Could Waterloo East operate with just two platforms?

[boiledbeans2]

Moderator note - split from

Southeastern Services to Blackfriars

I am sure that Southeastern operated or still do operate services to very few destinations to the south east from Blackfriars. I am not sure if they still do as I haven’t seen any. I know they are in the peak. Couple Questions Do they continue to operate Do they operate to good passenger...

www.railforums.co.uk

4 all the way to from Charing Cross to London Bridge, but it functionally goes down to 2 tracks between Ewer Street Junction and London Bridge, where Southeastern use 2 of the lines and Thameslink use the other 2 lines.

I have previously noticed this track layout as well, so I was thinking, since it drops down to 2 tracks between Ewer Street Junction and London Bridge (which I presume is the bottleneck), there is no need for 4 platforms at Waterloo East?

They could do a more intensive 2 platform service. So if someone was starting at Waterloo East and going to Charing Cross or London Bridge, they could just turn up at the platform without checking which platform the next train departs.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

I have previously noticed this track layout as well, so I was thinking, since it drops down to 2 tracks between Ewer Street Junction and London Bridge (which I presume is the bottleneck), there is no need for 4 platforms at Waterloo East?

They could do a more intensive 2 platform service. So if someone was starting at Waterloo East and going to Charing Cross or London Bridge, they could just turn up at the platform without checking which platform the next train departs.

Not entirely. For the same reason you need two up and two down London Bridge platforms, you need the same at Waterloo East.

Chiefly because in the high intensity service which used to run (I had it down as up to 26 trains an hour?), to attempt to gain even a 30 second stop, followed by at least 120 seconds platform reoccupation, you are not able to slot it all in. Add a person needing an ambulance and it’s all gone to pot.

 

[Surreytraveller]

I have previously noticed this track layout as well, so I was thinking, since it drops down to 2 tracks between Ewer Street Junction and London Bridge (which I presume is the bottleneck), there is no need for 4 platforms at Waterloo East?

They could do a more intensive 2 platform service. So if someone was starting at Waterloo East and going to Charing Cross or London Bridge, they could just turn up at the platform without checking which platform the next train departs.

You need four platforms due to the intensity of the service. The next train can arrive while the previous one is departing, same as how it works at London Bridge

 

[30907]

With slam door stock you could probably get 20tph at one platform - Clapham Jn on the SWD Down Local must have been not far short in the 70s, when everything stopped there, but I can't quickly check - but that's well short of what is needed.

 

[Andrew S]

I'd imagine that six platforms at Charing Cross going into two tracks would create lots of conflicting moves and potential for blocking back if trains are running out of sequence.

 

[Bald Rick]

No. Look at the peak timetable, and have a think about it…

 

[Dr Hoo]

I see to recall a time during the darkest days under Network SouthEast that on Sundays the limited service was confined to the central island, with a lot of switching of tracks, of course. This was to economise on despatch staff in the days of slam doors.

 

[miklcct]

Not entirely. For the same reason you need two up and two down London Bridge platforms, you need the same at Waterloo East.

Chiefly because in the high intensity service which used to run (I had it down as up to 26 trains an hour?), to attempt to gain even a 30 second stop, followed by at least 120 seconds platform reoccupation, you are not able to slot it all in. Add a person needing an ambulance and it’s all gone to pot.

The Victoria line has much more intensity, and the Thameslink has similar capacity with only two tracks. Just upgrade the signalling system and install ATO can vastly improve capacity, which I believe all main lines should be equipped.

Train stop can be reduced to 20 seconds and a moving block system can be installed, allowing trains to run in close succession.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Neither the Victoria Line nor Thameslink are approaching a rather constrained terminus (Charing Cross).

 

[swt_passenger]

What seems to have been missed is that the four platforms are not actually operated “like London Bridge”, they are “paired by use” at Waterloo East, but the four are “paired by direction” at London Bridge. The paired by use mode starts at Ewer St, and allows Charing Cross to be effectively used as two adjacent 3 platform stations. This is more efficient than sorting out all the up/down crossing conflicts at the Charing Cross throat.

