On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 21:08:42 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2017\08\09 17:59, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 20:50:43 +0100, Graham Murray
wrote:

e27002 aurora writes:

The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
passengers.

Why? Before the Waterloo International conversion, the Windsor line
services always used the high numbered platforms.

IMHO it makes more sense for the longer distance, higher fare paying
passengers, to come into the more modern, better appointed facility.
There may also be opportunities for further platform and train
lengthening. Clearly opinions vary.

I think that is the maddest suggestion I've ever seen here. Surely it
would be better value for money to leave the flyover alone and renovate
the low numbered platforms up to the quality of the international
platforms, so that all passengers would have a high quality terminal.

Mr. Brush, you have been told a million times not to exaggerate. :-)

In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
passengers.

The Nine Elms flyover is being pressed into service for Southeastern trains
after the Waterloo blockade.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote:
In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
passengers.

The Nine Elms flyover is being pressed into service for Southeastern trains
after the Waterloo blockade.

Yes, I was intrigued by that: has it been used for service trains since
Eurostar decamped for SPIL?

On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 19:42:39 -0500,
wrote:

In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
passengers.

The Nine Elms flyover is being pressed into service for Southeastern trains
after the Waterloo blockade.

One must ask why? South-eastern commuters can already access
Victoria, Charing Cross, Waterloo East, Canon Street, London Bridge,
and Saint Pancras. Isn't that enough?! Do they really need access to
the SW side of Waterloo?

On 09/08/2017 18:02, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 19:42:39 -0500,
wrote:

In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
passengers.

The Nine Elms flyover is being pressed into service for Southeastern trains
after the Waterloo blockade.

One must ask why? South-eastern commuters can already access
Victoria, Charing Cross, Waterloo East, Canon Street, London Bridge,
and Saint Pancras. Isn't that enough?! Do they really need access to
the SW side of Waterloo?


IIRC they are only using Waterloo because of the London Bridge work.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Tony Dragon wrote:
On 09/08/2017 18:02, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 19:42:39 -0500,
wrote:

In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
passengers.

The Nine Elms flyover is being pressed into service for Southeastern trains
after the Waterloo blockade.

One must ask why? South-eastern commuters can already access
Victoria, Charing Cross, Waterloo East, Canon Street, London Bridge,
and Saint Pancras. Isn't that enough?! Do they really need access to
the SW side of Waterloo?


IIRC they are only using Waterloo because of the London Bridge work.

And only for a week, I think.

In article , (Tony
Dragon) wrote:

On 09/08/2017 18:02, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 19:42:39 -0500,
wrote:

The Nine Elms flyover is being pressed into service for Southeastern
trains after the Waterloo blockade.

One must ask why? South-eastern commuters can already access
Victoria, Charing Cross, Waterloo East, Canon Street, London Bridge,
and Saint Pancras. Isn't that enough?! Do they really need access to
the SW side of Waterloo?

IIRC they are only using Waterloo because of the London Bridge work.

Indeed. Southeastern tweeted just that earlier today. Only some are being
diverted to Waterloo. others are going to Victoria and elsewhere.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 18:00:39 +0100
e27002 aurora wrote:
On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 13:57:53 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

Wandered down to the refurbished platforms at waterloo international at
lunchtime which are now opened for suburban trains (for the time being). So
in ten years they've managed to reduce the length of the platforms to provide
a concourse, built a temporary bridge to the main concourse and put some
destination boards up.

Well I'm impressed. To think in the same time period the chinese have only
managed to build half a dozen new cities + infrastructure. Amateurs.

The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
passengers.

And surely the "hole" in the main concourse should have been covered,
rather than build a new remote concourse.

The best part is that in building this new concourse they've had to drastically
shorten all but one of the platforms there so scuppering any possibility of
stabling two 8 car trains in them. There was plenty of room down below where
the old eurostar concourse and waiting areas were, but no, thats not in use
any more. No doubt it'll just be more shops in 5-10 years time when they finally
get around to finishing the project.

--
Spud

wrote:
On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 18:00:39 +0100
e27002 aurora wrote:
On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 13:57:53 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

Wandered down to the refurbished platforms at waterloo international at
lunchtime which are now opened for suburban trains (for the time being). So
in ten years they've managed to reduce the length of the platforms to provide
a concourse, built a temporary bridge to the main concourse and put some
destination boards up.

Well I'm impressed. To think in the same time period the chinese have only
managed to build half a dozen new cities + infrastructure. Amateurs.

The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
passengers.

And surely the "hole" in the main concourse should have been covered,
rather than build a new remote concourse.

The best part is that in building this new concourse they've had to drastically
shorten all but one of the platforms there so scuppering any possibility of
stabling two 8 car trains in them.

Is that meant to be fact, or just opinion?

There was plenty of room down below where
the old eurostar concourse and waiting areas were, but no, thats not in use
any more. No doubt it'll just be more shops in 5-10 years time when they finally
get around to finishing the project.

How long do you think it is since this project started? How long will the
project take, from start to finish?

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 08:54:23 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
And surely the "hole" in the main concourse should have been covered,
rather than build a new remote concourse.

The best part is that in building this new concourse they've had to
drastically
shorten all but one of the platforms there so scuppering any possibility of
stabling two 8 car trains in them.

Is that meant to be fact, or just opinion?

A eurostar is approx 400m long. An 8 car 3rd rail EMU is 8*20 = 160m. x2 gives
320m. I'd have thought even you could have managed that maths. However now
they've lopped a considerable amount off the length of the platforms I doubt
two 8 cars would fit.

As for stabling 2 trains in the same platform - it happens elsewhere on the
network, why not at waterloo? Are you saying waterloo is somehow special?

There was plenty of room down below where
the old eurostar concourse and waiting areas were, but no, thats not in use
any more. No doubt it'll just be more shops in 5-10 years time when they
finally
get around to finishing the project.

How long do you think it is since this project started? How long will the
project take, from start to finish?

Well its taken BRB & NR 10 years to get this far, and its been over a year
since building work actually started for them to do frankly not very much.
I have little confidence the refurbishment of the 2 floors below will be
finished anytime soon.

--
Spud