Waterloo to be new Sleeper train hub?

[Eagle]

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

It doesn't serve any routes on SWT's network so that would be a ridiculous thing to do.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't know what the WLL is :P

The West London Line, that runs between Willesden and Clapham Junction/Latchmere Junction.

 

[ValleyLines142]

It doesn't serve any routes on SWT's network so that would be a ridiculous thing to do.

I know that but I wasn't sure whether Waterloo being a SWT hub it would need to be transferred, but maybe not.

The West London Line, that runs between Willesden and Clapham Junction/Latchmere Junction.

Ah right. I still don't really see the point though.

 

[ChristopherJ]

I don't know what the WLL is :P

West London Line. (Clapham Junction - Willesden Junction)

The Caledonians can be diverted round the WLL (which is fully electrified) which only adds about six miles to the total journey, so it's hardly a major diversion—would add 20-30 minutes tops.

How do you propose to solve the problem that the 25kv AC overhead catenary only extends as far as North Pole? It's 750V DC third rail for the remainder of the route to Latchmere Junction and in to Waterloo.

 

[Eagle]

Ah right. I still don't really see the point though.

Because Waterloo has all that lovely spare capacity going to waste in the form of 20-car-long platforms 21–24 (and Euston might lose its long platforms sometime soon when it's rebuilt), meaning you could stick the sleepers there and free up space in Euston and Paddington.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How do you propose to solve the problem that the 25kv AC overhead catenary only extends as far as North Pole? It's 750V DC for the remainder of the route to Latchmere Junction and in to Waterloo.

Use 92s instead of 90s. FSR hire the 90s from DBS as it is, and DBS have lots of 92s.

 

[ValleyLines142]

Because Waterloo has all that lovely spare capacity going to waste in the form of 20-car-long platforms 21–24 (and Euston might lose its long platforms sometime soon when it's rebuilt), meaning you could stick the sleepers there and free up space in Euston and Paddington.

I haven't heard anything about Euston losing platforms during it's rebuild.

 

[Eagle]

I haven't heard anything about Euston losing platforms during it's rebuild.

Wouldn't lose platforms, but the really long ones might not be as long any more. It's mentioned in post #1 :P

 

[ChristopherJ]

The transfer of the Cornish Riviera sleeper to Waterloo would probably cause more operational headaches than benefits, if the rolling stock remains allocated to Old Oak Common depot it would require two reversals just to reach Waterloo, at present the Cornish stock is a mere and simple direct sprint in to Paddington.

Old Oak Common Depot - (reverse) - Acton Main Line - (reverse) -Acton Wells Junction - Willesden South West Sidings - Willesden Junction Low Level - West London Line - Latchmere Junction - Waterloo.

 

[Eagle]

Exactly so. Plus Paddington is more convenient to the centre of London, around 5-10 minutes on the Tube to say Oxford Street etc. Waterloo may almost be double that.

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

 

[ValleyLines142]

Wouldn't lose platforms, but the really long ones might not be as long any more. It's mentioned in post #1 :P

I only look at the most recent page :P

I don't see why, plus if that's the case then have people boarding at a carriage that meets platform space and then walk through if the carriage that one is travelling on doesn't fit.

 

[Furrball]

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

 

[ValleyLines142]

6 minutes on the tube from Waterloo to Tottenham Court Road, 8 minutes to Bank :P

That could change at any time. You have to allow for delays, getting down to the platform etc.

Personally I think it's better off as it is.

 

[Eagle]

That could change at any time. You have to allow for delays, getting down to the platform etc.

My post has been edited to be more accurate :P

Everything you've just said there could be equally true of Paddington or Waterloo.

 

[ukrob]

I only look at the most recent page :P

I don't see why, plus if that's the case then have people boarding at a carriage that meets platform space and then walk through if the carriage that one is travelling on doesn't fit.

Fouling the station throat and ignoring signals then?

 

[ValleyLines142]

My post has been edited to be more accurate :P

Everything you've just said there could be equally true of Paddington or Waterloo.

I did notice. And indeed you are right, but it seems more logic still with what it is at the moment. The Sleepers could potentially get stuck in disruption by going on the WLL, e.g. signalling problem, overhead wire problems etc. Imagine a sleeper leaving London at 2130. It gets stuck in congestion somewhere on the WLL, for over an hour. Come 2300 and you still haven't left London! Whereas you'd be well on the way up north as it is now if it stayed at Euston/Paddington.

Fouling the station throat and ignoring signals then?

I don't know any of this, but there's obviously stations in the country that are too short and often have announcements saying something along the lines of 'Due to short platforms customers for A, B and C should travel in the front 4 coaches only' or whatever.

 

[Eagle]

I did notice. And indeed you are right, but it seems more logic still with what it is at the moment. The Sleepers could potentially get stuck in disruption by going on the WLL, e.g. signalling problem, overhead wire problems etc. Imagine a sleeper leaving London at 2130. It gets stuck in congestion somewhere on the WLL, for up to an hour. Come 2230 and you still haven't left London!

They could potentially get stuck in all that kind of disruption on the way out of Euston too. I really don't see what your point is.

Anyway 22.30 is far too early for a sleeper to leave London, it would get to its destination at about 4am! :P

 

[ValleyLines142]

They could potentially get stuck in all that kind of disruption on the way out of Euston too. I really don't see what your point is.

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

Anyway 22.30 is far too early for a sleeper to leave London, it would get to its destination at about 4am! :P

Well the Highland Sleeper currently leaves Euston at 2115 so I don't quite understand that. Plus I said 2130 anyway not 2230.

