Discussion:
Waterloo international
(too old to reply)
s***@potato.field
2017-08-08 13:57:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Wandered down to the refurbished platforms at waterloo international at
lunchtime which are now opened for suburban trains (for the time being). So
in ten years they've managed to reduce the length of the platforms to provide
a concourse, built a temporary bridge to the main concourse and put some
destination boards up.

Well I'm impressed. To think in the same time period the chinese have only
managed to build half a dozen new cities + infrastructure. Amateurs.

--
Spud
Tony Dragon
2017-08-08 15:12:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
Wandered down to the refurbished platforms at waterloo international at
lunchtime which are now opened for suburban trains (for the time being). So
in ten years they've managed to reduce the length of the platforms to provide
a concourse, built a temporary bridge to the main concourse and put some
destination boards up.
Well I'm impressed. To think in the same time period the chinese have only
managed to build half a dozen new cities + infrastructure. Amateurs.
--
Spud
Who are 'they'?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
s***@potato.field
2017-08-08 15:45:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 16:12:58 +0100
Post by Tony Dragon
Post by s***@potato.field
Wandered down to the refurbished platforms at waterloo international at
lunchtime which are now opened for suburban trains (for the time being). So
in ten years they've managed to reduce the length of the platforms to provide
a concourse, built a temporary bridge to the main concourse and put some
destination boards up.
Well I'm impressed. To think in the same time period the chinese have only
managed to build half a dozen new cities + infrastructure. Amateurs.
--
Spud
Who are 'they'?
Santas little elves of course. Who did you think I meant, Network Rail?

--
Spud
r***@spotify.com
2017-08-08 15:52:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
Well I'm impressed. To think in the same time period the chinese have only
managed to build half a dozen new cities + infrastructure. Amateurs.
True, but being a communist dictatorship with no need to worry about individual or property rights and environmental protection probably helps.
--
Roy
s***@potato.field
2017-08-08 16:00:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 08:52:31 -0700 (PDT)
Post by r***@spotify.com
Post by s***@potato.field
Well I'm impressed. To think in the same time period the chinese have only
managed to build half a dozen new cities + infrastructure. Amateurs.
True, but being a communist dictatorship with no need to worry about
individual or property rights and environmental protection probably helps.
Even so, 10 years to do what amount to minor alterations and cosmetic changes
is just farcical. Given the overcrowing problems there have been at waterloo
for years this should have been done the minute the eurostar moved to St P.

--
Spud
e27002 aurora
2017-08-08 17:00:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
Wandered down to the refurbished platforms at waterloo international at
lunchtime which are now opened for suburban trains (for the time being). So
in ten years they've managed to reduce the length of the platforms to provide
a concourse, built a temporary bridge to the main concourse and put some
destination boards up.
Well I'm impressed. To think in the same time period the chinese have only
managed to build half a dozen new cities + infrastructure. Amateurs.
The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
passengers.

And surely the "hole" in the main concourse should have been covered,
rather than build a new remote concourse.
Graham Murray
2017-08-08 19:50:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by e27002 aurora
The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
passengers.
Why? Before the Waterloo International conversion, the Windsor line
services always used the high numbered platforms.
e27002 aurora
2017-08-09 16:59:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 20:50:43 +0100, Graham Murray
Post by Graham Murray
Post by e27002 aurora
The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
passengers.
Why? Before the Waterloo International conversion, the Windsor line
services always used the high numbered platforms.
IMHO it makes more sense for the longer distance, higher fare paying
passengers, to come into the more modern, better appointed facility.
There may also be opportunities for further platform and train
lengthening. Clearly opinions vary.
Basil Jet
2017-08-09 20:08:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by e27002 aurora
On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 20:50:43 +0100, Graham Murray
Post by Graham Murray
Post by e27002 aurora
The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
passengers.
Why? Before the Waterloo International conversion, the Windsor line
services always used the high numbered platforms.
IMHO it makes more sense for the longer distance, higher fare paying
passengers, to come into the more modern, better appointed facility.
There may also be opportunities for further platform and train
lengthening. Clearly opinions vary.
I think that is the maddest suggestion I've ever seen here. Surely it
would be better value for money to leave the flyover alone and renovate
the low numbered platforms up to the quality of the international
platforms, so that all passengers would have a high quality terminal.
Graeme Wall
2017-08-09 21:15:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
Post by e27002 aurora
On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 20:50:43 +0100, Graham Murray
Post by Graham Murray
Post by e27002 aurora
The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
passengers.
Why? Before the Waterloo International conversion, the Windsor line
services always used the high numbered platforms.
IMHO it makes more sense for the longer distance, higher fare paying
passengers, to come into the more modern, better appointed facility.
There may also be opportunities for further platform and train
lengthening. Clearly opinions vary.
I think that is the maddest suggestion I've ever seen here. Surely it
would be better value for money to leave the flyover alone and renovate
the low numbered platforms up to the quality of the international
platforms, so that all passengers would have a high quality terminal.
I doubt there's a lot of difference between the actual platforms.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Recliner
2017-08-09 21:29:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Basil Jet
Post by e27002 aurora
On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 20:50:43 +0100, Graham Murray
Post by Graham Murray
Post by e27002 aurora
The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
passengers.
Why? Before the Waterloo International conversion, the Windsor line
services always used the high numbered platforms.
IMHO it makes more sense for the longer distance, higher fare paying
passengers, to come into the more modern, better appointed facility.
There may also be opportunities for further platform and train
lengthening. Clearly opinions vary.
I think that is the maddest suggestion I've ever seen here. Surely it
would be better value for money to leave the flyover alone and renovate
the low numbered platforms up to the quality of the international
platforms, so that all passengers would have a high quality terminal.
I doubt there's a lot of difference between the actual platforms.
Presumably Adrian would prefer to arrive in the high numbered former
international platforms as they're in the extreme right wing of the
station?
Graeme Wall
2017-08-10 06:58:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Basil Jet
Post by e27002 aurora
On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 20:50:43 +0100, Graham Murray
Post by Graham Murray
Post by e27002 aurora
The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
passengers.
Why? Before the Waterloo International conversion, the Windsor line
services always used the high numbered platforms.
IMHO it makes more sense for the longer distance, higher fare paying
passengers, to come into the more modern, better appointed facility.
There may also be opportunities for further platform and train
lengthening. Clearly opinions vary.
I think that is the maddest suggestion I've ever seen here. Surely it
would be better value for money to leave the flyover alone and renovate
the low numbered platforms up to the quality of the international
platforms, so that all passengers would have a high quality terminal.
I doubt there's a lot of difference between the actual platforms.
Presumably Adrian would prefer to arrive in the high numbered former
international platforms as they're in the extreme right wing of the
station?
ROTFL
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
e27002 aurora
2017-08-11 11:54:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Presumably Adrian would prefer to arrive in the high numbered former
international platforms as they're in the extreme right wing of the
station?
Only as you depart - they'll be extreme left as you arrive!! (Which goes to show that the extreme right and left are just as bad as each other!!! :-))
Only because the so called far-right are actually socialists - national
socialists - and so are not really right wing at all.
So, let me be sure I understand the point of view being expressed
here. Posters are positing that there is a left and a right and they
become similar at 6:00 in the clock face. This is because according
to this view both are about totalitarian government control.

So, we can logically conclude that according to this view 12:00 on the
clock face represents anarchy, the absence of governing authority.
Which would put libertarianism at about 11:0 or 1:00.

Is this what folk are saying?

FWIW, I do not share your viewpoint.
s***@potato.field
2017-08-11 12:59:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:54:47 +0100
Post by Recliner
Presumably Adrian would prefer to arrive in the high numbered former
international platforms as they're in the extreme right wing of the
station?
Only as you depart - they'll be extreme left as you arrive!! (Which goes to
show that the extreme right and left are just as bad as each other!!! :-))
Only because the so called far-right are actually socialists - national
socialists - and so are not really right wing at all.
So, let me be sure I understand the point of view being expressed
here. Posters are positing that there is a left and a right and they
become similar at 6:00 in the clock face. This is because according
to this view both are about totalitarian government control.
https\://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory
--
Spud
ColinR
2017-08-11 16:00:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:54:47 +0100
Post by Recliner
Presumably Adrian would prefer to arrive in the high numbered former
international platforms as they're in the extreme right wing of the
station?
Only as you depart - they'll be extreme left as you arrive!! (Which goes to
show that the extreme right and left are just as bad as each other!!! :-))
Only because the so called far-right are actually socialists - national
socialists - and so are not really right wing at all.
So, let me be sure I understand the point of view being expressed
here. Posters are positing that there is a left and a right and they
become similar at 6:00 in the clock face. This is because according
to this view both are about totalitarian government control.
https\://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory
Slight error in web address, should be
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory
--
Colin
Basil Jet
2017-08-09 22:05:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Basil Jet
Post by e27002 aurora
On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 20:50:43 +0100, Graham Murray
Post by Graham Murray
Post by e27002 aurora
The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
passengers.
Why? Before the Waterloo International conversion, the Windsor line
services always used the high numbered platforms.
IMHO it makes more sense for the longer distance, higher fare paying
passengers, to come into the more modern, better appointed facility.
There may also be opportunities for further platform and train
lengthening. Clearly opinions vary.
I think that is the maddest suggestion I've ever seen here. Surely it
would be better value for money to leave the flyover alone and
renovate the low numbered platforms up to the quality of the
international platforms, so that all passengers would have a high
quality terminal.
I doubt there's a lot of difference between the actual platforms.
I'm not sure exactly what the difference is, except for the pretty roof.
But imagine that the east half of Victoria was tarted up, and they
decided to build a flyover so the Brighton lines could use it. Then
twenty years later the west half is tarted up to be nicer than the east
half, so they demolish the flyover. Then twenty years later they tart up
the east side again and rebuild the flyover. Even Michael Bell wouldn't
dream of advocating such a thing.
Theo
2017-08-10 10:10:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
I'm not sure exactly what the difference is, except for the pretty roof.
But imagine that the east half of Victoria was tarted up, and they
decided to build a flyover so the Brighton lines could use it. Then
twenty years later the west half is tarted up to be nicer than the east
half, so they demolish the flyover. Then twenty years later they tart up
the east side again and rebuild the flyover. Even Michael Bell wouldn't
dream of advocating such a thing.
Losing the flyover would enable reinstatement of an 8th track through
Queenstown Road (where it goes from 8 down to 7 to accommodate it, then 8
once the flyover has merged). I don't know enough about the (complex) track
layout and platforming to know if that would give any useful increase in
capacity.

If the infrastructure elsewhere limits trains to ~240m long, there's no
advantage for anyone from the much longer platforms to be had.
(is there any realistic prospect of longer trains out of any part of
Waterloo?)

