Waterloo to be new Sleeper train hub?

[HSTEd]

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.

So while panicking about platform capacity they are just going to close two of them?
That seems a little iffy, especially as until the platform lengthening works are complete there will be no longer trains to run into these platforms as SWT are not going to order them, thus making the whole move expensive and pointless.

 

[starrymarkb]

If we had a Government that had true "green" credentials, not just a green emulsion coat that got washed away the day after the election, the UK would be looking at sleeper trains to Rome, Nice, Barcelona, Madrid, Malaga. Seems they'd rather build an Airport in the middle of an internationally designated conservation site.

Was looked at - the costs didn't add up and there is no way it could compete with air in terms of journey or time. Would you be willing to travel 2 days each way to a business meeting in Rome? Add 4 days travel to your week on the Costa Del Sol? It's pretty much a non starter.

 

[Eagle]

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

Between London and Weymouth? That's only 130 miles... the train takes little over two hours. It's completely unsuitable as a route for a sleeper.

 

[VTPreston_Tez]

Between London and Weymouth? That's only 130 miles... the train takes little over two hours. It's completely unsuitable as a route for a sleeper.

Fine, merge it with the Callie sleeper for a Scotland-Weymouth service, maybe an extra one that starts up north Scotland and calls at all stations to Edinburgh where it merges, Carlisle, Preston, Manchester Piccadilly, Stockport, Stoke-On-Trent, Birmingham New Street, Birmingham International, Winchester, both Southamptons, Brockenhurst, Bournemouth, Poole, Wareham?, Dorchester South and Weymouth.

 

[swt_passenger]

So while panicking about platform capacity they are just going to close two of them?

No.

That seems a little iffy, especially as until the platform lengthening works are complete there will be no longer trains to run into these platforms as SWT are not going to order them, thus making the whole move expensive and pointless.

No.

Moving everything over by two platforms means exactly what it says. The standard platforming will move over by two, therefore the main line side suburbans will be using 3-6 vice 1-4, etc etc until over the other side of the main shed, the normal services that use 16-19 will be using 18-21, and the extra peak trains just announced using 20 will end up in 22.

That means at least three platforms in the international terminal being used for existing services, but SWT want to use all 5, with the international terminal being used for a definite group of services.

And 10 car suburban trains don't need ordering - they will be the 455/456s running in multiple, as regularly discussed.

 

[HSTEd]

Was looked at - the costs didn't add up and there is no way it could compete with air in terms of journey or time. Would you be willing to travel 2 days each way to a business meeting in Rome? Add 4 days travel to your week on the Costa Del Sol? It's pretty much a non starter.

why does it take two days to reach Rome on a Sleeper?

Very shortly there will be near continuous high speed track from London to Rome, and from London to Malaga.

Who says your sleeper has to do 150kph or slower?

 

[VTPreston_Tez]

why does it take two days to reach Rome on a Sleeper?

Very shortly there will be near continuous high speed track from London to Rome, and from London to Malaga.

Who says your sleeper has to do 150kph or slower?

Shortly? Explain.

How long would the journey take then?

 

[HSTEd]

Shortly? Explain.

How long would the journey take then?

Well there will be a standard guage through route between Malaga and London by 2014, and a continuous high speed route appearing relatively soon after.

Rome Im not sure when the high speed line through the alps is planned for, but its not strictly neccesary to start service.

I reckon a direct train could run London Malaga in roughly 15hr30, far less if it was to run nonstop between London and Perpignan at 300kph.

As For rome, rather less than that, but I havent had time to calculate it yet.

 

[starrymarkb]

Compared to 2hrs on an A32x? Or an E-Jet from LCY?

Sleepers are not the most efficient trains either, they are very low density, Mk3 sleepers take 24 per coach IIRC, compared with 60/70 for a day coach. I'd love the adventure of a sleeper, but I can't see it appealing to the mass market. I'd be interested to see the emissions per passenger for a fully loaded sleeper and a loaded modern passenger jet as used by Easyjet/Ryanair. Also remember that from 2015 the 737Max and A320neo will be entering production and they expect to cut fuel burn and emissions by 7-9% compared with current models.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I thought I read somewhere that the "Sheepcote Curve" (which is the link between the West London line and the Waterloo main line) was decommissioned when Eurostar moved out of Waterloo.
Are there any trains routed this way at the moment?
I also doubt that Class 92s have worked via this route into Waterloo, so there may be route clearance issues.
Not saying it won't happen, but I bet there is some engineering headscratching to be done before the sleepers show up at Waterloo behind a 92...

