Waterloo International - here's a radical thought!

[45669]

Impractical, but I would love to see it happen, also direct to the Netherlands and Switzerland. We already have the ski train in the winter, so the latter may already have a market. Doubt we'll ever see E*s at St Moritz however.

You certainly won't see Eurostars in St. Moritz - the wheels are too far apart!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

45669 - for the majority of people St Pancras is most definitely more convenient.

I.e. everything north of Watford... Mcr, Liverpool, Brum, Glasgow...

As I said, there are more of them than there are of us!

Actually, I'm still one of them, but if / when our move to Hampshire takes place, I'll then be one of us!

 

[mickey]

Impractical, but I would love to see it happen, also direct to the Netherlands and Switzerland. We already have the ski train in the winter, so the latter may already have a market.

Parts of Switzerland should already have a E* service. Since the LGV Est was opened there's no reason why Strasbourg and Basle can't be served; similarly Geneva (using the same route as the Lyria trains from Paris). Zurich and Milan are a little harder but are the logical extension. I personally think it's only E*'s monopoly that has prevented it - with no competition there was no need to think ambitiously.

 

[renfespotter]

With all the investment in St Pancras it would be a waste of resource to reinstate Waterloo. Its not just the trains but the infrastructure and staffing.

Perhaps it could be used as an empty stock stabling point to reduce the contant drags to CJ.

 

[starrymarkb]

Parts of Switzerland should already have a E* service. Since the LGV Est was opened there's no reason why Strasbourg and Basle can't be served; similarly Geneva (using the same route as the Lyria trains from Paris). Zurich and Milan are a little harder but are the logical extension. I personally think it's only E*'s monopoly that has prevented it - with no competition there was no need to think ambitiously.

Don't the Lyria TGVs have gear to enable them to work on 15kV 16 2/3Hz

 

[jopsuk]

According to here there are 9 "Sud Est" sets with appropriate tri-current kit for working into Switzerland- though Geneva can be served by the bi-current sets. Not sure what systems the "POS" sets can use (they definitely work using German 15kV)

 

[LE Greys]

According to here there are 9 "Sud Est" sets with appropriate tri-current kit for working into Switzerland- though Geneva can be served by the bi-current sets. Not sure what systems the "POS" sets can use (they definitely work using German 15kV)

I've used TGVs to get to and from Switzerland several times, often trying to change at Lille to avoid having to cross Paris with heavy luggage. There's definitely a service to Zurich, but it is not very regular (2 or 3 per day I think). However, we really need to wait for LGV Rhin-Rhône before seeing any additional direct Switzerland services.

We've veered off from Waterloo, so I'll add something. Is is possible to divert Southeastern services into International during the London Bridge project?

 

[yorksrob]

We've veered off from Waterloo, so I'll add something. Is is possible to divert Southeastern services into International during the London Bridge project?

Sounds a pretty good idea to me. A bit of tidying up should get the terminal into shape (I presume the third rail's still in place?). I suspect paths between Nunhead and the spur to Waterloo might be a limiting factor though.

 

[Lampshade]

Why not put Gatwick Express into Waterloo International? There'd be little to no infrastructure work required as the services run via Clapham Junction anyway. Then capacity would be freed up at Victoria for domestic services. The only downside as far as I can see is the Gatwick Express services would have to cross right over to the Up Windsor between Clapham Junction and Waterloo.

 

[swt_passenger]

The only downside as far as I can see is the Gatwick Express services would have to cross right over to the Up Windsor between Clapham Junction and Waterloo.

Slight problem there. The real crippler is that there is no rail connection between those routes at Clapham Junction.

The main lines are basically totally separate railway networks, apart from the fact if such a connection was made it would be impossible to operate in either direction with the number of lines to cross.

 

[MrC]

Why not put Gatwick Express into Waterloo International? There'd be little to no infrastructure work required as the services run via Clapham Junction anyway.

Sorry, there's not a chance in hell. There's no access from that side of CJ anyway so you'd need major track and signalling changes to start with. Then there's the fact that getting just SWML trains over to the Windsor side can cause holdups such that there's talk of needing a flyover somewhere to get SWML trains onto the Windsor Reversible for regular access into the International platforms. So regularly pulling something over from the Southern side which would block the Southern & SWML fasts and slows, Clapham Yard and all the Windsors just isn't going to happen.

 

[swt_passenger]

Sounds a pretty good idea to me. A bit of tidying up should get the terminal into shape (I presume the third rail's still in place?). I suspect paths between Nunhead and the spur to Waterloo might be a limiting factor though.

This isn't a new idea, using Waterloo International during Thameslink works at London Bridge is mentioned in passing in the relevant RUSs, Kent and South London.

Having read up on it again it would be fair to say they are pretty lukewarm about it due to various pathing issues and crossing conflicts. It seems highly unlikely to happen.

Discussions elsewhere a couple of years ago suggested that any SE originating trains entering the international platforms during the peaks would be stuck there, because if there was a worthwhile UP direction frequency there wouldn't be the track capacity to get them back out again...

 

[WESSEX158]

As I said, there are more of them than there are of us!

Actually, I'm still one of them, but if / when our move to Hampshire takes place, I'll then be one of us!

This sounds like the reason the Waterloo and city line was built. Access to the city from Waterloo was too hard (with it not being on the circle line etc.). Now it's the case with getting to STP

Though not a frequent traveller to Waterloo (Paddington) I usually take the Jubilee/Northern route via London Bridge

 

[LE Greys]

Why not put Gatwick Express into Waterloo International? There'd be little to no infrastructure work required as the services run via Clapham Junction anyway. Then capacity would be freed up at Victoria for domestic services. The only downside as far as I can see is the Gatwick Express services would have to cross right over to the Up Windsor between Clapham Junction and Waterloo.