Theo
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2017-08-10 16:26:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Theo
If the infrastructure elsewhere limits trains to ~240m long, there's
no advantage for anyone from the much longer platforms to be had.
(is there any realistic prospect of longer trains out of any part of
Waterloo?)
Where do you get 240m from? 10-coach trains are about 200m long.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Theo
2017-08-10 18:31:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Theo
If the infrastructure elsewhere limits trains to ~240m long, there's
no advantage for anyone from the much longer platforms to be had.
(is there any realistic prospect of longer trains out of any part of
Waterloo?)
Where do you get 240m from? 10-coach trains are about 200m long.
Waterloo carries two kinds of stock:

20m stock, for instance 455s and 450s, that come in units of 4 cars. The
maxium length of a train is 3 units, ie 12x 20m = 240m
23m stock, for instance 444s and soon 442s, that come in units of 5 cars.
The maximum length of a train is 2 units, ie 10x 23m = 230m

Thus the longest trains currently operating out of Waterloo are 240m (or
thereabouts). The question is: would any of the routes out of Waterloo be
able to handle longer trains? If not, then the longer length of the
International platforms is moot.

(apart perhaps from Spud's hypothetical stabling of 16 car trains, which
- would be 320m but noting that most of the stock would need to be stabled
at the non-London end of routes to deal with peak flows).

Theo
Recliner
2017-08-10 20:55:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Theo
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Theo
If the infrastructure elsewhere limits trains to ~240m long, there's
no advantage for anyone from the much longer platforms to be had.
(is there any realistic prospect of longer trains out of any part of
Waterloo?)
Where do you get 240m from? 10-coach trains are about 200m long.
20m stock, for instance 455s and 450s, that come in units of 4 cars. The
maxium length of a train is 3 units, ie 12x 20m = 240m
23m stock, for instance 444s and soon 442s, that come in units of 5 cars.
The maximum length of a train is 2 units, ie 10x 23m = 230m
Thus the longest trains currently operating out of Waterloo are 240m (or
thereabouts). The question is: would any of the routes out of Waterloo be
able to handle longer trains? If not, then the longer length of the
International platforms is moot.
(apart perhaps from Spud's hypothetical stabling of 16 car trains, which
- would be 320m but noting that most of the stock would need to be stabled
at the non-London end of routes to deal with peak flows).
In looking again at my pictures from this morning, it looks like one 8-car
train is indeed parked behind another, presumably (but not necessarily)
also an 8-car train:
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/36312398742/in/album-72157684802951344/lightbox/>

Note the 10:22 Addlestone train on the board is shown as the "Front 8
coaches of the train".
Basil Jet
2017-08-11 02:40:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Note the 10:22 Addlestone train on the board is shown as the "Front 8
coaches of the train".
I wish they'd say "Near" and "Far": I never know what "Front" means!
Roland Perry
2017-08-11 08:37:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Recliner
Note the 10:22 Addlestone train on the board is shown as the "Front
coaches of the train".
I wish they'd say "Near" and "Far": I never know what "Front" means!
Also, unless you first walk to the very front of the train, and then
back, how do you know where front 8 starts?

At St Pancras, where one train used to split at Nottingham (front four
to Lincoln) they had an A-frame on the platform to mark the division.
--
Roland Perry
e27002 aurora
2017-08-11 07:43:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10 Aug 2017 11:10:54 +0100 (BST), Theo
Post by Theo
Post by Basil Jet
I'm not sure exactly what the difference is, except for the pretty roof.
But imagine that the east half of Victoria was tarted up, and they
decided to build a flyover so the Brighton lines could use it. Then
twenty years later the west half is tarted up to be nicer than the east
half, so they demolish the flyover. Then twenty years later they tart up
the east side again and rebuild the flyover. Even Michael Bell wouldn't
dream of advocating such a thing.
Losing the flyover would enable reinstatement of an 8th track through
Queenstown Road (where it goes from 8 down to 7 to accommodate it, then 8
once the flyover has merged). I don't know enough about the (complex) track
layout and platforming to know if that would give any useful increase in
capacity.
Historically, IIRC, there were four tracks between Waterloo and
Barnes. I do not know how much the reduction around the Nine Elms
flyover reduced needed capacity.
Post by Theo
If the infrastructure elsewhere limits trains to ~240m long, there's no
advantage for anyone from the much longer platforms to be had.
(is there any realistic prospect of longer trains out of any part of
Waterloo?)
Probably not. I wonder how long are the platforms at Southampton?
Graeme Wall
2017-08-11 08:06:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by e27002 aurora
On 10 Aug 2017 11:10:54 +0100 (BST), Theo
Post by Theo
Post by Basil Jet
I'm not sure exactly what the difference is, except for the pretty roof.
But imagine that the east half of Victoria was tarted up, and they
decided to build a flyover so the Brighton lines could use it. Then
twenty years later the west half is tarted up to be nicer than the east
half, so they demolish the flyover. Then twenty years later they tart up
the east side again and rebuild the flyover. Even Michael Bell wouldn't
dream of advocating such a thing.
Losing the flyover would enable reinstatement of an 8th track through
Queenstown Road (where it goes from 8 down to 7 to accommodate it, then 8
once the flyover has merged). I don't know enough about the (complex) track
layout and platforming to know if that would give any useful increase in
capacity.
Historically, IIRC, there were four tracks between Waterloo and
Barnes. I do not know how much the reduction around the Nine Elms
flyover reduced needed capacity.
Post by Theo
If the infrastructure elsewhere limits trains to ~240m long, there's no
advantage for anyone from the much longer platforms to be had.
(is there any realistic prospect of longer trains out of any part of
Waterloo?)
Probably not. I wonder how long are the platforms at Southampton?
10 car 444, 12 car 450
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Basil Jet
2017-08-11 08:12:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by e27002 aurora
On 10 Aug 2017 11:10:54 +0100 (BST), Theo
Post by Theo
Losing the flyover would enable reinstatement of an 8th track through
Queenstown Road (where it goes from 8 down to 7 to accommodate it, then 8
once the flyover has merged). I don't know enough about the (complex) track
layout and platforming to know if that would give any useful increase in
capacity.
Historically, IIRC, there were four tracks between Waterloo and
Barnes. I do not know how much the reduction around the Nine Elms
flyover reduced needed capacity.
Discussion of new services from Waterloo to Heathrow always seems to
flounder on the need to replace level crossings around Mortlake rather
than limited capacity in Nine Elms.
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2017-08-11 08:29:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by e27002 aurora
On 10 Aug 2017 11:10:54 +0100 (BST), Theo
Post by Theo
Post by Basil Jet
I'm not sure exactly what the difference is, except for the pretty
roof. But imagine that the east half of Victoria was tarted up, and
they decided to build a flyover so the Brighton lines could use it.
Then twenty years later the west half is tarted up to be nicer than the
east half, so they demolish the flyover. Then twenty years later they
tart up the east side again and rebuild the flyover. Even Michael Bell
wouldn't dream of advocating such athing.
Losing the flyover would enable reinstatement of an 8th track through
Queenstown Road (where it goes from 8 down to 7 to accommodate it, then 8
once the flyover has merged). I don't know enough about the (complex)
track layout and platforming to know if that would give any useful
increase in capacity.
Historically, IIRC, there were four tracks between Waterloo and
Barnes. I do not know how much the reduction around the Nine Elms
flyover reduced needed capacity.
Historically the constraint is at Queenstown Road Battersea (previously
Queens Road Battersea). It only ever had 3 platforms (the side platform has
long been out of use) and 3 passenger tracks. A fourth track, between the
two up tracks, served the late lamented Nine Elms Goods Station. There was
an attempt to work up a scheme to have one up and two down tracks there (to
ease ECS moves from Waterloo to Clapham Yard) but the cost of rebuilding the
station was found to be prohibitive.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
e27002 aurora
2017-08-12 07:36:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by e27002 aurora
On 10 Aug 2017 11:10:54 +0100 (BST), Theo
Post by Theo
Post by Basil Jet
I'm not sure exactly what the difference is, except for the pretty
roof. But imagine that the east half of Victoria was tarted up, and
they decided to build a flyover so the Brighton lines could use it.
Then twenty years later the west half is tarted up to be nicer than the
east half, so they demolish the flyover. Then twenty years later they
tart up the east side again and rebuild the flyover. Even Michael Bell
wouldn't dream of advocating such athing.
Losing the flyover would enable reinstatement of an 8th track through
Queenstown Road (where it goes from 8 down to 7 to accommodate it, then 8
once the flyover has merged). I don't know enough about the (complex)
track layout and platforming to know if that would give any useful
increase in capacity.
Historically, IIRC, there were four tracks between Waterloo and
Barnes. I do not know how much the reduction around the Nine Elms
flyover reduced needed capacity.
Historically the constraint is at Queenstown Road Battersea (previously
Queens Road Battersea). It only ever had 3 platforms (the side platform has
long been out of use) and 3 passenger tracks. A fourth track, between the
two up tracks, served the late lamented Nine Elms Goods Station. There was
an attempt to work up a scheme to have one up and two down tracks there (to
ease ECS moves from Waterloo to Clapham Yard) but the cost of rebuilding the
station was found to be prohibitive.
So, the absence of a fourth track for the Windsor lines approach to
Waterloo is not really an issue. That is good.

After TfL's Northern Line reaches Battersea, will Queenstown Road
still be needed?

