They've moved the buffer stops by 50m, so there will still be room for 2x8 car trains.
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?
On 2017\08\09 10:23, Recliner wrote:
They've moved the buffer stops by 50m, so there will still be room for
2x8
car trains.
They've moved the trains 50 metres further from the tubes / buses /
taxis? Why?
In article <43rjocds1k7pignt9rr7o39dddof5v9p64@4ax.com>, >adrianhudson@sprintmail.com (e27002 aurora) wrote:
The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
passengers.
The Nine Elms flyover is being pressed into service for Southeastern trains >after the Waterloo blockade.
e27002 aurora <adrianhudson@sprintmail.com> writes:
The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
passengers.
Why? Before the Waterloo International conversion, the Windsor line
services always used the high numbered platforms.
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 08:54:23 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner <recliner.ng@btinternet.com> wrote:
<spud@potato.field> wrote:
And surely the "hole" in the main concourse should have been covered,
rather than build a new remote concourse.
The best part is that in building this new concourse they've had to >>drastically
shorten all but one of the platforms there so scuppering any possibility of >>> stabling two 8 car trains in them.
Is that meant to be fact, or just opinion?
A eurostar is approx 400m long. An 8 car 3rd rail EMU is 8*20 = 160m. x2 gives >320m. I'd have thought even you could have managed that maths. However now >they've lopped a considerable amount off the length of the platforms I doubt >two 8 cars would fit.
As for stabling 2 trains in the same platform - it happens elsewhere on the >network, why not at waterloo? Are you saying waterloo is somehow special?
There was plenty of room down below where
the old eurostar concourse and waiting areas were, but no, thats not in use >>> any more. No doubt it'll just be more shops in 5-10 years time when they >>finally
get around to finishing the project.
How long do you think it is since this project started? How long will the >>project take, from start to finish?
Well its taken BRB & NR 10 years to get this far, and its been over a year >since building work actually started for them to do frankly not very much.
I have little confidence the refurbishment of the 2 floors below will be >finished anytime soon.
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:36:34 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner <recliner.ng@btinternet.com> wrote:
<spud@potato.field> wrote:
On Wed, 09 Aug 2017 15:05:22 +0100
Recliner <Recliner.ng@btinternet.com> wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 13:59:05 +0000 (UTC), spud@potato.field wrote:
If by on time you mean 9 years later than it should have been completed dueto
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.
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.
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 15:10:45 +0000 (UTC), spud@potato.field wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:36:34 -0000 (UTC)The platforms were the wrong height. Moreover, the track layout and signalling may not have been appropriate for domestic traffic.
Recliner <recliner.ng@btinternet.com> wrote:
<spud@potato.field> wrote:
On Wed, 09 Aug 2017 15:05:22 +0100
Recliner <Recliner.ng@btinternet.com> wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 13:59:05 +0000 (UTC), spud@potato.field wrote:
If by on time you mean 9 years later than it should have been completed dueto
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.
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.
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 15:10:45 +0000 (UTC), spud@potato.field wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:36:34 -0000 (UTC)The platforms were the wrong height. Moreover, the track layout and signalling may not have been appropriate for domestic traffic.
Recliner <recliner.ng@btinternet.com> wrote:
<spud@potato.field> wrote:
On Wed, 09 Aug 2017 15:05:22 +0100
Recliner <Recliner.ng@btinternet.com> wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 13:59:05 +0000 (UTC), spud@potato.field wrote:
If by on time you mean 9 years later than it should have been completed dueto
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.
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.
On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 19:42:39 -0500, rosenstiel@cix.compulink.co.uk
wrote:
In article <43rjocds1k7pignt9rr7o39dddof5v9p64@4ax.com>,
adrianhudson@sprintmail.com (e27002 aurora) wrote:
The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
passengers.
The Nine Elms flyover is being pressed into service for Southeastern trains >> after the Waterloo blockade.
One must ask why? South-eastern commuters can already access
Victoria, Charing Cross, Waterloo East, Canon Street, London Bridge,
and Saint Pancras. Isn't that enough?! Do they really need access to
the SW side of Waterloo?
On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 20:50:43 +0100, Graham Murray
<newspost@gmurray.org.uk> wrote:
e27002 aurora <adrianhudson@sprintmail.com> writes:
The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
passengers.
Why? Before the Waterloo International conversion, the Windsor line
services always used the high numbered platforms.