 

[30907]

The Victoria line has much more intensity, and the Thameslink has similar capacity with only two tracks. Just upgrade the signalling system and install ATO can vastly improve capacity, which I believe all main lines should be equipped.

Train stop can be reduced to 20 seconds and a moving block system can be installed, allowing trains to run in close succession.

Thameslink has a theoretical capacity of 24tph (which AFAIK has not been tested beyond 20), using one type of rolling stock on a plain double track section and stations (re)built to cope. That is less than the proven capacity, 28tph, of the route through WAE and of CHX station, where none of the above apply.
In this particular case your suggestion isn't worth pursuing.

 

[Agent_Squash]

Thameslink has a theoretical capacity of 24tph (which AFAIK has not been tested beyond 20), using one type of rolling stock on a plain double track section and stations (re)built to cope. That is less than the proven capacity, 28tph, of the route through WAE and of CHX station, where none of the above apply.
In this particular case your suggestion isn't worth pursuing.

Thameslink has a theoretical capacity of 30tph. You would never operate a line at it’s full theoretical capacity as it would remove any pathing allowance etc.

 

[Bald Rick]

Thameslink has a theoretical capacity of 30tph.

It doesn’t. It has a theoretical capacity of 120second intervals between trains for short periods during disruption, requiring ATO on all services* and 45 second dwells. Very definitely not for an hour.

* and we are a long way from ATO on all services.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

The Victoria line has much more intensity, and the Thameslink has similar capacity with only two tracks. Just upgrade the signalling system and install ATO can vastly improve capacity, which I believe all main lines should be equipped.

Train stop can be reduced to 20 seconds and a moving block system can be installed, allowing trains to run in close succession.

You have single traction types with identical braking and acceleration curves, and various automations.

375/376/465/707 mixed traction, all different, no chance of automation investment and the fact it is not a suitable candidate for the requisite works to make your ideas work…

 

[Agent_Squash]

It doesn’t. It has a theoretical capacity of 120second intervals between trains for short periods during disruption, requiring ATO on all services* and 45 second dwells. Very definitely not for an hour.

* and we are a long way from ATO on all services.

But 3600 / 120 is 30tph?

Obviously it would never be used at that capacity except in disruption - but surely isn’t that the point of theoretical capacity?

 

[Class 466]

Nope. Never. Next ridiculous suggestion…

 

[WizCastro197]

Moderator note - split from

Southeastern Services to Blackfriars

I am sure that Southeastern operated or still do operate services to very few destinations to the south east from Blackfriars. I am not sure if they still do as I haven’t seen any. I know they are in the peak. Couple Questions Do they continue to operate Do they operate to good passenger...

www.railforums.co.uk

I have previously noticed this track layout as well, so I was thinking, since it drops down to 2 tracks between Ewer Street Junction and London Bridge (which I presume is the bottleneck), there is no need for 4 platforms at Waterloo East?

They could do a more intensive 2 platform service. So if someone was starting at Waterloo East and going to Charing Cross or London Bridge, they could just turn up at the platform without checking which platform the next train departs.

Reducing platforms from 4 to 2 just adds to the bottleneck that kind of should be avoided.

There are many stations in the UK that wouldn't be able to operate well without All their platforms.

 

[Bald Rick]

But 3600 / 120 is 30tph?

Obviously it would never be used at that capacity except in disruption - but surely isn’t that the point of theoretical capacity?

it‘s only 30trains per hour if 120sec headways were to be used for the whole hour. Which they are never proposed or planned to be, not even in disruption. The specification for the Thameslink core was very definitley not 30tph in disruption, but for 120second intervals for a short duration. This is a crucial difference.