It is a pity the tube could not have reach Battersea Park.
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2017-08-13 08:22:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by e27002 aurora
On 10 Aug 2017 11:10:54 +0100 (BST), Theo
Post by Theo
Post by Basil Jet
I'm not sure exactly what the difference is, except for the pretty
roof. But imagine that the east half of Victoria was tarted up, and
they decided to build a flyover so the Brighton lines could use it.
Then twenty years later the west half is tarted up to be nicer than
the east half, so they demolish the flyover. Then twenty years later
they tart up the east side again and rebuild the flyover. Even
Michael Bell wouldn't dream of advocating such athing.
Losing the flyover would enable reinstatement of an 8th track through
Queenstown Road (where it goes from 8 down to 7 to accommodate it,
then 8 once the flyover has merged). I don't know enough about the
(complex) track layout and platforming to know if that would give any
useful increase in capacity.
Historically, IIRC, there were four tracks between Waterloo and
Barnes. I do not know how much the reduction around the Nine Elms
flyover reduced needed capacity.
Historically the constraint is at Queenstown Road Battersea (previously
Queens Road Battersea). It only ever had 3 platforms (the side platform
has long been out of use) and 3 passenger tracks. A fourth track, between
the two up tracks, served the late lamented Nine Elms Goods Station.
There was an attempt to work up a scheme to have one up and two down
tracks there (to ease ECS moves from Waterloo to Clapham Yard) but the
cost of rebuilding the station was found to be prohibitive.
So, the absence of a fourth track for the Windsor lines approach to
Waterloo is not really an issue. That is good.
Au contraire, it's a very long-standing issue, limiting the frequency of
Windsor Line services.
Post by e27002 aurora
After TfL's Northern Line reaches Battersea, will Queenstown Road
still be needed?
An interesting question.
Post by e27002 aurora
It is a pity the tube could not have reach Battersea Park.
Isn't passive provision being made for a future extension?
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Recliner
2017-08-13 08:43:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by e27002 aurora
On 10 Aug 2017 11:10:54 +0100 (BST), Theo
Post by Theo
Post by Basil Jet
I'm not sure exactly what the difference is, except for the pretty
roof. But imagine that the east half of Victoria was tarted up, and
they decided to build a flyover so the Brighton lines could use it.
Then twenty years later the west half is tarted up to be nicer than
the east half, so they demolish the flyover. Then twenty years later
they tart up the east side again and rebuild the flyover. Even
Michael Bell wouldn't dream of advocating such athing.
Losing the flyover would enable reinstatement of an 8th track through
Queenstown Road (where it goes from 8 down to 7 to accommodate it,
then 8 once the flyover has merged). I don't know enough about the
(complex) track layout and platforming to know if that would give any
useful increase in capacity.
Historically, IIRC, there were four tracks between Waterloo and
Barnes. I do not know how much the reduction around the Nine Elms
flyover reduced needed capacity.
Historically the constraint is at Queenstown Road Battersea (previously
Queens Road Battersea). It only ever had 3 platforms (the side platform
has long been out of use) and 3 passenger tracks. A fourth track, between
the two up tracks, served the late lamented Nine Elms Goods Station.
There was an attempt to work up a scheme to have one up and two down
tracks there (to ease ECS moves from Waterloo to Clapham Yard) but the
cost of rebuilding the station was found to be prohibitive.
So, the absence of a fourth track for the Windsor lines approach to
Waterloo is not really an issue. That is good.
Au contraire, it's a very long-standing issue, limiting the frequency of
Windsor Line services.
Post by e27002 aurora
After TfL's Northern Line reaches Battersea, will Queenstown Road
still be needed?
An interesting question.
Post by e27002 aurora
It is a pity the tube could not have reach Battersea Park.
Isn't passive provision being made for a future extension?
I think so, but there's probably at least three reasons why it's unlikely
to happen:

1. Who would fund it? The cost would be in the hundreds of millions.

2. Would the Battersea Power Station developers who've agreed to co-fund
the extension be so willing to cooperate if they knew the six-car tube
trains would arrive at their shiny new station already packed?

3. Could the Northern line handle that extra level of demand? At the very
least, the further extension would have to wait till the current Northern
line was split into two separate lines.
e27002 aurora
2017-08-11 07:36:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Basil Jet
Post by e27002 aurora
On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 20:50:43 +0100, Graham Murray
Post by Graham Murray
Post by e27002 aurora
The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
passengers.
Why? Before the Waterloo International conversion, the Windsor line
services always used the high numbered platforms.
IMHO it makes more sense for the longer distance, higher fare paying
passengers, to come into the more modern, better appointed facility.
There may also be opportunities for further platform and train
lengthening. Clearly opinions vary.
I think that is the maddest suggestion I've ever seen here. Surely it
would be better value for money to leave the flyover alone and
renovate the low numbered platforms up to the quality of the
international platforms, so that all passengers would have a high
quality terminal.
I doubt there's a lot of difference between the actual platforms.
I'm not sure exactly what the difference is, except for the pretty roof.
But imagine that the east half of Victoria was tarted up, and they
decided to build a flyover so the Brighton lines could use it. Then
twenty years later the west half is tarted up to be nicer than the east
half, so they demolish the flyover. Then twenty years later they tart up
the east side again and rebuild the flyover. Even Michael Bell wouldn't
dream of advocating such a thing.
OK, OK Mr. Brush, calm down, calm down. You have won the debate. Be
careful, or you will be back at your Doctor's Office. :-) Think of
your blood pressure.
e27002 aurora
2017-08-11 07:31:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
Post by e27002 aurora
On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 20:50:43 +0100, Graham Murray
Post by Graham Murray
Post by e27002 aurora
The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
passengers.
Why? Before the Waterloo International conversion, the Windsor line
services always used the high numbered platforms.
IMHO it makes more sense for the longer distance, higher fare paying
passengers, to come into the more modern, better appointed facility.
There may also be opportunities for further platform and train
lengthening. Clearly opinions vary.
I think that is the maddest suggestion I've ever seen here. Surely it
would be better value for money to leave the flyover alone and renovate
the low numbered platforms up to the quality of the international
platforms, so that all passengers would have a high quality terminal.
Mr. Brush, you have been told a million times not to exaggerate. :-)
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2017-08-09 00:42:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by e27002 aurora
The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
passengers.
The Nine Elms flyover is being pressed into service for Southeastern trains
after the Waterloo blockade.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Recliner
2017-08-09 00:59:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by e27002 aurora
The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
passengers.
The Nine Elms flyover is being pressed into service for Southeastern trains
after the Waterloo blockade.
Yes, I was intrigued by that: has it been used for service trains since
Eurostar decamped for SPIL?
e27002 aurora
2017-08-09 17:02:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by e27002 aurora
The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
passengers.
The Nine Elms flyover is being pressed into service for Southeastern trains
after the Waterloo blockade.
One must ask why? South-eastern commuters can already access
Victoria, Charing Cross, Waterloo East, Canon Street, London Bridge,
and Saint Pancras. Isn't that enough?! Do they really need access to
the SW side of Waterloo?
Tony Dragon
2017-08-09 19:07:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by e27002 aurora
The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
passengers.
The Nine Elms flyover is being pressed into service for Southeastern trains
after the Waterloo blockade.
One must ask why? South-eastern commuters can already access
Victoria, Charing Cross, Waterloo East, Canon Street, London Bridge,
and Saint Pancras. Isn't that enough?! Do they really need access to
the SW side of Waterloo?
IIRC they are only using Waterloo because of the London Bridge work.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Recliner
2017-08-09 20:46:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Dragon
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by e27002 aurora
The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
passengers.
The Nine Elms flyover is being pressed into service for Southeastern trains
after the Waterloo blockade.
One must ask why? South-eastern commuters can already access
Victoria, Charing Cross, Waterloo East, Canon Street, London Bridge,
and Saint Pancras. Isn't that enough?! Do they really need access to
the SW side of Waterloo?
IIRC they are only using Waterloo because of the London Bridge work.
And only for a week, I think.
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2017-08-09 21:47:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Dragon
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
The Nine Elms flyover is being pressed into service for Southeastern
trains after the Waterloo blockade.
One must ask why? South-eastern commuters can already access
Victoria, Charing Cross, Waterloo East, Canon Street, London Bridge,
and Saint Pancras. Isn't that enough?! Do they really need access to
the SW side of Waterloo?
IIRC they are only using Waterloo because of the London Bridge work.
Indeed. Southeastern tweeted just that earlier today. Only some are being
diverted to Waterloo. others are going to Victoria and elsewhere.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
s***@potato.field
2017-08-09 08:43:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 18:00:39 +0100
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by s***@potato.field
Wandered down to the refurbished platforms at waterloo international at
lunchtime which are now opened for suburban trains (for the time being). So
in ten years they've managed to reduce the length of the platforms to provide
a concourse, built a temporary bridge to the main concourse and put some
destination boards up.
Well I'm impressed. To think in the same time period the chinese have only
managed to build half a dozen new cities + infrastructure. Amateurs.
The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
passengers.
And surely the "hole" in the main concourse should have been covered,
rather than build a new remote concourse.
The best part is that in building this new concourse they've had to drastically
shorten all but one of the platforms there so scuppering any possibility of
stabling two 8 car trains in them. There was plenty of room down below where
the old eurostar concourse and waiting areas were, but no, thats not in use
any more. No doubt it'll just be more shops in 5-10 years time when they finally
get around to finishing the project.

--
Spud
Recliner
2017-08-09 08:54:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 18:00:39 +0100
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by s***@potato.field
Wandered down to the refurbished platforms at waterloo international at
lunchtime which are now opened for suburban trains (for the time being). So
in ten years they've managed to reduce the length of the platforms to provide
a concourse, built a temporary bridge to the main concourse and put some
destination boards up.
Well I'm impressed. To think in the same time period the chinese have only
managed to build half a dozen new cities + infrastructure. Amateurs.
The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
passengers.
And surely the "hole" in the main concourse should have been covered,
rather than build a new remote concourse.
The best part is that in building this new concourse they've had to drastically
shorten all but one of the platforms there so scuppering any possibility of
stabling two 8 car trains in them.
Is that meant to be fact, or just opinion?
Post by s***@potato.field
There was plenty of room down below where
the old eurostar concourse and waiting areas were, but no, thats not in use
any more. No doubt it'll just be more shops in 5-10 years time when they finally
get around to finishing the project.
How long do you think it is since this project started? How long will the
project take, from start to finish?
s***@potato.field
2017-08-09 09:12:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 08:54:23 -0000 (UTC)
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by e27002 aurora
And surely the "hole" in the main concourse should have been covered,
rather than build a new remote concourse.
The best part is that in building this new concourse they've had to
drastically
Post by s***@potato.field
shorten all but one of the platforms there so scuppering any possibility of
stabling two 8 car trains in them.
Is that meant to be fact, or just opinion?
A eurostar is approx 400m long. An 8 car 3rd rail EMU is 8*20 = 160m. x2 gives
320m. I'd have thought even you could have managed that maths. However now
they've lopped a considerable amount off the length of the platforms I doubt
two 8 cars would fit.

As for stabling 2 trains in the same platform - it happens elsewhere on the
network, why not at waterloo? Are you saying waterloo is somehow special?
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by s***@potato.field
There was plenty of room down below where
the old eurostar concourse and waiting areas were, but no, thats not in use
any more. No doubt it'll just be more shops in 5-10 years time when they
finally
Post by s***@potato.field
get around to finishing the project.
How long do you think it is since this project started? How long will the
project take, from start to finish?
Well its taken BRB & NR 10 years to get this far, and its been over a year
since building work actually started for them to do frankly not very much.
I have little confidence the refurbishment of the 2 floors below will be
finished anytime soon.