IMHO it makes more sense for the longer distance, higher fare paying passengers, to come into the more modern, better appointed facility.
There may also be opportunities for further platform and train
lengthening. Clearly opinions vary.
On 09/08/2017 18:02, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 19:42:39 -0500, rosenstiel@cix.compulink.co.uk
wrote:
In article <43rjocds1k7pignt9rr7o39dddof5v9p64@4ax.com>,
adrianhudson@sprintmail.com (e27002 aurora) wrote:
The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
passengers.
The Nine Elms flyover is being pressed into service for Southeastern trains >>> after the Waterloo blockade.
One must ask why? South-eastern commuters can already access
Victoria, Charing Cross, Waterloo East, Canon Street, London Bridge,
and Saint Pancras. Isn't that enough?! Do they really need access to
the SW side of Waterloo?
IIRC they are only using Waterloo because of the London Bridge work.
On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 13:57:53 +0000 (UTC), spud@potato.field wrote:
Wandered down to the refurbished platforms at waterloo international atThe whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
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.
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.
On 2017\08\09 17:59, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 20:50:43 +0100, Graham Murray
<newspost@gmurray.org.uk> wrote:
e27002 aurora <adrianhudson@sprintmail.com> writes:
The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
passengers.
Why? Before the Waterloo International conversion, the Windsor line
services always used the high numbered platforms.
IMHO it makes more sense for the longer distance, higher fare paying
passengers, to come into the more modern, better appointed facility.
There may also be opportunities for further platform and train
lengthening. Clearly opinions vary.
I think that is the maddest suggestion I've ever seen here. Surely it
would be better value for money to leave the flyover alone and renovate
the low numbered platforms up to the quality of the international
platforms, so that all passengers would have a high quality terminal.
On 09/08/2017 21:08, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\08\09 17:59, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 20:50:43 +0100, Graham Murray
<newspost@gmurray.org.uk> wrote:
e27002 aurora <adrianhudson@sprintmail.com> writes:
The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor >>>>> passengers.
Why? Before the Waterloo International conversion, the Windsor line
services always used the high numbered platforms.
IMHO it makes more sense for the longer distance, higher fare paying
passengers, to come into the more modern, better appointed facility.
There may also be opportunities for further platform and train
lengthening. Clearly opinions vary.
I think that is the maddest suggestion I've ever seen here. Surely it
would be better value for money to leave the flyover alone and renovate
the low numbered platforms up to the quality of the international
platforms, so that all passengers would have a high quality terminal.
I doubt there's a lot of difference between the actual platforms.
On 09/08/2017 21:08, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\08\09 17:59, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 20:50:43 +0100, Graham Murray
<newspost@gmurray.org.uk> wrote:
e27002 aurora <adrianhudson@sprintmail.com> writes:
The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor >>>>> passengers.
Why? Before the Waterloo International conversion, the Windsor line
services always used the high numbered platforms.
IMHO it makes more sense for the longer distance, higher fare paying
passengers, to come into the more modern, better appointed facility.
There may also be opportunities for further platform and train
lengthening. Clearly opinions vary.
I think that is the maddest suggestion I've ever seen here. Surely it
would be better value for money to leave the flyover alone and
renovate the low numbered platforms up to the quality of the
international platforms, so that all passengers would have a high
quality terminal.
I doubt there's a lot of difference between the actual platforms.
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 09/08/2017 21:08, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\08\09 17:59, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 20:50:43 +0100, Graham Murray
<newspost@gmurray.org.uk> wrote:
e27002 aurora <adrianhudson@sprintmail.com> writes:
The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn >>>>>> down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the >>>>>> fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor >>>>>> passengers.
Why? Before the Waterloo International conversion, the Windsor line
services always used the high numbered platforms.
IMHO it makes more sense for the longer distance, higher fare paying
passengers, to come into the more modern, better appointed facility.
There may also be opportunities for further platform and train
lengthening. Clearly opinions vary.
I think that is the maddest suggestion I've ever seen here. Surely it
would be better value for money to leave the flyover alone and renovate
the low numbered platforms up to the quality of the international
platforms, so that all passengers would have a high quality terminal.
I doubt there's a lot of difference between the actual platforms.
Presumably Adrian would prefer to arrive in the high numbered former international platforms as they're in the extreme right wing of the
station?
