Waterloo to be new Sleeper train hub?

[ralphchadkirk]

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.

In the case of the sleeper though a longer journey is a good thing.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

It's a Sleeper, it makes so little difference! There's loads of padding in there already, an extra 20-30 mins could easily fit into current times.

 

[HSTEd]

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.

Well if the sleeper upgrade goes ahead with its £100 million its quite possible it will be going push pull, at which point a commited pool of locomotives for the southern section would run to three locomotives (Highland, Lowland and Spare).

Thats rather lesst han the current allowance.

Oh the hybrid platforms at Euston are going to be rather heavily used as is, let alone using up two of them for the hours the sleeper requires.

 

[ValleyLines142]

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

No, just no.

Of course there is. Every single line in the country is prone to an incident happening. There is nothing to say that no line isn't vulnerable if you like to anything happening, anything could happen on any line, whether that be the WCML or the WLL. On the WCML at least you are en-route without being stuck in London on the WLL.

I'm sorry, but with greatest respect, I really don't see what problem you're having reading this, it really isn't that hard to understand.

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!

What on earth are you bringing HS2 into this for?! It has nothing to do with the Sleeper whatsoever and none of my comments have related to anything regarding HS2.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

He was drawing comparison to show that time / speed isn't too important!

 

[ValleyLines142]

He was drawing comparison to show that time / speed isn't too important!

I see. Well I'm sure the intention of the service is to ensure it gets into London on time.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I'm sure it is too - but that doesn't justify not moving to Waterloo, I dare say minus slack running to Waterloo could be done with current times!

 

[NLC1072]

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.

I'm affraid you have missed the whole point...

The sleeper as it is is too quick! it departs too late and arrives too early in a lot of destinations all apart from the highland sleeper IMO.

For most people the extra 30 minutes in bed will draw them more to the sleeper.

The idea of bringing the sleepers into waterloo is to pool resources between the SW sleeper and the Scotland sleepers, ecomomies of scale and theex Eurostar platforms will only add a better experience for their passengers.

Plus, Waterloo is opposite Westminster, how much more central do you need in London?

by comparison Euston is "out in the sticks" as it were.

And you live in Cardiff!... this doesn't affect you lol!

If there are problems on the WLL, if they really had too as a last resort they could always drop everybody off at Willesden or Clapham Junction?

Just my thoughts reading this

I think Waterloo is a great idea!

 

[ValleyLines142]

I'm affraid you have missed the whole point...

The sleeper as it is is too quick! it departs too late and arrives too early in a lot of destinations all apart from the highland sleeper IMO.

For most people the extra 30 minutes in bed will draw them more to the sleeper.

The idea of bringing the sleepers into waterloo is to pool resources between the SW sleeper and the Scotland sleepers, ecomomies of scale and theex Eurostar platforms will only add a better experience for their passengers.

Plus, Waterloo is opposite Westminster, how much more central do you need in London?

by comparison Euston is "out in the sticks" as it were.

And you live in Cardiff!... this doesn't affect you lol!

If there are problems on the WLL, if they really had too as a last resort they could always drop everybody off at Willesden or Clapham Junction?

Just my thoughts reading this

I think Waterloo is a great idea!

I know I live in Cardiff but I regularly travel, in fact I'm, hardly ever at home these days :P

I just wondered whether there'd be problems trying to cut down to Waterloo.

And I do see the point of making the old Eurostar terminal a waiting room for the Sleepers.

 

[amcluesent]

The sleeper as it is is too quick!

Yep, it would be nice to board 60 mins sooner going north. Once you've had a meal in London, there's loads of hanging about in the Virgin lounge waiting to board. And coming into Waterloo, another 30 mins wouldn't be a problem as you're saving the journey on the Victoria line to Pimlico\Victoria. I reckon 75% of pax are for the Westminster area anyway.

 

[tbtc]

Maybe we could solve everything by running via Northampton (to use up some of the "padding" time, and give Northampton a direct Fort William service) and terminating the train at Watford (to avoid any problems anywhere in London?

Just a thought...

 

[ValleyLines142]

Maybe we could solve everything by running via Northampton (to use up some of the "padding" time, and give Northampton a direct Fort William service) and terminating the train at Watford (to avoid any problems anywhere in London?

Just a thought...

But wouldn't most people be going to London anyway? They'd have to get on a local LM stopper then.

 

[tbtc]

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).

There's a single track from the eastbound NLL at Camden Road that takes you south onto the northbound ECML and underneath the NLL (and on to Finsbury Park), looks feasible

 

[MidnightFlyer]

But wouldn't most people be going to London anyway? They'd have to get on a local LM stopper then.

