London Waterloo International Platforms

[TrenHotel]

If we're talking mad ideas - at relatively low cost you could transfer the Night Riviera Sleeper there - it could then run via North Pole to the GWML.

You might even be able to transfer the 2 Caledonian Sleepers there with a bit of jiggery-pokery and reversing at North Pole.

It could become the new 'London Sleeper Terminal' - and free up early morning space in Euston and Paddington, also enabling more timely arrivals, instead of the ridiculously early London-bound times you get with the Night Riviera at the moment.

Terrific idea. Perhaps it's time to revisit the idea of sleeper services through the Channel Tunnel too, since we've got a spare terminal at Waterloo. Sleepers to the Alps, or to Barcelona?

 

[jon0844]

That would be awesome.

 

[MCR247]

If the class 458's are lengthened to 10 car trains and still remian on the London Waterloo - Reading service surely these thrains would need to go into the International platforms?

458/5s would replace 450/5s which would go back to 450/0s which would run the Reading line

 

[rich.davies]

I'm going to see that next week, quite looking forward to it.

I went to see it a few weeks back, i recomend it. It helps to have a very good imagination tho.

It does seem rather strange walking through the old terminal, it feels neglected and un-loved. Has a very weird atmosphere about the place.

 

[Liam]

You might even be able to transfer the 2 Caledonian Sleepers there with a bit of jiggery-pokery and reversing at North Pole.

Is there any need to reverse? Leave the WCML at Willesden Jn, onto the WLL to Battersea and Waterloo.

 

[RobShipway]

458/5s would replace 450/5s which would go back to 450/0s which would run the Reading line

So if the lengthened 458/5's go on to other routes, that means we would have possibly the class 450/5's on the Waterloo - Reading route again on a permanent basis?

 

[MCR247]

458/5s would replace 450/5s which would go back to 450/0s which would run the Reading line

So if the lengthened 458/5's go on to other routes, that means we would have possibly the class 450/5's on the Waterloo - Reading route again on a permanent basis?

Well yes, 450s and 458s would swap

 

[NightatLaira]

Thats proberbly the best idea I've seen yet... The only problem is that it takes users further away from Euston Road, and would need dual voltage stock (for the scottish sleepers) to haul it, oh wait, we have some extremly powerful dual voltage stock already

There wouldn't need to be any complicated messing around at North Pole anyway for the WCML Sleepers, simply go up the WLL to Willesden Junction and straight onto the WCML.

GWML Sleepers would need a tincey bit of changing to be able to fit in, ie. track directly onto the GWML rather than just into the Depot. Again, do-able easilly with a small amount of points.

Then we've just got the problem of all the other ideas and usages for the platforms. But it could make a really nice terminus having all the sleeper services in one place, the undercroft as a reception area for incoming and outgoing passengers, make it all exclusive etc.

Would still be possible to use two of the platforms in the daytime aswell.

Oh...

And if there is a need to divert any of the sleepers, need I mention that you can access the NLL at Willesden and therefore the MML, ECML and GEML...?

Terrific idea. Perhaps it's time to revisit the idea of sleeper services through the Channel Tunnel too, since we've got a spare terminal at Waterloo. Sleepers to the Alps, or to Barcelona?

Well I'm flattered - If it's not such a mad idea then, I hope someone passes this to the relevant authorities.

• Could 92s be used as bi-mode haulage for the Caledonian Sleeper operation?
• Could 57s be continued for the Night Riviera operation or would something electric be needed to haul it into Waterloo?
• Could the old North Pole Eurostar depot be used as daytime storage/cleaning for the sleeper stock?
• Are there showers in the old Business Premier Waterloo international lounge?
• Is there a way of getting Caledonian sleepers down the ECML and round the NLL to the Old Oak Common / North Pole locality in the event of a shut WCML?

 

[N Levers]

Domestic sleepers couldn't go from the same platforms as International sleepers, so you would have to segregate the platforms...

 

[swt_passenger]

I don't think 17 and 19 are too short,more like a curvature problem.

