My idea for Waterloo to regain through services

[cornishjohn]

I'm tempted to argue that there will be much fewer suburban services after CR2, and given they will have the newly-freed up slow lines all to themselves from Raynes Park, you may well be able to send the lot across to London Bridge...if you could work out how to solve the Borough Market bottleneck - 9 through platforms could be used as 2 to CS, 3 to Blackfriars, 2 to CX, and 2 to Waterloo, but that won't help you immediately to the west where you will only have at best 6 tracks.

I just can't see where they would go unless you rerouted services from CX to Waterloo, but then you'd want a north facing link from Waterloo as well, and thus you'd have cloned the triangle of junctions west of London Bridge!

How about closing Waterloo East completely: extend the Windsor lines to Charing X, and redirect the London Bridge lines to the Wimbledon lines. There is scope for a few Surbiton-Cannon St trains to relieve the waterloo and City then. No triangle, London Bridge to Charing X would change at Waterloo. How many passengers are actually travelling to Charing X area, rather than just getting onto the Underground when they arrive? I've been through Waterloo countless times, but never seen the outside: I just get on the Bakerloo.

The big payoff in a scheme like this would be from the land released by redundant platforms for development.

 

[swt_passenger]

I've been through Waterloo countless times, but never seen the outside:

If you had you'd know that connecting the Windsors to Charing cross would be nigh on impossible in the space available. Nothing that could be done with a normal railway track curvature unless there was major property demolition, such as the listed Shell Centre...

 

[cornishjohn]

If you had you'd know that connecting the Windsors to Charing cross would be nigh on impossible in the space available. Nothing that could be done with a normal railway track curvature unless there was major property demolition, such as the listed Shell Centre...

>> Assume for a moment that you can build your new link as you please <<

Really? There seems to be nearly as much space (and curvature) available as at Strawberry Hill. Do it the other way - elevate the Wimbledon lines and take them to Charing X while sending Windsor to London Bridge.

What is the tightest passenger line curve we are allowed?

 

[swt_passenger]

>> Assume for a moment that you can build your new link as you please <<

Really? There seems to be nearly as much space (and curvature) available as at Strawberry Hill.

Curves similar to those at Strawberry Hilll couldn't possibly fit, they'd have to start half way down the platforms in the main station, and cut through existing buildings. I take it we are allowing for the fact all the Windsor side services are in the former international platforms by the time this is done?

There's no earthly reason to do this diversion into CX though, (even if a connection from Waterloo towards London Bridge would have something going for it).

So as they say on the telly, I'm out...

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Really? There seems to be nearly as much space (and curvature) available as at Strawberry Hill. Do it the other way - elevate the Wimbledon lines and take them to Charing X while sending Windsor to London Bridge.

What is the tightest passenger line curve we are allowed?

I've just gone to Google maps, taken the tightest curve at Strawberry Hill, and superimposed it onto Waterloo at the same scale. The results suggest you could do it, but you've have to knock down a lot of buildings (including, as SWT_Passenger says) part of Waterloo Station. You'd end up with Windsor line platforms situated some distance from the other platforms (rather ironically, since part of the original complaint is the long walk between Waterloo and Waterloo East). So it doesn't look to me very viable. (EDIT: This is for what I think was your earlier suggestion of running the Windsor lines to CHX, not running the Wimbledon lines to CHX - but I think it's obvious from the picture how problematic that would be, given that you probably wouldn't be allowed to build any new platforms on the curved bit of track).

But as a matter of general curiosity, I too would be very curious to know what the minimum radius of curvature realistically achievable is. Anyone?

 

[Dr Hoo]

I've just gone to Google maps, taken the tightest curve at Strawberry Hill, and superimposed it onto Waterloo at the same scale. The results suggest you could do it, but you've have to knock down a lot of buildings (including, as SWT_Passenger says) part of Waterloo Station. You'd end up with Windsor line platforms situated some distance from the other platforms (rather ironically, since part of the original complaint is the long walk between Waterloo and Waterloo East). So it doesn't look to me very viable. (EDIT: This is for what I think was your earlier suggestion of running the Windsor lines to CHX, not running the Wimbledon lines to CHX - but I think it's obvious from the picture how problematic that would be, given that you probably wouldn't be allowed to build any new platforms on the curved bit of track).

