wrote

But that doesn't explain why they're not planning to send some
suburban Charing Cross trains to Waterloo via Lewisham and Peckham
Rye. That would help to free up the Borough Market tracks without
adding to congestion between Bromley and Victoria.

It would be so slow that passengers wouldn't use them. The Dartford -
Blackfriars/Holborn trains never loaded well, and were eventually withdrawn,
while the Dartfod - Bexleyheath - Victoria service, a comparatively recent
innovation, are also lightly loaded.

Peter

Mwmbwls wrote:
http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/3001


As the closure of Waterloo International has been foreseen for at
least three/four years why is there now a year's delay in redeploying
the assets?


Personally I would like to see some Guildford - Effingham - Epsom -
Raynes Park - Waterloo fast trains, And Im sure the poor Earlsfield rush
hour people who never, ever, ever get a seat and have to cram onto the
trains would like to see some Wimbledon - Earlsfield - Waterloo fast
services too.

I seem to remember more Wimbledon - Waterloo fast services when I was
younger.

Still. No chance of that happening...

mf

On 8 Nov, 15:30, "Peter Masson" wrote:
wrote

But that doesn't explain why they're not planning to send some
suburban Charing Cross trains to Waterloo via Lewisham and Peckham
Rye. That would help to free up the Borough Market tracks without
adding to congestion between Bromley and Victoria.

It would be so slow that passengers wouldn't use them. The Dartford -
Blackfriars/Holborn trains never loaded well, and were eventually withdrawn,
while the Dartford - Bexleyheath - Victoria service, a comparatively recent
innovation, are also lightly loaded.

Peter


I would contest that at peak times the Dartford to Victoria service is
loaded pretty heavily, at least it is on leaving Victoria. It also
seems to have a reasonable patronage by day, but then again perhaps my
subjective judgement is a bit out on that one.

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 03:50:09 -0800, MIG
wrote:

Incidentally, I note an interim stage in plans for Waterloo to be
increasing platform lengths to 10. With most trains in units of 4,
this isn't going to make much difference.

If it is 10 23m coach-lengths, that'd fit a double IC Desiro, surely?

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 03:50:09 -0800, MIG
wrote:

Incidentally, I note an interim stage in plans for Waterloo to be
increasing platform lengths to 10. With most trains in units of 4,
this isn't going to make much difference.

If it is 10 23m coach-lengths, that'd fit a double IC Desiro, surely?


For some reason though platform lengths are normally described in terms of
20m car lengths, so a 10.444 needs a '12 car platform'...

Paul

On 8 Nov, 15:30, "Peter Masson" wrote:
wrote

But that doesn't explain why they're not planning to send some
suburban Charing Cross trains to Waterloo via Lewisham and Peckham
Rye. That would help to free up the Borough Market tracks without
adding to congestion between Bromley and Victoria.

It would be so slow that passengers wouldn't use them. The Dartford -
Blackfriars/Holborn trains never loaded well, and were eventually withdrawn,
while the Dartford - Bexleyheath - Victoria service, a comparatively recent
innovation, are also lightly loaded.

Peter


I would contest that at peak times the Dartford to Victoria service is
loaded pretty heavily, at least it is on leaving Victoria. It also
seems to have a reasonable patronage by day, but then again perhaps my
subjective judgement is a bit wonky.

In article ,
(Paul Scott) wrote:

The WIT report on the DfT site suggests that there is only capacity
for 6-8 trains per hour from the Nine Elms flyover, as it is only
single track.

The flyover is double track. The stretch from there through Vauxhall to
Waterloo is the single track bit.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Mizter T wrote:

I would contest that at peak times the Dartford to Victoria service is
loaded pretty heavily, at least it is on leaving Victoria. It also
seems to have a reasonable patronage by day, but then again perhaps my
subjective judgement is a bit wonky.

My limited experience would bear that out. When I boarded the train it
about 10 min before departure I thought it was fairly empty. By the time
it left, people were standing on each others shoulders.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9633027.html
(47 206 at York, 4 Oct 1997)

On Nov 8, 8:03 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
"Neil Williams" wrote in message

...

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 03:50:09 -0800, MIG
wrote:

Incidentally, I note an interim stage in plans for Waterloo to be
increasing platform lengths to 10. With most trains in units of 4,
this isn't going to make much difference.

If it is 10 23m coach-lengths, that'd fit a double IC Desiro, surely?

For some reason though platform lengths are normally described in terms of
20m car lengths, so a 10.444 needs a '12 car platform'...

This has overtones of the story of the space exploration vehicle lost
because one manufacturer was callibrating in Imperial Measures and
another in metric. Canadian aircraft have run out of jet fuel in mid
Atlantic for the same reason. I do hope that this is checked before we
have another Shepherd's Bush platform snafu.

"Mwmbwls" wrote in message
oups.com
On Nov 8, 8:03 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
"Neil Williams" wrote in message

...

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 03:50:09 -0800, MIG
wrote:

Incidentally, I note an interim stage in plans for Waterloo to be
increasing platform lengths to 10. With most trains in units of 4,
this isn't going to make much difference.

If it is 10 23m coach-lengths, that'd fit a double IC Desiro,
surely?

For some reason though platform lengths are normally described in
terms of 20m car lengths, so a 10.444 needs a '12 car platform'...

This has overtones of the story of the space exploration vehicle lost
because one manufacturer was callibrating in Imperial Measures and
another in metric. Canadian aircraft have run out of jet fuel in mid
Atlantic for the same reason.

Actually, the Canadian airliner that ran out of fuel did so in the
middle of Canada (or it wouldn't have got down safely). It's nicknamed
the Gimli Glider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

The 767 subsequently had a full flying career and was retired last
month.

It was a different Canadian airliner that ran out of fuel over the
Atlantic, for completely different reasons. It had a fuel leak because
of a maintenance error.