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.

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

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).

Theo

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".

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!

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. :-)

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.

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?

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.

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.