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.

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.

I think that will be used to provide natural light to the new retail zone
beneath:

https://www.corstorphine-wright.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/D_Internal2.RGB_color_with-people.jpg

The bridge, of course, is sloped, as the new platforms and concourse are
about 5 feet higher than the old ones.

On 09/08/2017 21:08, 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.

I doubt there's a lot of difference between the actual platforms.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall wrote:
On 09/08/2017 21:08, 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.

I doubt there's a lot of difference between the actual platforms.

Presumably Adrian would prefer to arrive in the high numbered former
international platforms as they're in the extreme right wing of the
station?

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

In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 09:12:18 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 08:54:23 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:

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.

More reason to make responsibility for track and infrastructure part
of the franchise commitment. D(a)ft and Network Rail together are
worthless.

That's all very well until more than one company runs trains on the tracks,
especially freight companies.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article , (Tony
Dragon) wrote:

On 09/08/2017 18:13, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 15:10:45 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:36:34 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 09 Aug 2017 15:05:22 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 13:59:05 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:
If by on time you mean 9 years later than it should have been
completed due to incompetance, indifference and procrastination
then sure.

This complex project is bang on time, so far at least.

Complex compared to what? Certainly not any of the other rail
projects happening in London at the moment.

Blame someone else for the long gap between Eurostar's departure and

Network Rail are to blame.

No, NR doesn't have the independence, authority or budget to launch
huge speculative station and track redevelopments like that. The DfT
is in charge and holds the purse strings tightly. Perhaps it has
different priorities to you for its finite investment funds?

The eurostar terminal could have been used pretty much as was. All
they'd have had to install would be gates and departure boards
downstairs in the former eurostar concourse and the track was
already linked to the rest of the network.

The platforms were the wrong height. Moreover, the track layout and
signalling may not have been appropriate for domestic traffic.
But, you are correct, in that after the international service moved to
Saint Pancras, DfT and Network Rail should have been considering
re-utilizing the station.

IIRC the track layout gave access to only a couple of the lines out
of Waterloo, those that were used by Eurostar.

Eurostar's approach to Waterloo International from Linford St flyover was
essentially single track. Even with the alterations, trains from platforms
20-24 can only reach two of the eight tracks to Vauxhall. There was a plan
to fit an extra link in which would have given access to all 8 tracks but it
was cut to save money.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 2017\08\09 22:15, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 09/08/2017 21:08, 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.

I doubt there's a lot of difference between the actual platforms.


I'm not sure exactly what the difference is, except for the pretty roof.
But imagine that the east half of Victoria was tarted up, and they
decided to build a flyover so the Brighton lines could use it. Then
twenty years later the west half is tarted up to be nicer than the east
half, so they demolish the flyover. Then twenty years later they tart up
the east side again and rebuild the flyover. Even Michael Bell wouldn't
dream of advocating such a thing.

On 09/08/2017 22:29, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 09/08/2017 21:08, 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.

I doubt there's a lot of difference between the actual platforms.

Presumably Adrian would prefer to arrive in the high numbered former
international platforms as they're in the extreme right wing of the
station?


ROTFL

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Wed, 09 Aug 2017 18:13:20 +0100
e27002 aurora wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 15:10:45 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:
The eurostar terminal could have been used pretty much as was. All they'd
have had to install would be gates and departure boards downstairs in the
former eurostar concourse and the track was already linked to the rest of the
network.

The platforms were the wrong height. Moreover, the track layout and

I'll have to go back and see if they've raised them. It didn't look as though
they had when I went there on tuesday and lowering the track is obviously
not feasible.

signalling may not have been appropriate for domestic traffic.

Sure, they'd have had to install some points and redo signalling interlocking
but how long would that take at worst, 6 months?

But, you are correct, in that after the international service moved to
Saint Pancras, DfT and Network Rail should have been considering
re-utilizing the station.

Given the recent new rail projects given the go ahead one can only hope the
view of rail being a liability that seems to have been prevelant in the DfT
for years is slowly going by the wayside.

--
Spud