But as a matter of general curiosity, I too would be very curious to know what the minimum radius of curvature realistically achievable is. Anyone?

Ten chains radius is a commonly quoted limit, especially for a new line with regular services. The new Rutherglen station on the Glasgow Argyle Line in the late 1970s was about this. But platforms on a curve like that are no longer feasible given current views about stepping distances and so forth.

 

[Hophead]

How many passengers are actually travelling to Charing X area, rather than just getting onto the Underground when they arrive? I've been through Waterloo countless times, but never seen the outside: I just get on the Bakerloo.

Lots & lots & lots & lots. Passengers on the Southeastern have a choice of London terminal (major engineering works excepted) and will tend to take a train to the most convenient station and walk from there. Charing Cross, in your example, is convenient for tourist sites at Trafalgar Square, Covent Garden and the Galleries, to name but a few. Then there's all the government and parliament buildings a short walk away, as well as a whole load of office space within an easy 10 minutes walk. Even Oxford Street is a not unreasonable distance to walk.

These passengers save money by not taking the tube or bus - not that the underground could cope if even half of them decided to give the walk a miss for a change.

 

[Bald Rick]

Of course if you close CHX, then you're right - the disbenefits outweigh the benefits. But if you follow through my idea of extending LBG Southern services to start at CHX, to replace the Southeastern trains that would no longer go there, then the benefits become massively greater. Southern passengers heading for the West End don't have to change at London Bridge - that alone is likely to relieve considerable pressure on the Jubilee (and to a lesser extent the Northern) lines - both of which in my experience regularly leave passengers behind because trains are so full at London Bridge. If you can arrange it so that nothing terminates at London Bridge, then capacity there presumably becomes greater. The only (modest) disbenefit is that SouthEastern passengers heading for CHX would need to change at LBG (but without the long walk).

My final words on the subject, before I too give up.

There are 40 million people a year who use Charing Cross by train. A surprisingly small percentage continue their journey by tube; the majority walk on to the West End, Covent Garden and Whitehall. Diverting any Charing Cross bound services away from that line of route is going to inconvenience and annoy those that want to use it. Bear in mind that the peak 28tph into Charing Cross is a collection of 7 separate routes of 2-4tph each. Which routes lose their Charing Cross services?

The government is in the middle of spending £2bn sorting out London Bridge, rather painfully as it turns out. I don't suppose it wants to spend any more cash at any time in the next few decades on more grade separation there, land take, viaducts etc just to get Southern services to Charing Cross. Southern passengers who want to get to the west end will usually just get on a Victoria train from their origin. Failing that, change at London Bridge on to a Charing Cross train (from next August). No need to use the tube at all.

While you're on google maps, have a look at how to get an extra 2 tracks from London Bridge to Waterloo. Some of the buildings adjacent to the line are priced in the hundreds of millions. And which of the buildings immediately adjacent to London Bridge would you demolish - News UK corporate HQ (prop. R Murdoch), or Southwark Cathedral (prop. Arch. Canterbury)?

 

[infobleep]

My final words on the subject, before I too give up.

There are 40 million people a year who use Charing Cross by train. A surprisingly small percentage continue their journey by tube; the majority walk on to the West End, Covent Garden and Whitehall. Diverting any Charing Cross bound services away from that line of route is going to inconvenience and annoy those that want to use it. Bear in mind that the peak 28tph into Charing Cross is a collection of 7 separate routes of 2-4tph each. Which routes lose their Charing Cross services?

The government is in the middle of spending £2bn sorting out London Bridge, rather painfully as it turns out. I don't suppose it wants to spend any more cash at any time in the next few decades on more grade separation there, land take, viaducts etc just to get Southern services to Charing Cross. Southern passengers who want to get to the west end will usually just get on a Victoria train from their origin. Failing that, change at London Bridge on to a Charing Cross train (from next August). No need to use the tube at all.

While you're on google maps, have a look at how to get an extra 2 tracks from London Bridge to Waterloo. Some of the buildings adjacent to the line are priced in the hundreds of millions. And which of the buildings immediately adjacent to London Bridge would you demolish - News UK corporate HQ (prop. R Murdoch), or Southwark Cathedral (prop. Arch. Canterbury)?