--
Spud
Recliner
2017-08-09 09:23:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 08:54:23 -0000 (UTC)
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by e27002 aurora
And surely the "hole" in the main concourse should have been covered,
rather than build a new remote concourse.
The best part is that in building this new concourse they've had to
drastically
Post by s***@potato.field
shorten all but one of the platforms there so scuppering any possibility of
stabling two 8 car trains in them.
Is that meant to be fact, or just opinion?
A eurostar is approx 400m long. An 8 car 3rd rail EMU is 8*20 = 160m. x2 gives
320m. I'd have thought even you could have managed that maths.
Yes, and unlike you, I'm not ignorant.
Post by s***@potato.field
However now
they've lopped a considerable amount off the length of the platforms I doubt
two 8 cars would fit.
They've moved the buffer stops by 50m, so there will still be room for 2x8
car trains.
Post by s***@potato.field
As for stabling 2 trains in the same platform - it happens elsewhere on the
network, why not at waterloo? Are you saying waterloo is somehow special?
No — where did I say that?
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by s***@potato.field
There was plenty of room down below where
the old eurostar concourse and waiting areas were, but no, thats not in use
any more. No doubt it'll just be more shops in 5-10 years time when they
finally
Post by s***@potato.field
get around to finishing the project.
How long do you think it is since this project started? How long will the
project take, from start to finish?
Well its taken BRB & NR 10 years to get this far, and its been over a year
since building work actually started for them to do frankly not very much.
I have little confidence the refurbishment of the 2 floors below will be
finished anytime soon.
I'm sure they'll be devastated that an ignoramus like you has little
confidence in this large project you know so little about.

From
http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/waterloo-station-upgrade-london/

The site preparation works on the station upgrade began in October 2015 and
construction works began in December 2015. The Waterloo International
station was closed for all trains services in April 2016 for construction.

Platform 20 will be returned to Network Rail and train services will be
reinstated by February 2017, while platforms 21 to 24 will be returned in
July 2017, and former international terminal will be opened for temporary
use in August 2017. The station will be closed again for passenger services
so that the remaining construction works can be completed.

Platforms 1 to 4 on the suburban network will be operated with ten-carriage
services from December 2017 during the morning and evening peak periods.

Platforms 21 to 24 will be opened and additional train services operating
on a new timetable starting from December 2018.



The consortium consisting of Skanska, Colas Rail, Aecom and Mott MacDonald
was awarded with a £400m ($592.08m) contract to upgrade the Waterloo
station in January 2016.

The contractual scope includes bringing the international terminal at the
station back into use for domestic train services and increasing the length
of certain station platforms.

It also includes delivering track alterations, signalling, communications,
buildings and civil infrastructure along the Wessex Route and at Waterloo,
Vauxhall, Clapham Junction, Richmond, Wimbledon and Surbiton stations.

——

It all seems to be going exactly to plan so far, even without your expert
guidance.

Now, what was that about you claiming you didn't pour scorn on projects you
knew little about?
Recliner
2017-08-09 09:55:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 08:54:23 -0000 (UTC)
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by e27002 aurora
And surely the "hole" in the main concourse should have been covered,
rather than build a new remote concourse.
The best part is that in building this new concourse they've had to
drastically
Post by s***@potato.field
shorten all but one of the platforms there so scuppering any possibility of
stabling two 8 car trains in them.
Is that meant to be fact, or just opinion?
A eurostar is approx 400m long. An 8 car 3rd rail EMU is 8*20 = 160m. x2 gives
320m. I'd have thought even you could have managed that maths.
Yes, and unlike you, I'm not ignorant.
Post by s***@potato.field
However now
they've lopped a considerable amount off the length of the platforms I doubt
two 8 cars would fit.
They've moved the buffer stops by 50m, so there will still be room for 2x8
car trains.
Post by s***@potato.field
As for stabling 2 trains in the same platform - it happens elsewhere on the
network, why not at waterloo? Are you saying waterloo is somehow special?
No — where did I say that?
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by s***@potato.field
There was plenty of room down below where
the old eurostar concourse and waiting areas were, but no, thats not in use
any more. No doubt it'll just be more shops in 5-10 years time when they
finally
Post by s***@potato.field
get around to finishing the project.
How long do you think it is since this project started? How long will the
project take, from start to finish?
Well its taken BRB & NR 10 years to get this far, and its been over a year
since building work actually started for them to do frankly not very much.
I have little confidence the refurbishment of the 2 floors below will be
finished anytime soon.
I'm sure they'll be devastated that an ignoramus like you has little
confidence in this large project you know so little about.
Yes. I imagine they'll be about as devastated as HS2 were to learn that
Mr Bell lost all respect for them.
At least Mr Bell makes a real effort to understand the official plan before
politely denouncing it. Spud routinely scorns projects about which he knows
nothing.
s***@potato.field
2017-08-09 10:55:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 09:23:25 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
A eurostar is approx 400m long. An 8 car 3rd rail EMU is 8*20 = 160m. x2
gives
Post by s***@potato.field
320m. I'd have thought even you could have managed that maths.
Yes, and unlike you, I'm not ignorant.
I guess you were just having a senior moment and couldn't work it out then eh?
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
However now
they've lopped a considerable amount off the length of the platforms I doubt
two 8 cars would fit.
They've moved the buffer stops by 50m, so there will still be room for 2x8
car trains.
It looks somewhat more than 50m to me.
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
As for stabling 2 trains in the same platform - it happens elsewhere on the
network, why not at waterloo? Are you saying waterloo is somehow special?
No — where did I say that?
Then what exactly were you wibbling about then? Or any excuse to have a go eh?
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Well its taken BRB & NR 10 years to get this far, and its been over a year
since building work actually started for them to do frankly not very much.
I have little confidence the refurbishment of the 2 floors below will be
finished anytime soon.
I'm sure they'll be devastated that an ignoramus like you has little
confidence in this large project you know so little about.
I don't need to know the details to know that 10 years to do such a small
amount of work is a fucking joke.
Post by Recliner
The site preparation works on the station upgrade began in October 2015 and
construction works began in December 2015. The Waterloo International
station was closed for all trains services in April 2016 for construction.
Your cut and paste skills are impressive, you could get a job as a secretary
yet. Keep trying.
Post by Recliner
It all seems to be going exactly to plan so far, even without your expert
guidance.
Yes, and we all know how reliable timescales are on the railways when it comes
to engineering works.
Post by Recliner
Now, what was that about you claiming you didn't pour scorn on projects you
knew little about?
You willful misunderstanding of someones position in a feeble attempt to score
points really are tragic.

--
Spud
Basil Jet
2017-08-09 12:07:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
They've moved the buffer stops by 50m, so there will still be room for 2x8
car trains.
They've moved the trains 50 metres further from the tubes / buses /
taxis? Why?
Recliner
2017-08-09 12:06:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Recliner
They've moved the buffer stops by 50m, so there will still be room for 2x8
car trains.
They've moved the trains 50 metres further from the tubes / buses /
taxis? Why?
Only on the former international platforms. As I said, to create the new,
higher level concourse and gate line.
Roland Perry
2017-08-09 12:14:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Recliner
They've moved the buffer stops by 50m, so there will still be room
for 2x8 car trains.
They've moved the trains 50 metres further from the tubes / buses /
taxis? Why?
DfT's keep-fit fanatic has moved his attention to Waterloo, given his
huge success at St Pancras and Kings Cross.
--
Roland Perry
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2017-08-09 15:08:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Recliner
They've moved the buffer stops by 50m, so there will still be room
for 2x8 car trains.
They've moved the trains 50 metres further from the tubes / buses /
taxis? Why?
DfT's keep-fit fanatic has moved his attention to Waterloo, given his
huge success at St Pancras and Kings Cross.
Given we had to walk from KGX platform 0 to St Pancras Eurostar departures
in the rain, having to register a railcard on an Oyster card on the way, our
walking distance was surprisingly short and entirely dry.

Just took two attempts at the card registration. Not only does the old main
Kings Cross St Pancras Underground ticket hall with its huge bank of
machines only have one person supporting it but he didn't have his requisite
card to log in to do the registration. So he sent us to the Western ticket
hall, not a problem today as it's on the way to Eurostar in the dry. There
were four staff there, even though it has fewer machines, one of whom was
able to do the registration quickly enough.

It also helped that we took the 1417 from Cambridge, at least half an hour
earlier than necessary and it arrived an unprecedented 5 1/4 minutes early.

