Waterloo to be new Sleeper train hub?

[ValleyLines142]

Granted, the route to Waterloo is slightly more complex, but "anything could happen" between Euston and Willesden too. It's only a couple of miles longer, and 20 or 30 minutes doesn't matter when you consider that Scotrail's sleepers have over an hour of padding in them anyway.

Exactly so, just doesn't seem as complex as the route to Waterloo as you say. You've said exactly as I've thought.

"Straight past Queen's Park and up" isn't really a fair description, as there's still 15 miles/25 minutes till you even get to Watford.

No it wasn't sorry, I was briefly glancing the map. You are right of course in that there's still 15 miles/25 minutes till you get to Watford, but it isn't as complex as from Waterloo.

 

[Eagle]

No it wasn't sorry, I was briefly glancing the map. You are right of course in that there's still 15 miles/25 minutes till you get to Watford, but it isn't as complex as from Waterloo.

As I say, Euston to Fisbury Park, a common diversionary route, is even more complex as it involves reversing and the like.

 

[ValleyLines142]

As I say, Euston to Fisbury Park, a common diversionary route, is even more complex as it involves reversing and the like.

Indeed. I don't know how often the Sleeper does this.

To me its the extra 20-30 minutes that puts me off the move.

 

[Eagle]

To me its the extra 20-30 minutes that puts me off the move.

But there's literally hours of padding as it is! And given how early the sleeper arrivals are at the moment surely an extra 20 or 30 minutes is a good thing?

 

[ValleyLines142]

But there's literally hours of padding as it is! And given how early the sleeper arrivals are at the moment surely an extra 20 or 30 minutes is a good thing?

Maybe, but I still find it a pointless procedure cutting through to Waterloo.

If the Sleeper is early then it's not too bad no.

 

[Eagle]

If the Sleeper is early then it's not too bad no.

It was when I was hoping to get off at Watford, and when the alarm on my phone went off 30 minutes in advance of the booked arrival at Watford I found we were already in Euston and most of the passengers had disembarked already. (It turned out that the train was running 65 minutes early due to not using the padding—admittedly this was a Bank Holiday service.)

 

[ValleyLines142]

It was when I was hoping to get off at Watford, and when the alarm on my phone went off 30 minutes in advance of the booked arrival at Watford I found we were already in Euston and most of the passengers had disembarked already. (It turned out that the train was running 65 minutes early due to not using the padding—admittedly this was a Bank Holiday service.)

Crikey Moses, that's crazy!

What exactly is padding??

 

[Eagle]

What exactly is padding??

Extra minutes added to a timetable to allow for making up time if the train is delayed (not to be confused with the minutes added due to pathing reasons where a slower train waits for a faster one to pass). The sleeper has loads of padding because it could be completely diverted anywhere due to overnight engineering. With the Scotrail sleeper though, all the stops are either pick-up or set-down, so there's nothing to force an early train to wait for its proper departure time at Watford, because there isn't a departure time. Personally I think they should just stick a departure time in the working timetable, and just not publicize it, so people don't get overcarried because they were asleep.

Other than the sleeper it seems that the services with the most padding are XC Voyager-operated ones (which are pretty damn fast and can accelerate quick, meaning they can make up time).

 

[Furrball]

Surely any future changes should be to simplify the operations, not complicate them. Requiring dual voltage traction to get into Waterloo seems to be a non-starter. If Class 92 were to be allocated to the Caledonian Sleeper then could you not imagine that the 3rd rail shoe gear would be removed and the equipment disabled to reduce costs?

 

[Eagle]

If Class 92 were to be allocated to the Caledonian Sleeper then could you not imagine that the 3rd rail shoe gear would be removed and the equipment disabled to reduce costs?

I don't understand. Why would they remove the shoegear on stock which has been specifically allocated to a third-rail route (in this case the approach to Waterloo)?

 

[ValleyLines142]

Extra minutes added to a timetable to allow for making up time if the train is delayed (not to be confused with the minutes added due to pathing reasons where a slower train waits for a faster one to pass). The sleeper has loads of padding because it could be completely diverted anywhere due to overnight engineering. With the Scotrail sleeper though, all the stops are either pick-up or set-down, so there's nothing to force an early train to wait for its proper departure time at Watford, because there isn't a departure time. Personally I think they should just stick a departure time in the working timetable, and just not publicize it, so people don't get overcarried because they were asleep.

Other than the sleeper it seems that the services with the most padding are XC Voyager-operated ones (which are pretty damn fast and can accelerate quick, meaning they can make up time).

Ah right. I get you.

That's true with the Voyagers - they're phenomenal!

 

[MCR247]

Crikey Moses, that's crazy!

What exactly is padding??

I'm sorry, i'm not trying to be rude, but having read through this thread, the majority of your posts make no sense and are just commenting on things you have no idea about. There is nothing wrong with not knowing about it, but you are just being really awkward by commenting pointless rubbish

"the 20-30 minute extra journey time would put me off"

What are you on about?!

This isn't HS2 we are on about, it is a sleeper for goodness sake! It could leave EDB at midnight and arrive at 4am, but that isn't much good!

