for these trains. Two platforms would have probably been minimally sufficient but three would be ideal.
When the time came to introduce Class 345 Crossrail trains, it was planned to introduce them as 7-car trains which would be roughly equivalent to a ‘normal’ 8-car EMU. Platforms 11, 12, and 14 seemed ideal platforms for Crossrail trains to primarily, although not necessary exclusively, use. This enabled the remainder of Paddington station continue in operation with relatively little disruption.
Subsequently, Crossrail trains were extended by two carriages and the 9-car, now Elizabeth line, trains could no longer use platform 14. Of course, usually Elizabeth line trains do not terminate at Paddington Main Line station but in the early morning, late night and at times of disruption these trains are routed there. With the lengthening of these trains, it seems that the last useful role for platform 14 had disappeared.
The Last Regular Use of Platform 14
From what we can determine, the last use of platform 14 on a regular consistent basis was for the now-withdrawn Mondays to Fridays Chiltern Railways daily parliamentary train. Somehow, platform 14 seemed appropriate for this train. It ensured that its usage of Paddington was made as unobtrusive as possible as if it had to be run but the authorities did not want the general public to be aware of its existence. It also prevented the pride and joy of a station of GWR heritage from being sullied by a second ‘foreign operator’ although you could argue that nowadays Heathrow Express isn’t a foreign operator because GWR actually operates the service on behalf of Heathrow Express.
In a similar vein, prior to that, the Paddington-Greenford service used platform 14 prior to being cut back to West Ealing. Again it seemed somehow appropriate to use such an unobtrusive platform as the first generation DMU that served this route for many years was hardly the sort of train one wants to flaunt. It also would not make much sense to tie up one of the long platforms with a two-car DMU. For a while this was reduced to a single car Class 121 train (the ‘bubble car’). One can imagine that rail managers would be keen to avoid the incongruity of a bubble car arriving at one of the main platforms at Paddington.
Which Trains Do Use Platform 14?
From what we can work out using the OpenTrainTimes website that has details of all trains (not just passenger ones in service) no trains are regularly scheduled to use platform 14. In any case, not that many trains could actually use it. Whilst none do so on a regular basis, it seems that many early morning trains to Paddington regularly use different platforms. We can only presume this is to keep driver knowledge on routes into all possible platforms up to date.
There appear to be four trains that occasionally terminate and restart their journey at platform 14:
1) The earliest and most surprising is a Heathrow Express train.
This departs from Reading Traincare Depot in the early hours of the morning. It runs out-of-service (empty coaching stock in railway parlance) to Paddington. Its next journey is to Heathrow Terminal 5 (also out-of-service) so it is in position to be one of the first two Heathrow Express trains from the airport. We believe it has to go via Paddington to drop off another driver or drivers to pick up the Heathrow Express trains normally stabled overnight at platforms 6 and 7.
A slight variation on the previous train is one that leaves West Ealing EMU Sidings to form the other Heathrow Express train that is also positioned at Terminal 5 station prior to the start of the day’s service.
2) The next possible train to use platform 14 is the Class 165 DMU that currently provides the train for the Greenford shuttle between Greenford and West Ealing.
This begins its day at Reading and travels to Paddington before travelling to Greenford prior to spending the day shuttling backward and forward on the branch. These journeys are all in service but the inward journey is likely to have very few passengers and the outward journey to Greenford probably has no passengers at all.
3) A one-of-a-kind Sunday Only GWR daytime service that runs on the up relief line and stops at most stations from Reading to Paddington arrives in Paddington at 0712 on Sunday morning.
There are three similar services that run through the night which usually use low numbered platforms but have been known to use platform 14. Like the inward journey of the Greenford shuttle train, these trains are unlikely to have many passengers.
It must be borne in mind that the only sensible reason we can see to run these services into platform 14 is to retain route knowledge. If the platform did not exist then the route knowledge would not need to be retained.
The only other trains known by us to use platform 14 are during engineering works affecting the main lines into Paddington forcing all trains to run on the relief lines.
On these fairly rare occasions, some trains, very few, do terminate at platform 14. But the limitation seems to be the capacity of the relief lines rather than the number of platforms available at Paddington. The feeling is ‘that is what the platform is there for so we better use it’ rather than it being used as a platform of last resort. In fact, it can be operationally more convenient to terminate some trains at platform 14 at such times. However, it is certainly not so convenient for passengers so the overall benefits of using platform 14 at these times is questionable.
Is There Really a Reason for Platform 14?
We are struggling to find a genuine purpose for platform 14 and so do wonder why Network Rail and GWR keep it. A possible potential use is to stable overnight the Heathrow Express train that currently stables at West Ealing EMU sidings. However, we can understand that a train left overnight at platform 14, away from the main concourse area, would potentially be vulnerable to graffiti attacks. No train operating company likes to see its trains graffitied but Heathrow Express would probably be more upset than most companies.
Our best answer is that the platform is there, it is in good condition, it is signalled and has no obvious maintenance issues outstanding so why not keep it until such time as it becomes an expense liability? The fact that the construction of Old Oak Common station is going to lead to many weeks of engineering work until around 2030 adds impetus to the need to keep it, at least for the next few years.
So Nearly Potentially Useful
Whilst it is hard to see what really useful purpose platform 14 provides for GWR, first impressions suggest that TfL could make good use of it if they wish to. We have to be realistic and, even if TfL did potentially find the platform useful and it were offered to them, it has no money needed to make the necessary changes which would need to include providing an overbridge for passengers to reach platform 14 from the current Underground ticket hall. Unfortunately, there is also probably an insuperable problem which means the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
If TfL took over platform 14 then it could make it the primary, or only, Hammersmith bound platform taking over the role of today’s platform 15. This in turn would appear to make it possible for exiting passengers arriving from central London (the majority) to walk to the main line concourse via a shorter route utilising platform 12 without having to climb any stairs or use any lifts. It also would make it possible for the station to have an arrangement similar to Tower Hill with a central (platform 15) bi-directional through route which could be useful for terminating trains from either direction.
