On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 09/08/2017 18:13, e27002 aurora wrote:
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.


Who actually owned it?

British Railways Board after it closed. Don't know who owned it when it was
in service. However if network rail had asked to take it off their hands back
in 2007 I doubt there would have been too many objections.

--
Spud

In uk.railway Basil Jet wrote:
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.

Losing the flyover would enable reinstatement of an 8th track through
Queenstown Road (where it goes from 8 down to 7 to accommodate it, then 8
once the flyover has merged). I don't know enough about the (complex) track
layout and platforming to know if that would give any useful increase in
capacity.

If the infrastructure elsewhere limits trains to ~240m long, there's no
advantage for anyone from the much longer platforms to be had.
(is there any realistic prospect of longer trains out of any part of
Waterloo?)

Theo

On 10/08/2017 09:34, d wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 09/08/2017 18:13, e27002 aurora wrote:
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.


Who actually owned it?

British Railways Board after it closed. Don't know who owned it when it was
in service. However if network rail had asked to take it off their hands back
in 2007 I doubt there would have been too many objections.


There was for a while an idea that E* could use both terminals. Not
sure who dreamt that one up, possibly a southern edition of M Bell
(Tyneside) Ltd.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 10/08/2017 09:34, d wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 09/08/2017 18:13, e27002 aurora wrote:
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.


Who actually owned it?

British Railways Board after it closed. Don't know who owned it when it was
in service. However if network rail had asked to take it off their hands back
in 2007 I doubt there would have been too many objections.


There was for a while an idea that E* could use both terminals. Not
sure who dreamt that one up, possibly a southern edition of M Bell
(Tyneside) Ltd.

There was probably a reasonable argument to keep Waterloo in service for a
while after St P opened in case of teething problems either at the station
or on HS1 but I suppose the cost would have been prohibitive.o

--
Spud

On 10/08/2017 12:27, d wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 10/08/2017 09:34, d wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 09/08/2017 18:13, e27002 aurora wrote:
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.


Who actually owned it?

British Railways Board after it closed. Don't know who owned it when it was
in service. However if network rail had asked to take it off their hands back
in 2007 I doubt there would have been too many objections.


There was for a while an idea that E* could use both terminals. Not
sure who dreamt that one up, possibly a southern edition of M Bell
(Tyneside) Ltd.

There was probably a reasonable argument to keep Waterloo in service for a
while after St P opened in case of teething problems either at the station
or on HS1 but I suppose the cost would have been prohibitive.o


It effectively was while HS1 was still in its testing phase but there
were proposals that it would be a good idea to continue a passenger
service into Waterloo for those who found the UndergrounD too exotic.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 2017\08\10 12:53, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 10/08/2017 12:27, d wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:

There was for a while an idea that E* could use both terminals. Not
sure who dreamt that one up, possibly a southern edition of M Bell
(Tyneside) Ltd.

There was probably a reasonable argument to keep Waterloo in service
for a
while after St P opened in case of teething problems either at the
station
or on HS1 but I suppose the cost would have been prohibitive.o

It effectively was while HS1 was still in its testing phase but there
were proposals that it would be a good idea to continue a passenger
service into Waterloo for those who found the UndergrounD too exotic.

I think it was only ever a sop to stop South Londoners complaining about
ending up on the wrong side of the river again, even for Europe.

On 10/08/2017 13:05, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\08\10 12:53, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 10/08/2017 12:27, d wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:

There was for a while an idea that E* could use both terminals. Not
sure who dreamt that one up, possibly a southern edition of M Bell
(Tyneside) Ltd.

There was probably a reasonable argument to keep Waterloo in service
for a
while after St P opened in case of teething problems either at the
station
or on HS1 but I suppose the cost would have been prohibitive.o

It effectively was while HS1 was still in its testing phase but there
were proposals that it would be a good idea to continue a passenger
service into Waterloo for those who found the UndergrounD too exotic.

I think it was only ever a sop to stop South Londoners complaining about
ending up on the wrong side of the river again, even for Europe.

Anybody coming in from SWT territory got no advantage from the switch as
the saving in international journey time was neatly cancelled out by the
journey from Waterloo to SPI, which also involved an extra two changes.
So it wasn't the South Londoners so much as the whole of the Wessex
region that was complaining :-)

Conversely, of course, those from north of the Watford Gap got to spend
as little time as possible in the hated London area, source of all their
misfortunes (@M Bell).

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message , at 14:54:30 on Thu, 10 Aug
2017, Graeme Wall remarked:
On 10/08/2017 13:05, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\08\10 12:53, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 10/08/2017 12:27, d wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:

There was for a while an idea that E* could use both terminals. Not
sure who dreamt that one up, possibly a southern edition of M Bell
(Tyneside) Ltd.

There was probably a reasonable argument to keep Waterloo in
service for a
while after St P opened in case of teething problems either at the
station
or on HS1 but I suppose the cost would have been prohibitive.o

It effectively was while HS1 was still in its testing phase but
there were proposals that it would be a good idea to continue a
passenger service into Waterloo for those who found the UndergrounD
too exotic.
I think it was only ever a sop to stop South Londoners complaining
about ending up on the wrong side of the river again, even for Europe.

Anybody coming in from SWT territory got no advantage from the switch
as the saving in international journey time was neatly cancelled out by
the journey from Waterloo to SPI, which also involved an extra two
changes.

Cross platform at Oxford Circus is pretty trivial.

Probably quicker to switch to the Victoria Line at Vauxhall, in
practice.

--
Roland Perry

On 10/08/2017 15:15, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:54:30 on Thu, 10 Aug
2017, Graeme Wall remarked:
On 10/08/2017 13:05, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\08\10 12:53, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 10/08/2017 12:27, d wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:

There was for a while an idea that E* could use both terminals. Not
sure who dreamt that one up, possibly a southern edition of M Bell
(Tyneside) Ltd.

There was probably a reasonable argument to keep Waterloo in
service for a
while after St P opened in case of teething problems either at the
station
or on HS1 but I suppose the cost would have been prohibitive.o

It effectively was while HS1 was still in its testing phase but
there were proposals that it would be a good idea to continue a
passenger service into Waterloo for those who found the UndergrounD
too exotic.
I think it was only ever a sop to stop South Londoners complaining
about ending up on the wrong side of the river again, even for Europe.

Anybody coming in from SWT territory got no advantage from the switch
as the saving in international journey time was neatly cancelled out
by the journey from Waterloo to SPI, which also involved an extra two
changes.

Cross platform at Oxford Circus is pretty trivial.

Probably quicker to switch to the Victoria Line at Vauxhall, in practice.


Not when you are coming in from, eg, Southampton.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message , at 15:50:03 on Thu, 10 Aug
2017, Graeme Wall remarked:

Anybody coming in from SWT territory got no advantage from the
switch as the saving in international journey time was neatly
cancelled out by the journey from Waterloo to SPI, which also
involved an extra two changes.

Cross platform at Oxford Circus is pretty trivial.
Probably quicker to switch to the Victoria Line at Vauxhall, in
practice.

Not when you are coming in from, eg, Southampton.

I'm not going to let pax from 2tph upset the general idea.
--
Roland Perry