I believe he was joking, following on from the recent Northampton thread and the claim that if a train goes either way into London it will probably be delayed...

 

[ValleyLines142]

I believe he was joking, following on from the recent Northampton thread and the claim that if a train goes either way into London it will probably be delayed...

Riiiiiiiiiiight. I could see issues with that I was going to say!

 

[cj_1985]

i can see the logic in moving the sleeper services to Waterloo Internatinal, in theory atleast...

but a couple of points that have been touched on already, as well as some points that seem to have been forgotten about.

1. Untill an announcement about what form the future Caledonian Sleeper stock takes (heavy refurb.rebuild or new stock) certain aspects of these suggestions/proposals can not be developed.

2. If the Scottish sleepers were transfered to work to/from waterloo, so far there seems to have been no thought given to whether the stock is able to work there.
remember the mk3 LSL and SSL bogies... AIUI FGW had to shuffle about its HST mk3 stock when some HST services were diverted to waterloo in previous years. Can you say for sure that all the Scotrail mk.3 stock is fitted with the suitable bogies so as not to come into contact with the 3rd rail.

3. with the GW sleeper, the extra distance for ECS, and LE moves between OOC and Waterloo would result in a lot of extra fuel used over the current operation, fuel that cost alot more than it did - meaning that extra cost has to be passed onto the passenger, which could make the sleeper less viable. Either that or the service would require (extra) subsidy.

4. Transfering the GW sleeper to waterloo would probably result in a small number of GW drivers recieving the route training to run to/from waterloo, meaning you would end up with less overall trained drivers to cover in the event of problems

No doubt other issues will occur to me later, after i give it more thought.

 

[MCR247]

I see. Well I'm sure the intention of the service is to ensure it gets into London on time.

Pleaseeee just be quiet, you evidently have no idea about this. Which as I've said before is no problem, just don't go on like you are making valid points and making sense.

 

[HSTEd]

1. Untill an announcement about what form the future Caledonian Sleeper stock takes (heavy refurb.rebuild or new stock) certain aspects of these suggestions/proposals can not be developed.

2. If the Scottish sleepers were transfered to work to/from waterloo, so far there seems to have been no thought given to whether the stock is able to work there.
remember the mk3 LSL and SSL bogies... AIUI FGW had to shuffle about its HST mk3 stock when some HST services were diverted to waterloo in previous years. Can you say for sure that all the Scotrail mk.3 stock is fitted with the suitable bogies so as not to come into contact with the 3rd rail.

3. with the GW sleeper, the extra distance for ECS, and LE moves between OOC and Waterloo would result in a lot of extra fuel used over the current operation, fuel that cost alot more than it did - meaning that extra cost has to be passed onto the passenger, which could make the sleeper less viable. Either that or the service would require (extra) subsidy.

4. Transfering the GW sleeper to waterloo would probably result in a small number of GW drivers recieving the route training to run to/from waterloo, meaning you would end up with less overall trained drivers to cover in the event of problems

No doubt other issues will occur to me later, after i give it more thought.

Who says you have to run them ECS from Waterloo to Old Oak common every day?
As I understand it the Waterloo International platforms are an empty shell, is there any particular reason equipment could not be provided to water (and other bits and pieces) them in the platform so they can simply stay there all day?

With GWML electrification the sleeper could be electric hauled to Bristol under normal circumstances, possibly push-pulled by a member of the dedicated "sleeper pool" of Cl92s, reducing the cost of the fuel expended on ECS moves and reducing the "microfleet" issues referenced earlier.

Additionally I thought all HST Mark 3s had been refitted with SSL suspension systems these days which would imply that a similar modification could be made to the sleepers, additionally with the apparent uncoming retirement of HSTs, there will shortly be rather a large number of suitable bogies going spare.

If the sleeper services are to be unified the new rolling stock should either be a uniform class of EMUs with hauling beyond Bristol/Scottish central belt or they should be a unified grouping of identical sleeper push pull sets (with corridors) in a generic "sleeper" livery, allowing only one set to be kept on spare for the entire fleet. (They should be capable of 125mph runs to enable rapid reposistioning in case of failure of one set even if they do not do this in normal circumstances)

So whats the best formation for a sleeper to each of the six destinations that is still short enough that three and a Cl92 can fit on a 400m platform?

 

[cj_1985]

Who says you have to run them ECS from Waterloo to Old Oak common every day?
As I understand it the Waterloo International platforms are an empty shell, is there any particular reason equipment could not be provided to water (and other bits and pieces) them in the platform so they can simply stay there all day?
With GWML electrification the sleeper could be electric hauled to Bristol under normal circumstances, possibly push-pulled by a member of the dedicated "sleeper pool" of Cl92s, reducing the cost of the fuel expended on ECS moves and reducing the "microfleet" issues referenced earlier.

