The Waterloo & City Line

[Recessio]

A South Bank station would seem to be possible from that map perhaps, and quite useful for an area that is heavily populated without a particularly close Tube station.

As I mentioned earlier up thread, the GLA looked into adding an additional station and the cost benefit ratio was horrendous. The South Bank is already well served thanks to the Jubilee Line Extension and the southern entrance to Blackfriars.

 

[AlastairFraser]

As I mentioned earlier up thread, the GLA looked into adding an additional station and the cost benefit ratio was horrendous. The South Bank is already well served thanks to the Jubilee Line Extension and the southern entrance to Blackfriars.

Southwark is a bit of a walk from some of it, and Blackfriars is mainline only.
The study was done pre Covid, and a closure to add the station would be less ardous with Work from Home for City jobs being much more prominent.

 

[Tester]

They were designed to be used with anything from 0 to 3 trailer cars between them, although in later years, shunting out the trailers off peak wasn't done.

In fact the motor coaches were double ended, so that they could run alone at quiet times.

 

[D7666]

In fact the motor coaches were double ended, so that they could run alone at quiet times.

Indeed.

I never did have a single car travel - but I had a number of 2car - obviously two motor coaches - haulages at quiet times, all on Saturdays, which really is the only time I ever used the line, it has never otherwise featured on my routine travel for any reason.

Not sure about this bit : there were 12 motor coaches that AIUI were at that time (late 80s / early 90s) operated as 10 in 5car MTTTM sets and 2 as a car MM

IIRC they migrated at some point from a fully floating fleet to be only swapped around formations at bigger exams for unplanned repairs; the lighter exams and minor faults they remained semi-permanent formations.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Dec 2023 ==

My memory is vague now, but didn't the 487s (the 1940 stock) have raised floor over motor bogie, but standard tube stock didn't

Standard tube stock not sure if they had raised floors BUT their motor coaches had full car height equipment sections above the end motor bogie - which - in terms of loss of passenger space - was worse than a raised floor. From the outside view, the shaping does suggest it was a raised floor, but it is academic in the passenger space sense, as it was not passenger space.

 

[Recessio]

Southwark is a bit of a walk from some of it, and Blackfriars is mainline only.
The study was done pre Covid, and a closure to add the station would be less ardous with Work from Home for City jobs being much more prominent.

Blackfriars is also served by the Circle and District lines via the north entrance.
And surely the reduction in passenger numbers due to hybrid working would also reduce the need for an extra station?

Did anything ever come of the idea to connecting the DLR on to the Waterloo and City tracks at Bank? I'm guessing the answer is "no" but I don't recall ever seeing any formal documents about it.

 

[rebmcr]

Blackfriars is also served by the Circle and District lines via the north entrance.
And surely the reduction in passenger numbers due to hybrid working would also reduce the need for an extra station?

Did anything ever come of the idea to connecting the DLR on to the Waterloo and City tracks at Bank? I'm guessing the answer is "no" but I don't recall ever seeing any formal documents about it.

The under-river tunnel is too steep and twisty to place a W&C station on the south bank.

The formal plan (included in official London 2050 maps) for the Bank branch of the DLR was extension to Euston via Charing Cross, not involving the W&C. Edit: corrected misremembered parts, it was in Horizon 2050.

 

[D7666]

The under-river tunnel is too steep and twisty to place a W&C station on the south bank.

The formal plan (included in official London 2050 maps) for the Bank branch of the DLR was extension to Euston via Charing Cross, not involving the W&C. Edit: corrected misremembered parts, it was in Horizon 2050.

Blackfriars is also served by the Circle and District lines via the north entrance.
And surely the reduction in passenger numbers due to hybrid working would also reduce the need for an extra station?

Did anything ever come of the idea to connecting the DLR on to the Waterloo and City tracks at Bank? I'm guessing the answer is "no" but I don't recall ever seeing any formal documents about it.

IIRC the "idea" of DLR + W&C was not anything more than people suggesting it in magazines and discussions, but never a realistic idea, and not made it into any official proposal to do anything of the sort.

It is one of these things that might look nice to join the dots on a two dimensional "dot to dot" rail map but fails to understand the third dimension about depth, about what else is in the way at depth and so on.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Blackfriars is also served by the Circle and District lines via the north entrance.
And surely the reduction in passenger numbers due to hybrid working would also reduce the need for an extra station?