Unfortunately, the route along platform 12 appears to be just too narrow to handle a large passenger flow from the Underground station especially when there is a train arriving at platform 12. It would also be difficult to segregate the two platforms given the lack of width of the platform area. So, unless a more radical solution is available, it seems that this possibility is thwarted.
The Future
Platform 14 really does seem to be the most pointless platform of any London terminus – and that includes platform 4 at Blackfriars which is, arguably, genuinely potentially useful even though it sees hardly any trains in passenger service at present. Platform 14 at Paddington will probably continue that way for at least the next few years. But, perhaps, one day it will have a purpose – just as it has done in the past. Or maybe, it will be abandoned when Network Rail encounters a situation whereby it has to spend serious money to enable it to continue to be in use.
The Network Rail National Electronic Sectional Appendix: Western and Wales Sectional Appendix September 2024.pdf (115 MB) page GW103 seq 001 has platform 14 listed as 171 meters. It’s page 207 of 1075 in the PDF.
[Thanks so much for this. I did not know about this document – or rather I did but did not know it was accessible. This is almost certainly the correct value and I have enhanced the text and added an image from this document to cater for this. PoP]
I remember using platforms 13 and 14 at Paddington regularly prior to Crossrail through running. They used to be the regular platforms for the 165s of the Oxford stopper and the Greenford service; I think the last time I was on 14 it was to catch a 387 heading to Didcot.
I didn’t realise 14 was no longer in regular use, but it does make sense given its awkward location and the fact that most shorter suburban services have been subsumed into Crossrail. However I suspect it would have a role in the event of severe disruption in the Crossrail tunnels. Pre-pandemic I think GWR were eyeing the post-Crossrail opportunity for expanding services and one would imagine this time will eventually come again.
[I suppose indirectly platform 14 could support Crossrail disruption by using it for a GWR Class 387 service to free off a platform for a Crossrail train. PoP]
I remember using Platform 14 on quite a few occasions – usually memorable because I have to run so far to catch the train. I’m surprised that it’s not in regular use because unless my memory is faulty, I’ve used it within the last couple of years. Usually around 9-10pm on a Class 387 which might only be 4 coaches. Perhaps it gets used during times of disruption?
I think you’ve made a mistake with the crossover at the west end of the 1933 layout as it doesn’t make sense operationally, with no way for stock to return to Hammersmith from P15.
Harsig and the Signalling Record Society provide a better idea:
Hammersmith Branch – https://harsig.org/PDF/H_C51.pdf
Paddington Suburban signal box diagram – https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/gwa/S1.htm
[Thank you for pointing this out. And I really appreciate the links. Sadly the first one does not give a right to copy it and the second one has to be paid for in order to get sufficient resolution. But the first one does give me a much better original to work from. I will include the first link in the article when I have updated the diagram. PoP]
Minor correction, I believe the Greenford shuttle runs between Greenford and *West* Ealing, not North Ealing.
[I can’t explain why I wrote that. Been there, ridden the branch, taken the photographs etc. etc. Senility must be creeping in. Now corrected. PoP]
I may be mistaken, but I have a childhood memory of platforms 1-10 being shortened sometime around 1980 to create more concourse? Originally they would have extended as far East as 11 and 12.
Historical images such as this from 1976 and this from 1967 seem to support this memory as they show trains extending beyond the South East Transept where the buffers are today.
I caught the West Ruislip parliamentary at platform 14 shortly before it demised. Didn’t realise I was also experiencing a rare platform event!
Also remember BR trains sharing LT tracks around Royal Oak before reorganisation and severance.
A very interesting article POP! Funnily enough I’ve just written a post with the suggestion Paddington Suburban had finally been remerged back into the main line station, but that’s for another time, maybe next week. Also I’ve written very long article (not yet published as still looking out for some pictures) basically on a similar subject (not specifically Platform 14 though) about the GWR’s through trains and the WR’s DMUs using the Metropolitan tracks as its hard to find good pictures. Its why I created a special picture which was also used on my expanded post on the H&C disaster of a Met equipped DMU in Platform 14. https://londonrail.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/2024-class117-dmu-metropolitan-gwr-paddington-suburban.jpg
The GWR owned the railway nearly as far as Praed Street junction (well to the point in South Wharf Road that POP mentions). The late Mike Horne has previously posted pictures showing Edgware Road signal box panel with the GWR’s tracks clearly marked (thus that was of course the end of LT’s control as far as the Metropolitan was concerned).
‘GWR’ trains (as through freight from the WR) in fact ran until the 1960s. I remember these coming through King’s Cross.
One thing not mentioned in this is BR’s suburban trains continued to run along the Metropolitan until October 1967 and these had to have the necessary LT equipment (including trip cocks) in order to use those tracks.
“It also enabled today’s Hammersmith & City line to be independently signalled from British Rail.” That didn’t happen until 1971. BR(W) continued to signal the H&C even though it was by October 1967 totally separate from BR’s tracks. LT were a bit miffed BR didn’t want to give up control.
The entrance to Bishop’s Road (Paddington suburban – or rather Paddington Met as we called it in those days) could be seen until about 2004. I do remember as school kids in the 60s we used to get pretty annoyed when a Metropolitan for Paddington suburban was our only option (rather than a Circle to Praed Street), being in quite a hurry to catch a train from the main line station!
