London Waterloo international

[e27002 aurora]

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.

[Graham Murray]

Post by e27002 aurora
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.

[e27002 aurora]

On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 20:50:43 +0100, Graham Murray

Post by Graham Murray

Post by e27002 aurora
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.

[Basil Jet]

Post by e27002 aurora
On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 20:50:43 +0100, Graham Murray

Post by Graham Murray

Post by e27002 aurora
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.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Basil Jet

Post by e27002 aurora
On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 20:50:43 +0100, Graham Murray

Post by Graham Murray

Post by e27002 aurora
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.

[Recliner]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Basil Jet

Post by e27002 aurora
On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 20:50:43 +0100, Graham Murray

Post by Graham Murray

Post by e27002 aurora
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?

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Recliner

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Basil Jet

Post by e27002 aurora
On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 20:50:43 +0100, Graham Murray

Post by Graham Murray

Post by e27002 aurora
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

[e27002 aurora]

Post by Recliner
Presumably Adrian would prefer to arrive in the high numbered former
international platforms as they're in the extreme right wing of the
station?

Only as you depart - they'll be extreme left as you arrive!! (Which goes to show that the extreme right and left are just as bad as each other!!! :-))

Only because the so called far-right are actually socialists - national
socialists - and so are not really right wing at all.

So, let me be sure I understand the point of view being expressed
here. Posters are positing that there is a left and a right, and they
become similar at 6:00 in the clock face. This is because according
to this view both extremes are about totalitarian government control.

So, we can logically conclude that according to this view 12:00 on the
clock face represents anarchy, the absence of governing authority.
Which would put libertarianism at about 11:0 or 1:00.

Is this what folk are saying?

For what it's worth I do not share this viewpoint.

[e27002 aurora]

Post by Recliner
Presumably Adrian would prefer to arrive in the high numbered former
international platforms as they're in the extreme right wing of the
station?

Only as you depart - they'll be extreme left as you arrive!! (Which goes to show that the extreme right and left are just as bad as each other!!! :-))

Only because the so called far-right are actually socialists - national
socialists - and so are not really right wing at all.

So, let me be sure I understand the point of view being expressed
here. Posters are positing that there is a left and a right and they
become similar at 6:00 in the clock face. This is because according
to this view both are about totalitarian government control.

So, we can logically conclude that according to this view 12:00 on the
clock face represents anarchy, the absence of governing authority.
Which would put libertarianism at about 11:0 or 1:00.

Is this what folk are saying?

FWIW, I do not share your viewpoint.

[s***@potato.field]

On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:54:47 +0100

Post by Recliner
Presumably Adrian would prefer to arrive in the high numbered former
international platforms as they're in the extreme right wing of the
station?

Only as you depart - they'll be extreme left as you arrive!! (Which goes to

show that the extreme right and left are just as bad as each other!!! :-))

Only because the so called far-right are actually socialists - national
socialists - and so are not really right wing at all.

So, let me be sure I understand the point of view being expressed
here. Posters are positing that there is a left and a right and they
become similar at 6:00 in the clock face. This is because according
to this view both are about totalitarian government control.

https\://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory

[ColinR]

Post by s***@potato.field
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:54:47 +0100

Post by Recliner
Presumably Adrian would prefer to arrive in the high numbered former
international platforms as they're in the extreme right wing of the
station?

Only as you depart - they'll be extreme left as you arrive!! (Which goes to

show that the extreme right and left are just as bad as each other!!! :-))

Only because the so called far-right are actually socialists - national
socialists - and so are not really right wing at all.

So, let me be sure I understand the point of view being expressed
here. Posters are positing that there is a left and a right and they
become similar at 6:00 in the clock face. This is because according
to this view both are about totalitarian government control.

https\://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory

Slight error in web address, should be
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory

[Basil Jet]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Basil Jet

Post by e27002 aurora
On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 20:50:43 +0100, Graham Murray

Post by Graham Murray

Post by e27002 aurora
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.

[Theo]

Post by Basil Jet
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.

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.

If the infrastructure elsewhere limits trains to ~240m long, there's no
advantage for anyone from the much longer platforms to be had.
(is there any realistic prospect of longer trains out of any part of
Waterloo?)

Theo

[e27002 aurora]

On 10 Aug 2017 11:10:54 +0100 (BST), Theo

Post by Theo

Post by Basil Jet
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.

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.

Post by Theo
If the infrastructure elsewhere limits trains to ~240m long, there's no
advantage for anyone from the much longer platforms to be had.
(is there any realistic prospect of longer trains out of any part of
Waterloo?)

Probably not. I wonder how long are the platforms at Southampton?

