"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. I do hope that this is checked before we
have another Shepherd's Bush platform snafu.


I don't think so - the whole area (SW division of SR) seems to have been
designed for 8 car then some parts for 12 car 20m EMUs. When the 442s came
along they decided upon a 'mainline style' 23m vehicle which would fit the
existing platforms wheen coupled as 2 5 car units. It certainly wasn't
accidental...

The current announcements about platform lengthening are usually about
specific routes and the actual type of stock that runs on, it isn't as
random as you seem to think...

Paul

Recliner wrote:

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

Wow, what an amazing story!

On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 10:36:06 -0000, "Recliner"
wrote:

"Mwmbwls" wrote in message
roups.com

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.

....and that one got down safely, too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236

On 8 Nov, 07:26, Mwmbwls wrote:
http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/3001

quote
The international terminal at Waterloo Station will be out of use for
more than a year before the platforms are used by domestic rail
services, the government has confirmed.

Waterloo has enjoyed a direct link to Paris and Brussels since
November 1994

The final trains between Waterloo and Paris and Brussels will run on
Tuesday 13 November.
Eurostar's London terminal will move to St Pancras from the start of
service on Wednesday 14 November, thirteen years to the day since the
Eurostar service began operations.
A banner above the Eurostar concourse says "Goodbye to all our friends
at Waterloo". The last public train service will be the 7.58pm arrival
from Paris.
Responding to a question from shadow transport secretary Theresa
Villiers, rail minister Tom Harris wrote: "Officials at the Department
for Transport are continuing to work closely with Network Rail and
Stagecoach South West Trains (the train operating company) to finalise
the design and costs associated with the partial conversion of
Waterloo International potentially to accommodate limited domestic
passenger services from December 2008."
Waterloo International has five platforms (numbered 20 to 24) and was
designed by Nicholas Grimshaw to accommodate the quarter-of-a-mile-
long Eurostar trains which are far longer than any domestic train.
Three stage strategy for Waterloo
Last week Network Rail published its business plan for 2009 to 2014.
This is what it says about Waterloo:
"A three stage strategy for the development of Waterloo station has
been agreed between DfT [Department for Transport] and Network Rail.
The first stage allows a limited number of domestic train services to
utilise elements of the Waterloo International Terminal (WIT) from
December 2008, following the vacation of the facility by Eurostar
services in November 2007.
"Stage two enables the use of the entire WIT facility, providing at
least 10-car capability to all platforms at Waterloo.
The proposal will seek to maximise commercial property opportunities
"Beyond CP4 [ie after 2014], stage 3 proposes to re-develop the entire
Waterloo site, integrating the WIT into a new enhanced facility with
at least 12-car capability to all platforms and a significantly
enlarged concourse, to provide appropriate capacity for the longer
term. The proposal will seek to maximise commercial property
opportunities."
Network Rail proposes to move the station concourse to ground level to
link in with the recently announced Waterloo City Square plans.
New Waterloo to St Pancras bus link
Transport for London has announced that bus route 59, which runs from
Streatham Hill to Euston via Waterloo, will be extended to St Pancras
and King's Cross from Saturday 10 November.
"The extension of route 59 will give a direct journey option between
Waterloo, St Pancras and King's Cross," says John Barry, head of
network development for London Buses. "It also creates new bus links
for Brixton and Kennington."
The change comes following a review of the existing service and
reflects requests received from a number of passenger groups,
including London TravelWatch.
Route 59 runs every 8 minutes during the day and every 12 minutes in
the evening on Monday-Saturday and every 12 minutes on Sundays.
Leake Street
Leake Street, the dingy tunnel that runs below Waterloo Station
between Lower Marsh and York Road, will be closed to vehicle traffic
once Waterloo International shuts. Network Rail is taking over
responsibility for the street which provides an important pedestrian
link between the shopping area in Lower Marsh and the South Bank.
unquote

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?

The explanation is actually quite simple.

Firstly, there would have to be some work done to make use of these
platforms, which are lower than standard UK platforms. It will also
take time before the building is vacant - Eurostar are recycling much
of the equipment at Ebbsfleet, for example. Further, the track layout
would require changes, too, and there will have to be changes to the
access to the platforms because there won't be the international
formalities to accommodate any more.

All this takes time. But why more than a year?

Well, the next opportunity for a major timetable change, to take
advantage of the new infrastructure, is December 2008 now we're
working to the European model. Most of the suggestions for revised
service patterns here will take some planning and, if they happen at
all, will probably have to wait for a later timetable cycle.

Rob

On Nov 10, 12:20 am, wrote:
On 8 Nov, 07:26, Mwmbwls wrote:
http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/3001

quote
The international terminal at Waterloo Station will be out of use for
more than a year before the platforms are used by domestic rail
services, the government has confirmed.
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?

The explanation is actually quite simple.

Thanks for that concise relevant reply - yes it really is quite
simple.
..

Would it be feasible to retain at least some sort of international service
from Waterloo, even if it would be short hops across the Channel to Lille or
Brussels?

On another note, what is the deal for a prospective tunnel connection to
Ireland? I seem to recall talk about this in times past but, because the
earth between the two islands is largely sand, it is quite difficult to
build any sort of subterranean structure there.

wrote in message
. uk...
Would it be feasible to retain at least some sort of international service
from Waterloo, even if it would be short hops across the Channel to Lille
or
Brussels?

This was the original plan - but the number of passengers using E* falls far
short of what would be needed to justify two central London stations.

Peter

In message
wrote:

Would it be feasible to retain at least some sort of international service
from Waterloo, even if it would be short hops across the Channel to Lille
or Brussels?

No, once the service starts from St Pancras there will be no stock capable of
using third rail cleared for CT use.


On another note, what is the deal for a prospective tunnel connection to
Ireland? I seem to recall talk about this in times past but, because the
earth between the two islands is largely sand, it is quite difficult to
build any sort of subterranean structure there.



Isn't going to happen any time soon.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

On 10 Nov, 13:01, rail wrote:
In message
wrote:

Would it be feasible to retain at least some sort of international service
from Waterloo, even if it would be short hops across the Channel to Lille
or Brussels?

No, once the service starts from St Pancras there will be no stock capable of
using third rail cleared for CT use.


This is putting the cart before the horse.

The only reason why it's becoming possible to remove the shoegear from
the Eurostars is because a decision has been taken to run all
international services from St Pancras. If the decision had been to
run two terminals, with Waterloo keeping some of the traffic, then the
trains would have kept the shoegear.

It wasn't the decision to remove the shoegear that led to the closure
of Waterloo International !

Rob.

"James Farrar" wrote in message

On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 10:36:06 -0000, "Recliner"
wrote:

"Mwmbwls" wrote in message
oups.com

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.

...and that one got down safely, too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236

Indeed it did, though it suffered some epic flat spots, as the flap-free
landing was at much higher speeds than usual, so the brakes and wheels
had to absorb far more energy than they were designed for:
http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/image...y/mvc-003f.jpg
http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/image...y/mvc-002f.jpg
http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/image...y/mvc-004f.jpg