If you must demolish something Southwark Cathedral is good to go. Lol. Joking.

In all seriousness, how did the services work when the lines once went through? Did the trains just run to Charring Cross or did they go elsewhere.

Interestingly that it was actually looked at, although dismissed. I wouldn't have expected such a thing to even be given the light of day as I'd assumed there wouldn't be the space to safely run trains though. Safety was not like it is now back in 1911 and before.

 

[JamesRowden]

If you must demolish something Southwark Cathedral is good to go. Lol. Joking.

In all seriousness, how did the services work when the lines once went through? Did the trains just run to Charring Cross or did they go elsewhere.

Interestingly that it was actually looked at, although dismissed. I wouldn't have expected such a thing to even be given the light of day as I'd assumed there wouldn't be the space to safely run trains though. Safety was not like it is now back in 1911 and before.

The most useful use would probably have been to have some LSWML services run through to Cannon Street for the City, Liverpool Street, Fenchurch Street, the District Line and the Central Line. But there isn't the spare capacity for that today.

 

[theironroad]

Interesting thread and thanks to hornet for the map link, very interesting. While I've been aware of the link for a long time, I didn't realise that it didn't go direct to chx from wat without a reverse at what is now wat east, which I see in the map was known as Waterloo junction station. Maybe I missed something on the map! Interesting idea of reinstating but not going to happen in next 100 years at least lol

Two other things I learned from that map, one there seems to have been a distinction between north,central and south stations at Waterloo and though it is all one these days, the threefold distinction does exist to this day in reality.

Second, I always understood that the necropolis station was the current platforms 20-24, the old eurstar where in fact the map shows them on the downside of the tracks , circa south sidings now. I see there is a turntable where the eurtostar station was, so guess this was a rolling stock and engine stabling area.

As someone who works trains into Waterloo, interesting to see some more history in that map.

 

[swt_passenger]

Second, I always understood that the necropolis station was the current platforms 20-24, the old eurstar where in fact the map shows them on the downside of the tracks , circa south sidings now. I see there is a turntable where the eurtostar station was, so guess this was a rolling stock and engine stabling area.

You haven't been misinformed, because the Necropolis station was originally on the York Rd side of the site, but after about 50 years it was transferred to the south side during the rebuild of the early 1900s.

 

[Bookd]

As far as I can see, including a replica Bradshaw from 1910, there never were any through passenger services. I have seen references to the link being used occasionally for the Royal train and other special services but that was about all.

 

[Dr Hoo]

As far as I can see, including a replica Bradshaw from 1910, there never were any through passenger services. I have seen references to the link being used occasionally for the Royal train and other special services but that was about all.

According to Alan A Jackson's book, London's Termini, there was a regular Euston-Kensington (Addison Road)-Waterloo-London Bridge service from July 1865 to January 1867, then diverted to Cannon Street until withdrawal around the end of the year.
I think that the Northern Line is probably more straightforward these days.

 

[EbbwJunction1]

The big issue (apart from knocking down the Union Jack Club, which I don't think would be missed too much) would be passenger handling.

Oi, you .... leave the UJC alone, will you? That's the best place to stay in London!!

 

[HowardGWR]

The irony of this discussion is that most pax arriving at Waterloo want a totally different through service, one that enables them to get out at either Westminster, Oxford Circus, Bank or Canary Wharf. They don't want to arrive at Waterloo at all!

 

[Dr_Intoxicated]

The irony of this discussion is that most pax arriving at Waterloo want a totally different through service, one that enables them to get out at either Westminster, Oxford Circus, Bank or Canary Wharf. They don't want to arrive at Waterloo at all!

A very good point, what proportion of Waterloo arrivies walk to their final destination?

I walk over to Moorgate, but just for the exercise. Quite a few seem to walk over Hungeford and Waterloo bridges to avoid the Tube.

 

[hwl]

Quite a few seem to walk over Hungeford and Waterloo bridges to avoid the Tube.

I do - far easier to walk than get the tube and change to another tube.

 

[The Ham]

The irony of this discussion is that most pax arriving at Waterloo want a totally different through service, one that enables them to get out at either Westminster, Oxford Circus, Bank or Canary Wharf. They don't want to arrive at Waterloo at all!