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 15:10:45 +0000 (UTC), spud@potato.field wrote:
The eurostar terminal could have been used pretty much as was. All they'd >>have had to install would be gates and departure boards downstairs in the >>former eurostar concourse and the track was already linked to the rest of the >>network.The platforms were the wrong height. Moreover, the track layout and
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.
On 09/08/2017 18:13, e27002 aurora wrote:
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?
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 09/08/2017 18:13, e27002 aurora wrote:
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.
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.
On 10/08/2017 12:27, spud@potato.field wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
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.
On 10/08/2017 09:34, spud@potato.field wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 09/08/2017 18:13, e27002 aurora wrote:
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.
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/08/2017 09:34, spud@potato.field wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 09/08/2017 18:13, e27002 aurora wrote:
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
On 2017\08\10 12:53, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 10/08/2017 12:27, spud@potato.field wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
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.
In message <omhoar$mq5$2@dont-email.me>, at 14:54:30 on Thu, 10 Aug
2017, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
On 10/08/2017 13:05, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\08\10 12:53, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 10/08/2017 12:27, spud@potato.field wrote:I think it was only ever a sop to stop South Londoners complaining
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
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.
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.
On 10/08/2017 13:05, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\08\10 12:53, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 10/08/2017 12:27, spud@potato.field wrote:I think it was only ever a sop to stop South Londoners complaining
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
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.
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.
In message <omhrj0$111$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:50:03 on Thu, 10 Aug
2017, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
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.
On 2017\08\09 17:59, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 20:50:43 +0100, Graham Murray
<newspost@gmurray.org.uk> wrote:
e27002 aurora <adrianhudson@sprintmail.com> writes:
The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
passengers.
Why? Before the Waterloo International conversion, the Windsor line
services always used the high numbered platforms.
IMHO it makes more sense for the longer distance, higher fare paying
passengers, to come into the more modern, better appointed facility.
There may also be opportunities for further platform and train
lengthening. Clearly opinions vary.
I think that is the maddest suggestion I've ever seen here. Surely it
would be better value for money to leave the flyover alone and renovate
the low numbered platforms up to the quality of the international
platforms, so that all passengers would have a high quality terminal.
On 2017\08\09 22:15, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 09/08/2017 21:08, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\08\09 17:59, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 20:50:43 +0100, Graham Murray
<newspost@gmurray.org.uk> wrote:
e27002 aurora <adrianhudson@sprintmail.com> writes:
The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn >>>>>> down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the >>>>>> fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor >>>>>> passengers.
Why? Before the Waterloo International conversion, the Windsor line
services always used the high numbered platforms.
IMHO it makes more sense for the longer distance, higher fare paying
passengers, to come into the more modern, better appointed facility.
There may also be opportunities for further platform and train
lengthening. Clearly opinions vary.
I think that is the maddest suggestion I've ever seen here. Surely it
would be better value for money to leave the flyover alone and
renovate the low numbered platforms up to the quality of the
international platforms, so that all passengers would have a high
quality terminal.
I doubt there's a lot of difference between the actual platforms.
I'm not sure exactly what the difference is, except for the pretty roof.
But imagine that the east half of Victoria was tarted up, and they
decided to build a flyover so the Brighton lines could use it. Then
twenty years later the west half is tarted up to be nicer than the east
half, so they demolish the flyover. Then twenty years later they tart up
the east side again and rebuild the flyover. Even Michael Bell wouldn't
dream of advocating such a thing.
On Wed, 09 Aug 2017 18:13:20 +0100
e27002 aurora <adrianhudson@sprintmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 15:10:45 +0000 (UTC), spud@potato.field wrote:
The eurostar terminal could have been used pretty much as was. All they'd >>>have had to install would be gates and departure boards downstairs in the >>>former eurostar concourse and the track was already linked to the rest of theThe platforms were the wrong height. Moreover, the track layout and
network.
I'll have to go back and see if they've raised them. It didn't look as though >they had when I went there on tuesday and lowering the track is obviously
not feasible.
signalling may not have been appropriate for domestic traffic.
Sure, they'd have had to install some points and redo signalling interlocking >but how long would that take at worst, 6 months?
But, you are correct, in that after the international service moved to >>Saint Pancras, DfT and Network Rail should have been considering >>re-utilizing the station.
Given the recent new rail projects given the go ahead one can only hope the >view of rail being a liability that seems to have been prevelant in the DfT >for years is slowly going by the wayside.