[Graeme Wall]

Post by e27002 aurora
On 10 Aug 2017 11:10:54 +0100 (BST), Theo

Post by Theo

Post by Basil Jet
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.

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.

Post by Theo
If the infrastructure elsewhere limits trains to ~240m long, there's no
advantage for anyone from the much longer platforms to be had.
(is there any realistic prospect of longer trains out of any part of
Waterloo?)

Probably not. I wonder how long are the platforms at Southampton?

10 car 444, 12 car 450

[Basil Jet]

Post by e27002 aurora
On 10 Aug 2017 11:10:54 +0100 (BST), Theo

Post by Theo
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.

Discussion of new services from Waterloo to Heathrow always seems to
flounder on the need to replace level crossings around Mortlake rather
than limited capacity in Nine Elms.

[e27002 aurora]

Post by e27002 aurora
On 10 Aug 2017 11:10:54 +0100 (BST), Theo

Post by Theo

Post by Basil Jet
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.

[Charles Ellson]

On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 08:36:47 +0100, e27002 aurora

Post by e27002 aurora

Post by e27002 aurora
On 10 Aug 2017 11:10:54 +0100 (BST), Theo

Post by Theo

Post by Basil Jet
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?

You think everybody needs London Underground ?

Post by e27002 aurora
It is a pity the tube could not have reach Battersea Park.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[e27002 aurora]

Post by Basil Jet

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Basil Jet

Post by e27002 aurora
On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 20:50:43 +0100, Graham Murray

Post by Graham Murray

Post by e27002 aurora
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.

OK, OK Mr. Brush, calm down, calm down. You have won the debate. Be
careful, or you will be back at your Doctor's Office. :-) Think of
your blood pressure.

[e27002 aurora]

Post by Basil Jet

Post by e27002 aurora
On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 20:50:43 +0100, Graham Murray

Post by Graham Murray

Post by e27002 aurora
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.

Mr. Brush, you have been told a million times not to exaggerate. :-)

[s***@potato.field]

On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 18:00:39 +0100

Post by e27002 aurora

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

[Recliner]

Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 18:00:39 +0100

Post by e27002 aurora

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?

Post by s***@potato.field
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?

[s***@potato.field]

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 08:54:23 -0000 (UTC)

Post by s***@potato.field

Post by s***@potato.field

Post by e27002 aurora
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

Post by s***@potato.field
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?

Post by s***@potato.field

Post by s***@potato.field
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

Post by s***@potato.field
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

[Recliner]

Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 08:54:23 -0000 (UTC)

Post by s***@potato.field

Post by s***@potato.field

Post by e27002 aurora
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

Post by s***@potato.field
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.

Post by s***@potato.field
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.

Post by s***@potato.field
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?

Post by s***@potato.field

Post by s***@potato.field

Post by s***@potato.field
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

Post by s***@potato.field
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/projects/waterloo-station-upgrade-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?

[s***@potato.field]

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 09:23:25 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Recliner

Post by s***@potato.field
A eurostar is approx 400m long. An 8 car 3rd rail EMU is 8*20 = 160m. x2

gives

Post by s***@potato.field
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?

Post by Recliner

Post by s***@potato.field
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.

Post by Recliner

Post by s***@potato.field
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?

Post by Recliner

Post by s***@potato.field
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 fucking joke.

Post by Recliner
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.

Post by Recliner
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.

Post by Recliner
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

[Basil Jet]

Post by Recliner
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?

[Recliner]

Post by Basil Jet

Post by Recliner
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.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Basil Jet

Post by Recliner
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.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Basil Jet

Post by Recliner
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.

[e27002 aurora]

Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 08:54:23 -0000 (UTC)

Post by s***@potato.field

Post by s***@potato.field

Post by e27002 aurora
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

Post by s***@potato.field
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?

Post by s***@potato.field

Post by s***@potato.field
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

Post by s***@potato.field
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.

More reason to make responsibility for track and infrastructure part
of the franchise commitment. D(a)ft and Network Rail together are
worthless.

[e27002 aurora]

Post by e27002 aurora

Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 08:54:23 -0000 (UTC)
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.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Recliner

Post by s***@potato.field
On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 18:00:39 +0100

Post by e27002 aurora

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.

[e27002 aurora]

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:36:34 -0000 (UTC)

On Wed, 09 Aug 2017 15:05:22 +0100

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.

[Roland Perry]

Post by e27002 aurora
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.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by e27002 aurora

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:36:34 -0000 (UTC)

On Wed, 09 Aug 2017 15:05:22 +0100

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?

[s***@potato.field]

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by e27002 aurora
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.

--
Spud

[Graeme Wall]

Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by e27002 aurora
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.

[s***@potato.field]

On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by e27002 aurora
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

[Graeme Wall]

Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by e27002 aurora
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.