The direct footbridge POP mentions still exists. It’s behind closed doors and I have been in there & took some pictures a few years ago.
I do regularly see trains in Platform 14, these are either stabled or short formed 387s (inc HEX of course). Plus the occasional five car Class 800 IET gets plonked in 14 when the other platforms are in heavy demand due to delays & incidents.
The Greenford service at night uses Platform 9 quite a lot.
@POP: ‘On arrival from Hammersmith a GWR train would have a Metropolitan Railway locomotive, or subsequently a London Transport locomotive, leave the ‘engine spur’ and attach at the City end. Simultaneously, we presume, a GWR steam engine would detach at the Hammersmith end and travel the short distance to the nearby GWR loco depot and use the turntable to be ready to return to attach to the next GWR Hammersmith train.’
This didn’t happen for the Hammersmith trains – only GWR’s from places like Southall, Reading or Windsor through to Moorgate. All the Hammersmith trains were EMU’s owned by either the GWR or the Metropolitan.
In 1930-1933… ‘the original arched Bishop’s Bridge (which carried Bishop’s Road over the main line railway tracks) was rebuilt with iron girders…’
The original 1839 Bishops Bridge was replaced with iron girders in 1909. The section over the H&C was replaced by a combined brick/concrete structure.
[This was probably my misunderstanding of a passage in a book describing this. Mention of the iron girder bridge is now reworded to make it clear this preceded the track changes and replaced the original bridge in 1909. PoP]
I have a vague memory of a stage when platforms 12 and 13 were both still in use and there was a fairly narrow walkway between the two, allowing level access from 13 to the main concourse via 12. Can anyone confirm?
[ I remember reading about a walkway behind the buffers of platform 13. PoP]
@Paul – the platforms were indeed shortened. Which presumably explains why in the track diagram near the beginning of the post, the distance marking at the buffers is 0m 5ch, rather than the 0m 0ch one might expect.
Interesting story!
Was the tracks between Paddington/Bishop’s road station and Hammersmith electrified with standard underground fourth rail electrification, or were the central rail grounded like on the shared section to Richmond? Or in other words, did the GWR EMUs have third or fourth rail electrification?
Re a way to connect westbound Hammersmith trains with the main Paddington concourse: If that would really be desirable, a solution would be to fill in the track bed of the current track 14 and have platforms on both sides of track 15. That would likely create a situation where people coming from / going to trains on track 16 using trains on track 15 to avoid having to use the stairs, so would most likely be less than ideal. Fencing off the northern side of the current track 15 and add a new platform edge on it’s opposite side would be an option, but I would say that it’s hardly worth the effort.
Platform 14 for today…
08:38 from Didcot Parkway to Paddington
12:08 from Paddington to Didcot Parkway
13:08 from Paddington to Didcot Parkway
14:05 from Paddington to Didcot Parkway
14:37 from Didcot Parkway to Paddington
17:55 from Newbury to Paddington
20:05 from Paddington to Newbury
etc
@Andrew S
Yes I remember the walkway, it was a concrete path with railings IIRC. It seemed to bridge the gap where the track at platform 13 once connected with the tunnel towards Praed Street, so that you could walk straight over from platform 12. At that time most people heading to/from 13/14 would use the bridge, as prior to the new taxi rank platform 12 was the back of beyond and the walkway route wasn’t well signposted.
From memory the connection was widened and rationalised even before the works to build the new taxi rank and H&C station began.
@Andrew s @Paul Yes, that flat walkway from 13/14 to 12 has long existed, and indeed widened – if memory serves, in the late 1990s or early 2000s, most recently.
I must contest PoP’s penultimate argument about the usefulness of 14 re the narrowness of 12, however. For 20 years or more until the long awaited opening of Crossrail, 13 & 14 in particular were used for suburban services towards Reading, regularly jam-packed with commuters and tourists. Combined with the then still-existant direct footbridge access to/from 15 & 16, meant regular, significant footfall from all 4 platforms spilling right up and down platform 12 (often concurrently), through various bottleneck points. And through much of this period platform 12 was significantly narrower than it is now – perhaps half the width it is at the concourse end today. With the filling-in of platform 13 and the huge weight taken off east-west services generally by the Elizabeth line, it therefore doesn’t follow that 12 may be too narrow for future use.
@Marek
5 chains would be about 100m, and there’s no way the shortening I’m referring to was that much – 10m/half a chain at most.
Rather, I’d say the 5 chains is a close match if the “zero” was considered to be the junction with the Metropolitan railway mentioned above, 12 chains East of Bishop’s Road station; which began some way West of where platforms 14-16 begin today.
It’s absolutely not true that almost nothing uses platform 14 on a regular basis! The semi-fast GWR trains from/to Didcot Parkway are timetabled to use it frequently, including my train this morning. This has been the case for ages. It fits an 8-car class 387.
I’m a regular Paddington user (having lived in Oxford for the last few years), but I used platform 14 for the first time ever on early Sunday afternoon last weekend (October 13th) for a train to Cardiff Central (although I got off at Didcot to change for Oxford).
Any reason why that train would’ve left from Platform 14? I didn’t even realise that the platform existed before then, and it was a proper sprint across the station from the Elizabeth Line to make it on time. I had no idea where I was going, so I just followed other people who were sprinting over there too
Brian Butterworth, Maidenhead Traveller
I stand by my assertion, very carefully worded, when I stated
no passenger train in service is ever scheduled to arrive or depart from this platform on a regular basis and neither of your comments gives me any reason to change this view.
I had checked OpenTrainTimes for many days before writing this article.