Additionally I thought all HST Mark 3s had been refitted with SSL suspension systems these days which would imply that a similar modification could be made to them, additionally with the apparent uncoming retirement of HSTs, there will shortly be rather a large number of suitable bogies.

fair enough point... but locos require exams, refueling etc...

stock requires watering, cleaning, sheets and covers etc changed and the dirty ones sent for cleaning, stock replaced, any electrical faults attended to etc etc

so sure, some of those things could probably (given enough money and agreements with staff, contractors and unions) be done at waterloo... but not all of them... and if they did as you suggest it would mean that (assuming no problems arose during the week) all servicing and repairs etc would have to be done on saturday and sunday when the stock isn't required for service.

 

[yorkie]

Several people have contacted me expressing concern about some bizarre comments in this thread. I understand and share their concerns.

I can't really see Waterloo as being the hub for the Night Riviera, as Paddington is the main terminus of the GWML

You may not be able to 'see' it but others can have a vision!

plus I'm sure you'd need to sort out new stock

Can you give reasons why you are sure of this?

Provided the Mk3s are fitted with SSL bogies, I don't see the issue?

and SWT livery etc?

Why SWT livery? The OP said a new micro-franchise. Who knows which Group may win that franchise, if it is created?

The same goes for the Caledonian Sleeper too, and not only that but it would have to by-pass central London from the north to reach Waterloo. Doesn't seem to make any sense if you ask me.

"by-pass Central London"? I am struggling to understand what you mean by that.

Or is there something I've missed here?

I think there might be! Perhaps you missed the original post...?

..... It's mentioned in post #1 :razz:

I only look at the most recent page :razz:

... ah, I see you did. I can see how that may cause confusion for yourself, and then subsequently for everyone else reading this thread as a result.

If it can be kept with FGW then fab, I wasn't sure whether it'd have to be transferred to SWT.

Earlier you said you were "sure" it would need new stock and a new livery, I see you are in fact not sure.

But is there really a need for it to be transferred to Waterloo.

This is covered in post #1. I recommend you read it.

The Sleepers could potentially get stuck in disruption by going on the WLL, e.g. signalling problem, overhead wire problems etc. .

Is this any more likely on the West London Line than on the West Coast Main Line between Willesden Jn & Euston? Are you suggesting the WLL is particularly unreliable and/or that the relevant section of the WCML is particularly reliable? Do you have any data to give credibility to these claims?

Yes but it hasn't got to conquer problems that could occur on the WLL.

Did you have any particular problems in mind? (Other than problems that could equally occur between Willesden Jn and Euston!)

No, we were talking about needing to reverse twice to get from Waterloo to Old Oak Common depot (once at Acton Mainline and once at Paddington). Which would only be a problem if the sleeper stock was still allocated there.

Indeed! I do not see why some people claim this is a reason it must not happen, surely the new franchise would simply allocate all its stock at Wembley depot.

But at least they're already on their way out of London, if this happened on the WLL they'd still have to go past Euston and Willesden/Wembley and still effectively be in London.

No, the WLL route does not "go past Euston".

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).

Indeed, it would make ECML diversions easier as no reversal would be required.

Of course there is. Every single line in the country is prone to an incident happening.

So why the big fuss about potential incidents on the WLL?

There is nothing to say that no line isn't vulnerable if you like to anything happening, anything could happen on any line, whether that be the WCML or the WLL. On the WCML at least you are en-route without being stuck in London on the WLL.

I don't see any benefit of being stuck in a delay at Queens Park than being stuck in a delay at Kensington Olympia, can you please describe what difference this makes? Either way you are "en-route" by definition, and in either case you would be "in London"!

I'm sorry, but with greatest respect, I really don't see what problem you're having reading this, it really isn't that hard to understand.

He's not the only person to have these concerns.

What on earth are you bringing HS2 into this for?! It has nothing to do with the Sleeper whatsoever and none of my comments have related to anything regarding HS2.

I think you may have misread! He said "This isn't HS2 we are on about...."

I just wondered whether there'd be problems trying to cut down to Waterloo.

If you wonder something it is a good idea to do some research rather than make claims that turn out to be incorrect or make no sense or have no substance.

 

[HSTEd]

fair enough point... but locos require exams, refueling etc...

stock requires watering, cleaning, sheets and covers etc changed and the dirty ones sent for cleaning, stock replaced, any electrical faults attended to etc etc

so sure, some of those things could probably (given enough money and agreements with staff, contractors and unions) be done at waterloo... but not all of them... and if they did as you suggest it would mean that (assuming no problems arose during the week) all servicing and repairs etc would have to be done on saturday and sunday when the stock isn't required for service.