Did anything ever come of the idea to connecting the DLR on to the Waterloo and City tracks at Bank? I'm guessing the answer is "no" but I don't recall ever seeing any formal documents about it.

The under-river tunnel is too steep and twisty to place a W&C station on the south bank.

The formal plan (included in official London 2050 maps) for the Bank branch of the DLR was extension to Euston via Charing Cross, not involving the W&C. Edit: corrected misremembered parts, it was in Horizon 2050.

Ah OK, that puts paid to my proposed South Bank station. I wonder if it could have a future with a southern extension, but that's for another thread.

 

[notverydeep]

It seems to me that all of the proposals to extend the W&C that have got anywhere close to feasibility assessment have rapidly come to the conclusion that they would have to change so much of it - rebuilding each of the stations and enlarging the tunnel between, that it would be cheaper to start from scratch...

 

[D7666]

It seems to me that all of the proposals to extend the W&C that have got anywhere close to feasibility assessment have rapidly come to the conclusion that they would have to change so much of it - rebuilding each of the stations and enlarging the tunnel between, that it would be cheaper to start from scratch...

Which they concluded in the ~1950 or so report cited upthread, but the OP mentioning it first had not picked up in it stated new line not rebuilt.

The ~75 years or so since then have not changed the fundamental situation.

 

[Recessio]

IIRC the "idea" of DLR + W&C was not anything more than people suggesting it in magazines and discussions, but never a realistic idea, and not made it into any official proposal to do anything of the sort.

It is one of these things that might look nice to join the dots on a two dimensional "dot to dot" rail map but fails to understand the third dimension about depth, about what else is in the way at depth and so on.

Thanks - that's what I thought (that there was never anything official) but was good to get confirmation.

It seems the W&C has a very specific role and it's one it seems to perform well, doesn't make much sense to go around trying to change it.

 

[Taunton]

IIRC the "idea" of DLR + W&C was not anything more than people suggesting it in magazines and discussions, but never a realistic idea, and not made it into any official proposal to do anything of the sort.

It is one of these things that might look nice to join the dots on a two dimensional "dot to dot" rail map but fails to understand the third dimension about depth, about what else is in the way at depth and so on.

I seem to recall that the following month there was a further letter saying instead that the GN&C from Finsbury Park to Moorgate should be joined to the W&C.

Not sure if it was by a further schoolboy looking at a map, or a railway engineer taking the mickey!

 

[AM9]

Indeed.

I never did have a single car travel - but I had a number of 2car - obviously two motor coaches - haulages at quiet times, all on Saturdays, which really is the only time I ever used the line, it has never otherwise featured on my routine travel for any reason.

Not sure about this bit : there were 12 motor coaches that AIUI were at that time (late 80s / early 90s) operated as 10 in 5car MTTTM sets and 2 as a car MM

IIRC they migrated at some point from a fully floating fleet to be only swapped around formations at bigger exams for unplanned repairs; the lighter exams and minor faults they remained semi-permanent formations.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Dec 2023 ==


Standard tube stock not sure if they had raised floors BUT their motor coaches had full car height equipment sections above the end motor bogie - which - in terms of loss of passenger space - was worse than a raised floor. From the outside view, the shaping does suggest it was a raised floor, but it is academic in the passenger space sense, as it was not passenger space.

None of the floor was raised on the standard tube stock design. The class 487 though as it had bogies and wheels nearer conventional stock sizes had the floor over the raised so much that there was very limited headroom when sitting on the longitudonal seats.

 

[Enthusiast]

The class 487 though as it had bogies and wheels nearer conventional stock sizes had the floor over the raised so much that there was very limited headroom when sitting on the longitudonal seats.

I remember them well. There's a photo of the interior of a class 487 DMC in this Wiki article which clearly shows the raised floor over the front bogie:

British Rail Class 487 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[D7666]

None of the floor was raised on the standard tube stock design. The class 487 though as it had bogies and wheels nearer conventional stock sizes had the floor over the raised so much that there was very limited headroom when sitting on the longitudonal seats.

Not in the passenger areas no, but floor must have been raised in the equipment compartment, which is what I was refering to.

