London Waterloo international
 

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 09/08/2017 18:13, e27002 aurora wrote:
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

London Waterloo international
 

In uk.railway Basil Jet wrote:
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

London Waterloo international
 

On 10/08/2017 09:34, d wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 09/08/2017 18:13, e27002 aurora wrote:
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.

London Waterloo international
 

On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 10/08/2017 09:34, d wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 09/08/2017 18:13, e27002 aurora wrote:
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

London Waterloo international
 

On 10/08/2017 12:27, d wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 10/08/2017 09:34, d wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 09/08/2017 18:13, e27002 aurora wrote:
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.

London Waterloo international
 

On 2017\08\10 12:53, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 10/08/2017 12:27, d wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:

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.

London Waterloo international
 

On 10/08/2017 13:05, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\08\10 12:53, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 10/08/2017 12:27, d wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:

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.

London Waterloo international
 

In message , at 14:54:30 on Thu, 10 Aug
2017, Graeme Wall remarked:
On 10/08/2017 13:05, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\08\10 12:53, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 10/08/2017 12:27, d wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:

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

London Waterloo international
 

On 10/08/2017 15:15, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:54:30 on Thu, 10 Aug
2017, Graeme Wall remarked:
On 10/08/2017 13:05, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\08\10 12:53, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 10/08/2017 12:27, d wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:

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.

London Waterloo international
 

In message , at 15:50:03 on Thu, 10 Aug
2017, Graeme Wall remarked:

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

London Waterloo international
 

On 10/08/2017 16:03, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:50:03 on Thu, 10 Aug
2017, Graeme Wall remarked:

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.

London Waterloo international
 

In article ,
(Theo) wrote:

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

London Waterloo international
 

London Waterloo international
 

Theo wrote:
wrote:
In article ,
(Theo) wrote:

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).

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".

London Waterloo international
 

On 2017\08\10 21:55, Recliner wrote:

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!

London Waterloo international
 

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 21:08:42 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2017\08\09 17:59, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 20:50:43 +0100, Graham Murray
wrote:

e27002 aurora writes:

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. :-)

London Waterloo international
 

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 23:05:14 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2017\08\09 22:15, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 09/08/2017 21:08, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\08\09 17:59, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 20:50:43 +0100, Graham Murray
wrote:

e27002 aurora writes:

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.

London Waterloo international
 

On 10 Aug 2017 11:10:54 +0100 (BST), Theo
wrote:

In uk.railway Basil Jet wrote:
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.

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?

London Waterloo international
 

On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 08:29:26 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Wed, 09 Aug 2017 18:13:20 +0100
e27002 aurora wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 15:10:45 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:
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.

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?

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.

London Waterloo international
 

On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:29:04 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, 9 August 2017 19:13:22 UTC+2, e27002 wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 15:10:45 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

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.

London Waterloo international
 

On 11/08/2017 08:43, e27002 aurora wrote:
On 10 Aug 2017 11:10:54 +0100 (BST), Theo
wrote:

In uk.railway Basil Jet wrote:
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.

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.

London Waterloo international
 

Graeme Wall wrote:
On 10/08/2017 12:27, d wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 10/08/2017 09:34, d wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 09/08/2017 18:13, e27002 aurora wrote:
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."

London Waterloo international
 

On 2017\08\11 08:43, e27002 aurora wrote:
On 10 Aug 2017 11:10:54 +0100 (BST), Theo
wrote:

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.

London Waterloo international
 

In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

On 10 Aug 2017 11:10:54 +0100 (BST), Theo
wrote:

In uk.railway Basil Jet wrote:
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

London Waterloo international
 

On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 08:10:03 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
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/eu...orm-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

London Waterloo international
 

In message , at 03:40:45 on Fri, 11 Aug
2017, Basil Jet remarked:
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

London Waterloo international
 

On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 08:54:26 +0100
e27002 aurora wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:29:04 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, 9 August 2017 19:13:22 UTC+2, e27002 wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 15:10:45 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

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

London Waterloo international
 

On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:07:08 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2017\08\10 07:15, wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 August 2017 22:33:50 UTC+1, Recliner wrote:

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.

London Waterloo international
 

On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:54:47 +0100
e27002 aurora wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:07:08 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2017\08\10 07:15, wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 August 2017 22:33:50 UTC+1, Recliner wrote:

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

London Waterloo international
 

On 11/08/2017 13:59, d wrote:
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:54:47 +0100
e27002 aurora wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:07:08 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2017\08\10 07:15, wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 August 2017 22:33:50 UTC+1, Recliner wrote:

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

London Waterloo international
 

On Wed, 09 Aug 2017 16:47:09 -0500,
wrote:

In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 09:12:18 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 08:54:23 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:

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.

London Waterloo international
 

On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 03:29:29 -0500,
wrote:

In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

On 10 Aug 2017 11:10:54 +0100 (BST), Theo
wrote:

In uk.railway Basil Jet wrote:
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.

London Waterloo international
 

In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 03:29:29 -0500,
wrote:

In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

On 10 Aug 2017 11:10:54 +0100 (BST), Theo
wrote:

In uk.railway Basil Jet wrote:
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.

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

An interesting question.

It is a pity the tube could not have reach Battersea Park.

Isn't passive provision being made for a future extension?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

London Waterloo international
 

In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

On Wed, 09 Aug 2017 16:47:09 -0500,
wrote:

In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 09:12:18 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 08:54:23 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:

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

London Waterloo international
 

wrote:
In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 03:29:29 -0500,
wrote:

In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

On 10 Aug 2017 11:10:54 +0100 (BST), Theo
wrote:

In uk.railway Basil Jet wrote:
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.

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

An interesting question.

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.

London Waterloo international
 

Graeme Wall wrote:
On 10/08/2017 12:27, d wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 10/08/2017 09:34, d wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 09/08/2017 18:13, e27002 aurora wrote:
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

London Waterloo international
 

Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 10/08/2017 12:27, d wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 10/08/2017 09:34, d wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 09/08/2017 18:13, e27002 aurora wrote:
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.

London Waterloo international
 

On 13/08/17 16:18, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
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

London Waterloo international
 

On 13/08/2017 16:18, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 10/08/2017 12:27, d wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 10/08/2017 09:34, d wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 09/08/2017 18:13, e27002 aurora wrote:
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.

London Waterloo international
 

Graeme Wall wrote:
On 13/08/2017 16:18, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 10/08/2017 12:27, d wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 10/08/2017 09:34, d wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 09/08/2017 18:13, e27002 aurora wrote:
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?