Platform 14 was used today (24th October) for a few Didcot Parkway services and one Newbury service. Didcot Parkway services normally use platform 9. However, today, nothing used platform 9 after 0730. The fact that other platforms were also used for Didcot Parkway services ‘as booked’ strongly suggests there was planned maintenance or some other reason to make platform 9 unavailable today.
There is a difference between the meaning of ‘regular’ and ‘frequent’. Halley’s Comet appears every 76 years on a regular basis but does not appear frequently. I don’t doubt that ‘frequently’ the Didcot Parkway services end up at platform 14 but I don’t believe they are scheduled to do so in the long term planning and only do so as a variation to the working timetable. There may be periods when this happens ‘frequently’ for whatever reason but equally I suspect there are long periods when they exclusively use platform 9.
I don’t know if this is what happens but it is entirely logical to ‘bump’ the Didcot Parkway service off to platform 14 if there is a platform shortage since the service is, in general, relatively lightly used and probably the GWR service where passengers are least likely to be accompanied by heavy luggage. I am still dubious that this is really necessary. Paddington operates on a relatively regular clockface sequence of departures (often a minute or two variance) so if there was a real platform shortage you would expect every Didcot Parkway service leaving at the same minutes past the hour to be shunted off to platform 14 – not just some of them.
Sam,
On Sunday October 13 there was engineering works closing the main line out of Paddington. This meant that all services had to use the relief lines and they may have thought it operationally easier to use the higher platform numbers. I noticed that many of the Cardiff services were 8-car Class 387s which do fit into platform 14 unlike the 9-car Class 80x normally used on the services to Cardiff.
Given the track layout outside Paddington, I would have thought it would have been possible to use other low-numbered platforms but maybe they couldn’t or just chose not to.
As you note, that very convenient footbridge, truncated in 2009, actually went to all the platforms on the N side, as shown on your map excerpt.
It could probably have continued like that, when the “Met” section was also rebuilt, & the exit could, easily have still been inside the ticketed/gated area.
As you note & for reasons unknown, this was not done, resulting in a really irritating & annoying up-&-over-&-down again to get to from Bishops Rd Paddington main.
It’s inconvenient & it must be horribly confusing for non-Londoners. “Joined-Up” transport it is not.
A failure of planning? A failure of imagination? A repeat of the farce about different ticketing & separate barriers, as has happened at a couple of places elsewhere on the system – & very nearly & dangerously imposed on Walthamstow Central – that last was fortunately cancelled at almost the final minute.
It would be nice & probably useful to know the answer to those questions … maybe.
[I was just waiting for this comment. I cannot remember how many times you have mentioned it! PoP]
Quote: “it seems that many early morning trains to Paddington regularly use different platforms.”
Not just those, actually. 12+ years ago, when still doing passenger-counting, we sometimes had to ask either the Driver or a Station Inspector what an incoming train was, as it did not appear on our printed schedules. We joked that Reading Panel were rolling dice as to which platform to put incoming trains into!
Rog(LRB)
As usual , the “Railway Junction diagrams” are your friend when it comes to ownership limits & arrangements.
Andrew S & Paul
Correct, I have also used it – narrow & dark & awkward it was, too.
I was very pleased to see that when platform 13 was merged into platform 12 that the canopy valance that followed the edge of the old platform 13 was extended to follow the edge of the new platform 12. I was worried at the time that this – not just an aesthetic feature – was altered rather than just not bothering to save money. Well done Network Rail!
Platform 14 was timetabled for semi-fast 387s until recently (I work for GWR, my office is off Platform 1 at Paddington, and I commute from Maidenhead), but dropped out of regular timetabled use once off-peak GWR services became semi-fast and started using the fast lines to Slough. When we still had regular calls at eg: Ealing Bwy and Hayes, almost all off peak gwr 387s to Reading/Didcot used the platform. It is now used for adhoc moves for us and HEX, but more importantly for 387s during disruption, when fast lines are closed as signalling makes it quicker/easier to access or when the tunnel is closed which forces Liz line upstairs and frees a platform for them. I’ve only once seen a 5 car IET on P14, that is a very rare move indeed!
[Thank you very much for the information. PoP]
Serendipitously this popped up just a few weeks after I caught a 5 car 800 from platform 14. It was a last minute platform alteration, and I can see why despite GWR staff doing a good job of shepherding passengers to the edge of the station it’s not ideal especially if the train is heavily loaded as this was. Still I had no idea that this was quite such a rare move.
As an aside I vaguely remember towards the end of the 20th century it was possible for car drivers – not just taxis or minicabs – to pick up rail passengers arriving at Paddington somewhere approached through a turning off Bishops Bridge Road. I wonder if this would have been the entrance marked as a taxi ramp on the 1933 map above
Apart from platforms 12 and 13 the 2016 changes also made the full length of platform 11 easier to use because the connection to platform 12 wasn’t in the way any more.
[In case anyone is confused by this comment, I am almost certain this refers to a point half-way down the track for platform 11 which was the turnout to platform 12 which used to be very short. In effect, when platforms 12 and 13 were merged, the new track to platform 12 took over the approach from platform 13 so the mid-platform turnout for platform 12 was unnecessary. The map labelled ‘Map showing 1933 footbridge’ should make this clear. PoP]
Very interesting article, I didn’t know it had originally been entirely separate.
One quibble though, the direct footbridge was there later than 2009 – I was regularly changing from the H&C to the mainline services in 2010/11 and it definitely still there – it was terrible in the peaks as the platform often wouldn’t clear before the next train arrived, and people going against the major flow couldn’t get down the stairs
@Greg: ‘As usual , the “Railway Junction diagrams” are your friend when it comes to ownership limits & arrangements.’
