Waterloo to be new Sleeper train hub?

[swt_passenger]

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)

They aren't actually GC and UK hybrid, according to the route engineering report. They are only 'hybrid' to the extent that they are connected to both routes, ie HS2 and the WCML, but they can only be used by domestic and 'classic compatible' trains.

For the 2 hybrid platforms, the track layout would connect to both the HS2 alignment towards Old Oak Common and the existing WCML towards Camden and Primrose Hill. These platforms would be 415m long and while they could not cater for “GC” trains, they would cater for classic compatible HS2 trains, as well as conventional UK size trains, including the existing sleeper services.
The hybrid platforms would add operational flexibility and robustness for service recovery from delays for both HS2 and classic services. They would also provide the only means of transferring trains between the HS2 and Classic networks at the London end of HS2. The connection would provide the opportunity for the late evening southbound HS2 hybrid trains to arrive from HS2, but go to the Willesden/ Wembley area for overnight stabling and maintenance (and vice-versa at the startup of service in the morning). This Wembley facility would not be available for “GC” HS2 trains. The ‘hybrid’ platforms would be 12m wide with a similar taper to 9m. Where platforms would be curved, a minimum curvature of 1,000m would be used.

http://highspeedrail.dft.gov.uk/sites/highspeedrail.dft.gov.uk/files/hs2-route-engineering.pdf

 

[bluenoxid]

I hear this thing about SWT using the train shed. As far as I am aware, the service eases around 1930 so easing two sleepers into a 25 platform or so station is not too hard when you consider the platform space available. I assume that with a standard formation, a Harrington Hump style rollout could add the height required to give access to the train.

 

[Eagle]

I hear this thing about SWT using the train shed. As far as I am aware, the service eases around 1930 so easing two sleepers into a 25 platform or so station is not too hard when you consider the platform space available. I assume that with a standard formation, a Harrington Hump style rollout could add the height required to give access to the train.

Basically you're saying that there will be space even if it shares platforms with SWT as it's after the evening peak. Of course, the flipside of that is you'd have to make sure the stock got out of Waterloo before 07.30 in the morning when SWT need the capacity again.

 

[David Goddard]

If there is a proposal to bring both the GW and Scottish sleepers together (eventually) then I would have thought that Paddington would be as good a terminal as any. The mainline platforms should become less busy once Crossrail starts, and so there should be space to accommodate the Highland service from 20:00 and the Edinburgh/Glasgow and Cornish sleepers from about 21:00.

All stock could be serviced at Old Oak Common, which should also have capacity released following the introduction of electric stock on the GWML.

Leaving from Paddington could also of course allow one of the Scottish services to be routed via Reading (Yes I might be biased there) and Birmingham, opening up new opportunities which may help the continuation of the sleepers for years to come.

 

[ValleyLines142]

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

I bet you do!

I wouldn't say concerned is the best word, there's nothing to be concerned about! Maybe I'm wrong yes, that's a better word!

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

I haven't stated anywhere in this thread where they couldn't.

Can you give reasons why you are sure of this?

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

I thought it was a different form of electric rail. I don't know the area around there so I'm not too sure, only basing my facts on what I've found out.

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

I wondered whether it would be transferred to another operator. Maybe not. That's fine

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

To get from Waterloo to the WCML involves going through London to go up north.

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

Thanks for that, very assuring (not)! Maybe I did but I'm only expressing my opinion, which is what everybody else does on here, much to their will

... 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.

Yes. I gathered this from the private message you sent me, which I have since followed. Thank you for the info

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

I wasn't 100% certain. I think I said something along the lines of 'Surely this would have to happen.....', which would imply that I don't know. So no, I wasn't certain. And that's that really

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

I shall indeed.

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?

Not at all. That's not what I was implying. I was saying that if the Sleeper does get transferred, then it has to do an extra 20-30 minutes to get to Waterloo, of which the route via the WLL could experience delays. As I said earlier, any line is prone to anything happening.

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

Apologies. I admittedly didn't explain this very well. I meant it has to meet up with the same route at some point along the way to get onto the WCML.

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

There isn't a big fuss at all. Never has been, never will be my dear friend

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"!

Because if there are delays along the WLL, it's frustrating because you haven't yet left London. You would think back to yourself 'Oh, if the Sleeper was still from Euston we could have been well on the way now' (unless of course there are delays). The delays would be all within the 20-30 minutes extra time which wouldn't be convenient at all.