So here we are waiting for our train, having got through security & passport
control more than an hour before our train departure.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Graeme Wall
2017-08-09 12:36:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Recliner
They've moved the buffer stops by 50m, so there will still be room for 2x8
car trains.
They've moved the trains 50 metres further from the tubes / buses /
taxis? Why?
If they provide another route down to the TfL ticket office area from
the new concourse they could actually shorten the distance to the tube.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
e27002 aurora
2017-08-09 17:05:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 08:54:23 -0000 (UTC)
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by e27002 aurora
And surely the "hole" in the main concourse should have been covered,
rather than build a new remote concourse.
The best part is that in building this new concourse they've had to
drastically
Post by s***@potato.field
shorten all but one of the platforms there so scuppering any possibility of
stabling two 8 car trains in them.
Is that meant to be fact, or just opinion?
A eurostar is approx 400m long. An 8 car 3rd rail EMU is 8*20 = 160m. x2 gives
320m. I'd have thought even you could have managed that maths. However now
they've lopped a considerable amount off the length of the platforms I doubt
two 8 cars would fit.
As for stabling 2 trains in the same platform - it happens elsewhere on the
network, why not at waterloo? Are you saying waterloo is somehow special?
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by s***@potato.field
There was plenty of room down below where
the old eurostar concourse and waiting areas were, but no, thats not in use
any more. No doubt it'll just be more shops in 5-10 years time when they
finally
Post by s***@potato.field
get around to finishing the project.
How long do you think it is since this project started? How long will the
project take, from start to finish?
Well its taken BRB & NR 10 years to get this far, and its been over a year
since building work actually started for them to do frankly not very much.
I have little confidence the refurbishment of the 2 floors below will be
finished anytime soon.
More reason to make responsibility for track and infrastructure part
of the franchise commitment. D(a)ft and Network Rail together are
worthless.
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2017-08-09 21:47:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 08:54:23 -0000 (UTC)
Well its taken BRB & NR 10 years to get this far, and its been over a
year since building work actually started for them to do frankly not very
much. I have little confidence the refurbishment of the 2 floors below
will be finished anytime soon.
More reason to make responsibility for track and infrastructure part
of the franchise commitment. D(a)ft and Network Rail together are
worthless.
That's all very well until more than one company runs trains on the tracks,
especially freight companies.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
e27002 aurora
2017-08-12 07:31:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 08:54:23 -0000 (UTC)
Well its taken BRB & NR 10 years to get this far, and its been over a
year since building work actually started for them to do frankly not very
much. I have little confidence the refurbishment of the 2 floors below
will be finished anytime soon.
More reason to make responsibility for track and infrastructure part
of the franchise commitment. D(a)ft and Network Rail together are
worthless.
That's all very well until more than one company runs trains on the tracks,
especially freight companies.
This is hardly a new problem! Join arrangements, running powers,
access charges, there are several solutions.
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2017-08-13 08:22:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 08:54:23 -0000 (UTC)
Well its taken BRB & NR 10 years to get this far, and its been over a
year since building work actually started for them to do frankly not
very much. I have little confidence the refurbishment of the 2 floors
below will be finished anytime soon.
More reason to make responsibility for track and infrastructure part
of the franchise commitment. D(a)ft and Network Rail together are
worthless.
That's all very well until more than one company runs trains on the
tracks, especially freight companies.
This is hardly a new problem! Join arrangements, running powers,
access charges, there are several solutions.
In those days the companies were vertically integrated. Now they can't even
recognise each other's smart ticketing.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Graeme Wall
2017-08-09 11:46:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 18:00:39 +0100
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by s***@potato.field
Wandered down to the refurbished platforms at waterloo international at
lunchtime which are now opened for suburban trains (for the time being). So
in ten years they've managed to reduce the length of the platforms to provide
a concourse, built a temporary bridge to the main concourse and put some
destination boards up.
Well I'm impressed. To think in the same time period the chinese have only
managed to build half a dozen new cities + infrastructure. Amateurs.
The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
passengers.
And surely the "hole" in the main concourse should have been covered,
rather than build a new remote concourse.
The best part is that in building this new concourse they've had to drastically
shorten all but one of the platforms there so scuppering any possibility of
stabling two 8 car trains in them.
Is that meant to be fact, or just opinion?
As far as I can make out the platform ends are at the same place they
were in E* days.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
e27002 aurora
2017-08-09 17:13:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:36:34 -0000 (UTC)
On Wed, 09 Aug 2017 15:05:22 +0100
If by on time you mean 9 years later than it should have been completed due
to
incompetance, indifference and procrastination then sure.
This complex project is bang on time, so far at least.
Complex compared to what? Certainly not any of the other rail projects
happening in London at the moment.
Blame someone else for the long gap between Eurostar's departure and
Network Rail are to blame.
No, NR doesn't have the independence, authority or budget to launch huge
speculative station and track redevelopments like that. The DfT is in
charge and holds the purse strings tightly. Perhaps it has different
priorities to you for its finite investment funds?
The eurostar terminal could have been used pretty much as was. All they'd
have had to install would be gates and departure boards downstairs in the
former eurostar concourse and the track was already linked to the rest of the
network.
The platforms were the wrong height. Moreover, the track layout and
signalling may not have been appropriate for domestic traffic.
But, you are correct, in that after the international service moved to
Saint Pancras, DfT and Network Rail should have been considering
re-utilizing the station.
Roland Perry
2017-08-09 17:44:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by e27002 aurora
you are correct, in that after the international service moved to
Saint Pancras, DfT and Network Rail should have been considering
re-utilizing the station.
They were, but it took a while for them to decide.
--
Roland Perry
Graeme Wall
2017-08-09 18:38:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by e27002 aurora
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:36:34 -0000 (UTC)
On Wed, 09 Aug 2017 15:05:22 +0100
If by on time you mean 9 years later than it should have been completed due
to
incompetance, indifference and procrastination then sure.
This complex project is bang on time, so far at least.
Complex compared to what? Certainly not any of the other rail projects
happening in London at the moment.
Blame someone else for the long gap between Eurostar's departure and
Network Rail are to blame.
No, NR doesn't have the independence, authority or budget to launch huge
speculative station and track redevelopments like that. The DfT is in
charge and holds the purse strings tightly. Perhaps it has different
priorities to you for its finite investment funds?
The eurostar terminal could have been used pretty much as was. All they'd
have had to install would be gates and departure boards downstairs in the
former eurostar concourse and the track was already linked to the rest of the
network.
The platforms were the wrong height. Moreover, the track layout and
signalling may not have been appropriate for domestic traffic.
But, you are correct, in that after the international service moved to
Saint Pancras, DfT and Network Rail should have been considering
re-utilizing the station.
Who actually owned it?
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
s***@potato.field
2017-08-10 08:34:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by e27002 aurora
The platforms were the wrong height. Moreover, the track layout and
signalling may not have been appropriate for domestic traffic.
But, you are correct, in that after the international service moved to
Saint Pancras, DfT and Network Rail should have been considering
re-utilizing the station.
Who actually owned it?
British Railways Board after it closed. Don't know who owned it when it was
in service. However if network rail had asked to take it off their hands back
in 2007 I doubt there would have been too many objections.

--
Spud
Graeme Wall
2017-08-10 10:12:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by e27002 aurora
The platforms were the wrong height. Moreover, the track layout and
signalling may not have been appropriate for domestic traffic.
But, you are correct, in that after the international service moved to
Saint Pancras, DfT and Network Rail should have been considering
re-utilizing the station.
Who actually owned it?
British Railways Board after it closed. Don't know who owned it when it was
in service. However if network rail had asked to take it off their hands back
in 2007 I doubt there would have been too many objections.
There was for a while an idea that E* could use both terminals. Not
sure who dreamt that one up, possibly a southern edition of M Bell
(Tyneside) Ltd.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
s***@potato.field
2017-08-10 11:27:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by e27002 aurora
The platforms were the wrong height. Moreover, the track layout and
signalling may not have been appropriate for domestic traffic.
But, you are correct, in that after the international service moved to
Saint Pancras, DfT and Network Rail should have been considering
re-utilizing the station.
Who actually owned it?
British Railways Board after it closed. Don't know who owned it when it was
in service. However if network rail had asked to take it off their hands back
in 2007 I doubt there would have been too many objections.
There was for a while an idea that E* could use both terminals. Not
sure who dreamt that one up, possibly a southern edition of M Bell
(Tyneside) Ltd.
There was probably a reasonable argument to keep Waterloo in service for a
while after St P opened in case of teething problems either at the station
or on HS1 but I suppose the cost would have been prohibitive.o
--
Spud
Graeme Wall
2017-08-10 11:53:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by e27002 aurora
The platforms were the wrong height. Moreover, the track layout and
signalling may not have been appropriate for domestic traffic.
But, you are correct, in that after the international service moved to
Saint Pancras, DfT and Network Rail should have been considering
re-utilizing the station.
Who actually owned it?
British Railways Board after it closed. Don't know who owned it when it was
in service. However if network rail had asked to take it off their hands back
in 2007 I doubt there would have been too many objections.
There was for a while an idea that E* could use both terminals. Not
sure who dreamt that one up, possibly a southern edition of M Bell
(Tyneside) Ltd.
There was probably a reasonable argument to keep Waterloo in service for a
while after St P opened in case of teething problems either at the station
or on HS1 but I suppose the cost would have been prohibitive.o
It effectively was while HS1 was still in its testing phase but there
were proposals that it would be a good idea to continue a passenger
service into Waterloo for those who found the UndergrounD too exotic.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Basil Jet
2017-08-10 12:05:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
There was for a while an idea that E* could use both terminals. Not
sure who dreamt that one up, possibly a southern edition of M Bell
(Tyneside) Ltd.
There was probably a reasonable argument to keep Waterloo in service for a
while after St P opened in case of teething problems either at the station
or on HS1 but I suppose the cost would have been prohibitive.o
It effectively was while HS1 was still in its testing phase but there
were proposals that it would be a good idea to continue a passenger
service into Waterloo for those who found the UndergrounD too exotic.
I think it was only ever a sop to stop South Londoners complaining about
ending up on the wrong side of the river again, even for Europe.
Graeme Wall
2017-08-10 13:54:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
There was for a while an idea that E* could use both terminals. Not
sure who dreamt that one up, possibly a southern edition of M Bell
(Tyneside) Ltd.
There was probably a reasonable argument to keep Waterloo in service for a
while after St P opened in case of teething problems either at the station
or on HS1 but I suppose the cost would have been prohibitive.o
It effectively was while HS1 was still in its testing phase but there
were proposals that it would be a good idea to continue a passenger
service into Waterloo for those who found the UndergrounD too exotic.
I think it was only ever a sop to stop South Londoners complaining about
ending up on the wrong side of the river again, even for Europe.
Anybody coming in from SWT territory got no advantage from the switch as
the saving in international journey time was neatly cancelled out by the
journey from Waterloo to SPI, which also involved an extra two changes.
So it wasn't the South Londoners so much as the whole of the Wessex
region that was complaining :-)

Conversely, of course, those from north of the Watford Gap got to spend
as little time as possible in the hated London area, source of all their
misfortunes (@M Bell).
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Roland Perry
2017-08-10 14:15:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
There was for a while an idea that E* could use both terminals. Not
sure who dreamt that one up, possibly a southern edition of M Bell
(Tyneside) Ltd.
There was probably a reasonable argument to keep Waterloo in
service for a
while after St P opened in case of teething problems either at the station
or on HS1 but I suppose the cost would have been prohibitive.o
It effectively was while HS1 was still in its testing phase but
there were proposals that it would be a good idea to continue a
passenger service into Waterloo for those who found the UndergrounD
too exotic.
I think it was only ever a sop to stop South Londoners complaining
about ending up on the wrong side of the river again, even for Europe.
Anybody coming in from SWT territory got no advantage from the switch
as the saving in international journey time was neatly cancelled out by
the journey from Waterloo to SPI, which also involved an extra two
changes.
Cross platform at Oxford Circus is pretty trivial.

Probably quicker to switch to the Victoria Line at Vauxhall, in
practice.
--
Roland Perry
Graeme Wall
2017-08-10 14:50:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
There was for a while an idea that E* could use both terminals. Not
sure who dreamt that one up, possibly a southern edition of M Bell
(Tyneside) Ltd.
There was probably a reasonable argument to keep Waterloo in
service for a
while after St P opened in case of teething problems either at the station
or on HS1 but I suppose the cost would have been prohibitive.o
It effectively was while HS1 was still in its testing phase but
there were proposals that it would be a good idea to continue a
passenger service into Waterloo for those who found the UndergrounD
too exotic.
I think it was only ever a sop to stop South Londoners complaining
about ending up on the wrong side of the river again, even for Europe.
Anybody coming in from SWT territory got no advantage from the switch
as the saving in international journey time was neatly cancelled out
by the journey from Waterloo to SPI, which also involved an extra two
changes.
Cross platform at Oxford Circus is pretty trivial.
Probably quicker to switch to the Victoria Line at Vauxhall, in practice.
Not when you are coming in from, eg, Southampton.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Roland Perry
2017-08-10 15:03:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Graeme Wall
Anybody coming in from SWT territory got no advantage from the
switch as the saving in international journey time was neatly
cancelled out by the journey from Waterloo to SPI, which also
involved an extra two changes.
Cross platform at Oxford Circus is pretty trivial.
Probably quicker to switch to the Victoria Line at Vauxhall, in practice.
Not when you are coming in from, eg, Southampton.
I'm not going to let pax from 2tph upset the general idea.
--
Roland Perry
Graeme Wall
2017-08-10 15:53:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Graeme Wall
Anybody coming in from SWT territory got no advantage from the
switch as the saving in international journey time was neatly
cancelled out by the journey from Waterloo to SPI, which also
involved an extra two changes.
Cross platform at Oxford Circus is pretty trivial.
Probably quicker to switch to the Victoria Line at Vauxhall, in practice.
Not when you are coming in from, eg, Southampton.
I'm not going to let pax from 2tph upset the general idea.
4tph, plus those from the Portsmouth line, plus those from Exeter and so on.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Recliner
2017-08-11 08:10:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by e27002 aurora
The platforms were the wrong height. Moreover, the track layout and
signalling may not have been appropriate for domestic traffic.
But, you are correct, in that after the international service moved to
Saint Pancras, DfT and Network Rail should have been considering
re-utilizing the station.
Who actually owned it?
British Railways Board after it closed. Don't know who owned it when it was
in service. However if network rail had asked to take it off their hands back
in 2007 I doubt there would have been too many objections.
There was for a while an idea that E* could use both terminals. Not
sure who dreamt that one up, possibly a southern edition of M Bell
(Tyneside) Ltd.
There was probably a reasonable argument to keep Waterloo in service for a
while after St P opened in case of teething problems either at the station
or on HS1 but I suppose the cost would have been prohibitive.o
It effectively was while HS1 was still in its testing phase but there
were proposals that it would be a good idea to continue a passenger
service into Waterloo for those who found the UndergrounD too exotic.
I've found this old report from almost a decade ago