Whatever the reason, Quail only shows them both as 8 car. 19 is clearly longer than that, but I suspect the width is the problem, there must be a significant length backing onto the international station's wall which is less than the supposed 2.5m minimum?

 

[Nym]

Well I'm flattered - If it's not such a mad idea then, I hope someone passes this to the relevant authorities.

• Could 92s be used as bi-mode haulage for the Caledonian Sleeper operation?
• Could 57s be continued for the Night Riviera operation or would something electric be needed to haul it into Waterloo?
• Could the old North Pole Eurostar depot be used as daytime storage/cleaning for the sleeper stock?
• Are there showers in the old Business Premier Waterloo international lounge?
• Is there a way of getting Caledonian sleepers down the ECML and round the NLL to the Old Oak Common / North Pole locality in the event of a shut WCML?

1) Yes, yes they could, sleepers are timed to run at 80mph anyway, so the ?87mph top speed of the 92s is near ideal.
2) Yes, 57s are essentially 47s so will have no issues running into Waterloo
3) No need, if the platforms are only used for sleepers then these platforms can be used for stabling during the day, or the usual depots that can be accessed via the WLL
4) Not a clue, probably is, if there isn't, shouldn't be too hard to install.
5) Yes. From the WLL head through Willesden High Level onto the NLL and then using the new delta junction at the head of St Pancras you can access the ECML, HS1 and St Pancras there. Access to HS1 is also available via the Fawkham Link

International sleepers would need new stock to operate, or a conversion of some of the North of London stock to sleeper operation. Long routes such as London - Moscow or London - Cadiz.

Platforms could easily be segregated by using the under croft of the platform area. Platforms can be separated into 3 domestic and 2 international without much issue. So yes, a sleeper terminal is a very nice idea, and could work very well IMO.

 

[daza7789]

GWML Sleepers would need a tincey bit of changing to be able to fit in, ie. track directly onto the GWML rather than just into the Depot. Again, do-able easilly with a small amount of points.

QUOTE]

No new points etc or messing around for the GWML sleeper. north pole - willesden south west sidings - Acton wells - Acton main line

 

[Nym]

Yes, but passenger trains being used in sidings as a scheduled service might not be that gooder idea for keeping DfT Rail Happy with the safety case. As a lot of sidings don't have AWS / TWPS / ATP and most have stupidly low speed limits that will wreck journey times more than getting from North Pole to Waterloo

 

[BigVince76]

It was not that long ago that the SW sleeper did run to Waterloo. I may be wrong but I think it moved to Paddington when the Heathrow express started in the mid 90's so presumably there is a suitable route for it.

 

[jrhilton]

I can't imagine First ScotRail would want to run the Caledonian Sleeper, or FGW one of their sleepers from Waterloo International, as they would be stung with a lot of the costs of the international area currently being taken by NRIL (especially if they were the only users of it), and why pay all the extra track excess and potentially extra EC4T if using an electric loco if you don’t have too.

A TOC is only going to consistently use it if there is a high volume of trains requiring it, or they are forced to use it. It is too big a cost to use for the sake of it, and when it comes to station costs and TOCs, every penny paid, is one too many paid.

 

[Chris125]

Im afraid using Waterloo International for sleepers is just as 'wasteful' as leaving it mothballed - keeping it open for a few trains a day has costs and ramifications that cant just be ignored, the lack of AC doesnt help either. You dont need to group them together anymore than you need to group together trains to Bristol and Southend.

Like so many suggestions for these platforms, people are thinking that because they exist and cost (an insignificant sum) to keep mothballed you *must* do something with them - it doesnt work like that. Staffing and running them costs even more money, and that money needs be justified. In this case any benefits are very marginal and certainly arent worth the bother of bringing an entire station back into use.

International Sleepers? There simply isnt the demand - low cost airlines destroyed the case for NightStar, and nothing has changed since except the building of more HSL's, reducing the need even further.