Well with GWML electrification there would be no fueling of locomotives at the London end, the diesels on the great western could be based out of Laira or Penzance TMD or a depot near to Bristol (don't know the names of all the GW depots)
Could you not maintain the electrics by rotating them when they are at the none london end of the electric hauled portions of the routes?

Out of interest, how does the Lowland Sleeper work? Does the train split at carstairs still? Would it not be feasible now to have the train work to Edinburgh, detach the Edinburgh portion and then run to Glasgow and still be within timings? With push pull you might even be able to run ECS back to Edinburgh after the Glasgow passengers have disembarked and reattach the Edinburgh portion before running to wherever the depot for sleeper stock up there is.

Surely Maintenance could be done at the none London end exclusively anyway?
The stock must spend hours sitting around up there just as it does at London.

EDIT:

If there are standardised "elements" it reduces the number of backup coaches kept lying around.

Now that we are going to end up with 400m platforms, whats the longest train that fits into Penzance station?
Attaching additional all seater stock to the Night Riviera and Lowland sleeper could be a reasonable way to boost passenger numbers.

I also now realise that your Highland sleeper components are scattered all over Scotland would take too long to return to a central location for maintenance, so you could just rotate the components at the London end and run one ECS move to Wembley.
(On Monday take the Highland, on Tuesday take the Lowland, on Wednesday take the Night Riviera and so on, each time swapping your spare component for one of the other components, ensuring that each component reaches the depot atleast once during the week as well on Saturday Night)

 

[VTPreston_Tez]

I think they should extend the platforms at both Southamptons, Bournemouth, Dorchester South and Weymouth and make a sleeper out of that.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I think they should extend the platforms at both Southamptons, Bournemouth, Dorchester South and Weymouth and make a sleeper out of that.

To / from where? All bar Dorchester South there can take 12-coach trains.

 

[swt_passenger]

As I understand it the Waterloo International platforms are an empty shell, is there any particular reason equipment could not be provided to water (and other bits and pieces) them in the platform so they can simply stay there all day?

They are empty today but are not intended to be by 2014.

 

[HSTEd]

They are empty today but are not intended to be by 2014.

As I understand it only the converted platform will be used, the platforms built new at Waterloo will remain as they are for the forseable future until a flyover is built, which could be years after then.

EDIT:

Would appear that the maximum practical length to each Highland destination if standardised push pull stock was used would be 3 (possibly four but that pushes the length of the platforms at Waterloo) sleepers, one lounge and one seated carriage, you could probably use three sets on the Lowland sleeper component and then run two of them through to Glasgow, but htat would leave you with an additional lounge, which might not actually be a bad thing.

And now I look at aerial photography of Waterloo it appears you could stick atleast 40m off the end of the platforms without fouling any points and thus could probably have a ~440m train with 4+1+1 which is better I suppose.

 

[ushawk]

Couldnt the Night Riviera coaches be allocated to Reading TMD to save all the reversals ? Would probably need some work done at the TMD to accomodate the coaches though. Caley sleeper stock could probably still stable at Wembley.

 

[HSTEd]

Couldnt the Night Riviera coaches be allocated to Reading TMD to save all the reversals ? Would probably need some work done at the TMD to accomodate the coaches though. Caley sleeper stock could probably still stable at Wembley.

Ideally they would all stable and be maintained at the same place, thus enabling stock to be interchanged between them more easily, and there are others far more knowledgeable about which depot would be best than me around here.

 

[swt_passenger]

As I understand it only the converted platform will be used, the platforms built new at Waterloo will remain as they are for the forseable future until a flyover is built, which could be years after then.

The flyover proposal is dead and buried. Platforms 1 and 2 are to be closed and everything else moved over to higher numbered platforms.

Believe me, the international shed will not stay empty for more than a few more years.

 

[ainsworth74]

4. Transfering the GW sleeper to waterloo would probably result in a small number of GW drivers recieving the route training to run to/from waterloo, meaning you would end up with less overall trained drivers to cover in the event of problems

Sub-contract (and train) SWT drivers to drive it from Waterloo to Reading (the is already precedence for other TOCs staff to operate services see TPE operating Northern 158s on the Yorkshire Coast Line from Hull to Scarborough).

 

[VTPreston_Tez]

To / from where? All bar Dorchester South there can take 12-coach trains.

Then there's no need for expansion. I just think a SWT sleeper would be good there, it would cover hotels.