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

There's nothing to be concerned about! But at least let's be civil about it, unlike some people on here!

 

[Eagle]

To get from Waterloo to the WCML involves going through London to go up north.

To get from Euston to the WCML involves going through London to go up north. As I said, stop thinking in terms of line names as it's completely irrelevant.

 

[ValleyLines142]

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

I'm aware of that but I didn't mention anything that sounded remotely similar to that of HS2.

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.

I have done some research. And if I'm wrong then I'm wrong. No big deal is there?

 

[Eagle]

Because if there are delays along the WLL, it's frustrating because you haven't yet left London.

If there are delays at Queen's Park, it's frustrating because you haven't yet left London. You might find yourself thinking "oh if only we were diverted round the WLL instead we could be past this disruption and out of London by now".


For the last time: there is no intrinsic difference between the two routes. Why can't you realize that, rather than using weird psychological arguments that confuse the bejesus out of all of us?

 

[ValleyLines142]

To get from Euston to the WCML involves going through London to go up north. As I said, stop thinking in terms of line names as it's completely irrelevant.

Yes, I do apologise. It leaves north London and then out. Of course, to Waterloo requires an extra 20-30 minutes as you say and delays would be even more frustrating when you haven't even left London.

 

[Eagle]

...delays would be even more frustrating when you haven't even left London.

Which route are you talking about? Either route could have a delay before you've left London.

And what the hell does customer frustration matter anyway? Customers don't care how long it takes to get past Watford, they only care about whether they'll wake up in Scotland or not.

 

[ValleyLines142]

If there are delays at Queen's Park, it's frustrating because you haven't yet left London. You might find yourself thinking "oh if only we were diverted round the WLL instead we could be past this disruption and out of London by now".


For the last time: there is no intrinsic difference between the two routes. Why can't you realize that, rather than using weird psychological arguments that confuse the bejesus out of all of us?

With the extra 30 minutes? If you say so.

I'm not saying there's a difference as such, just the extra journey times.

And I'm merely replying to Yorkie's comments, who sometimes takes things the wrong way and I'm just trying to assure him what I mean.

Which route are you talking about? Either route could have a delay before you've left London.

It really doesn't matter now. I've said it several times

 

[Eagle]

I'm not saying there's a difference as such, just the extra journey times.

For the last time, it's a sleeper, who cares about the journey time as long as it takes one night?

Passengers want to get on a train in London, fall asleep, not give a crap about where their train may or may not be at any time while they're asleep, just as long as they can wake up at their destination at a sensible hour.

 

[ValleyLines142]

For the last time, it's a sleeper, who cares about the journey time as long as it takes one night?

I don't. Just wondered whether others do. We can't just agree for the whole country. Others may have an opinion (like I do).

 

[Eagle]

I don't. Just wondered whether others do. We can't just agree for the whole country. Others may have an opinion (like I do).

Yes, because it's so frustrating when you're stuck in London, much more so than being stuck in Crewe, or Preston, or Carstairs. And so frustrating that the train might be a little slow off the mark even though it's still highly likely to get to its destination on time due to recovery padding. :P:P

 

[ValleyLines142]

Yes, because it's so frustrating when you're stuck in London, much more so than being stuck in Crewe, or Preston, or Carstairs. And so frustrating that the train might be a little slow off the mark even though it's still highly likely to get to its destination on time due to recovery padding. :P:P

If that's the case then that's brilliant!

 

[tbtc]

I have done some research

Good.

To reiterate, you could leave London at midnight and arrive in Edinburgh at half three in the morning (with there being no other trains on the line). Maybe with HS2 you could arrive even earlier...

But, what would the point be of arriving that early? People don't want to wake up/ disembark until closer to eight in the morning.

So the Sleeper will remain a relatively slow way of travelling, partly because it's designed for those wanting/needing eight hours sleep overnight. If they want "urgent" they'd fly.

Given the diversions it can/has taken (e.g. through Birmingham New Street/ Northampton, up the ECML), an extra few minutes to get to Waterloo (vs Euston) won't matter much. If they were that bothered about problems in London they'd terminate it at Watford (which is clearly a silly idea).

 

[ValleyLines142]

Good.

To reiterate, you could leave London at midnight and arrive in Edinburgh at half three in the morning (with there being no other trains on the line). Maybe with HS2 you could arrive even earlier...

