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