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?