I do know the Railway Clearing house maps, those maps are my friend nevertheless but thanks anyway!
In terms of signalling operation in order for westbound trains to safely approach Bishops Road/Paddington Suburban the operational boundary was slightly different and that is what I allude to.
@PoP
I can see all the NRE Darwin data going back several years, so I can just run database queries to find what is operatorCode=GW, isPassengerService is set and trainid doesn’t start with a 5 and serviceType = train.
Your comments about the rails and signalling being in good order made me just check today and I found several services.
I’m not sure if OTT will supress the Paddington platform numbers, they are in the raw Darwin data, but often with “suppress=on” as GWR likes Paddington that way (except, of course in the Passenger Assistance Office!)
Anyway, I wasn’t as you say, providing proof, just some data about today. Each day’s timetables (the WTT, Working TimeTables) are published (on the ftp server) at 2am, so it’s only possible at that time to see the current day’s platform workings.
@Martin
Yes certainly, there was a one way vehicle ramp from bishops bridge down to a taxi rank on platform 8 connecting through to the exit up to Praed street. It was certainly used by taxis and at one time even private vehicles for drop off.
if you scroll up to the 1976 photo I linked in an earlier comment you can see cars parked on platform 8.
I’m not sure when the taxi rank was moved to the Eastbourne terrace side but Bishops bridge was rebuilt I think in the late 1990s which severed the old connection, and after being out of use for many years the remains of the ramp were demolished prior to the building of the current taxi rank and platform 15/16 tube station.
@Greg: Edgware Road’s one-time operational jurisdiction ended approximately where the South Wharf Road entrance to the Mary Stanford wing at St. Mary’s hospital is, the distance being 222 feet beyond signal S15 (the signal itself was some 685 feet from 11B at Praed Street junction.) 11B was at a point opposite about at where the present entrance to No.4 Praed Street is. The total distance combined was 907 feet or 276.5 metres.
The distance to the official GWR/Met boundary from that end point was about 300 feet or 92 metres. Thus for the purposes of train operation the boundary was indeed further east. In the other direction control began some 334 feet (or just over 101m) east of the platforms at Bishops Road/Paddington Suburban – somewhere about where the southern end of the NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre’s building begins – about 150 feet (45.75metres) west of the actual boundary.
If we taken S15 as the actual point of end of jurisdiction rather as being the last signal westbound controlled by Edgware Road, this was about where the eastern end of the modern St, Mary’s hospital extension (aka the Queen Elizabeth/Queen Mother building) begins. This would have been practically half-way between Praed Street junction and the official boundary point.
There’s lots of interesting distances to digest no doubt! BTW the booklet, ‘The Re-signalling of Edgware Road station 1927,’ turned out to be my friend!
@PoP: the 2P31 0838 Didcot Parkway – London Paddington is currently scheduled (visible on OpenTrainTimes) to arrive into platform 14 on weekdays throughout November, and in my experience it generally does. Most of the platforms at Paddington tend to be full at that time, maybe due to extra peak services – though I don’t know for sure. Indeed the equivalent train an hour later uses platform 10. Interestingly after the December timetable change 2P31 moves to platform 12 – but then I spot the 1208 from Paddington to Didcot Parkway using platform 14. So I do believe that a few trains are planned to use 14 each day, though not on an hourly or half-hourly pattern. And if there’s any disruption then they can certainly move anywhere.
Thankfully since the Elizabeth Line’s introduction usage out there is definitely down from days gone by. I remember many long runs to platform 13/14 when the 165s and 166s were the regular local service!
Maidenhead Traveller,
I haven’t worked out how to look at trains in advance with a particular headcode on OpenTrainTimes but I am sure you are correct. in that case, it is just as well I got the article published in October!
@Miam
The H&C was electrified with standard 4th rail (centre rail at negative, not zero, potential).
The GWR owned no electric trains other than some H&C stock owned jointly with the Met.
Inded, until the opening of Heathrow Express, no part of the Western Region was electrified.
From today’s WTT…
* 1Z27 Newbury 17:55 to London Paddington 18:56
* 1K28 London Paddington 20:05 to Newbury 20:57
* 2P31 Didcot Parkway 08:38 to London Paddington 09:50
* 2P48 Didcot Parkway 12:37 to London Paddington 13:50
* 2N38 London Paddington 14:05 to Didcot Parkway 15:22
* 2P56 Didcot Parkway 14:37 to London Paddington 15:50
* 2N30 London Paddington 12:08 to Didcot Parkway 13:19
* 2N34 London Paddington 13:08 to Didcot Parkway 14:21
* 2P40 Didcot Parkway 10:34 to London Paddington 11:50
* 2N46 London Paddington 16:06 to Didcot Parkway 17:19
* 2P44 Didcot Parkway 11:33 to London Paddington 12:50
* 2N22 London Paddington 10:08 to Didcot Parkway 11:18
@timbeau: Even though the stock was jointly run, the H&C electric trains had legally separate ownership with half that stock bought by the GWR – thus the GWR were the full legal owners.
@Paul thank you – the vague memory referred to in my earlier comment would be from around 10 years after the 1976 photo you’ve linked to, but I’m sure that was it with short-term parking on the platform
PoP, unsure if you aware, the Network Rail National Electronic Sectional Appendix, as provided by Brian Butterworth, is a document that is normally updated every 3 months, as a general rule of thumb.
If you look in the top rh corner, of the extract it has a “Last Updated” date and the NESA as available through Network Rail is the most recent published. The Sectional Appendix is a national document split up in to geographical areas and is subject to updates, that relate to various engineering changes etc. these changes are required to be amended within the NESA and published by Network Rail Standards.