Chris

 

[NightatLaira]

Im afraid using Waterloo International for sleepers is just as 'wasteful' as leaving it mothballed - keeping it open for a few trains a day has costs and ramifications that cant just be ignored, the lack of AC doesnt help either. You dont need to group them together anymore than you need to group together trains to Bristol and Southend.

Like so many suggestions for these platforms, people are thinking that because they exist and cost (an insignificant sum) to keep mothballed you *must* do something with them - it doesnt work like that. Staffing and running them costs even more money, and that money needs be justified. In this case any benefits are very marginal and certainly arent worth the bother of bringing an entire station back into use.

International Sleepers? There simply isnt the demand - low cost airlines destroyed the case for NightStar, and nothing has changed since except the building of more HSL's, reducing the need even further.

Chris

True, but I think you're forgetting:

• If you bring Waterloo International back into use it could also be used for daytime domestic services (as an overflow from the main station)
• The potential benefits of freeing-up space at Euston and Paddington, especially at peak hours of the morning. Bear in mind that Euston is going to go through a lot of changes over the next few years re: HS2 and the general rebuilding of the concourse. Relieving the peak hours pressure on services by taking the sleepers away from there can only be a good thing. It will allow more platform space for commuter services to arrive in the mornings.
• Similar argument can be used to justify Paddington - the elctrification of the GWML from Hayes to Bristol will cause a lot of disruption over the next few years. Many FGW services will be diverted down through Castle Cary and other lines. Relieving pressure from Paddington can only help matters
• International Sleepers? Maybe not - but semi-fast International day services are an idea that has been proposed by SNCF before now - i.e. Rouen/Amiens/ somewhere in Picardie to SE England calling at Calais Frethun, Ashford Int, and then major stations to London. Sending them through the 'old Eurostar' route to Waterloo International might not be such a bad idea.
• And then finally, there's the charter services: Orient Express, Railtours, the Royal Train, Deutsche Bahn, Ski specials, and anyone else who might want to run non-express services from London to the South Coast (or just about anywhere using the North Pole / Acton / NLL links) - this will free up valuable platform space at Victoria and Waterloo Main Station. Where better than Waterloo International to depart from? The trains can follow the 'old heritage route' out of London, and not clog up HS1 with their slow speeds if they're heading to south coast or the continent. Or if they're heading elsewhere they can use the NLL to follow paths up to the GWML, WCML, MML, ECML or GEL to wherever they are going. They also won't 'tread on the toes' of scheduled stuff leaving from the present London terminii.

I am starting to think bringing Waterloo International back into life might not be such a bad idea - especially during the next 10 years when considering all the stuff that will be happening along the GWML and Euston as described in the first few bullet points.

 

[swt_passenger]

Like so many suggestions for these platforms, people are thinking that because they exist and cost (an insignificant sum) to keep mothballed you *must* do something with them - it doesnt work like that. Staffing and running them costs even more money, and that money needs be justified. In this case any benefits are very marginal and certainly arent worth the bother of bringing an entire station back into use.

I agree entirely and I hope that has come across in my previous posts.

A number of posters seem to think they must be needed now, but as I've pointed out SWT can run their timetable in the 19 platforms they have got already, and in the absence of DfT approval for more or longer trains, nothing is going to change.

Every proposal for temporary diversion of other TOC's services I've ever found in NR online publications seems to be explained away as of no benefit whatsoever - if the experts don't see any point in this use who's to say they are wrong.

And to extend ANY service from the north or west of thge country round the busy West London Line, adding about 25 mins to its normal running time is ludicrous. Eurostar used the same logic when abandoning the station in the first place...

 

[NightatLaira]

If a chunk of the GWML is closed during the electrification process it might not be just the sleepers having to find space somewhere else - it might be everything.

Say a section from Reading to Hayes was closed on a Monday morning because of late-running engineering works on a weekend. You could send things via Bracknell after leaving Reading - but if you're going to do that it would be quicker to terminate them in Waterloo if you had the platform space.