"more problems could occur on the WLL so it is easier to stay on the WCML"

No, just no.

I can't even just say that you've got a poor argument, because there is no argument there, at all.

 

[Chris125]

I seem to remember last time this was discussed that the problems are less about loco's and journey times and more about the ECS moves and the servicing. It could be done, but is it worth it?

Chris

 

[Furrball]

I don't understand. Why would they remove the shoegear on stock which has been specifically allocated to a third-rail route (in this case the approach to Waterloo)?

If Class 92 were allocated to the sleeper it is quite possible they would be a dedicated pool. Why move the destination to a location where you require additional equipment for a tiny percentage of the total distance?

Anyway, as I commented earlier should HS2 go ahead it appears there will be hybrid platforms at Euston that would be available to the sleeper thus negating any discussion of sending it around London.

 

[jon0844]

Wrong. Official timings: Waterloo to Oxford Circus takes 6 minutes, Paddington to Oxford Circus takes 9.

Also nice and quick to swap from the Bakerloo to Victoria Line if you wanted to get up to King's Cross St Pancras to grab a Eurostar.

I think this is a great idea, but I hope it's a serious idea and not based on someone having read the thread on here earlier that suggested the very same thing!

The advantages are obvious, which is being able to board earlier (and have a decent lounge at Waterloo for departing and arriving), getting more time to sleep in in the morning - and a single place that makes it more economical to provide such facilities for different services.

Throw in my idea of putting in airline style beds, instead of relying solely on cabins, and you can increase the passenger numbers to help it become profitable - or at least lose less money. You then have the obvious 'green' issues.

If the same trains can also carry some freight at the back, plus bags and oversized baggage, all the better.

I really can't think of any downsides - and overall speed isn't an issue so even a longer distance journey makes little difference!

 

[NSE]

@dantrainman

As far as I understand it, the way padding works (especially with the sleeper), is like this, say we have station A and station B. There are four ways of getting between the two directly, some much longer and abstract than others. The sleeper is booked to take the longest possible time between these two stations, but with no booked calls. Therefore on the day the sleeper can take any four of these routes and as plenty of time has been allocated the sleeper wont lose any time. If it takes the shortest route then it may well have to wait at station B for its allocated departure time, if it has taken the longest route, it may not have to wait long, if at all. This is done so that drivers can keep up to date with routes incase of diversion etc etc.

However with your argument against the WLL, it seems to be a well known fact the sleepers are slightly too quick and a later arrival would be welcomed, so therefore the WLL would seem like a viable alternative to add some extra time on, plus, in the station, if any problems were to occur, no platforms are cocking up SWT operations and all the space below that used to be passport control etc would make a nice waiting lounge, or space for restaurants etc. I also disagree with your logic saying more problems could occur, yes they could, but at that time of night (for the departure at least) the FGW could divert away from the WLL and down via Reading, and wheras thats harder on the GWML out of Paddington. Plus if you consolidate them into one single "super sleeper" franchise, there could be a problem on the WCML and one of the GWML diesels could help out and divert it WLL-GWML-Oxford-Banbury-Chiltern Mail Line-Camp Hill/Kenilworth-Birmingham New Street and onwards.

I think it would be a good idea, speed is not needed with sleepers, I also reckon continuing on the WLL to the NLL then the ECML up to the east side of Scotland, an Inverness/Aberdeen combined. You could even run it via the MML to maximise a longer journey.

 

[MCR247]

If Class 92 were allocated to the sleeper it is quite possible they would be a dedicated pool. Why move the destination to a location where you require additional equipment for a tiny percentage of the total distance?

Anyway, as I commented earlier should HS2 go ahead it appears there will be hybrid platforms at Euston that would be available to the sleeper thus negating any discussion of sending it around London.

how is it additional equipment if it is already there?

 

[Eagle]

how is it additional equipment if it is already there?

Exactly; look at 375/6s with their as-yet-unused pantographs, they haven't been removed...

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I'm sorry, i'm not trying to be rude, but having read through this thread, the majority of your posts make no sense and are just commenting on things you have no idea about. There is nothing wrong with not knowing about it, but you are just being really awkward by commenting pointless rubbish

"the 20-30 minute extra journey time would put me off"

What are you on about?!

This isn't HS2 we are on about, it is a sleeper for goodness sake! It could leave EDB at midnight and arrive at 4am, but that isn't much good!

"more problems could occur on the WLL so it is easier to stay on the WCML"

No, just no.

I can't even just say that you've got a poor argument, because there is no argument there, at all.

What a brilliant post that is MCR, my sentiments entirely.

 

[Furrball]

Exactly; look at 375/6s with their as-yet-unused pantographs, they haven't been removed...

And how much of it could you put under 25Kv and it work - just because the panto is still there does not mean that the equipment is maintained - maintenance = £££

 

[Rational Plan]

If Class 92 were allocated to the sleeper it is quite possible they would be a dedicated pool. Why move the destination to a location where you require additional equipment for a tiny percentage of the total distance?

Anyway, as I commented earlier should HS2 go ahead it appears there will be hybrid platforms at Euston that would be available to the sleeper thus negating any discussion of sending it around London.

