London Waterloo International Platforms

[NIMBUS]

I still think that it would be of far more use if they ran 12-car SET services in there, via the Stewarts Lane chord, relieving Charing Cross and allowing it to concentrate more on enhanced suburban services. People have commented in the past that Waterloo isn't as convenient for passengers as Charing Cross - but that fails to address the fact that Waterloo is perfectly acceptable to SWT commuters, who manage to get to and from their work via the LU network!

 

[swt_passenger]

I still think that it would be of far more use if they ran 12-car SET services in there, via the Stewarts Lane chord, relieving Charing Cross and allowing it to concentrate more on enhanced suburban services.

As I said earlier, every report on the subject comes back to the fact that use by Southeastern is not practical for various reasons, such as there being no paths through south London since 2007.

The 2005 Arup report did suggest a maximum of 6-8 trains per hour but they would be limited to using the Windsor reversible only, and would have to be flighted - other proposals I've seen were just to run a number of trains into Waterloo and leave them there until the offpeak, and do something similar in reverse in the evening.

The latest London Bridge rebuild schedule has abandoned plans to use Waterloo International however.

 

[NightatLaira]

How hard/expensive would it be to build a flyover from International junction to the Wimbledon lines? Or even to build a mile or so of elevated track above the current reversible from International junction to Stewarts Lane?

Then you'd have a designated up and down paths for the 5 platforms at Waterloo International to wherever they end up suggesting the platforms should be used for.

Surely, no one here can be suggesting the best way forward Waterloo International is to just do nothing and watch it turn into a second Manchester Mayfield.

 

[swt_passenger]

How hard/expensive would it be to build a flyover from International junction to the Wimbledon lines? Or even to build a mile or so of elevated track above the current reversible from International junction to Stewarts Lane?

Very expensive - which is why it isn't being done.

And there is no suggesting the platforms won't ever be used. They are going to be used for Windsor side 10 car services by 2013/14; and to allow the existing platforms 1 and 2 to be closed, so the main slows side can also have 10 car services. Platform extensions in the suburbs are under construction, so all it needs is the rolling stock to be sorted (as discussed in various 458 threads recently)...

I pointed out a couple of pages back that the NR London and SE RUS has come up with another solution to the main fast capacity problems, ie the 5th track from Surbiton to Waterloo. They believe this is a better solution because it allows for more trains from further out, and more stops at Clapham Jn - which is what TfL want.

 

[RobShipway]

Very expensive - which is why it isn't being done.

And there is no suggesting the platforms won't ever be used. They are going to be used for Windsor side 10 car services by 2013/14; and to allow the existing platforms 1 and 2 to be closed, so the main slows side can also have 10 car services. Platform extensions in the suburbs are under construction, so all it needs is the rolling stock to be sorted (as discussed in various 458 threads recently)...

I pointed out a couple of pages back that the NR London and SE RUS has come up with another solution to the main fast capacity problems, ie the 5th track from Surbiton to Waterloo. They believe this is a better solution because it allows for more trains from further out, and more stops at Clapham Jn - which is what TfL want.

TFL may want more trains stopping at Clapham Junction, but is there the capacity to have these extra trains within the timetables?

 

[swt_passenger]

TFL may want more trains stopping at Clapham Junction, but is there the capacity to have these extra trains within the timetables?

There would be capacity with three through fast lines - that is part of the proposal. At the moment the main fast timetable has 28 fast line paths per hour towards Waterloo, but some paths are left unused as 'firebreaks' to prevent delays escalating, so only 24 trains are timetabled. To achieve 24 trains arriving at Waterloo needs significant platform space, and to get rid of enough trains a significant proportion have to be bounced back empty, and they do this by using the down Windsor line to run empty to Clapham yard. I guess this sort of thing isn't immediately obvious from the track layout - until it was explained to me a few years ago I thought the layout between Vauxhall and Waterloo was a basic 4+4 Windsor and Main, and they were each used as fast and slow pairs, but it isn't that simple at all.

Although there are theoretically two platforms available now at Clapham Jn for trains towards Waterloo, they are not usable at 2.5 min headways, because of various problems caused by curvature and lack of dedicated tracks on the London side of the station; and the expected dwell times. Trains heading for platform 7 have to slow right down because of the speed across the points at entry. It was also explained a while ago that reduced overlaps beyond both platforms 7 and 8 prevent stopping trains being overtaken. I'm not sure of the exact signalling limitations, but it's something to do with that anyway - if anyone can chip in with more detail I'm sure it would be helpful.

Now if you have a high speed junction out at Surbiton, which is where some trains currently change from slow to fast for the approach into London, you could split the current 28 paths and add a few more, say 22 fast to Waterloo and 10 almost as fast to Waterloo calling at Clapham Jn.

Hope that makes sense...

 

[NIMBUS]

As I said earlier, every report on the subject comes back to the fact that use by Southeastern is not practical for various reasons, such as there being no paths through south London since 2007.

If SE services into Victoria have the paths as far as Linford Street Jn. then surely they have them into Waterloo and the only pinch point remains the reversible line from Nine Elms. No-one is suggesting extensive use of the link, little more than the Paris/Brussels services in and out used to require. Reclaiming of the reversible for SWT suburban services was talked about - but hasn't been implemented yet, has it (or did I miss something)?

 

[swt_passenger]

If SE services into Victoria have the paths as far as Linford Street Jn. then surely they have them into Waterloo and the only pinch point remains the reversible line from Nine Elms. No-one is suggesting extensive use of the link, little more than the Paris/Brussels services in and out used to require.

But any SE service presenting at Linford St Jn already has a path into Victoria? Unless Victoria itself was to be inaccessible for some reason, going to Waterloo vice Victoria offers no benefit. If there is an advantage I can't see one.

Reclaiming of the reversible for SWT suburban services was talked about - but hasn't been implemented yet, has it (or did I miss something)?

I think it is used fairly routinely for any up services that don't call at Queenstown Rd or Vauxhall. It certainly doesn't look unused.

 

[battersea]

I think it is used fairly routinely for any up services that don't call at Queenstown Rd or Vauxhall. It certainly doesn't look unused.

Is the reversible being talked about here the track that goes to platform 1 at Vauxhall? If so, I've boarded a train from that platform once in the past year.

 

[swt_passenger]

Is the reversible being talked about here the track that goes to platform 1 at Vauxhall? If so, I've boarded a train from that platform once in the past year.

Yes it is the reversible, but because the platform on the reversible at Queenstown Rd is not usable, up stopping trains that stop at both stations will invariably use the up Windsor, through platform 2 at Vauxhall.

PS, Nimbus was really asking if the line was now available, and thinking about it I'm not sure if it ever was unavailable, ie during Eurostar's tenure. It may have been normal practice for SWT not to be pathed over it, but it would surely have been possible?

Didn't the FGW HST diversions over Christmas and New Year use the reversible as well?