But, what would the point be of arriving that early? People don't want to wake up/ disembark until closer to eight in the morning.

So the Sleeper will remain a relatively slow way of travelling, partly because it's designed for those wanting/needing eight hours sleep overnight. If they want "urgent" they'd fly.

Given the diversions it can/has taken (e.g. through Birmingham New Street/ Northampton, up the ECML), an extra few minutes to get to Waterloo (vs Euston) won't matter much. If they were that bothered about problems in London they'd terminate it at Watford (which is clearly a silly idea).

I understand that. I suppose it could take diversions along places between Scotland and London, not in London itself.

 

[Eagle]

I understand that. I suppose it could take diversions along places between Scotland and London, not in London itself.

Why, what's the difference?

 

[ValleyLines142]

Why, what's the difference?

Some places maybe less busier than the paths through London maybe? I don't know. Genuinely. That's why I've always wondered whether paths would be available for the Sleeper to go through to Waterloo.

 

[Eagle]

Some places maybe less busier than the paths through London maybe? I don't know. Genuinely.

It's the middle of the night, nowhere is busy. If you're really unlucky you might get held up a bit behind a freight train on a two-track section, but that could happen anywhere.

 

[ValleyLines142]

It's the middle of the night, nowhere is busy.

Are you implying that there's no trains in the night? Because that isn't the case. London has a 24-hour service on First Capital Connect and Southern routes, and South West Trains run a near 24-hour service too, albeit not as frequent as the day, but even so.

 

[Eagle]

Are you implying that there's no trains in the night?

No, I'm saying the network is nowhere near full to capacity at these times of night. There are trains, just far less of them. Ergo, the paths are clearer.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Are you implying that there's no trains in the night? Because that isn't the case. London has a 24-hour service on First Capital Connect and Southern routes, and South West Trains run a near 24-hour service too, albeit not as frequent as the day, but even so.

Yes, but that wouldn't create any significant amount of traffic. Further, all bar SWT between Clapham Jn and Waterloo wouldn't affect any Sleeper at all.

 

[ValleyLines142]

Yes, but that wouldn't create any significant amount of traffic. Further, all bar SWT between Clapham Jn and Waterloo wouldn't affect any Sleeper at all.

How certain are you of this? And do you have evidence to prove this?

 

[yorkie]

Are you implying that there's no trains in the night? Because that isn't the case. London has a 24-hour service on First Capital Connect and Southern routes, and South West Trains run a near 24-hour service too, albeit not as frequent as the day, but even so.

What are you implying?

If you are implying there are no paths between Waterloo and Clapham then I can counter that by saying I am sure there are plenty of paths around 2100-2300 given that there are far less trains at that time than there are at peak times.

 

[Furrball]

Paths in the morning might be more of an issue though?

 

[ValleyLines142]

What are you implying?

If you are implying there are no paths between Waterloo and Clapham then I can counter that by saying I am sure there are plenty of paths around 2100-2300 given that there are far less trains at that time than there are at peak times.

I'm not implying that there aren't paths AT ALL between Clapham and Waterloo but I wondered whether it'd be more difficult, as Clapham feeds to two of London's busiest termini. I'm not implying it's completely impossible

 

[tbtc]

all bar SWT between Clapham Jn and Waterloo wouldn't affect any Sleeper at all.

How certain are you of this? And do you have evidence to prove this?

There are eight tracks on that section IIRC.

If there are no spare paths on an eight track railway at ten/eleven o'clock at night then I despair...

(the only problem would be the morning arrival)

This thread is confusing me, I started off being against the idea of the sleepers moving to Waterloo (because SWT could use the platforms much more efficiently, and I don't think that the sleepers will be around in the next twenty years because they are quite an expensive old-fashioned way of travelling in a congested railway), and I've ended up defending the move... funny how things go over dozens of posts...

 

[Eagle]

...as Clapham feeds to two of London's busiest termini.

Not quite true, the sleeper would turn off before it got to Clapham. Its route doesn't meet the Victoria–Clapham tracks at any point (although it dives under them). So it's only Waterloo services you need to path it around.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I'm not implying that there aren't paths AT ALL between Clapham and Waterloo but I wondered whether it'd be more difficult, as Clapham feeds to two of London's busiest termini. I'm not implying it's completely impossible

The Victoria lines and platforms at CLJ are totally separate from where the WLL joins heading to Waterloo, it is impossible for them to conflict each other.