What I posted was QUOTE Standard tube stock not sure if they had raised floors BUT their motor coaches had full car height equipment sections above the end motor bogie - which - in terms of loss of passenger space - was worse than a raised floor. From the outside view, the shaping does suggest it was a raised floor, UNQUOTE

See any image of a motor coach

https://www.ltmuseum.co.uk/system/files/styles/16_9_two_column_sm/private/collection_item/i0000a66.jpg

1931 London Standard Tube Stock Train.

LONDON TRANSPORT POST CARD. Replacement of the original “gate-stock” by “air-door” stock was started in 1919/20. By 1923 this more or less standard design had been evolved, and from then until 1934 a total of 1466 motor cars and trailers were supplied by five different builders. Trains of this...

www.flickr.com

You can clearly see how the underframe kinks over the motor bogie compared with the bottom edge of the passenger door aperture which is passenger floor level.

My point was that while the SR W&C had raised floors over the motor bogie this was in reference to other comments comparing them with 1938 stock that did not. I was pointing out that the raised floors on W&C was better than the "standard" stock equipment room, which took up passenger space.

 

[Central]

The motored wheels on standard stock were 36” compared to 32” on stock built from 1938 onwards.

 

[Taunton]

The W&C 1940s stock had to run down the main line, so possibly at the time it was felt the minimalist arrangement devised for the 1938 Underground stock was not good enough. Or some components were just standardised with mainstream trains. Or just a different designer. Who knows.

The 1940 cars used to be got up the lift (which is why it was there) and driven down to Wimbledon depot for periodic repairs. For major overhauls they had match wagons put front and back and were hauled down to Eastleigh (like the SUBs were). After the 1967 electrification they were driven there; there was at least one photo in a magazine of them passing Basingstoke or somewhere.

 

[Lucan]

so possibly at the time it was felt the minimalist arrangement devised for the 1938 Underground stock was not good enough

What minimalist arangement?

 

[D7666]

The W&C 1940s stock had to run down the main line, so possibly at the time it was felt the minimalist arrangement devised for the 1938 Underground stock was not good enough. Or some components were just standardised with mainstream trains. Or just a different designer. Who knows.

The 1940 cars used to be got up the lift (which is why it was there) and driven down to Wimbledon depot for periodic repairs. For major overhauls they had match wagons put front and back and were hauled down to Eastleigh (like the SUBs were). After the 1967 electrification they were driven there; there was at least one photo in a magazine of them passing Basingstoke or somewhere.

I am not convinced need to run to main works was actually a design requirement.

I am more of the view they did it because they could; not specifically designed but a built in nice to have rather than a need.

It was Lancing works, not Eastleigh, that was the traditional 1940 stock works, with other work done mostly at Stewarts Lane. Where they were seen at Wimbledon etc under their own power was usually test trains inconjunction with those movements. See the item I cite below, they had visits and other test and trial trips to e.g. Brighton and (1970s) Farnham.

After Lancing closed, their regular works became Eastleigh, but I am not convinced they did that move under their own power, or, at least, not all they way, as west of Pirbright Jn was [then new] 750 V not traditoonal 630 V. Farnham, Brighton, etc was 630 V hence re. above allowed. Took a few more years to get to 750 V everywhere, legacy stock had to be rewired first.

Even Subs were limited at first to Eastleigh. As routine overhauls continued, a number of Subs, only those with EE507 motors, were rewired to 750 V and those were permitted to run under their own power. But non rewired Sub en route to Eastleigh works, and from works if not rewired (and or retained 339 motors) were either loco hauled or tractored by other EMU.

See

BloodandCustard - Waterloo & City Line 1940 Stock

Should have all anyone ever needs to know; although does not mention the 750 V issue; I will take that up privately with the author over a beer when next we meet.


Possbly the mists of time have muddled W&C tube stock main line runs with IOW stock, which was 750 V as part of the work to convert them from LT to BR. Another good read to demolish a number of myths and legends is here :

https://www.bloodandcustard.com/BR-7VECTIS.html

 

[Gloster]

I am not convinced need to run to main works was actually a design requirement.

I am more of the view they did it because they could; not specifically designed but a built in nice to have rather than a need.

It was Lancing works, not Eastleigh, that was the traditional 1940 stock works, with other work done mostly at Stewarts Lane. Where they were seen at Wimbledon etc under their own power was usually test trains inconjunction with those movements. See the item I cite below, they had visits and other test and trial trips to e.g. Brighton and (1970s) Farnham.