In uk.railway Basil Jet <basil@spamspamspam.com> wrote:
I'm not sure exactly what the difference is, except for the pretty roof.
But imagine that the east half of Victoria was tarted up, and they
decided to build a flyover so the Brighton lines could use it. Then
twenty years later the west half is tarted up to be nicer than the east
half, so they demolish the flyover. Then twenty years later they tart up
the east side again and rebuild the flyover. Even Michael Bell wouldn't
dream of advocating such 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?)
On Wednesday, 9 August 2017 19:13:22 UTC+2, e27002 wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 15:10:45 +0000 (UTC), spud@potato.field wrote:
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.
On 10 Aug 2017 11:10:54 +0100 (BST), Theo
<theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
In uk.railway Basil Jet <basil@spamspamspam.com> wrote:
I'm not sure exactly what the difference is, except for the pretty roof. >>> But imagine that the east half of Victoria was tarted up, and they
decided to build a flyover so the Brighton lines could use it. Then
twenty years later the west half is tarted up to be nicer than the east
half, so they demolish the flyover. Then twenty years later they tart up >>> the east side again and rebuild the flyover. Even Michael Bell wouldn't
dream of advocating such 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.
Probably not. I wonder how long are the platforms at Southampton?
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?)
On 10 Aug 2017 11:10:54 +0100 (BST), Theo
<theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
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.
On 10/08/2017 12:27, spud@potato.field wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/08/2017 09:34, spud@potato.field wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 09/08/2017 18:13, e27002 aurora wrote:
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.
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
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."
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:29:04 -0700 (PDT), rcp27g@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 August 2017 19:13:22 UTC+2, e27002 wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 15:10:45 +0000 (UTC), spud@potato.field wrote:
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.
On 2017\08\10 07:15, Garden6089@live.co.uk wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 August 2017 22:33:50 UTC+1, Recliner wrote:
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.
On 2017\08\10 07:15, Garden6089@live.co.uk wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 August 2017 22:33:50 UTC+1, Recliner wrote:
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.
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:07:08 +0100, Basil Jet <basil@spamspamspam.com>
wrote:
On 2017\08\10 07:15, Garden6089@live.co.uk wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 August 2017 22:33:50 UTC+1, Recliner wrote:
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.
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:54:47 +0100
e27002 aurora <adrianhudson@sprintmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:07:08 +0100, Basil Jet <basil@spamspamspam.com>
wrote:
On 2017\08\10 07:15, Garden6089@live.co.uk wrote:show that the extreme right and left are just as bad as each other!!! :-)) >>>
On Wednesday, 9 August 2017 22:33:50 UTC+1, Recliner wrote:
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
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
In article <v2gmoc5iee6s5rnrrpv73cducib85pc0jc@4ax.com>, >adrianhudson@sprintmail.com (e27002 aurora) wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 09:12:18 +0000 (UTC), spud@potato.field wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 08:54:23 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner <recliner.ng@btinternet.com> wrote:
Well its taken BRB & NR 10 years to get this far, and its been over aMore reason to make responsibility for track and infrastructure part
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.
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.
In article <3rnqocp2e69so01r7e0ef3o0ihe9gdes1v@4ax.com>, >adrianhudson@sprintmail.com (e27002 aurora) wrote:
On 10 Aug 2017 11:10:54 +0100 (BST), Theo
<theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
In uk.railway Basil Jet <basil@spamspamspam.com> wrote:
I'm not sure exactly what the difference is, except for the pretty
roof. But imagine that the east half of Victoria was tarted up, and
they decided to build a flyover so the Brighton lines could use it.
Then twenty years later the west half is tarted up to be nicer than the >> >> east half, so they demolish the flyover. Then twenty years later they
tart up the east side again and rebuild the flyover. Even Michael Bell
wouldn't dream of advocating such athing.
Losing the flyover would enable reinstatement of an 8th track through
Queenstown Road (where it goes from 8 down to 7 to accommodate it, then 8 >> >once the flyover has merged). I don't know enough about the (complex)
track layout and platforming to know if that would give any useful
increase in capacity.
Historically, IIRC, there were four tracks between Waterloo and
Barnes. I do not know how much the reduction around the Nine Elms
flyover reduced needed capacity.