Practically, the only really effective way to do that would be to route them via Brixton, and I don't think there is the capacity. Heathrow Express might work with a bit of re-electrification and a new connection at North Pole. However, that depends on capacity on the WLL. There is still the option of diverting Southeastern services, or even Southern if they want to do something about Victoria (which could do with some platform extensions on the SE&CR side).

 

[DaveNewcastle]

slight 'bump' to this thread, but don't think anyone had added these proposals from BR Residuary Board (BRRB) and Lambeth Borough Council:-
http://www.brbr.co.uk/waterloo
I guess it was these proposals which led daccer, the OP, to start the thread, so its worth knowing what prompted the debate in the first place!

The High Level Output Specification, agreed between Network Rail and the Department for Transport for the period up to March 2014, specifies that Waterloo International is to be returned to rail use as part of a wider project to introduce ten-coach suburban trains on the South Western suburban lines. BRBR is working with the Department and Network Rail to bring this about.

Waterloo International was designed as a secure facility, like an airport, dealing with a relatively limited number of trains. It requires significant adaptation to make it suitable for domestic use. Work that is necessary includes making it possible for passengers to move on and off the platforms at the same time. Convenient links need to be made to the main concourse of Waterloo station, the Underground station, surrounding streets and bus services.

It is clear that the accommodation under the platforms at Waterloo International is far in excess of what is required for further railway use. The London Borough of Lambeth, working with BRBR and Network Rail, has prepared a Statement of Planning Principles which sets out how the surplus space might be used. This is an advisory document.

Appropriate Uses

4.2 However, the space could lend itself to other uses which would not require
good access to natural daylight levels. These are considered to include the
following:
• wholesale warehouse and distribution centres;
• conference centre;
• secure storage;
• D2 entertainment facilities;
• certain community facilities for the area; and
• for a range of Class A retail uses.

4.3 Shopping facilities in particular, must be accessible to all sections of the
community and therefore should be directed to those locations which are
most accessible by public transport to reduce additional journeys. Uses
which complement the existing offer at Lower Marsh are welcomed and
encouraged.

 

[swt_passenger]

Good find, thanks...

Just scanning at speed through the BRBR document it is easy to miss the fact that everywhere they are talking about is below track/platform level.

In hindsight that might therefore explain a few of the wildly speculative articles suggesting that the whole of the international station would be turned into a shopping acrcade...

Getting back to the OP's point though, I thought he was really trying to point out that turning the platforms over to domestic services was going to be a bit of an own goal given other international proposals, ie he reckoned the platforms would be lost to continental traffic, not lost completely...

 

[Electrostar]

If a shopping centre/warehouse etc were to use the former check-in, customs and waiting areas, how easy would it be to open up the glass at the end of the platform (see Wikipedia link) and build a bridge or escalator link to the main concourse over the old check in area?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Waterloo_International_after_closure_front.JPG

 

[swt_passenger]

If a shopping centre/warehouse etc were to use the former check-in, customs and waiting areas, how easy would it be to open up the glass at the end of the platform (see Wikipedia link) and build a bridge or escalator link to the main concourse over the old check in area?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Waterloo_International_after_closure_front.JPG

That is definitely the intention. In NR's various CP4 enhancement plans they have always referred to it as 'decking over the orchestra pit'. I think the international platform levels are slightly higher (only by a foot or so), so there'd have to be a gradual slope. The difference can be seen in the way they've linked through between platform 19 and 20 - there are steps here and there and a small ramp for pushchairs & wheelchairs etc

 

[daccer]

The prompt for starting this thread was the decision of DB to run a trial through the Tunnel. This led me to wonder what will happen if the deregulation of international services via HS1 leads to a plethora of new international services. One only has to look at the boom in low cost short haul flights to see the potential market that is available for rail into mainland Europe. The facilities at St P are limited in terms of platform space and it would be intersting to fast forward five years and see where we are hoping to accomodate the additional traffic. It would be just our way to turn Waterloo Int into a shopping centre and then find we can't accomodate International trains in central London due to platfrom constraints. One of the big downfalls of airline travel into Europe is that the airports tend to be miles from the City Centres they purport to serve. If we end up terminating London trains at Stratford or at another out of town station we are denuding part of rail's advanatge. Who would have thought forty years ago that we would end up five major London airports and even then we would be facing capacity problems at some of them. Growth in international rail travel is inevitable so why not plan ahead for it.

 

[mickey]

If we end up terminating London trains at Stratford or at another out of town station we are denuding part of rail's advanatge.

Stratford's ease of access to the City and Docklands means it is an acceptable terminus point if need be, but any further out and it's definitely not.

However, we need to remember that St Pancras actually has a much higher capacity than it's used for now, so I think we're looking a lot further into the future before it becomes cramped. Whether this means Waterloo should be left or not I don't know, but it's not an immediate concern imo.

 

[jrhilton]

Why not put Gatwick Express into Waterloo International? There'd be little to no infrastructure work required as the services run via Clapham Junction anyway. Then capacity would be freed up at Victoria for domestic services.

Is it possible to be portentous about TOCs? :roll: I'll give it a jokin try - for the love of all things, let’s keep Southern far away from Waterloo and as far away as possible from any SWT routes where possible! In my view SWT and their staff do a fine job, we really don't want Southern in there messing things up!