 

[Eagle]

Are there any trains routed this way at the moment?

Quite a bit of container freight can, as it's the only way to get from the Chatham Mainline to the WLL too.

 

[swt_passenger]

I thought I read somewhere that the "Sheepcote Curve" (which is the link between the West London line and the Waterloo main line) was decommissioned when Eurostar moved out of Waterloo.

There was a full withdrawal of passenger service over the Sheepcote Lane Curve when the ATW service ceased, and that had to undergo the full rigmarole of 'closure procedures', but that never meant the line was decommissioned.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Quite a bit of container freight can, as it's the only way to get from the Chatham Mainline to the WLL too.

No it isn't. The Sheepcote Lane curve only connects the WLL and the route into Waterloo. Container trains are not common at Waterloo, in my experience...

 

[HSTEd]

Compared to 2hrs on an A32x? Or an E-Jet from LCY?

Sleepers are not the most efficient trains either, they are very low density, Mk3 sleepers take 24 per coach IIRC, compared with 60/70 for a day coach. I'd love the adventure of a sleeper, but I can't see it appealing to the mass market. I'd be interested to see the emissions per passenger for a fully loaded sleeper and a loaded modern passenger jet as used by Easyjet/Ryanair. Also remember that from 2015 the 737Max and A320neo will be entering production and they expect to cut fuel burn and emissions by 7-9% compared with current models.

Well an awful lot of the mileage would be in France.

This means emissions for that section are zero.

If we are going for mass market its the couchette model you want, with trains going out of St Pancras probably capable of stacking them three high just like in Europe.

EDIT:

It appears my earlier London-Malaga calculation was rather conservative.
Assuming the train was to run non stop between Ashford and Nimes (where you currently run out of LGV), you could cover that section is something on order of 3hr30, giving you something on order of 4hr London-Nimes rather than the 5hr30 assumed in my previous estimates.
Two years after the opening of the through route in 2016 a high speed bypass of Nimes and Montpellier is expected to open which will cut ravel time down further, I will now attempt to strip out extraneous stops in Spain and so on to get a reasonable estimate.

EDIT 2:
Assuming first stop is Nimes the travel time is roughly 13hr30 stopping at stations to Perpignan, then Barcelona, Madrid and stations to Malaga.
That's not much longer than the Fort William portion of the Highland sleeper, and thats before we fast forward from 2014 to 2016 and cut what looks to be another 20 minutes off with aforementioned bypass of Montpellier or Nimes, or out to beyond 2020 when the LGV Picardie and the complete high speed route appear, permitting the train to run fast all the way to Barcelona, bringing the time down below 12hr.

 

[ushawk]

Fine, merge it with the Callie sleeper for a Scotland-Weymouth service, maybe an extra one that starts up north Scotland and calls at all stations to Edinburgh where it merges, Carlisle, Preston, Manchester Piccadilly, Stockport, Stoke-On-Trent, Birmingham New Street, Birmingham International, Winchester, both Southamptons, Brockenhurst, Bournemouth, Poole, Wareham?, Dorchester South and Weymouth.

Werent there loads of Sleepers during the BR days which went "cross-country" ? Think Motorail may of been linked to that as well - if someone can correct me if im wrong that would be great.

 

[amcluesent]

Why does the sleeper have to one huge train, when all the shunting and clanking at EDB wakes everyone up?

There should be two normal sized trains, one for Fort William and one for Inverness that can run separately on WCML and ECML

 

[HSTEd]

Why does the sleeper have to one huge train, when all the shunting and clanking at EDB wakes everyone up?

There should be two normal sized trains, one for Fort William and one for Inverness that can run separately on WCML and ECML

Ive travelled on the Lowland twice and I dont recall being woken up at Carstairs on either occasion, but then I do sleep through anything althoguh that is a simple split and not joined carriages.

I think its to do with provision of traincrew which are expensive, although it would appear that with Airdrie-Bathgate it would now be possible to operate the Lowland with only one locomotive if the trains were push pull.