[Basil Jet]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100

Post by Graeme Wall
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 think it was only ever a sop to stop South Londoners complaining about
ending up on the wrong side of the river again, even for Europe.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Basil Jet

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100

Post by Graeme Wall
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 think it was only ever a sop to stop South Londoners complaining about
ending up on the wrong side of the river again, even for Europe.

Anybody coming in from SWT territory got no advantage from the switch as
the saving in international journey time was neatly cancelled out by the
journey from Waterloo to SPI, which also involved an extra two changes.
So it wasn't the South Londoners so much as the whole of the Wessex
region that was complaining :-)

Conversely, of course, those from north of the Watford Gap got to spend
as little time as possible in the hated London area, source of all their
misfortunes (@M Bell).

[Roland Perry]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Basil Jet

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100

Post by Graeme Wall
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 think it was only ever a sop to stop South Londoners complaining
about ending up on the wrong side of the river again, even for Europe.

Anybody coming in from SWT territory got no advantage from the switch
as the saving in international journey time was neatly cancelled out by
the journey from Waterloo to SPI, which also involved an extra two
changes.

Cross platform at Oxford Circus is pretty trivial.

Probably quicker to switch to the Victoria Line at Vauxhall, in
practice.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Basil Jet

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100

Post by Graeme Wall
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 think it was only ever a sop to stop South Londoners complaining
about ending up on the wrong side of the river again, even for Europe.

Anybody coming in from SWT territory got no advantage from the switch
as the saving in international journey time was neatly cancelled out
by the journey from Waterloo to SPI, which also involved an extra two
changes.

Cross platform at Oxford Circus is pretty trivial.
Probably quicker to switch to the Victoria Line at Vauxhall, in practice.

Not when you are coming in from, eg, Southampton.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Graeme Wall
Anybody coming in from SWT territory got no advantage from the
switch as the saving in international journey time was neatly
cancelled out by the journey from Waterloo to SPI, which also
involved an extra two changes.

Cross platform at Oxford Circus is pretty trivial.
Probably quicker to switch to the Victoria Line at Vauxhall, in practice.

Not when you are coming in from, eg, Southampton.

I'm not going to let pax from 2tph upset the general idea.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Graeme Wall
Anybody coming in from SWT territory got no advantage from the
switch as the saving in international journey time was neatly
cancelled out by the journey from Waterloo to SPI, which also
involved an extra two changes.

Cross platform at Oxford Circus is pretty trivial.
Probably quicker to switch to the Victoria Line at Vauxhall, in practice.

Not when you are coming in from, eg, Southampton.

I'm not going to let pax from 2tph upset the general idea.

4tph, plus those from the Portsmouth line, plus those from Exeter and so on.

[Recliner]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by e27002 aurora
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've found this old report from almost a decade ago

<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/eurostar/738800/Eurostar-platform-controversy-at-Waterloo.html>

Little did they know…

"Plans to mothball five platforms at Waterloo for more than a year before
bringing them into use to ease congestion has sparked outrage from rail
passenger groups.

The five platforms, vacated by Eurostar's move to St Pancras, are unlikely
to see any trains until December 2008, partly because Eurostar has an
agreement not to vacate them for another six months.

…

A spokesman for Network Rail said that six months' work would be needed
before the five platforms could be added to the 19 already in use at
Waterloo."

[s***@potato.field]

On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 08:10:03 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Recliner

Post by Graeme Wall
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've found this old report from almost a decade ago
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/eurostar/738800/Eurostar-platform-controvers
-at-Waterloo.html>
Little did they know

"Plans to mothball five platforms at Waterloo for more than a year before
bringing them into use to ease congestion has sparked outrage from rail
passenger groups.
The five platforms, vacated by Eurostar's move to St Pancras, are unlikely
to see any trains until December 2008, partly because Eurostar has an
agreement not to vacate them for another six months.


A spokesman for Network Rail said that six months' work would be needed
before the five platforms could be added to the 19 already in use at
Waterloo."

Someone should have got a good kicking for them lying idle for 10 years but
of course they won't because incompetance is par for the course with upper
management in government bodies.

[Anna Noyd-Dryver]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by e27002 aurora
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

[Recliner]

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by e27002 aurora
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.

[Anna Noyd-Dryver]

Post by Recliner

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by e27002 aurora
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.

They were certainly planned; timetables can be amended.


Anna Noyd-Dryver

[Roger Lynn]

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
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

[Anna Noyd-Dryver]

Post by Roger Lynn

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
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

Part of HS1 was open and used by E*s to Waterloo; I was envisioning that
395s would use HS1 and then follow the route that E* used during that time.
OTTOMH I forget the junction names involved.


