|
Waterloo international
Wandered down to the refurbished platforms at waterloo international at
lunchtime which are now opened for suburban trains (for the time being). So in ten years they've managed to reduce the length of the platforms to provide a concourse, built a temporary bridge to the main concourse and put some destination boards up. Well I'm impressed. To think in the same time period the chinese have only managed to build half a dozen new cities + infrastructure. Amateurs. -- Spud |
Waterloo international
On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 16:12:58 +0100
Tony Dragon wrote: On 08-Aug-17 2:57 PM, d wrote: Wandered down to the refurbished platforms at waterloo international at lunchtime which are now opened for suburban trains (for the time being). So in ten years they've managed to reduce the length of the platforms to provide a concourse, built a temporary bridge to the main concourse and put some destination boards up. Well I'm impressed. To think in the same time period the chinese have only managed to build half a dozen new cities + infrastructure. Amateurs. -- Spud Who are 'they'? Santas little elves of course. Who did you think I meant, Network Rail? -- Spud |
Waterloo international
On Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 9:57:58 AM UTC-4, wrote:
Well I'm impressed. To think in the same time period the chinese have only managed to build half a dozen new cities + infrastructure. Amateurs. True, but being a communist dictatorship with no need to worry about individual or property rights and environmental protection probably helps. -- Roy |
Waterloo international
|
London Waterloo international
|
London Waterloo international
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. |
London Waterloo international
|
London Waterloo international
wrote:
In article , (e27002 aurora) wrote: 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. The Nine Elms flyover is being pressed into service for Southeastern trains after the Waterloo blockade. Yes, I was intrigued by that: has it been used for service trains since Eurostar decamped for SPIL? |
London Waterloo international
On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 18:00:39 +0100
e27002 aurora wrote: On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 13:57:53 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: Wandered down to the refurbished platforms at waterloo international at lunchtime which are now opened for suburban trains (for the time being). So in ten years they've managed to reduce the length of the platforms to provide a concourse, built a temporary bridge to the main concourse and put some destination boards up. Well I'm impressed. To think in the same time period the chinese have only managed to build half a dozen new cities + infrastructure. Amateurs. 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. And surely the "hole" in the main concourse should have been covered, rather than build a new remote concourse. The best part is that in building this new concourse they've had to drastically shorten all but one of the platforms there so scuppering any possibility of stabling two 8 car trains in them. There was plenty of room down below where the old eurostar concourse and waiting areas were, but no, thats not in use any more. No doubt it'll just be more shops in 5-10 years time when they finally get around to finishing the project. -- Spud |
London Waterloo international
wrote:
On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 18:00:39 +0100 e27002 aurora wrote: On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 13:57:53 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: Wandered down to the refurbished platforms at waterloo international at lunchtime which are now opened for suburban trains (for the time being). So in ten years they've managed to reduce the length of the platforms to provide a concourse, built a temporary bridge to the main concourse and put some destination boards up. Well I'm impressed. To think in the same time period the chinese have only managed to build half a dozen new cities + infrastructure. Amateurs. 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. And surely the "hole" in the main concourse should have been covered, rather than build a new remote concourse. The best part is that in building this new concourse they've had to drastically shorten all but one of the platforms there so scuppering any possibility of stabling two 8 car trains in them. Is that meant to be fact, or just opinion? There was plenty of room down below where the old eurostar concourse and waiting areas were, but no, thats not in use any more. No doubt it'll just be more shops in 5-10 years time when they finally get around to finishing the project. How long do you think it is since this project started? How long will the project take, from start to finish? |
London Waterloo international
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 08:54:23 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote: wrote: And surely the "hole" in the main concourse should have been covered, rather than build a new remote concourse. The best part is that in building this new concourse they've had to drastically shorten all but one of the platforms there so scuppering any possibility of stabling two 8 car trains in them. Is that meant to be fact, or just opinion? A eurostar is approx 400m long. An 8 car 3rd rail EMU is 8*20 = 160m. x2 gives 320m. I'd have thought even you could have managed that maths. However now they've lopped a considerable amount off the length of the platforms I doubt two 8 cars would fit. As for stabling 2 trains in the same platform - it happens elsewhere on the network, why not at waterloo? Are you saying waterloo is somehow special? There was plenty of room down below where the old eurostar concourse and waiting areas were, but no, thats not in use any more. No doubt it'll just be more shops in 5-10 years time when they finally get around to finishing the project. How long do you think it is since this project started? How long will the project take, from start to finish? 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. -- Spud |
London Waterloo international
wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 08:54:23 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: wrote: And surely the "hole" in the main concourse should have been covered, rather than build a new remote concourse. The best part is that in building this new concourse they've had to drastically shorten all but one of the platforms there so scuppering any possibility of stabling two 8 car trains in them. Is that meant to be fact, or just opinion? A eurostar is approx 400m long. An 8 car 3rd rail EMU is 8*20 = 160m. x2 gives 320m. I'd have thought even you could have managed that maths. Yes, and unlike you, I'm not ignorant. However now they've lopped a considerable amount off the length of the platforms I doubt two 8 cars would fit. They've moved the buffer stops by 50m, so there will still be room for 2x8 car trains. As for stabling 2 trains in the same platform - it happens elsewhere on the network, why not at waterloo? Are you saying waterloo is somehow special? No — where did I say that? There was plenty of room down below where the old eurostar concourse and waiting areas were, but no, thats not in use any more. No doubt it'll just be more shops in 5-10 years time when they finally get around to finishing the project. How long do you think it is since this project started? How long will the project take, from start to finish? 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. I'm sure they'll be devastated that an ignoramus like you has little confidence in this large project you know so little about. From http://www.railway-technology.com/pr...pgrade-london/ The site preparation works on the station upgrade began in October 2015 and construction works began in December 2015. The Waterloo International station was closed for all trains services in April 2016 for construction. Platform 20 will be returned to Network Rail and train services will be reinstated by February 2017, while platforms 21 to 24 will be returned in July 2017, and former international terminal will be opened for temporary use in August 2017. The station will be closed again for passenger services so that the remaining construction works can be completed. Platforms 1 to 4 on the suburban network will be operated with ten-carriage services from December 2017 during the morning and evening peak periods. Platforms 21 to 24 will be opened and additional train services operating on a new timetable starting from December 2018. … The consortium consisting of Skanska, Colas Rail, Aecom and Mott MacDonald was awarded with a £400m ($592.08m) contract to upgrade the Waterloo station in January 2016. The contractual scope includes bringing the international terminal at the station back into use for domestic train services and increasing the length of certain station platforms. It also includes delivering track alterations, signalling, communications, buildings and civil infrastructure along the Wessex Route and at Waterloo, Vauxhall, Clapham Junction, Richmond, Wimbledon and Surbiton stations. —— It all seems to be going exactly to plan so far, even without your expert guidance. Now, what was that about you claiming you didn't pour scorn on projects you knew little about? |
London Waterloo international
BrianW wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 August 2017 10:27:38 UTC+1, Recliner wrote: wrote: On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 08:54:23 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: wrote: And surely the "hole" in the main concourse should have been covered, rather than build a new remote concourse. The best part is that in building this new concourse they've had to drastically shorten all but one of the platforms there so scuppering any possibility of stabling two 8 car trains in them. Is that meant to be fact, or just opinion? A eurostar is approx 400m long. An 8 car 3rd rail EMU is 8*20 = 160m. x2 gives 320m. I'd have thought even you could have managed that maths. Yes, and unlike you, I'm not ignorant. However now they've lopped a considerable amount off the length of the platforms I doubt two 8 cars would fit. They've moved the buffer stops by 50m, so there will still be room for 2x8 car trains. As for stabling 2 trains in the same platform - it happens elsewhere on the network, why not at waterloo? Are you saying waterloo is somehow special? No — where did I say that? There was plenty of room down below where the old eurostar concourse and waiting areas were, but no, thats not in use any more. No doubt it'll just be more shops in 5-10 years time when they finally get around to finishing the project. How long do you think it is since this project started? How long will the project take, from start to finish? 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. I'm sure they'll be devastated that an ignoramus like you has little confidence in this large project you know so little about. Yes. I imagine they'll be about as devastated as HS2 were to learn that Mr Bell lost all respect for them. At least Mr Bell makes a real effort to understand the official plan before politely denouncing it. Spud routinely scorns projects about which he knows nothing. |
London Waterloo international
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 09:23:25 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote: wrote: A eurostar is approx 400m long. An 8 car 3rd rail EMU is 8*20 = 160m. x2 gives 320m. I'd have thought even you could have managed that maths. Yes, and unlike you, I'm not ignorant. I guess you were just having a senior moment and couldn't work it out then eh? However now they've lopped a considerable amount off the length of the platforms I doubt two 8 cars would fit. They've moved the buffer stops by 50m, so there will still be room for 2x8 car trains. It looks somewhat more than 50m to me. As for stabling 2 trains in the same platform - it happens elsewhere on the network, why not at waterloo? Are you saying waterloo is somehow special? No — where did I say that? Then what exactly were you wibbling about then? Or any excuse to have a go eh? 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. I'm sure they'll be devastated that an ignoramus like you has little confidence in this large project you know so little about. I don't need to know the details to know that 10 years to do such a small amount of work is a ****ing joke. The site preparation works on the station upgrade began in October 2015 and construction works began in December 2015. The Waterloo International station was closed for all trains services in April 2016 for construction. Your cut and paste skills are impressive, you could get a job as a secretary yet. Keep trying. It all seems to be going exactly to plan so far, even without your expert guidance. Yes, and we all know how reliable timescales are on the railways when it comes to engineering works. Now, what was that about you claiming you didn't pour scorn on projects you knew little about? You willful misunderstanding of someones position in a feeble attempt to score points really are tragic. -- Spud |