 

[Eagle]

I don't know any of this, but there's obviously stations in the country that are too short and often have announcements saying something along the lines of 'Due to short platforms customers for A, B and C should travel in the front 4 coaches only' or whatever.

Those are all stations with two platforms and two lines, or something similar. Euston has 19 platforms which rapidly converge to just six lines. A traiin that's too long would foul loads of points. Also remember that the Caley sleepers split en route anyway, so you're just adding another complication to passengers.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

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

... Or problems that could occur between Euston and Willesden / Wembley...

 

[Eagle]

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

What problems could occur on the WLL that couldn't occur on the WCML?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I don't know any of this, but there's obviously stations in the country that are too short and often have announcements saying something along the lines of 'Due to short platforms customers for A, B and C should travel in the front 4 coaches only' or whatever.

Very few of those instances foul junctions...

 

[Eagle]

Well the Highland Sleeper currently leaves Euston at 2115 so I don't quite understand that. Plus I said 2130 anyway not 2230.

The Lowland sleeper and the Night Riviera both leave at midnight though.

 

[marks87]

Plus as another member said above you have to reverse twice which isn't practical.

There's a route from the WLL to the WCML without needing to reverse once, never mind twice.

Posted by Nym in another thread on this - http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=949118&postcount=51

 

[Eagle]

There's a route from the WLL to the WCML without needing to reverse once, never mind twice.

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.

 

[Jonny]

The transfer of the Cornish Riviera sleeper to Waterloo would probably cause more operational headaches than benefits, if the rolling stock remains allocated to Old Oak Common it would require two reversals just to reach Waterloo, at present the Cornish stock is a mere and simple direct sprint in to Paddington.

Old Oak Common - (reverse) - Acton Main Line - (reverse) -Acton Wells Junction - Willesden South West Sidings - Willesden Junction Low Level - West London Line - Latchmere Junction - Waterloo.

Exactly so. Plus Paddington is more convenient to the centre of London, around 5-10 minutes on the Tube to say Oxford Street etc. Waterloo may almost be double that.

Firstly, my understanding of London is that Waterloo is closer to a lot of things that Paddington is - in fact Paddington is quite a way out. Secondly, the stock need not be based at Old Oak Common (could even be Willesden?) - the OP also pointed out the Windsor Lines have access to Waterloo International so the Cornish Sleeper could reach the Eurostar platforms from the Windsor lines merely with a turn-off at Reading

 

[Eagle]

Firstly, my understanding of London is that Waterloo is closer to a lot of things that Paddington is - in fact Paddington is quite a way out. Secondly, the stock need not be based at Old Oak Common (could even be Willesden?) - the OP also pointed out the Windsor Lines have access to Waterloo International so the Cornish Sleeper could reach the Eurostar platforms from the Windsor lines merely with a turn-off at Reading

I was thinking that the Riviera would run via Acton Mainline and Kensington Olympia (like XC used to) myself...




Just in case all this discussion is a little hard to follow, here's a rough diagram (including the Riviera routes in grey).

 

[marks87]

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.

The mention of a double-reversal was at the end of a post about the Caledonian Sleeper, so I believe the confusion to be not mine, but instead DanTrainMan185's.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Economies of scale of a sleeper franchise? Maybe even with GW electrifcation you could run 92s, then have a diesel switchover at newbury/bristol.

Seems a good idea to me to be honest, as long as suitable solutions to traction are made ie, not having 25KV AC for first section of route.

 

[ushawk]

I think it would just be easier to run it direct from Waterloo to Reading via the Windsor lines rather than along the WLL - there cant be much difference with the journey times.

 

[ValleyLines142]

The mention of a double-reversal was at the end of a post about the Caledonian Sleeper, so I believe the confusion to be not mine, but instead DanTrainMan185's.

No, I was in fact referring to Eagle's post. I got my info wrong however.

Erm... what?

Don't worry - just see below instead (although I have to admit I do find your 'erm...what?' slightly patronising if I may say so, although I'm not getting into a debate about that). Eagle's diagram has made things a lot easier to explain

... Or problems that could occur between Euston and Willesden / Wembley...

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.

Just in case all this discussion is a little hard to follow, here's a rough diagram (including the Riviera routes in grey).

That picture is EXACTLY what I need! Okay, the new terminus is Waterloo, it needs to go past Latchmere Junction, Kensington Olympia and Willesden Junction, an extra journey time of 20-30 minutes to what you said Eagle, compared to what it is now. The current sleeper goes straight past Queens Park and up. So anything could happen between Waterloo and Willesden Junction, meaning delays, but then out of Euston you're straight out of London. In other words, Waterloo in south London has to obviously pass through to get to north London and out, whereas the current service doesn't have to do this instead. Hope this is better to understand.

 

[Eagle]

That picture is EXACTLY what I need! Okay, the new terminus is Waterloo, it needs to go past Latchmere Junction, Kensington Olympia and Willesden Junction, an extra journey time of 20-30 minutes to what you said Eagle, compared to what it is now. The current sleeper goes straight past Queens Park and up. So anything could happen between Waterloo and Willesden Junction, meaning delays, but then out of Euston you're straight out of London. In other words, Waterloo in south London has to obviously pass through to get to north London and out, whereas the current service doesn't have to do this instead. Hope this is better to understand.

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.

"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.


Your argument seems to hinge on the fact that the way out of Waterloo doesn't look very direct on a map, when that's a piddling concern given that it's a route hundreds of miles long.



Anyway, the route from the WCML to Waterloo is far less complex than the route from the ECML to Euston, which is used often when the sleeper is diverted.