Anna Noyd-Dryver

[Recliner]

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver

Post by Roger Lynn

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
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

Part of HS1 was open and used by E*s to Waterloo; I was envisioning that
395s would use HS1 and then follow the route that E* used during that time.
OTTOMH I forget the junction names involved.

I think the first part of HS1 just went to Ashford, and the Eurostars went
via Tonbridge; it was then extended to Fawkham Junction, for the route via
Swanley to Waterloo. It was then completed to St Pancras, whereupon
Eurostar moved from Waterloo, and the Fawkham Junction link was no longer
used (it's now out of service).

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by e27002 aurora
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.

[Recliner]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by e27002 aurora
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?

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Recliner

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by e27002 aurora
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?

Not sure it would have made a significant difference to the timings.
Also the Javelins didn't exist at the time.

[Recliner]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Recliner

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by e27002 aurora
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?

Not sure it would have made a significant difference to the timings.

Surely it would save at least 15 mins?

Post by Graeme Wall
Also the Javelins didn't exist at the time.

Yes, as I pointed out earlier, they were years away; not sure if they'd
even been ordered back then.

[Anna Noyd-Dryver]

Post by Recliner

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Recliner

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by e27002 aurora
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?

Not sure it would have made a significant difference to the timings.

Surely it would save at least 15 mins?

Post by Graeme Wall
Also the Javelins didn't exist at the time.

Yes, as I pointed out earlier, they were years away; not sure if they'd
even been ordered back then.

Class 395 ordered 2005; Waterloo international closed 2007, after the first
395 had been delivered for testing (first service trains 2009).


Anna Noyd-Dryver

[Roger Lynn]

Post by Recliner

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
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?

I'd forgotten about the possibility of Javelins running along to HS1 to get
to Ashford. Shame it couldn't get from Waterloo into Ebbsfleet. That would
make the connection faster. A connection with the North Kent Line would have
helped too.

Roger

[Anna Noyd-Dryver]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by e27002 aurora
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.

Other than use of HS1 for part of the journey, and that there are no trains
from Waterloo to Ashford...


Anna Noyd-Dryver

[Theo]

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Other than use of HS1 for part of the journey, and that there are no trains
from Waterloo to Ashford...

Only every half an hour, taking 1h17:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/WAE/to/AFK/2017/08/14/0600-2000

What would a hypothetical Waterloo-Ashford Javelin via HS1 do it in?

Theo

[Anna Noyd-Dryver]

Post by Theo

Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Other than use of HS1 for part of the journey, and that there are no trains
from Waterloo to Ashford...

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/WAE/to/AFK/2017/08/14/0600-2000
What would a hypothetical Waterloo-Ashford Javelin via HS1 do it in?

Well I must admit I was so focussed on Waterloo main station I'd forgotten
all about Waterloo East!! D'oh :/


Anna Noyd-Dryver

[Tony Dragon]

Post by e27002 aurora

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:36:34 -0000 (UTC)

On Wed, 09 Aug 2017 15:05:22 +0100

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

[s***@potato.field]

On Wed, 09 Aug 2017 18:13:20 +0100

Post by e27002 aurora

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.

Post by e27002 aurora
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?

Post by e27002 aurora
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

[e27002 aurora]

Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 09 Aug 2017 18:13:20 +0100

Post by e27002 aurora

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.

Post by e27002 aurora
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?

Post by e27002 aurora
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.

Quite the contrary, Networks Rail's terrible job of costing the
electrification projects has caused the D(a)ft to become very wary of
rail investment. One fears lean times lie ahead.

[e27002 aurora]

Post by e27002 aurora
The platforms were the wrong height.

You sure about that? I was under the impression that Waterloo International platforms were built to UK rather than UIC spec.

You may be right. I thought I had read something about the platforms
being lower in the railway press. But, my memory could be at fault,
and the press is often wrong.

[s***@potato.field]

On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 08:54:26 +0100

Post by e27002 aurora
The platforms were the wrong height.

You sure about that? I was under the impression that Waterloo International

platforms were built to UK rather than UIC spec.
You may be right. I thought I had read something about the platforms
being lower in the railway press. But, my memory could be at fault,
and the press is often wrong.

There would have been little point building them to UIC gauge since UIC gauge
trains wouldn't be able to get there.

--
Spud

[e27002 aurora]

Post by e27002 aurora
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?

[Tony Dragon]

Post by e27002 aurora

Post by e27002 aurora
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

[Recliner]

Post by Tony Dragon

Post by e27002 aurora

Post by e27002 aurora
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.

[Recliner]

Post by e27002 aurora

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:

<Loading Image...>

The bridge, of course, is sloped, as the new platforms and concourse are
about 5 feet higher than the old ones.