Which is why further cross London lines (like Thameslink and the Crossrails) would be more likely. Drop the lines into tunnels on the approach to London pass under it and increase capacity that way.

One thought I had was to put into tunnels the southern services into London Bridge (as they have a nice large corridor just before joining the line to London Bridge either side of Millwall's ground which could be the location of the portals) as well as most of the services from New Cross to Cannon Street. The tunnel would then run under London Bridge and quite possibly Cannon Street (or at least somewhere nearby) and then looping back to London Victoria (possibly via City Thameslink, Covent Garden and Charring Cross) before popping back up again somewhere else.

That would free up several paths into and through London Bridge for use by other services as well as providing more capacity for sections of tube lines in central London.

 

[JamesRowden]

Which is why further cross London lines (like Thameslink and the Crossrails) would be more likely. Drop the lines into tunnels on the approach to London pass under it and increase capacity that way.

One thought I had was to put into tunnels the southern services into London Bridge (as they have a nice large corridor just before joining the line to London Bridge either side of Millwall's ground which could be the location of the portals) as well as most of the services from New Cross to Cannon Street. The tunnel would then run under London Bridge and quite possibly Cannon Street (or at least somewhere nearby) and then looping back to London Victoria (possibly via City Thameslink, Covent Garden and Charring Cross) before popping back up again somewhere else.

That would free up several paths into and through London Bridge for use by other services as well as providing more capacity for sections of tube lines in central London.

Or one can do the opposite (which is effectively the same) and extend tube lines with spare capacity such as the Bakerloo (and possibly other lines once more Crossrails are built).

 

[mr_jrt]

Which is why further cross London lines (like Thameslink and the Crossrails) would be more likely. Drop the lines into tunnels on the approach to London pass under it and increase capacity that way.

*cough*

http://alondoninheritance.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Map-2.jpg

 

[infobleep]

The irony of this discussion is that most pax arriving at Waterloo want a totally different through service, one that enables them to get out at either Westminster, Oxford Circus, Bank or Canary Wharf. They don't want to arrive at Waterloo at all!

How many of these passengers are long distance vers suburban?

 

[DerekC]

*cough*

http://alondoninheritance.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Map-2.jpg

Gosh - Thameslink x 6! When was this proposed and who by?

 

[HowardGWR]

How many of these passengers are long distance vers suburban?

There is a survey of pax arriving at London stations and analyses where they really want to go. I can't remember whether a distinction was made between local and long distance but data must have been gathered on that by the surveyors. It was those data that convinced me that such as 'The Drain' was a daft substitution for what was really needed. Paris has the same inadequacies with stations on the periphery. Berlin is better for various historical reasons.

I suggest googling the key words and see if you can find it. I think I got the link from London Reconnections web site originally.

 

[infobleep]

A very good point, what proportion of Waterloo arrivies walk to their final destination?

I walk over to Moorgate, but just for the exercise. Quite a few seem to walk over Hungeford and Waterloo bridges to avoid the Tube.

One of my friends walks from Waterloo to Grays Inn Road because he claims is not much quicker going by tube or bus from Waterloo.

I don't know if that actually is the case.

Crossrail 2 will give some passengers the chance to avoid Waterloo but it won't connect with the city so those passengers will still use Waterloo I guess. I don't know the split between passengers wanting the city and those wanting other areas.

I needed to get to Angel tube station recently for around 9.20 and thought perhaps Bank would be a good bet via the Waterloo and City line. Then I saw the queues for Bank and decided to go via London Bridge. I then saw the Jubilee line queues for east bound platform and decided to head West one station rather than walk all the way to the Northern line.

I then walked through Westminster tube station to the East bound platforms, which are located in another section and was able to board a tube train to London Bridge. I suspect that was quicker than queueing at Waterloo but I may be wrong.

In hindsight I should have gone up to Euston on the Northern line and then back down to Angel, as I know the line to Euston to be less busy. However I don't know if the other northern line down from Euston, which eventually goes to Bank, is busy or not.

Personally I prefer to take the quickest route as well as one that's preferably less busy, so I do not add to those using the popular routes. Without travelling on the routes regularly it's not possible to know which these are, if they even exist in peak rush hour.

 

[DerekC]

.