 

[swt_passenger]

True, but I think you're forgetting:

• If you bring Waterloo International back into use it could also be used for daytime domestic services (as an overflow from the main station)
• The potential benefits of freeing-up space at Euston and Paddington, especially at peak hours of the morning.
• the elctrification of the GWML from Hayes to Bristol will cause a lot of disruption over the next few years.
• And then finally, there's the charter services:

Waterloo International will be brought back into use when SWT's 10 car suburban expansion needs it, now planned for Dec 2012 and Dec 2013. I think that has been established before now hasn't it?

What makes you think there are suitable paths available down the WLL and into Waterloo at 'peak hours of the morning'. The whole problem is that the lines between Clapham Jn and Waterloo are already full in the morning peak.

Who says electrifcation will cause a lot of disruption? Everything I've seen reckons it will be done using overnight posessions, and on the four track sections as far as Reading they can also run the timetable on one pair - eg on Sundays.

Charters already operate to/from Waterloo. However the likelihood of European operators wanting slow paths around the south and southeast of London even if they still exist - must be extremely low, and which of these international operators is going to have any third rail stock?

 

[Solent&Wessex]

http://www.brbr.co.uk/waterloo

 

[swt_passenger]

http://www.brbr.co.uk/waterloo

In which they say

"The High Level Output Specification, agreed between Network Rail and the Department for Transport for the period up to March 2014, specifies that Waterloo International is to be returned to rail use as part of a wider project to introduce ten-coach suburban trains on the South Western suburban lines. BRBR is working with the Department and Network Rail to bring this about."

Which is basically what I mentioned earlier. However BRBR have then also got to solve the problem of what to do with the three underground levels of arrival and departure facilities that aren't needed. That short statement on BRBR's website was pretty much to blame for all the headlines a couple of years back that wrongly suggested that the whole international station would be turned into a shopping centre...

 

[Blindtraveler]

Thats proberbly the best idea I've seen yet... The only problem is that it takes users further away from Euston Road, and would need dual voltage stock (for the scottish sleepers) to haul it, oh wait, we have some extremly powerful dual voltage stock already

There wouldn't need to be any complicated messing around at North Pole anyway for the WCML Sleepers, simply go up the WLL to Willesden Junction and straight onto the WCML.

GWML Sleepers would need a tincey bit of changing to be able to fit in, ie. track directly onto the GWML rather than just into the Depot. Again, do-able easilly with a small amount of points.

Then we've just got the problem of all the other ideas and usages for the platforms. But it could make a really nice terminus having all the sleeper services in one place, the undercroft as a reception area for incoming and outgoing passengers, make it all exclusive etc.

Would still be possible to use two of the platforms in the daytime aswell.

Oh...

And if there is a need to divert any of the sleepers, need I mention that you can access the NLL at Willesden and therefore the MML, ECML and GEML...?

well if you were to consult passengers on this we'd say yess definately! A dedicated terminal for sleapers would be good and if the wating facilitties were refitted with a campsite style toilet and shower area, i.e, several of each with shaving points, left luggage, towel hire and maybe even a small buffet offering lisenced and non lisenced drinks it would be fantastic!

 

[Peter Mugridge]

It was not that long ago that the SW sleeper did run to Waterloo. I may be wrong but I think it moved to Paddington when the Heathrow express started in the mid 90's so presumably there is a suitable route for it.

Not quite; it was switched from Paddington to Waterloo when Eurostar started up, the intention being to provide West Country overnight connections.

After a few years it reverted to Paddington.

 

[NightatLaira]

In some ways - perhaps that is the best/most pragmatic solution:

Make the changes and create the environment for 10 car SWT domestic trains. The former security areas and departure lounges become dedicated sleeper facilities with showers, shave points, toilets, cafeteria, etc. The facility is essentially already there to keep waiting sleeper passengers away from the commotion of departing and arriving commuters.