 

[Kingston Dan]

What seems to have been missed is that the four platforms are not actually operated “like London Bridge”, they are “paired by use” at Waterloo East, but the four are “paired by direction” at London Bridge. The paired by use mode starts at Ewer St, and allows Charing Cross to be effectively used as two adjacent 3 platform stations. This is more efficient than sorting out all the up/down crossing conflicts at the Charing Cross throat.

I always thought for passenger convenience when they four tracked Borough Market they missed the opportunity to create two islands at Waterloo East for up and down services (mainly due to my then frequent dashes between platforms A/C or B/D for the first train). But this makes a lot of sense.

 

[telstarbox]

Does anyone know if the biggest flow at Waterloo East is from Waterloo SWR, Southwark tube, or off the street?

 

[Bald Rick]

I always thought for passenger convenience when they four tracked Borough Market they missed the opportunity to create two islands at Waterloo East for up and down services (mainly due to my then frequent dashes between platforms A/C or B/D for the first train). But this makes a lot of sense.

it would be horribly inconvenient for passengers, as there would be fewer trains. Draw the track layout, and then work out how to do platforming at Charing Cross.

 

[Kingston Dan]

it would be horribly inconvenient for passengers, as there would be fewer trains. Draw the track layout, and then work out how to do platforming at Charing Cross.

No I can see that - I guess it's why four tracks separated by direction only happens some distance from the terminal (Finsbury Park, Earlsfield etc).

 

[swt_passenger]

@

No I can see that - I guess it's why four tracks separated by direction only happens some distance from the terminal (Finsbury Park, Earlsfield etc).

Yes, it seems to be a fairly well established principle that separation into logical groups is the best way of operating a terminus, and that’s exactly why the flyover between Wimbledon and Earlsfield exists, but where there are many grade separated branches on both sides, such as on the SWML towards Basingstoke, then pairing by direction is the optimum layout.

 

[boiledbeans2]

Thameslink has a theoretical capacity of 24tph (which AFAIK has not been tested beyond 20), using one type of rolling stock on a plain double track section and stations (re)built to cope. That is less than the proven capacity, 28tph, of the route through WAE and of CHX station, where none of the above apply.
In this particular case your suggestion isn't worth pursuing.

Has the route from Charing Cross ever been 4-tracked all the way into London Bridge?
I'm looking at a pre-Thameslink-remodelling London Bridge and it also narrows to 2 tracks on approach to London Bridge.

I'm guessing it's 4-tracked at Waterloo East because of historical reasons. Because it wouldn't make financial sense if there was always a 2-track bottleneck somewhere.

As you mentioned, the current layout can handle 28tph. Let's say a 2 track layout at Waterloo East can handle 20tph (this is a guess). The infrastructure is then duplicated to 4-track, but it can only handle 8tph more. If you were to spend a lot of money duplicating infrastructure, I would imagine you want it to handle 40tph.

 

[Bald Rick]

The infrastructure is then duplicated to 4-track, but it can only handle 8tph more.

With a doubled layout might handle 2x20 tph between London Bridge and Waterloo East, Charing Cross couldn’t, and neither could the network east of London Bridge.

 

[zwk500]

As you mentioned, the current layout can handle 28tph. Let's say a 2 track layout at Waterloo East can handle 20tph (this is a guess). The infrastructure is then duplicated to 4-track, but it can only handle 8tph more. If you were to spend a lot of money duplicating infrastructure, I would imagine you want it to handle 40tph.

A lot of people seem to be forgetting that flat junctions are also a determinent of capacity.

 

[30907]

Has the route from Charing Cross ever been 4-tracked all the way into London Bridge?
I'm looking at a pre-Thameslink-remodelling London Bridge and it also narrows to 2 tracks on approach to London Bridge.

No.

I'm guessing it's 4-tracked at Waterloo East because of historical reasons. Because it wouldn't make financial sense if there was always a 2-track bottleneck somewhere.

Yes and no.
Before WW1 some trains ran to Charing X via Cannon St, so there was a second route.
As stated already, 2 tracks with platforms at WAE would have lower capacity than 2 tracks without at Borough Market or anywhere else.