<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/eurostar/738800/Eurostar-platform-controversy-at-Waterloo.html>

Little did they know…

"Plans to mothball five platforms at Waterloo for more than a year before
bringing them into use to ease congestion has sparked outrage from rail
passenger groups.

The five platforms, vacated by Eurostar's move to St Pancras, are unlikely
to see any trains until December 2008, partly because Eurostar has an
agreement not to vacate them for another six months.



A spokesman for Network Rail said that six months' work would be needed
before the five platforms could be added to the 19 already in use at
Waterloo."
s***@potato.field
2017-08-11 08:36:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 08:10:03 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by Graeme Wall
It effectively was while HS1 was still in its testing phase but there
were proposals that it would be a good idea to continue a passenger
service into Waterloo for those who found the UndergrounD too exotic.
I've found this old report from almost a decade ago
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/eurostar/738800/Eurostar-platform-controvers
-at-Waterloo.html>
Little did they know

"Plans to mothball five platforms at Waterloo for more than a year before
bringing them into use to ease congestion has sparked outrage from rail
passenger groups.
The five platforms, vacated by Eurostar's move to St Pancras, are unlikely
to see any trains until December 2008, partly because Eurostar has an
agreement not to vacate them for another six months.


A spokesman for Network Rail said that six months' work would be needed
before the five platforms could be added to the 19 already in use at
Waterloo."
Someone should have got a good kicking for them lying idle for 10 years but
of course they won't because incompetance is par for the course with upper
management in government bodies.
--
Spud
Anna Noyd-Dryver
2017-08-13 15:18:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by e27002 aurora
The platforms were the wrong height. Moreover, the track layout and
signalling may not have been appropriate for domestic traffic.
But, you are correct, in that after the international service moved to
Saint Pancras, DfT and Network Rail should have been considering
re-utilizing the station.
Who actually owned it?
British Railways Board after it closed. Don't know who owned it when it was
in service. However if network rail had asked to take it off their hands back
in 2007 I doubt there would have been too many objections.
There was for a while an idea that E* could use both terminals. Not
sure who dreamt that one up, possibly a southern edition of M Bell
(Tyneside) Ltd.
There was probably a reasonable argument to keep Waterloo in service for a
while after St P opened in case of teething problems either at the station
or on HS1 but I suppose the cost would have been prohibitive.o
It effectively was while HS1 was still in its testing phase but there
were proposals that it would be a good idea to continue a passenger
service into Waterloo for those who found the UndergrounD too exotic.
I thought at the time that a solution to the SWT-area passengers who felt
disadvantaged by E*'s move to St Pancras, would have been 1tph SET Javelin
from Ashford-or-beyond to Waterloo, with connecting E*s at Ashford.


Anna Noyd-Dryver
Recliner
2017-08-13 15:25:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by e27002 aurora
The platforms were the wrong height. Moreover, the track layout and
signalling may not have been appropriate for domestic traffic.
But, you are correct, in that after the international service moved to
Saint Pancras, DfT and Network Rail should have been considering
re-utilizing the station.
Who actually owned it?
British Railways Board after it closed. Don't know who owned it when it was
in service. However if network rail had asked to take it off their hands back
in 2007 I doubt there would have been too many objections.
There was for a while an idea that E* could use both terminals. Not
sure who dreamt that one up, possibly a southern edition of M Bell
(Tyneside) Ltd.
There was probably a reasonable argument to keep Waterloo in service for a
while after St P opened in case of teething problems either at the station
or on HS1 but I suppose the cost would have been prohibitive.o
It effectively was while HS1 was still in its testing phase but there
were proposals that it would be a good idea to continue a passenger
service into Waterloo for those who found the UndergrounD too exotic.
I thought at the time that a solution to the SWT-area passengers who felt
disadvantaged by E*'s move to St Pancras, would have been 1tph SET Javelin
from Ashford-or-beyond to Waterloo, with connecting E*s at Ashford.
Weren't the Javelins years in the future back then? Also, most Eurostars
don't stop at Ashford.
Anna Noyd-Dryver
2017-08-13 20:29:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by e27002 aurora
The platforms were the wrong height. Moreover, the track layout and
signalling may not have been appropriate for domestic traffic.
But, you are correct, in that after the international service moved to
Saint Pancras, DfT and Network Rail should have been considering
re-utilizing the station.
Who actually owned it?
British Railways Board after it closed. Don't know who owned it when it was
in service. However if network rail had asked to take it off their hands back
in 2007 I doubt there would have been too many objections.
There was for a while an idea that E* could use both terminals. Not
sure who dreamt that one up, possibly a southern edition of M Bell
(Tyneside) Ltd.
There was probably a reasonable argument to keep Waterloo in service for a
while after St P opened in case of teething problems either at the station
or on HS1 but I suppose the cost would have been prohibitive.o
It effectively was while HS1 was still in its testing phase but there
were proposals that it would be a good idea to continue a passenger
service into Waterloo for those who found the UndergrounD too exotic.
I thought at the time that a solution to the SWT-area passengers who felt
disadvantaged by E*'s move to St Pancras, would have been 1tph SET Javelin
from Ashford-or-beyond to Waterloo, with connecting E*s at Ashford.
Weren't the Javelins years in the future back then? Also, most Eurostars
don't stop at Ashford.
They were certainly planned; timetables can be amended.


Anna Noyd-Dryver
Roger Lynn
2017-08-13 17:11:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
I thought at the time that a solution to the SWT-area passengers who felt
disadvantaged by E*'s move to St Pancras, would have been 1tph SET Javelin
from Ashford-or-beyond to Waterloo, with connecting E*s at Ashford.
Would a Javelin have any advantage on that route over whatever third rail
stock usually operates in that region? Presumably both would be restricted
to the same line speed, which I believe wasn't very high when Eurostars than
that way?

Roger
Anna Noyd-Dryver
2017-08-13 20:29:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roger Lynn
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
I thought at the time that a solution to the SWT-area passengers who felt
disadvantaged by E*'s move to St Pancras, would have been 1tph SET Javelin
from Ashford-or-beyond to Waterloo, with connecting E*s at Ashford.
Would a Javelin have any advantage on that route over whatever third rail
stock usually operates in that region? Presumably both would be restricted
to the same line speed, which I believe wasn't very high when Eurostars than
that way?
Roger
Part of HS1 was open and used by E*s to Waterloo; I was envisioning that
395s would use HS1 and then follow the route that E* used during that time.
OTTOMH I forget the junction names involved.