Night departures are no problem because the pressure is off Waterloo anyway. Mornings could be more difficult, but no more difficult than they are already as the Sleepers would be using the dedicated reversible track to the WLL and not conflicting with normal Waterloo commuter movements from Clapham. The only question is juggling the paths around Old Oak Common and Willesden - but I'm sure there's a will where there's a way.

There are 5 platforms at Waterloo International: and a maximum of 3 platforms are needed for sleeper arrivals in the morning rush hour, although I'm sure with a bit of arrival staggering you could get this down to 2 or maybe even 1.

Suggest Lowland Arrival 0700 platform 23, return to depot 0730. Night Riviera Arrival 0710 platform 25, return to depot 0740. Highland Arrival 0720 platform 24 stay in platform until after rush hour, return to depot 0940. It takes about 5mins in either direction for a 300m train to clear the reversible single track section. This 'shuffling' keeps as many platforms free as possible for commuter arrivals - and means there's only a 10 minute period (0720-0730) where there's actually 3 sleeper trains occupying 3 platforms.

The peak time for Waterloo commuters in the morning is 0720-0830. (All the city workers arrive together at around 0725 to get the Waterloo & City line up to the Square Mile, there's queuing downstairs and you have to be in the queue by 0730 to guarantee reaching your office by 0800 when the markets open. I know this, because I did it for 2 years.

After 0740, it actually gets busier - but not so much with city types - you have the regular office crowd who have to be in by 0830 or 0900, and as a consequence they arrive at Waterloo between 0800 and 0830. After 0830, it eases off until 0930 when it properly drops off. But Waterloo is always a busy station - and even if 3 out of the 5 platforms were occupied by sleepers all the time, you'd still be adding and extra 2 platforms capacity - and under this proposed system you'd actually be adding 4 full length platforms capable of taking the new 10 car SWT stock, and potentially a 5th if a 5min slot could be found to bring the last sleeper out from the reversible section.

I can't see how that would be bad thing - and if the 'on costs' of managing a station like this are really that much of a problem - why not just make it a 'peak hours only' station like City Thameslink and Canon Street used to be. Personally, I don't think you'll need to.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not quite; it was switched from Paddington to Waterloo when Eurostar started up, the intention being to provide West Country overnight connections.

After a few years it reverted to Paddington.

How did they manage with Motorail back then? Did Waterloo still have its 'roads' where the tiled concourse is now?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I have no idea what they did with the Motorail then, but I think by then the Motorail was on the summer Friday nights only; maybe it just ran to Paddington on Friday nights? I can't remember.

But there certainly wasn't any Motorail stuff on it at the times I saw it at Waterloo.

 

[RobShipway]

I thought Motorail was just done from Paddington, it certainly was during the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's before it was stopped.

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

I thought Motorail was just done from Paddington, it certainly was during the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's before it was stopped.

I Think motorail went infact from Kensingston Olympia, where the car park is now. It is a shame the international platforms are not used, even if they bought 1 or 2 back into use that could accommodate 2 to 4 trains. Maybe one day.

 

[RobShipway]

I Think motorail went infact from Kensingston Olympia, where the car park is now. It is a shame the international platforms are not used, even if they bought 1 or 2 back into use that could accommodate 2 to 4 trains. Maybe one day.

Maybe, it was Kensington Olympia, but I remember seeing motorail vans within Paddington years ago and also seeing the train travel through Reading non stop on it's way to the South West.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Has the joining of the class 460 coaches to class 458 been approved by the DFT yet?

The reason I ask is that I went into London earlier today on the 08:05 service and was surprised that a two class 450's joined together turned up instead of two class 458's or do the Class 450's do the services where the 450's are not available?

I had noticed it looks like there was some races at Ascot today, so was the class 450's use to provide extra services?

 

[MCR247]

The reason I ask is that I went into London earlier today on the 08:05 service and was surprised that a two class 450's joined together turned up instead of two class 458's or do the Class 450's do the services where the 450's are not available?

I had noticed it looks like there was some races at Ascot today, so was the class 450's use to provide extra services?

If it was approved, do you think it would happen overnight?!