Yes but that won't be till 2026. In the meantime the main problem is that the new sleeper stock is too big for Euston. Also when reconstructing the station the more services they can divert (sleeper, dc services new, crossrail diversion for tring services etc) the more platforms they can close at one time and the quicker and cheaper the reconstruction.

 

[jon0844]

Waterloo isn't a bad location anyway is it? I mean, I remember all the fuss over moving Eurostar to St Pancras - so for a while, it was St Pancras that was in the middle of nowhere.

There are pretty fast links into central London (and indeed an easy connection to St Pancras with a simple level platform change) and there's the Waterloo & City Line for a very quick journey into the City. Plus, nobody is ever going to be able to find a station that is the ideal location for everyone - unless you build a single London Central station slap bang in Trafalgar Square or something, with about 100 platforms!

 

[YorkshireBear]

And how much of it could you put under 25Kv and it work - just because the panto is still there does not mean that the equipment is maintained - maintenance = £££

Yes but the 3rd rail shoe on the 92s does get used.....

I think this could be one of the ways we could start to make the sleeper more viable, seperate it out with interoperable coaches. Not sure what id do with locos but basically an equivlanet of 92s for electric sections and 67s for diesel sections.

The benfits mentioned in the article which i happened to read myself before coming on here all make very good sense in terms of passeneger comfort, which lets face it, is the most important thing in getting the sleepers used again.

 

[Furrball]

Yes but the 3rd rail shoe on the 92s does get used.....

I think this could be one of the ways we could start to make the sleeper more viable, seperate it out with interoperable coaches. Not sure what id do with locos but basically an equivlanet of 92s for electric sections and 67s for diesel sections.

The benfits mentioned in the article which i happened to read myself before coming on here all make very good sense in terms of passeneger comfort, which lets face it, is the most important thing in getting the sleepers used again.

Yes, but it would be logical that any class 92 used for the sleeper would be in a dedicated pool (modifications to ETS etc) and therefore would not be used alongside the other members on current duties.

Look at the issues we have at present with diesel haulage for hundreds of miles under wires because it is not 'cost effective' to switch between diesel and electric power (slightly different I know but . . .)

I suppose one option would be that if you were going to use new locomotives for the service then a 25Kv electro/diesel could work. Assuming the retention of the current services then a single loco would work to Edinburgh - where two diesel locos would work to Aberdeen and Inverness. The original train loco would switch to diesel and work to Fort William - 1500hp would probably be sufficient given that you could provide ETS from a small power unit under the floor of the Fort William bound lounge car.

Such a loco would also give the obvious advantage of some ability to self recover in the event of the loss of OHLE, albeit at severely restricted speed

 

[ushawk]

If the Caley Sleeper did go from Waterloo and had to be diverted the ECML, wouldnt it be easier to access it ? (Carry along the WLL onto the NLL and along to wherever it turns off, cant remember where).

 

[Hydro]

I have read elsewhere that all relevant 92s can supply UK ETS voltage (IIRC it was only a matter of 1500v versus 1000v) now, I thought only a few had been converted to UK ETS but I think that has changed). That means any 92 can be allocated to any potential sleeper service. Any 92 can be allocated to any service through to Dollands as they are currently used, 25kV to 750DC no problem, all maintained correctly. Why should any future sleeper be any different?

 

[IanXC]

Yes but that won't be till 2026. In the meantime the main problem is that the new sleeper stock is too big for Euston. Also when reconstructing the station the more services they can divert (sleeper, dc services new, crossrail diversion for tring services etc) the more platforms they can close at one time and the quicker and cheaper the reconstruction.

Its certainly the case that at least for the period of construction it would be very useful not to have the Sleepers operating from Euston.

I think that giving the remaining platforms at Waterloo International over to the sleepers is a bit horse before the cart if SWT need them, however if they can be used in the interim then maybe thats for the best.

Other than that I wonder whether boarding could be done at Kings Cross, with 2 separate half rakes (split by destination seems better for passengers too) sat in 2 platforms, then perform an Edinburgh style remarshalling exercise at Finsbury Park for the journey north. I guess the whole thing becomes much easier if EMU stock is procured!

 

[Eagle]

Other than that I wonder whether boarding could be done at Kings Cross, with 2 separate half rakes (split by destination seems better for passengers too) sat in 2 platforms...

Meaning that the southbound sleeper takes up two of King's Cross's 12 platforms in the morning peak? Unless you chuck everyone out at 6.30am and get the stock stabled elsewhere.

 

[IanXC]

Meaning that the southbound sleeper takes up two of King's Cross's 12 platforms in the morning peak? Unless you chuck everyone out at 6.30am and get the stock stabled elsewhere.

I was thinking post Thameslink, when there are supposed to be effectively spare platforms at Kings Cross?

 

[ValleyLines142]

I"the 20-30 minute extra journey time would put me off"

What are you on about?!

Obviously if the Sleeper is transferred to Waterloo, which is in the south of London, then along the WLL it is going to take at least 20-30 minutes to get from where it is now at Euston. That's logic I'm sorry, it's obviously going to take longer.