Anna Noyd-Dryver
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2017-08-13 21:35:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Roger Lynn
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
I thought at the time that a solution to the SWT-area passengers who
felt disadvantaged by E*'s move to St Pancras, would have been 1tph SET
Javelin from Ashford-or-beyond to Waterloo, with connecting E*s at
Ashford.
Would a Javelin have any advantage on that route over whatever third
rail stock usually operates in that region? Presumably both would be
restricted to the same line speed, which I believe wasn't very high when
Eurostars than that way?
Part of HS1 was open and used by E*s to Waterloo; I was envisioning that
395s would use HS1 and then follow the route that E* used during that
time. OTTOMH I forget the junction names involved.
Fawkham Junction was involved at one end or the other of the link.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Recliner
2017-08-13 22:29:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Roger Lynn
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
I thought at the time that a solution to the SWT-area passengers who
felt disadvantaged by E*'s move to St Pancras, would have been 1tph SET
Javelin from Ashford-or-beyond to Waterloo, with connecting E*s at
Ashford.
Would a Javelin have any advantage on that route over whatever third
rail stock usually operates in that region? Presumably both would be
restricted to the same line speed, which I believe wasn't very high when
Eurostars than that way?
Part of HS1 was open and used by E*s to Waterloo; I was envisioning that
395s would use HS1 and then follow the route that E* used during that
time. OTTOMH I forget the junction names involved.
Fawkham Junction was involved at one end or the other of the link.
It's at the western, third-rail end of the now-disused link. The eastern,
25 kV end connects to HS1 at the grade-separated Southfleet Junction.
Recliner
2017-08-13 22:11:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Roger Lynn
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
I thought at the time that a solution to the SWT-area passengers who felt
disadvantaged by E*'s move to St Pancras, would have been 1tph SET Javelin
from Ashford-or-beyond to Waterloo, with connecting E*s at Ashford.
Would a Javelin have any advantage on that route over whatever third rail
stock usually operates in that region? Presumably both would be restricted
to the same line speed, which I believe wasn't very high when Eurostars than
that way?
Roger
Part of HS1 was open and used by E*s to Waterloo; I was envisioning that
395s would use HS1 and then follow the route that E* used during that time.
OTTOMH I forget the junction names involved.
I think the first part of HS1 just went to Ashford, and the Eurostars went
via Tonbridge; it was then extended to Fawkham Junction, for the route via
Swanley to Waterloo. It was then completed to St Pancras, whereupon
Eurostar moved from Waterloo, and the Fawkham Junction link was no longer
used (it's now out of service).
Graeme Wall
2017-08-13 18:42:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by e27002 aurora
The platforms were the wrong height. Moreover, the track layout and
signalling may not have been appropriate for domestic traffic.
But, you are correct, in that after the international service moved to
Saint Pancras, DfT and Network Rail should have been considering
re-utilizing the station.
Who actually owned it?
British Railways Board after it closed. Don't know who owned it when it was
in service. However if network rail had asked to take it off their hands back
in 2007 I doubt there would have been too many objections.
There was for a while an idea that E* could use both terminals. Not
sure who dreamt that one up, possibly a southern edition of M Bell
(Tyneside) Ltd.
There was probably a reasonable argument to keep Waterloo in service for a
while after St P opened in case of teething problems either at the station
or on HS1 but I suppose the cost would have been prohibitive.o
It effectively was while HS1 was still in its testing phase but there
were proposals that it would be a good idea to continue a passenger
service into Waterloo for those who found the UndergrounD too exotic.
I thought at the time that a solution to the SWT-area passengers who felt
disadvantaged by E*'s move to St Pancras, would have been 1tph SET Javelin
from Ashford-or-beyond to Waterloo, with connecting E*s at Ashford.
No advantage over conventional trains.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Recliner
2017-08-13 19:07:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by e27002 aurora
The platforms were the wrong height. Moreover, the track layout and
signalling may not have been appropriate for domestic traffic.
But, you are correct, in that after the international service moved to
Saint Pancras, DfT and Network Rail should have been considering
re-utilizing the station.
Who actually owned it?
British Railways Board after it closed. Don't know who owned it when it was
in service. However if network rail had asked to take it off their hands back
in 2007 I doubt there would have been too many objections.
There was for a while an idea that E* could use both terminals. Not
sure who dreamt that one up, possibly a southern edition of M Bell
(Tyneside) Ltd.
There was probably a reasonable argument to keep Waterloo in service for a
while after St P opened in case of teething problems either at the station
or on HS1 but I suppose the cost would have been prohibitive.o
It effectively was while HS1 was still in its testing phase but there
were proposals that it would be a good idea to continue a passenger
service into Waterloo for those who found the UndergrounD too exotic.
I thought at the time that a solution to the SWT-area passengers who felt
disadvantaged by E*'s move to St Pancras, would have been 1tph SET Javelin
from Ashford-or-beyond to Waterloo, with connecting E*s at Ashford.
No advantage over conventional trains.
Would conventional trains from Waterloo have been able to use the Fawkham
Junction route to HS1? If not, their route to Ashford would surely be
slower?
Graeme Wall
2017-08-13 20:20:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by e27002 aurora
The platforms were the wrong height. Moreover, the track layout and
signalling may not have been appropriate for domestic traffic.
But, you are correct, in that after the international service moved to
Saint Pancras, DfT and Network Rail should have been considering
re-utilizing the station.
Who actually owned it?
British Railways Board after it closed. Don't know who owned it when it was
in service. However if network rail had asked to take it off their hands back
in 2007 I doubt there would have been too many objections.
There was for a while an idea that E* could use both terminals. Not
sure who dreamt that one up, possibly a southern edition of M Bell
(Tyneside) Ltd.
There was probably a reasonable argument to keep Waterloo in service for a
while after St P opened in case of teething problems either at the station
or on HS1 but I suppose the cost would have been prohibitive.o
It effectively was while HS1 was still in its testing phase but there
were proposals that it would be a good idea to continue a passenger
service into Waterloo for those who found the UndergrounD too exotic.
I thought at the time that a solution to the SWT-area passengers who felt
disadvantaged by E*'s move to St Pancras, would have been 1tph SET Javelin
from Ashford-or-beyond to Waterloo, with connecting E*s at Ashford.
No advantage over conventional trains.
Would conventional trains from Waterloo have been able to use the Fawkham
Junction route to HS1? If not, their route to Ashford would surely be
slower?
Not sure it would have made a significant difference to the timings.
Also the Javelins didn't exist at the time.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Recliner
2017-08-13 20:31:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by e27002 aurora
The platforms were the wrong height. Moreover, the track layout and
signalling may not have been appropriate for domestic traffic.
But, you are correct, in that after the international service moved to
Saint Pancras, DfT and Network Rail should have been considering
re-utilizing the station.
Who actually owned it?
British Railways Board after it closed. Don't know who owned it when it was
in service. However if network rail had asked to take it off their hands back
in 2007 I doubt there would have been too many objections.
There was for a while an idea that E* could use both terminals. Not
sure who dreamt that one up, possibly a southern edition of M Bell
(Tyneside) Ltd.
There was probably a reasonable argument to keep Waterloo in service for a
while after St P opened in case of teething problems either at the station
or on HS1 but I suppose the cost would have been prohibitive.o
It effectively was while HS1 was still in its testing phase but there
were proposals that it would be a good idea to continue a passenger
service into Waterloo for those who found the UndergrounD too exotic.
I thought at the time that a solution to the SWT-area passengers who felt
disadvantaged by E*'s move to St Pancras, would have been 1tph SET Javelin
from Ashford-or-beyond to Waterloo, with connecting E*s at Ashford.
No advantage over conventional trains.
Would conventional trains from Waterloo have been able to use the Fawkham
Junction route to HS1? If not, their route to Ashford would surely be
slower?
Not sure it would have made a significant difference to the timings.
Surely it would save at least 15 mins?
Post by Graeme Wall
Also the Javelins didn't exist at the time.
Yes, as I pointed out earlier, they were years away; not sure if they'd
even been ordered back then.
Anna Noyd-Dryver
2017-08-13 21:36:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by e27002 aurora
The platforms were the wrong height. Moreover, the track layout and
signalling may not have been appropriate for domestic traffic.
But, you are correct, in that after the international service moved to
Saint Pancras, DfT and Network Rail should have been considering
re-utilizing the station.
Who actually owned it?
British Railways Board after it closed. Don't know who owned it when it was
in service. However if network rail had asked to take it off their hands back
in 2007 I doubt there would have been too many objections.
There was for a while an idea that E* could use both terminals. Not
sure who dreamt that one up, possibly a southern edition of M Bell
(Tyneside) Ltd.
There was probably a reasonable argument to keep Waterloo in service for a
while after St P opened in case of teething problems either at the station
or on HS1 but I suppose the cost would have been prohibitive.o
It effectively was while HS1 was still in its testing phase but there
were proposals that it would be a good idea to continue a passenger
service into Waterloo for those who found the UndergrounD too exotic.
I thought at the time that a solution to the SWT-area passengers who felt
disadvantaged by E*'s move to St Pancras, would have been 1tph SET Javelin
from Ashford-or-beyond to Waterloo, with connecting E*s at Ashford.
No advantage over conventional trains.
Would conventional trains from Waterloo have been able to use the Fawkham
Junction route to HS1? If not, their route to Ashford would surely be
slower?
Not sure it would have made a significant difference to the timings.
Surely it would save at least 15 mins?
Post by Graeme Wall
Also the Javelins didn't exist at the time.
Yes, as I pointed out earlier, they were years away; not sure if they'd
even been ordered back then.
Class 395 ordered 2005; Waterloo international closed 2007, after the first
395 had been delivered for testing (first service trains 2009).


Anna Noyd-Dryver
Anna Noyd-Dryver
2017-08-13 20:29:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by e27002 aurora
The platforms were the wrong height. Moreover, the track layout and
signalling may not have been appropriate for domestic traffic.
But, you are correct, in that after the international service moved to
Saint Pancras, DfT and Network Rail should have been considering
re-utilizing the station.
Who actually owned it?
British Railways Board after it closed. Don't know who owned it when it was
in service. However if network rail had asked to take it off their hands back
in 2007 I doubt there would have been too many objections.
There was for a while an idea that E* could use both terminals. Not
sure who dreamt that one up, possibly a southern edition of M Bell
(Tyneside) Ltd.
There was probably a reasonable argument to keep Waterloo in service for a
while after St P opened in case of teething problems either at the station
or on HS1 but I suppose the cost would have been prohibitive.o
It effectively was while HS1 was still in its testing phase but there
were proposals that it would be a good idea to continue a passenger
service into Waterloo for those who found the UndergrounD too exotic.
I thought at the time that a solution to the SWT-area passengers who felt
disadvantaged by E*'s move to St Pancras, would have been 1tph SET Javelin
from Ashford-or-beyond to Waterloo, with connecting E*s at Ashford.
No advantage over conventional trains.
Other than use of HS1 for part of the journey, and that there are no trains
from Waterloo to Ashford...


Anna Noyd-Dryver
Theo
2017-08-13 21:56:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Other than use of HS1 for part of the journey, and that there are no trains
from Waterloo to Ashford...
Only every half an hour, taking 1h17:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/WAE/to/AFK/2017/08/14/0600-2000

What would a hypothetical Waterloo-Ashford Javelin via HS1 do it in?

Theo
Tony Dragon
2017-08-09 19:02:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by e27002 aurora
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:36:34 -0000 (UTC)
On Wed, 09 Aug 2017 15:05:22 +0100
If by on time you mean 9 years later than it should have been completed due
to
incompetance, indifference and procrastination then sure.
This complex project is bang on time, so far at least.
Complex compared to what? Certainly not any of the other rail projects
happening in London at the moment.
Blame someone else for the long gap between Eurostar's departure and
Network Rail are to blame.
No, NR doesn't have the independence, authority or budget to launch huge
speculative station and track redevelopments like that. The DfT is in
charge and holds the purse strings tightly. Perhaps it has different
priorities to you for its finite investment funds?
The eurostar terminal could have been used pretty much as was. All they'd
have had to install would be gates and departure boards downstairs in the
former eurostar concourse and the track was already linked to the rest of the
network.
The platforms were the wrong height. Moreover, the track layout and
signalling may not have been appropriate for domestic traffic.
But, you are correct, in that after the international service moved to
Saint Pancras, DfT and Network Rail should have been considering
re-utilizing the station.
IIRC the track layout gave access to only a couple of the lines out of
Waterloo, those that were used by Eurostar.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2017-08-09 21:47:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Dragon
Post by e27002 aurora
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:36:34 -0000 (UTC)
On Wed, 09 Aug 2017 15:05:22 +0100
If by on time you mean 9 years later than it should have been
completed due to incompetance, indifference and procrastination
then sure.
This complex project is bang on time, so far at least.
Complex compared to what? Certainly not any of the other rail
projects happening in London at the moment.
Blame someone else for the long gap between Eurostar's departure and
Network Rail are to blame.
No, NR doesn't have the independence, authority or budget to launch
huge speculative station and track redevelopments like that. The DfT
is in charge and holds the purse strings tightly. Perhaps it has
different priorities to you for its finite investment funds?
The eurostar terminal could have been used pretty much as was. All
they'd have had to install would be gates and departure boards
downstairs in the former eurostar concourse and the track was
already linked to the rest of the network.
The platforms were the wrong height. Moreover, the track layout and
signalling may not have been appropriate for domestic traffic.
But, you are correct, in that after the international service moved to
Saint Pancras, DfT and Network Rail should have been considering
re-utilizing the station.
IIRC the track layout gave access to only a couple of the lines out
of Waterloo, those that were used by Eurostar.
Eurostar's approach to Waterloo International from Linford St flyover was
essentially single track. Even with the alterations, trains from platforms
20-24 can only reach two of the eight tracks to Vauxhall. There was a plan
to fit an extra link in which would have given access to all 8 tracks but it
was cut to save money.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
s***@potato.field
2017-08-10 08:29:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 09 Aug 2017 18:13:20 +0100
Post by e27002 aurora
The eurostar terminal could have been used pretty much as was. All they'd
have had to install would be gates and departure boards downstairs in the
former eurostar concourse and the track was already linked to the rest of the
network.
The platforms were the wrong height. Moreover, the track layout and
I'll have to go back and see if they've raised them. It didn't look as though
they had when I went there on tuesday and lowering the track is obviously
not feasible.
Post by e27002 aurora
signalling may not have been appropriate for domestic traffic.
Sure, they'd have had to install some points and redo signalling interlocking
but how long would that take at worst, 6 months?
Post by e27002 aurora
But, you are correct, in that after the international service moved to
Saint Pancras, DfT and Network Rail should have been considering
re-utilizing the station.
Given the recent new rail projects given the go ahead one can only hope the
view of rail being a liability that seems to have been prevelant in the DfT
for years is slowly going by the wayside.