What about the Aberdeen portion?

 

[IanXC]

I have to say the more I think about this problem the less this sounds like the right answer. If these platforms are required for SWT Waterloo services then I think it would be crackers to use them for anything else.

Euston clearly needs the Sleepers removing, at least for the duration of the rebuild works, but that doesn't necessarily mean Waterloo is the answer. The key is if new stock is to be procured.

6 car EMUs for each destination could be accommodated at Kings Cross post Thameslink - either as 1 formation for the Lowland, or 2 portions for the Highland - when ready for departure the single unit could draw forward and reverse onto the others forming an 18 car formation.

 

[tbtc]

I have to say the more I think about this problem the less this sounds like the right answer. If these platforms are required for SWT Waterloo services then I think it would be crackers to use them for anything else

Agreed - giving the platforms to SWT would allow thousands of passengers to use the platforms each day. Giving them over to Sleeper operation would mean they were used by significantly fewer people.

Despite being a Scot, I've got to accept that the resources should be used for the greater number of people (i.e. turn them over to SWT services, rather than a handful of sleeper services a week).

Why does the sleeper have to one huge train, when all the shunting and clanking at EDB wakes everyone up?

There should be two normal sized trains, one for Fort William and one for Inverness that can run separately on WCML and ECML

There are five Scottish sleeper services (Aberdeen, Inverness, Fort William, Glasgow, Edinburgh), which form two trains at the London end (the "Highland" one for the first three and the "Lowland" one for Glasgow/Edinburgh).

If you want to keep all five portions then I'm not sure how better to do things (you'd need to split trains somewhere, it's not worth having five trains a night in each direction)

 

[HSTEd]

There are five Scottish sleeper services (Aberdeen, Inverness, Fort William, Glasgow, Edinburgh), which form two trains at the London end (the "Highland" one for the first three and the "Lowland" one for Glasgow/Edinburgh).

If you want to keep all five portions then I'm not sure how better to do things (you'd need to split trains somewhere, it's not worth having five trains a night in each direction)

Well you could run the lowland sleeper with only one locomotive in one direction now if the two components were push pull.

Work to Edinburgh with the Edinburgh section leading the train and the Cl92 propelling, then detach the front half of the train in Waverley and reverse via Airdrie-Bathgate or Falkirk (when it gets done) to Glasgow.

After Glasgow people have disembarked run ECS back to EDB, collect the Edinburgh portion and then head to wherever for stabling.

If you were really serious about cutting overheads you could possibly run the Highland Sleeper to EDB with the Aberdeen portion leading, detach the Aberdeen portion in the platform into the waiting arms of a Cl67, reverse to Falkirk (when it gets done), detach the Inverness portion and into the arms of another Cl67, then run to wherever to hand over the Fort William portion.

Only need four electrics and three diesel this way. Mostly thanks to Push pull operation.

Also, what happens to Platforms 1 and 2 at Waterloo?

 

[tbtc]

Well you could run the lowland sleeper with only one locomotive in one direction now if the two components were push pull.

Work to Edinburgh with the Edinburgh section leading the train and the Cl92 propelling, then detach the front half of the train in Waverley and reverse via Airdrie-Bathgate or Falkirk (when it gets done) to Glasgow.

After Glasgow people have disembarked run ECS back to EDB, collect the Edinburgh portion and then head to wherever for stabling.

If you were really serious about cutting overheads you could possibly run the Highland Sleeper to EDB with the Aberdeen portion leading, detach the Aberdeen portion in the platform into the waiting arms of a Cl67, reverse to Falkirk (when it gets done), detach the Inverness portion and into the arms of another Cl67, then run to wherever to hand over the Fort William portion.

Only need four electrics and three diesel this way. Mostly thanks to Push pull operation.

Also, what happens to Platforms 1 and 2 at Waterloo?

...but you'd still be joining/splitting the train with passengers asleep on board (at Edinburgh).

And going via Bathgate would mean using Queen Street Low Level, which wouldn't be very attractive for passengers boarding late at night...

If you are going to keep the sleeper then you'd need somewhere dedicated at Edinburgh/Glasgow/London for people to board at leisure and alight at leisure, which also rules out Queen Street Low Level.