I was previously involved in provision of the information in updating from Paddington out to Maidenhead, during the Crossrail changes between 2011-2015 and 2017-2020.
Once updates are proposed and agreed, they are then signed off by Network Rail Operations and come in to use at the same time the new/amended infrastructure is brought in to operational use.
Timbeau
“No part of the Western Region was electrified”.
Most of the line from Wood Lane (Central London Line) to Ealing Broadway – the Ealing & Shepherds Bush Railway – and the later tube extension from North Acton to West Ruislip, were built and owned by GWR /Western Region, until ownership changes by the BTC/BRB.
PoP has already described the varied ownership of the H&C line, including in its electrified days, between Edgware Road and Hammersmith.
In 1938, the ‘railway returns’ to the Ministry of Transport showed 17m 36ch of electrified single track and sidings owned by the GWR (7m 62ch main route), which were identified as: 0m79 Bishops Road and Westbourne Park section, 4m15 Ealing & Shepherds Bush section, 1m38 Hammersmith & City Railway, 1m10 West London Railway. This was prior to the West Ruislip extension. The mileage would have passed to the Western Region in 1948.
Days
Nevertheless, all those sections were electrified on the 4 rail system and were, at some point, transferred to LT, (1960s?)so from that point until electrification of HEx the WR had no electrified lines.
This is all fascinating and informative. I lived near Paddington (Gloucester Terrace) form 2000 to 2020 and while no longer there permanently, I do stay nearby when in the city and travel in from Newbury
So I have seen most of the recent changes. The station – now that the Elizabeth Line is running (who could not see that was going to be years late??) and the Cube entrance open with its additional Bakerloo Line access – is much improved IMO
Except that the previous layout, with the long slip road paralleling Eastbourne Terrace, offered provision for both taxis *and* private cars. AFAIK, there is no place now where a private car can “legally” drop off or pick up travellers at Paddington. Private cars are not permitted in the new taxi area. The front of the station on Praed Street is the de facto alternative, but it is almost permanently clogged with… taxis!
Paddington is somewhat unusual for a major railway station (I think) in that the entire front of the station is a hotel. The hotel (I learned early) discourages anyone from using its lobby as a transit to the station. That leaves the side entrances (and Bishops Bridge). I was hoping that the Cube work might allow for a drop-off/pickup area on the St. Mary’s side – perhaps this has happened, or at least may provide a quieter spot to get a parking (standing) ticket 🙂
@Timbeau
Indeed. The GW had become enthusiastic to a degree about additional tracks for suburban electrification by the 1930s, however the second round of New Works for the 1940-50 period never happened, so we didn’t see electrification to Hayes and round the Greenford Loop or towards Yeading which were ideas put forward by LPTB in 1937. Any of those would probably have been 4-rail as well.
@timbeau: The West London Line is third rail and not fourth rail electrified. Was it ever fourth rail electrified? (I’m ignoring the Kensington Olympia District Line branch as that functions as a separate entity and even it if’s considered part of the West London Line in some way it’s only for a really short section of the line).
@SteveP: Re private cars drop off / pick up being hindered by taxis: In Gothenburg, Sweden, there is a spot in front of a hotel where taxis aren’t even allowed to stop while other cars are allowed to park for ten minutes. Super rare thing to see but as someone who think taxis gets undesired preferential treatment it satisfies the “get even” / “get revenge” part of my mind 🙂
I think the 1915 map does show steps from the footbridge to the Bishop’s Road platforms. They are on the outside face of each platform, both facing westwards.
@Timbeau – Platforms 4a and 4b at Reading (General) were electrified, following the closure of Reading Southern in 1965.
@pedantic of Purley
Services certainly are regularly booked in and out of platform 14. Didcot services usually go in and out of 11/12/14. Your research showed you platform 9 for Didcot services as you only researched it over a short period where they had revenue blocks targeting the services and they had them booked into 9 to suit.
[I would have deferred to you inside knowledge. I had thought that a subtle addition of an “At present, ” somewhere in the text may have been necessary but then I remembered that platform 9 does not have ticket gates (see station map in article). So how does that work? PoP]
14 can accommodate a 9 car 800. I’ve left from there, and arrived there on one whilst working the train as a guard.
[I am sorry but I just cannot believe this. Wikipedia gives a length of 233.7m which sounds about right. It references an article by Roger Ford in Modern Railways. Are you absolutely sure it wasn’t a 5-car one? PoP]
> At this time, the outer platforms (13 and 16) were used for Metropolitan Railway trains to and from Hammersmith and the inner platforms (14 and 15) were used to terminate GWR’s steam suburban services from places like such as Uxbridge and Slough.
…
> Platforms 14 and 15 had London Transport’s fourth rail electrification installed.
Surely these conflict – it would be the Met platforms which would have fourth rail electrification installed, so it must have either been 13 and 16 electrified, or the usage the other way round?
[What I meant was platforms 14 and 15 had fourth rail electrification installed (as well as platforms 13 and 16 which I took as read) for greater flexibility of the layout. There are photos in books (e.g. Mitchell and Smith – Paddington to Ealing) which clearly show this. PoP]
@MiaM: The West London Line was 4-rail electrified from Addison Road (now Olympia) to Willesden Junction up to 1940, also including the chord between H&C Latimer Road station and Uxbridge Road station. There were local LMS electric trains which ran between Earls Court District Line and Willesden Junction, which was the western sector of the former Outer Circle service. Similarly the Met ran an electric remnant of the Middle Circle from Edgware Road via Bishop’s Road to Latimer Road and Addison Road.