--
Spud
e27002 aurora
2017-08-11 07:48:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 09 Aug 2017 18:13:20 +0100
Post by e27002 aurora
The eurostar terminal could have been used pretty much as was. All they'd
have had to install would be gates and departure boards downstairs in the
former eurostar concourse and the track was already linked to the rest of the
network.
The platforms were the wrong height. Moreover, the track layout and
I'll have to go back and see if they've raised them. It didn't look as though
they had when I went there on tuesday and lowering the track is obviously
not feasible.
Post by e27002 aurora
signalling may not have been appropriate for domestic traffic.
Sure, they'd have had to install some points and redo signalling interlocking
but how long would that take at worst, 6 months?
Post by e27002 aurora
But, you are correct, in that after the international service moved to
Saint Pancras, DfT and Network Rail should have been considering
re-utilizing the station.
Given the recent new rail projects given the go ahead one can only hope the
view of rail being a liability that seems to have been prevelant in the DfT
for years is slowly going by the wayside.
Quite the contrary, Networks Rail's terrible job of costing the
electrification projects has caused the D(a)ft to become very wary of
rail investment. One fears lean times lie ahead.
e27002 aurora
2017-08-11 07:54:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by e27002 aurora
The platforms were the wrong height.
You sure about that? I was under the impression that Waterloo International platforms were built to UK rather than UIC spec.
You may be right. I thought I had read something about the platforms
being lower in the railway press. But, my memory could be at fault,
and the press is often wrong.
s***@potato.field
2017-08-11 08:40:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 08:54:26 +0100
Post by e27002 aurora
The platforms were the wrong height.
You sure about that? I was under the impression that Waterloo International
platforms were built to UK rather than UIC spec.
You may be right. I thought I had read something about the platforms
being lower in the railway press. But, my memory could be at fault,
and the press is often wrong.
There would have been little point building them to UIC gauge since UIC gauge
trains wouldn't be able to get there.

--
Spud
Recliner
2017-08-09 20:56:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by e27002 aurora
Post by s***@potato.field
Wandered down to the refurbished platforms at waterloo international at
lunchtime which are now opened for suburban trains (for the time being). So
in ten years they've managed to reduce the length of the platforms to provide
a concourse, built a temporary bridge to the main concourse and put some
destination boards up.
Well I'm impressed. To think in the same time period the chinese have only
managed to build half a dozen new cities + infrastructure. Amateurs.
The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
passengers.
And surely the "hole" in the main concourse should have been covered,
rather than build a new remote concourse.
I think that will be used to provide natural light to the new retail zone
beneath:

<Loading Image...>

The bridge, of course, is sloped, as the new platforms and concourse are
about 5 feet higher than the old ones.
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2017-08-09 09:44:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article
Post by Recliner
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by e27002 aurora
The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
passengers.
The Nine Elms flyover is being pressed into service for
Southeastern trains after the Waterloo blockade.
Yes, I was intrigued by that: has it been used for service trains since
Eurostar decamped for SPIL?
Not that I am aware though I can't speak for NR test trains.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2017-08-09 09:58:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article
Post by Recliner
However now they've lopped a considerable amount off the length of the
platforms I doubt two 8 cars would fit.
They've moved the buffer stops by 50m, so there will still be room for 2x8
car trains.
But the South Western suburban trains will all be 10-car soon.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Recliner
2017-08-09 10:04:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article
Post by Recliner
However now they've lopped a considerable amount off the length of the
platforms I doubt two 8 cars would fit.
They've moved the buffer stops by 50m, so there will still be room for 2x8
car trains.
But the South Western suburban trains will all be 10-car soon.
True, but I didn't want to confuse Spud with that information. Also, some
of the trains will be 5-car, so it would be possible to have a 5-car and a
10-car in the platform at once.
s***@potato.field
2017-08-09 10:56:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 10:04:20 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article
Post by Recliner
However now they've lopped a considerable amount off the length of the
platforms I doubt two 8 cars would fit.
They've moved the buffer stops by 50m, so there will still be room for 2x8
car trains.
But the South Western suburban trains will all be 10-car soon.
True, but I didn't want to confuse Spud with that information. Also, some
Or more likely you didn't even know.
Post by Recliner
of the trains will be 5-car, so it would be possible to have a 5-car and a
10-car in the platform at once.
Finally found your pocket calculator have you? Congratulations.

--
Spud
Recliner
2017-08-09 11:15:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 10:04:20 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article
Post by Recliner
However now they've lopped a considerable amount off the length of the
platforms I doubt two 8 cars would fit.
They've moved the buffer stops by 50m, so there will still be room for 2x8
car trains.
But the South Western suburban trains will all be 10-car soon.
True, but I didn't want to confuse Spud with that information. Also, some
Or more likely you didn't even know.
Of course I knew all about the rather controversial Aventra order (do
you even know why it's controversial?). Even had I not read about it
elsewhere, it's been discussed in uk.r.

Just because you're pig ignorant, don't assume that anyone else is.
But, true to form, you're scorning things you know nothing of. I might
have cause to repeat that statement in the days to come...
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
of the trains will be 5-car, so it would be possible to have a 5-car and a
10-car in the platform at once.
Finally found your pocket calculator have you? Congratulations.
Huh? What does a pocket calculator have to do with knowing the
details of the First MTR Aventra order? Hint: you can't store that
sort of information in a calculator's memories.
s***@potato.field
2017-08-09 12:57:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 09 Aug 2017 12:15:42 +0100
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Or more likely you didn't even know.
Of course I knew all about the rather controversial Aventra order (do
Of course you did.
Post by Recliner
Just because you're pig ignorant, don't assume that anyone else is.
No assumption needed in your case.
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Finally found your pocket calculator have you? Congratulations.
Huh? What does a pocket calculator have to do with knowing the
Christ, you can't even follow a simple logical progression.
Post by Recliner
details of the First MTR Aventra order? Hint: you can't store that
sort of information in a calculator's memories.
Actually you could in a lot of the casio and TI graphics ones from the late 80s
onwards, but I'm sure you knew that and we just playing devils advocate, you're
so clever after all.
--
Spud
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2017-08-09 22:12:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article
Post by Recliner
Post by Tony Dragon
Post by e27002 aurora
One must ask why? South-eastern commuters can already access
Victoria, Charing Cross, Waterloo East, Canon Street, London Bridge,
and Saint Pancras. Isn't that enough?! Do they really need access to
the SW side of Waterloo?
IIRC they are only using Waterloo because of the London Bridge work.
And only for a week, I think.
Indeed so. While they're not serving Charing Cross and Waterloo East.
Logical really.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Recliner
2017-08-10 01:15:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article
Post by Recliner
Post by Tony Dragon
Post by e27002 aurora
One must ask why? South-eastern commuters can already access
Victoria, Charing Cross, Waterloo East, Canon Street, London Bridge,
and Saint Pancras. Isn't that enough?! Do they really need access to
the SW side of Waterloo?
IIRC they are only using Waterloo because of the London Bridge work.
And only for a week, I think.
Indeed so. While they're not serving Charing Cross and Waterloo East.
Logical really.
Yes, very much so. It's interesting how cleverly the Waterloo and London
Bridge rebuilding projects are interlinked.
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2017-08-13 09:03:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article
Post by Recliner
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by e27002 aurora
After TfL's Northern Line reaches Battersea, will Queenstown Road
still be needed?
An interesting question.
Post by e27002 aurora
It is a pity the tube could not have reach Battersea Park.
Isn't passive provision being made for a future extension?
I think so, but there's probably at least three reasons why it's unlikely
1. Who would fund it? The cost would be in the hundreds of millions.
2. Would the Battersea Power Station developers who've agreed to co-fund
the extension be so willing to cooperate if they knew the six-car tube
trains would arrive at their shiny new station already packed?
Would a short extension fill trains up that much?
Post by Recliner
3. Could the Northern line handle that extra level of demand? At the very
least, the further extension would have to wait till the current Northern
line was split into two separate lines.
The way the Battersea extension will operate will make it in effect a
separate line, surely? The only combination with the Northern will be north
of Camden Town, I thought.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Recliner
2017-08-13 09:18:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article
Post by Recliner
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by e27002 aurora
After TfL's Northern Line reaches Battersea, will Queenstown Road
still be needed?
An interesting question.
Post by e27002 aurora
It is a pity the tube could not have reach Battersea Park.
Isn't passive provision being made for a future extension?
I think so, but there's probably at least three reasons why it's unlikely
1. Who would fund it? The cost would be in the hundreds of millions.
2. Would the Battersea Power Station developers who've agreed to co-fund
the extension be so willing to cooperate if they knew the six-car tube
trains would arrive at their shiny new station already packed?
Would a short extension fill trains up that much?
Yes, as it would connect to the main line to Victoria.
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Recliner
3. Could the Northern line handle that extra level of demand? At the very
least, the further extension would have to wait till the current Northern
line was split into two separate lines.
The way the Battersea extension will operate will make it in effect a
separate line, surely? The only combination with the Northern will be north
of Camden Town, I thought.
Yes but Camden Town is the problem. More trains could run on both the Bank
and Charing Cross lines if each central section's trains were sent to a
single northern branch, with no use of the crossovers. But that requires
the redevelopment of Camden Town station, to make line interchanges easier
and to increase capacity. There's a plan to do upgrade the station, but
only after that's completed could the lines be split:

<https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/overhaul-planned-for-camden-town-station-so-it-can-cope-with-120000-people-each-day-a3571316.html>

This document discusses the extra trains and depot capacity that will be
needed:
<http://content.tfl.gov.uk/fpc-20150730-part-1-item12-jnl.pdf>
Loading...