 

[HSTEd]

...but you'd still be joining/splitting the train with passengers asleep on board (at Edinburgh).

And going via Bathgate would mean using Queen Street Low Level, which wouldn't be very attractive for passengers boarding late at night...

If you are going to keep the sleeper then you'd need somewhere dedicated at Edinburgh/Glasgow/London for people to board at leisure and alight at leisure, which also rules out Queen Street Low Level.

Alright then, what about Falkirk when it's done?

How much time would you loose just doubling back via Carstairs.
Splitting trains doesnt make that much noise really (and there would be no loose coupled shunting or anything like that), and there is no way you can avoid it unless you are suggesting running five trains independently, which is unfortunately impractical. (You could probably run the Lowland portion independently if you had EMUs but thats about it)

 

[swt_passenger]

Also, what happens to Platforms 1 and 2 at Waterloo?

They'll be completely out of use, and at least P1 will likely be filled in. The problem is that the main constraint on the length of the platforms on that side of the station is the gradually decreasing width of the viaduct the station throat is built on, and the fact that everything else has to curve round in the throat. That is, as you move away from the current low numbered platform ends platform 5/6, and all the higher numbered platforms, are curving round into the space where some fairly complex S&C has to be.

I did hear that there are other solutions that have been looked at, such as giving up existing platforms 5 & 6, but then they need replicating elsewhere instead. Everything publicly available sticks with the idea of removing P1 and P2 though.

Another point is that they are designing the 'main station' changes with a view to eventually lengthening every platform to 12 car - so there's little point in trying to squeeze in a poor 10 car solution that has to be rebuilt again in 10-15 years time...

 

[Aictos]

6 car EMUs for each destination could be accommodated at Kings Cross post Thameslink - either as 1 formation for the Lowland, or 2 portions for the Highland - when ready for departure the single unit could draw forward and reverse onto the others forming an 18 car formation.

That won't work for the obvious reason that there is no platform at Kings Cross long enough to take a 18 coach train as the nearest platforms are the International ones at St Pancras which I can't see being used for Scotland to London sleepers although can see sleepers between London and Europe eventually once the stock is available.

 

[transmanche]

They'll be completely out of use, and at least P1 will likely be filled in. The problem is that the main constraint on the length of the platforms on that side of the station is the gradually decreasing width of the viaduct the station throat is built on, and the fact that everything else has to curve round in the throat.

I can't picture the approach to P1 right now. But if the trackbed of P1 was filled in and the track immediately approaching it, would it be possible to extend P2?

 

[Mutant Lemming]

A bedtime story

- once upon a time not that very long ago

 

[themiller]

On the current plans two of the platforms at Euston are identified as hybrid platforms so I assume that is classic and HS2 services. Guess these would be long enough to handle extended sleeper services?

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/hs2-maps-20120110/hs2arp00drrw05300issue2.pdf

How do hybrid platforms comply with both the UK regs and UIC regs for platform heights? The high speed platforms must be P55 or P75 (550 or 750 mm high) to comply with the Interoperability Regs and UK classic must be 915mm high (GEGN8573 Rail Safety and Standards Board)

 

[IanXC]

That won't work for the obvious reason that there is no platform at Kings Cross long enough to take a 18 coach train as the nearest platforms are the International ones at St Pancras which I can't see being used for Scotland to London sleepers although can see sleepers between London and Europe eventually once the stock is available.

That's why I said platform the Highland as 2 portions, once boarding is complete draw the single 6 car EMU forward and reverse it onto the other 2 6 car EMUs. Then set off as an 18 car formation.

 

[Jobsworth]

Zoe = That was when Paddington was being remodelled. I travelled from there one night when the empty stock was badly delayed from Old Oak Common. Not a very customer friendly experience with constant harrassment by the local down and outs from cardboard city

 

[junglejames]

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.)

Assuming you were in the seated area. The guard is meant to wake up passengers before their stop. The situation you found yourself in isnt meant to happen ever.

 

[marks87]

That won't work for the obvious reason that there is no platform at Kings Cross long enough to take a 18 coach train as the nearest platforms are the International ones at St Pancras which I can't see being used for Scotland to London sleepers although can see sleepers between London and Europe eventually once the stock is available.

You never know - Scotland to London might be an international trip by the time the stock refurb is complete