In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at 13:07:05 on Wed, 9 Aug
2017, Basil Jet remarked:

They've moved the buffer stops by 50m, so there will still be room
for 2x8 car trains.

They've moved the trains 50 metres further from the tubes / buses /
taxis? Why?

DfT's keep-fit fanatic has moved his attention to Waterloo, given his
huge success at St Pancras and Kings Cross.

Given we had to walk from KGX platform 0 to St Pancras Eurostar departures
in the rain, having to register a railcard on an Oyster card on the way, our
walking distance was surprisingly short and entirely dry.

Just took two attempts at the card registration. Not only does the old main
Kings Cross St Pancras Underground ticket hall with its huge bank of
machines only have one person supporting it but he didn't have his requisite
card to log in to do the registration. So he sent us to the Western ticket
hall, not a problem today as it's on the way to Eurostar in the dry. There
were four staff there, even though it has fewer machines, one of whom was
able to do the registration quickly enough.

It also helped that we took the 1417 from Cambridge, at least half an hour
earlier than necessary and it arrived an unprecedented 5 1/4 minutes early.

So here we are waiting for our train, having got through security & passport
control more than an hour before our train departure.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

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.

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

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.

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

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.

In message , at 18:13:20 on
Wed, 9 Aug 2017, e27002 aurora remarked:

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.

They were, but it took a while for them to decide.
--
Roland Perry

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.


Who actually owned it?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

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.

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

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

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.