Historically the constraint is at Queenstown Road Battersea (previously >Queens Road Battersea). It only ever had 3 platforms (the side platform has >long been out of use) and 3 passenger tracks. A fourth track, between the
two up tracks, served the late lamented Nine Elms Goods Station. There was
an attempt to work up a scheme to have one up and two down tracks there (to >ease ECS moves from Waterloo to Clapham Yard) but the cost of rebuilding the >station was found to be prohibitive.
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/08/2017 12:27, spud@potato.field wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/08/2017 09:34, spud@potato.field wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 09/08/2017 18:13, e27002 aurora wrote:
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.
On 10/08/2017 12:27, spud@potato.field wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/08/2017 09:34, spud@potato.field wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 09/08/2017 18:13, e27002 aurora wrote:
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.
On 13/08/2017 16:18, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/08/2017 12:27, spud@potato.field wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/08/2017 09:34, spud@potato.field wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 09/08/2017 18:13, e27002 aurora wrote:
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.
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/08/2017 12:27, spud@potato.field wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/08/2017 09:34, spud@potato.field wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 09/08/2017 18:13, e27002 aurora wrote:
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.
On 13/08/2017 16:18, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/08/2017 12:27, spud@potato.field wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/08/2017 09:34, spud@potato.field wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 09/08/2017 18:13, e27002 aurora wrote:
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.
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/08/2017 16:18, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/08/2017 12:27, spud@potato.field wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/08/2017 09:34, spud@potato.field wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 09/08/2017 18:13, e27002 aurora wrote:
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?
On 13/08/17 16:18, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
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 <Anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/08/2017 12:27, spud@potato.field wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/08/2017 09:34, spud@potato.field wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 09/08/2017 18:13, e27002 aurora wrote:
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.
Other than use of HS1 for part of the journey, and that there are no trains from Waterloo to Ashford...
On 13/08/2017 20:07, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/08/2017 16:18, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/08/2017 12:27, spud@potato.field wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/08/2017 09:34, spud@potato.field wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 09/08/2017 18:13, e27002 aurora wrote:
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.
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/08/2017 20:07, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/08/2017 16:18, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/08/2017 12:27, spud@potato.field wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/08/2017 09:34, spud@potato.field wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 09/08/2017 18:13, e27002 aurora wrote:
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?
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.
Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> wrote:
On 13/08/17 16:18, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
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.
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 03:29:29 -0500, rosenstiel@cix.compulink.co.uk
wrote:
In article <3rnqocp2e69so01r7e0ef3o0ihe9gdes1v@4ax.com>, >>adrianhudson@sprintmail.com (e27002 aurora) wrote:
On 10 Aug 2017 11:10:54 +0100 (BST), Theo
<theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
In uk.railway Basil Jet <basil@spamspamspam.com> wrote:
I'm not sure exactly what the difference is, except for the pretty
roof. But imagine that the east half of Victoria was tarted up, and
they decided to build a flyover so the Brighton lines could use it.
Then twenty years later the west half is tarted up to be nicer than the >>> >> east half, so they demolish the flyover. Then twenty years later they >>> >> tart up the east side again and rebuild the flyover. Even Michael Bell >>> >> wouldn't dream of advocating such athing.
Losing the flyover would enable reinstatement of an 8th track through
Queenstown Road (where it goes from 8 down to 7 to accommodate it, then 8 >>> >once the flyover has merged). I don't know enough about the (complex)
track layout and platforming to know if that would give any useful
increase in capacity.
Historically, IIRC, there were four tracks between Waterloo and
Barnes. I do not know how much the reduction around the Nine Elms
flyover reduced needed capacity.
Historically the constraint is at Queenstown Road Battersea (previously >>Queens Road Battersea). It only ever had 3 platforms (the side platform has >>long been out of use) and 3 passenger tracks. A fourth track, between the >>two up tracks, served the late lamented Nine Elms Goods Station. There was >>an attempt to work up a scheme to have one up and two down tracks there (to >>ease ECS moves from Waterloo to Clapham Yard) but the cost of rebuilding the >>station was found to be prohibitive.
So, the absence of a fourth track for the Windsor lines approach to
Waterloo is not really an issue. That is good.
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.
In uk.railway Anna Noyd-Dryver <Anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
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?
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/08/2017 16:18, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
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?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 429 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 112:10:01 |
| Calls: | 9,055 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 13,395 |
| Messages: | 6,016,191 |
