About Us

Recliner[_3_] · August 13th 17, 08:43 AM posted to uk.transport.london

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.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
After the Ball is over - Waterloo International	Mwmbwls	London Transport	61	November 20th 07 05:30 AM
Easy interchanges in London (Waterloo vs St. Pancras International)	Olof Lagerkvist	London Transport	50	September 12th 07 11:31 PM
Heathrow from Waterloo International	Bob	London Transport	2	December 20th 05 12:41 PM
Waterloo International to close	John Rowland	London Transport	0	November 13th 04 06:34 PM
Waterloo International to close when St Pancras International opens	[email protected]	London Transport	0	April 1st 04 12:29 PM

Menu

About Us