I needed to get to Angel tube station recently for around 9.20 and thought perhaps Bank would be a good bet via the Waterloo and City line. Then I saw the queues for Bank and decided to go via London Bridge. I then saw the Jubilee line queues for east bound platform and decided to head West one station rather than walk all the way to the Northern line.

.

Three better ways to Angel I have tried:

a) Northern Line CHX branch southbound to Kennington then City Branch northbound (works well and avoids the Waterloo crush on any line going northbound in the peak)

b) 341 bus all the way - variable depending on time of day - my record is 18 minutes with a racing driver and not much traffic!

c) 521 bus to Chancery Lane then walk - more reliable than the 341 because the 521 takes the Aldwych underpass but takes a bit longer!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

. And which of the buildings immediately adjacent to London Bridge would you demolish - News UK corporate HQ (prop. R Murdoch), or Southwark Cathedral (prop. Arch. Canterbury)?

Now you have put your finger on a real benefit! Not a churchgoer but guess which I would go for??

 

[mr_jrt]

Gosh - Thameslink x 6! When was this proposed and who by?

It was taken from an article discussing the plans set in motion when it was felt WW2 was going to be won. As the article puts it, "planning for the peace". The initial report spawned several, and this map was taken from a 1946 report.

I guess I didn't post it on this forum, but I started a thread here.

I'll reproduce my text here as I don't want to abstract traffic from this forum:

As the saying goes, a picture tells a thousand words.

I stumbled across a great article on the 1946 plan for London's Railways the other night, and the maps shown therein are quite interesting, IMHO.

Line 12a is particularly interesting, as I believe it shows what was planned for the Northern deep level shelters, namely all-stations Edgware to Golder's Green, then fast to Euston & fast to Waterloo. Probably to join on to line 10, which was an express tunnel from Kennington to Tooting Broadway, thence onwards to Morden, and possibly an extension to North Cheam (line 11), with the existing Northern Line service cut back to serve Golders Green to Tooting Broadway.

A further interesting element of this is that going by the deep level shelters, we can determine that the running tunnels were to be large enough for mainline trains (being ~16', so roughly the same size as the GN&C tunnels between Finsbury Park and Moorgate), and as this would all be new build and taking over surface sections, we may well have seen larger rolling stock serving the 1920's Northern Line extension from Golders Green to Edgware, in fact, were lines 10 and 12a linked, then the only obstacle to running larger rolling stock throughout would be the existing tunnel section between Tooting and Morden. Whether widening would have been performed or an extension of the new larger tunnel I do not know.

...and that's just one of the options. I'd recommend perusing the article, it's very informative.

...oh, and look at line 9 - it's essentially Crossrail 2 but with a curious diversion to serve Liverpool Street and Charing Cross rather than Kings Cross and Victoria

Hell, line 1 even extends the GN&C to London Bridge's more-southerly replacement via Fenchurch Street!

 

[DerekC]

You haven't been misinformed, because the Necropolis station was originally on the York Rd side of the site, but after about 50 years it was transferred to the south side during the rebuild of the early 1900s.

Sorry - just to show that I can be a railway history pedant - the site of the Necropolis station (per the 1872 OS map) was on the south (actually it's east) side of the approach tracks roughly at the point where the underpass which the 521 and 211 buses and the taxis use to get to the station concourse comes out. It (and All Saints Church and a school next to it) must have disappeared in the later reconstruction which took in a good 10-15 acres of housing as well. They didn't have planning departments in those days!

Maybe we should have a thread on the history of Waterloo?

 

[cornishjohn]

I've just gone to Google maps, taken the tightest curve at Strawberry Hill, and superimposed it onto Waterloo at the same scale. The results suggest you could do it, but you've have to knock down a lot of buildings (including, as SWT_Passenger says) part of Waterloo Station. You'd end up with Windsor line platforms situated some distance from the other platforms

That's the idea. Actually, the whole lot can move to the east slewing the Windsor lines, since we can close half the platforms by turning into a through station. And we can extend platforms southward across the old station throat.

 

[Bald Rick]

That's the idea. Actually, the whole lot can move to the east slewing the Windsor lines, since we can close half the platforms by turning into a through station. And we can extend platforms southward across the old station throat.

What are the 100million Waterloo passengers a year going to do for the 3-4 years it takes to do that?