After Lancing closed, their regular works became Eastleigh, but I am not convinced they did that move under their own power, or, at least, not all they way, as west of Pirbright Jn was [then new] 750 V not traditoonal 630 V. Farnham, Brighton, etc was 630 V hence re. above allowed. Took a few more years to get to 750 V everywhere, legacy stock had to be rewired first.

Even Subs were limited at first to Eastleigh. As routine overhauls continued, a number of Subs, only those with EE507 motors, were rewired to 750 V and those were permitted to run under their own power. But non rewired Sub en route to Eastleigh works, and from works if not rewired (and or retained 339 motors) were either loco hauled or tractored by other EMU.

See

BloodandCustard - Waterloo & City Line 1940 Stock

Should have all anyone ever needs to know; although does not mention the 750 V issue; I will take that up privately with the author over a beer when next we meet.


Possbly the mists of time have muddled W&C tube stock main line runs with IOW stock, which was 750 V as part of the work to convert them from LT to BR. Another good read to demolish a number of myths and legends is here :

https://www.bloodandcustard.com/BR-7VECTIS.html

Yes, I was told well over forty years ago that 4-SUB units weren’t allowed on the mainline beyond Pirbright Junction, otherwise it would be frying tonight. The exact details of modifications that allowed them to run on their own to Eastleigh were beyond my ken.

 

[Taunton]

Yes, I was told well over forty years ago that 4-SUB units weren’t allowed on the mainline beyond Pirbright Junction, otherwise it would be frying tonight. The exact details of modifications that allowed them to run on their own to Eastleigh were beyond my ken.

I recall a magazine article from the electrification inauguration, which stated the SUBs could run to Eastleigh under their own power, but the saloon lights (daisy-chained at traction voltage) had to be switched off. The SUBs didn't have any low voltage circuits, hence no starting bells or other electric auxiliaries.

 

[Busaholic]

Reverting to the original question posed, I'd just like to point out that the traditional Saturday service operated iirc until shortly after 2 p.m. from the Bank end. The Bank of England staff mainly worked a one Saturday in four rota, both at Threadneedle Street and the Temple Bar branch, certainly into the 1980s, my father working in both locations over the years. The number of staff on a Saturday were still a good number. Some bus services into the City of London also operated in what were described as Saturday peak hours into the 1970s/80s.

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes, however Bank and Waterloo's connections would open up a lot more of London for easy journeys to the South Bank.

the South bank is literally 5 minutes walk from Waterloo, Southwark tube and the southern entrance of Blackfriars.

 

[AlastairFraser]

the South bank is literally 5 minutes walk from Waterloo, Southwark tube and the southern entrance of Blackfriars.

Depends where. That long stretch between Blackfriars Bridge and London Bridge isn't necessarily close to the Tube.

 

[Bald Rick]

Depends where. That long stretch between Blackfriars Bridge and London Bridge isn't necessarily close to the Tube.

It’s not that far though. Its 13 minutes walk from Blackfriars (south) to London Bridge, I used to do it every day. Its the same from Southwark tube.

And, crucially, the drain doesn‘t go there anyway.

 

[tyburn]

No, I believe the map is wrong. Certainly if you're talking about the diagrammatic map, then it can't be trusted for matters of geography like that.

It goes under the northern end of Blackfriars and then virtually under Mansion House - Google Maps, while that won't be perfectly accurate, is fairly good.

https://cartometro.com/cartes/metro-tram-london/ has the most accurate I can find

 

[MP33]

I used to work in the Waterloo area and in the morning at Bank, when the doors opened the passengers fell out. Going in the other direction there was only five of us.

 

[swt_passenger]

https://cartometro.com/cartes/metro-tram-london/ has the most accurate I can find

Was already suggested in post #25, but there‘s also the detailed map linked in post #26 sponsored by TfL.

 

[Gloster]

Carto Metro does not seem to be much different to Brown’s London Rail Atlas, of which I have the fourth edition, although the sixth came out recently. This does seem to have more historical and National Rail information.

 

[D7666]

Carto Metro does not seem to be much different to Brown’s London Rail Atlas, of which I have the fourth edition, although the sixth came out recently. This does seem to have more historical and National Rail information.

Except that one is a hard copy book and one a web source. And one costs money the other is free.

In any case, any accurate map, produced by anybody in any format will contain the same, correct, data : it is only omissions and errors that cause differences.