@Richard Ash: All tracks at Bishop’s Road were electrified. There was the Addison Road service as well as the H&C trains, while the steam loco to electric loco (and v.v.) changeover for through GW-City trains required full electrification, quite apart from other operational flexibility.
Incidentally those trains ran through to Liverpool Street not just to Moorgate, and had done so since prior to WW1. (PoP -please correct the text on that point!)
@Richard Ash: It seems a few people are confused by the four tracks through Paddington Suburban/Met. All four platform lines were electrified. All were used by both GWR and Met.
The Metropolitan did indeed (as a general rule) use 13 and 16 but it also used 14 and 15 from time to time as a through road in the relevant direction. H&C trains terminating at Paddington Suburban from Hammersmith terminated in either 14 or 15. Those from the east (eg from Aldgate etc) could only use Platform 14 however.
The GWR as a general rule used 14 and 15 (the centre platforms) form its trains terminating from the west – however its through trains to/from Moorgate could use any in the relevant direction of travel. (in other words a westbound GWR could use either 13 or 14 but not 15 or 16).
When it came to usage especially under the WR, the arrangement became less flexible. By the time modern era traction had arrived (1959 onward) the Class 117 DMUs were limited solely to 14 and 15. Met services largely used 13 and 16 although it still could use 14 or 15 for turn back purposes. Freight trains from Smithfield goods however continued to be able to use 13/14 westbound and 15/16 eastbound until the end of those services around 1965.
The arrangement finally ended in 1967 when all the connections between Metropolitan and Western Region tracks were removed. Hence 13 and 14 were de-electrified and 15 and 16 became the only Metropolitan tracks through Paddington.
Jonathan Roberts,
>Incidentally those trains ran through to Liverpool Street not just to Moorgate, and had done so since prior to WW1. (PoP -please correct the text on that point!)
I didn’t say they didn’t run to Liverpool Street. I said they continued to run to Moorgate Street – which they did! So strictly speaking no correction is necessary. But when I get a chance I will change the text to point out that some trains terminated at Liverpool St.
I think the point was that the GWR had running rights to Moorgate Street (subsequently named Moorgate). It is entirely possible they could have continued, even doing a lap of honour around the Circle line, if both companies agreed to this.
Today’s eclectic mix:
* 2P03 from Reading arr 0508
* 2G02 to Greenford dep 0543
* 5A02 from Cocklebury EMU sidings arr 0657(ECS)
* 5R98 to Reading Traincare Depot dep 2220 (ECS)
* 2P84 from Reading arr 2356
* 2R85 to Reading dep 0034
Today’s platform 14 trains. Very few despite the main lines being closed and all trains running on the relief lines.
2P11 from Reading arr 0612
2N14 to Didcot Parkway dep 0638
2P93 from Didcot Parkway arr 2210
2N92 to Didcot Parkway dep 2231
2R95 to Reading dep 0036 Monday morning (which is not possible without an arrival unless 2P93 was an 8-car train split into two 4-car units).
Later (0115 and 0143) two trains arrive from Didcot Parkway which need to be 4-car units for this to work. Details here. Alternatively, additional trains for Monday which would explain it have not yet been loaded into the system.
Minor tweaks have been made to the article – largely to take into account some of the comments made. There is a new paragraph headed ‘War Intervenes’ which covers the fact that a few GWR trains continued as far as Liverpool St.
For those interested in the old vehicle ramp from Bishops Bridge into the station, the remants of it are visible in this 2008 Google Street view, prior to demolition to make way for the new taxi rank
The Chiltern parliamentary service was given the ‘privilege’ of running in and out of Platform 1 on final day of operation, 7 December 2018. As you say, usually it is banished to Platform 14. The train was lengthened to a three carriage Class 165 for the last day of operation, and was full for the run from South Ruislip to Paddington.
One very good reason P14 remains is the cost of altering signalling. It’s not uncommon to see signals around the network standing apart from any usable track (sometimes indeed in the midst of a forest) but still showing a red (and still religiously maintained). That red light remains part of the interlocking circuitry and it’s a good deal cheaper to maintain it for years than it is to carry out the necessary alterations.
Having said which, as an ex signalman (a *very* long time ago now) I know how useful it can be to have a ‘bolt-hole’ spare. There are times when, even in ‘normal running’, a few delayed starts (often last-minute passengers) result in congestion building up. Being able to put an incoming train in a spare platform avoids holding it outside and helps keep the service running. It’s also good to be able to dump a failure somewhere until the fitters have worked their magic, or until a ‘ferry set’ can be found to take it to the depot. And of course it will really come into its own when the service goes up the wall.
@SteveP
I believe the policy is not to encourage the use of private vehicles at central London stations; a free drop off spot would probably generate more private car journeys whereas making it awkward nudges people towards using public transport or taxis. Licensed private hire are allowed to use the designated bay within the taxi rank area.
There are some paid 1 hour parking bays on Eastbourne Terrace, not sure how much Westminster is charging for those but they’re often occupied, and the Paddington Car Park (with direct access on foot to platform 1) which charges £4 for one hour.
Eastbourne Terrace seems to be the favoured place for probably-not-legal drop off and pick up activity. Even a glance at Google Street view provides a snapshot of this going on. This seems to be tolerated for the most part, but Westminster/TfL might choose to crack down on it at some point.
Equally, whilst black cabs are technically allowed to stop anywhere to pick up, I’m not sure the little line that lingers outside the hotel on Praed Street is strictly supposed to be there. They do perform a function for travellers who miss the directions to the proper rank, or maybe just can’t be bothered with it. I suspect the drivers would claim they’re serving the hotel rather than the station, but I don’t think anyone really believes that. Westminster tried to mark this as a bike lane a few years ago but the cabbies just ignored it and the markings were subsequently removed again.