London Waterloo international
On 09/08/2017 09:54, Recliner wrote:
wrote: On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 18:00:39 +0100 e27002 aurora wrote: On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 13:57:53 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: Wandered down to the refurbished platforms at waterloo international at lunchtime which are now opened for suburban trains (for the time being). So in ten years they've managed to reduce the length of the platforms to provide a concourse, built a temporary bridge to the main concourse and put some destination boards up. Well I'm impressed. To think in the same time period the chinese have only managed to build half a dozen new cities + infrastructure. Amateurs. 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. And surely the "hole" in the main concourse should have been covered, rather than build a new remote concourse. The best part is that in building this new concourse they've had to drastically shorten all but one of the platforms there so scuppering any possibility of stabling two 8 car trains in them. Is that meant to be fact, or just opinion? As far as I can make out the platform ends are at the same place they were in E* days. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
London Waterloo international
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\08\09 10:23, Recliner wrote: They've moved the buffer stops by 50m, so there will still be room for 2x8 car trains. They've moved the trains 50 metres further from the tubes / buses / taxis? Why? Only on the former international platforms. As I said, to create the new, higher level concourse and gate line. |
London Waterloo international
On 2017\08\09 10:23, Recliner wrote:
They've moved the buffer stops by 50m, so there will still be room for 2x8 car trains. They've moved the trains 50 metres further from the tubes / buses / taxis? Why? |
London Waterloo international
In message , at 13:07:05 on Wed, 9 Aug 2017,
Basil Jet remarked: They've moved the buffer stops by 50m, so there will still be room for 2x8 car trains. They've moved the trains 50 metres further from the tubes / buses / taxis? Why? DfT's keep-fit fanatic has moved his attention to Waterloo, given his huge success at St Pancras and Kings Cross. -- Roland Perry |
London Waterloo international
On 09/08/2017 13:07, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\08\09 10:23, Recliner wrote: They've moved the buffer stops by 50m, so there will still be room for 2x8 car trains. They've moved the trains 50 metres further from the tubes / buses / taxis? Why? If they provide another route down to the TfL ticket office area from the new concourse they could actually shorten the distance to the tube. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
London Waterloo international
|
London Waterloo international
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. |
London Waterloo international
|
London Waterloo international
|
London Waterloo international
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 15:10:45 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:36:34 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: wrote: On Wed, 09 Aug 2017 15:05:22 +0100 Recliner wrote: On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 13:59:05 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: If by on time you mean 9 years later than it should have been completed due to incompetance, indifference and procrastination then sure. This complex project is bang on time, so far at least. Complex compared to what? Certainly not any of the other rail projects happening in London at the moment. Blame someone else for the long gap between Eurostar's departure and Network Rail are to blame. No, NR doesn't have the independence, authority or budget to launch huge speculative station and track redevelopments like that. The DfT is in charge and holds the purse strings tightly. Perhaps it has different priorities to you for its finite investment funds? 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 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. |
London Waterloo international
In message , at 18:13:20 on
Wed, 9 Aug 2017, e27002 aurora remarked: 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. They were, but it took a while for them to decide. -- Roland Perry |
London Waterloo international
On 09/08/2017 18:13, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 15:10:45 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:36:34 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: wrote: On Wed, 09 Aug 2017 15:05:22 +0100 Recliner wrote: On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 13:59:05 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: If by on time you mean 9 years later than it should have been completed due to incompetance, indifference and procrastination then sure. This complex project is bang on time, so far at least. Complex compared to what? Certainly not any of the other rail projects happening in London at the moment. Blame someone else for the long gap between Eurostar's departure and Network Rail are to blame. No, NR doesn't have the independence, authority or budget to launch huge speculative station and track redevelopments like that. The DfT is in charge and holds the purse strings tightly. Perhaps it has different priorities to you for its finite investment funds? 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 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? -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
London Waterloo international
On 09/08/2017 18:13, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 15:10:45 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:36:34 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: wrote: On Wed, 09 Aug 2017 15:05:22 +0100 Recliner wrote: On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 13:59:05 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: If by on time you mean 9 years later than it should have been completed due to incompetance, indifference and procrastination then sure. This complex project is bang on time, so far at least. Complex compared to what? Certainly not any of the other rail projects happening in London at the moment. Blame someone else for the long gap between Eurostar's departure and Network Rail are to blame. No, NR doesn't have the independence, authority or budget to launch huge speculative station and track redevelopments like that. The DfT is in charge and holds the purse strings tightly. Perhaps it has different priorities to you for its finite investment funds? 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 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. IIRC the track layout gave access to only a couple of the lines out of Waterloo, those that were used by Eurostar. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