I do think it’s disappointing that all the various developments haven’t done more to integrate the proper taxi rank area into the rest of the station. Perhaps when the current structural repairs are complete platforms 11 and 12 can be shortened permanently, providing a more direct and intuitive route to the taxi escalators. Or maybe the overbridge can be improved. I can see why new arrivals would be inclined to head towards the big daylight exit to find taxis rather than around the back of dark platforms, whatever the signage says.
Paul (28th October 2024 13:08
I’m not sure the little line that lingers outside the hotel on Praed Street is strictly supposed to be there.
…
Westminster tried to mark this as a bike lane a few years ago but the cabbies just ignored it and the markings were subsequently removed again.
Not only is it a cycle lane (reinstated), there are yellow markings indicating no loading or unloading (and that includes human cargo). See this photo.
So, how come “Double yellow kerb marks mean no stopping at any time” is ignored by these Licenced cab drivers? Is this that TfL run the cab office and Westminster City Council enforce the restrictions?
The famous Knowledge seems to be a little lacking. You would have thought a single photo would be enough to cancel the driver’s public licence.
Why is there a policy that favors taxis above private cars?
In the specific case of picking up / dropping off passengers at a station, a private car will sometimes travel some miles with zero actually moved passengers, unless the pick up or drop off was on the way to/from somewhere the driver were anyways going (or someone else is in the car going to/from elsewhere).
But for taxis there are many miles driven around the city that moves zero passengers.
If it had been 50 years ago, you could had argued that warm engines produces less pollution, and thus it’s better if it’s taxis that do the driving, rather than private cars, even if it happens to be for example twice as much driving.
But today especially ULEZ compliant vehicles pollutes less with fewer driven miles, no matter if it’s a “cold start” or not. (There isn’t really anything as a “cold start” for an EV, but you get the point).
Thus it would likely be better if taxis are at least partially replaced by private cars.
The downside might be that the requirements to become a taxi driver harder than to just get a regular drivers license, and taxi drivers are also likely more familiar with the road environment.
Still I think the downsides of taxis driving around with zero passengers out weights the upsides of taxis.
Also, taxis is the cop-out for the upper class and the upper middle to just pay to get rid of a transportation problem, in a way that the working class and the precariat wouldn’t be able to do, which in turn creates a divide in the experience of transport disruptions (and other problems).
Is not the preferential treatment for taxis based on their providing transport for those with mobility issues, either physical, or being encumbered with luggage +/- packages?
@MiaM
This argument doesn’t really add up when applied to a major hub like a central city station though does it? A taxi can drop off a passenger departing on a train and collect another one arriving on another train; zero miles with no passenger. A private car dropping off or picking up must be driven one way or the other without a passenger.
If a passenger is going to park a private car and return to it at another time then there’s ample provision for that.
@Brian @Pedantic
Black cabs are allowed to pick up/drop off pretty much anywhere except near pedestrian crossings, or where it would otherwise be unsafe or cause an obstruction
[Source]
What they’re not allowed to do is wait there, which the above link makes very clear on several points.
@PoP – RE: How do revenue blocks work in P9… With a large number if Revenue Protection Officers and various other support checking tickets in person, not relying on ticket gates which can only detect if a ticket is valid for a gate at that time, not whether they may have been valid in the train that has just arrived.
@Paul
I note your link also states
“If there are waiting or parking restrictions, drivers cannot stop for longer than necessary for the customer to get in or out of the vehicle. ”
Of course most people forget that putting their car somewhere is the main problem in a city. “The average car or van in England is driven just 4% of the time, a figure that has barely changed in quarter of a century … parked at home (73%) or parked elsewhere (23%),” – RAC.
Taxis might spend some of their time with just a driver, but they can be an economical service even when used 50% of the time because that’s much better than 4%.
@Marek and Paul
The zero milepost on the historic GWR was at the start of the company’s property at the back of The Lawn (Praed Street).
That’s one way of giving the impression that your trains make a quicker departure from London than those of other companies (our trains reach the first milepost so much sooner than your trains do 🙂 )
I have made some updates – some of it due to further information coming to light. This is undoubtedly correct but contradicts most books on the subject.
I have corrected and expanded on where GWR trains running over the Metropolitan Railway terminated in the east. This is illustrated by a 1921 GWR timetable showing their trains terminating at Liverpool St and an extract from an LT Metropolitan line timetable showing two trains per day (except Sundays) terminating at Aldgate.
I have also added a picture and a description of a cigarette card from 1936 showing the interior of the ‘state of the art’ arrivals signal box at Paddington.
I can confirm that it was possible to get from p13 to the lawn via p12. When I was commuting in 2011-12 “my” 18:12 DMU, fast to Slough then all stations to Bourne End was usually from p13. A couple of times a month it would be replatformed to p11 at the last minute and due to issues with the footbridge (the nature of which I don’t recall other than the stairs being ridiculously busy), you had to run all the way down p13 to p12, all the way down p12, round the buffer stops and back up p11 because there would be a load of DMUs stacked there and the next one to leave would obviously be at the country end. Those were the only times that the service was bearably loaded because the platform change was normally only announced a couple of minutes before departure and quite a lot of people couldn’t get round fast enough.
It was also a seemingly sub-optimal service because it switched from reliefs to fasts at Acton and then back again at Dolphin (just east of Slough), so two crossings of the Up Fast. I expect the managers didn’t want to sully the low numbered platforms with 165s…