London Waterloo international
On 09/08/2017 18:02, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 19:42:39 -0500, wrote: In article , (e27002 aurora) wrote: 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. The Nine Elms flyover is being pressed into service for Southeastern trains after the Waterloo blockade. One must ask why? South-eastern commuters can already access Victoria, Charing Cross, Waterloo East, Canon Street, London Bridge, and Saint Pancras. Isn't that enough?! Do they really need access to the SW side of Waterloo? IIRC they are only using Waterloo because of the London Bridge work. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
London Waterloo international
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. |
London Waterloo international
Tony Dragon wrote:
On 09/08/2017 18:02, e27002 aurora wrote: On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 19:42:39 -0500, wrote: In article , (e27002 aurora) wrote: 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. The Nine Elms flyover is being pressed into service for Southeastern trains after the Waterloo blockade. One must ask why? South-eastern commuters can already access Victoria, Charing Cross, Waterloo East, Canon Street, London Bridge, and Saint Pancras. Isn't that enough?! Do they really need access to the SW side of Waterloo? IIRC they are only using Waterloo because of the London Bridge work. And only for a week, I think. |
London Waterloo international
e27002 aurora wrote:
On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 13:57:53 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: Wandered down to the refurbished platforms at waterloo international at lunchtime which are now opened for suburban trains (for the time being). So in ten years they've managed to reduce the length of the platforms to provide a concourse, built a temporary bridge to the main concourse and put some destination boards up. Well I'm impressed. To think in the same time period the chinese have only managed to build half a dozen new cities + infrastructure. Amateurs. 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. And surely the "hole" in the main concourse should have been covered, rather than build a new remote concourse. I think that will be used to provide natural light to the new retail zone beneath: https://www.corstorphine-wright.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/D_Internal2.RGB_color_with-people.jpg The bridge, of course, is sloped, as the new platforms and concourse are about 5 feet higher than the old ones. |
London Waterloo international
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. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
London Waterloo international
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. Presumably Adrian would prefer to arrive in the high numbered former international platforms as they're in the extreme right wing of the station? |
London Waterloo international
In article , (Tony
Dragon) wrote: On 09/08/2017 18:02, e27002 aurora wrote: On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 19:42:39 -0500, wrote: The Nine Elms flyover is being pressed into service for Southeastern trains after the Waterloo blockade. One must ask why? South-eastern commuters can already access Victoria, Charing Cross, Waterloo East, Canon Street, London Bridge, and Saint Pancras. Isn't that enough?! Do they really need access to the SW side of Waterloo? IIRC they are only using Waterloo because of the London Bridge work. Indeed. Southeastern tweeted just that earlier today. Only some are being diverted to Waterloo. others are going to Victoria and elsewhere. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
London Waterloo international
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. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
London Waterloo international
In article , (Tony
Dragon) wrote: On 09/08/2017 18:13, e27002 aurora wrote: On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 15:10:45 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:36:34 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: wrote: On Wed, 09 Aug 2017 15:05:22 +0100 Recliner wrote: On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 13:59:05 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: If by on time you mean 9 years later than it should have been completed due to incompetance, indifference and procrastination then sure. This complex project is bang on time, so far at least. Complex compared to what? Certainly not any of the other rail projects happening in London at the moment. Blame someone else for the long gap between Eurostar's departure and Network Rail are to blame. No, NR doesn't have the independence, authority or budget to launch huge speculative station and track redevelopments like that. The DfT is in charge and holds the purse strings tightly. Perhaps it has different priorities to you for its finite investment funds? 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 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. IIRC the track layout gave access to only a couple of the lines out of Waterloo, those that were used by Eurostar. Eurostar's approach to Waterloo International from Linford St flyover was essentially single track. Even with the alterations, trains from platforms 20-24 can only reach two of the eight tracks to Vauxhall. There was a plan to fit an extra link in which would have given access to all 8 tracks but it was cut to save money. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
London Waterloo international
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. |
London Waterloo international
On 09/08/2017 22:29, Recliner wrote:
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. Presumably Adrian would prefer to arrive in the high numbered former international platforms as they're in the extreme right wing of the station? ROTFL -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
London Waterloo international
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. -- Spud |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 08:36 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk