"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...

once you do away with customs, immigration
and insecurity. build a mezanine over the current
sunken area before the barrier line and have level
access to the platforms as per the rest of the station.

I suspect customs etc at Waterloo will be mothballed rather than removed,
because they will want somewhere to offload Johnny Foreigner if an incident
closes the Stratford / St Pancras line.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 21:37:06 -0000, "John Rowland"
wrote:

I suspect customs etc at Waterloo will be mothballed rather than removed,
because they will want somewhere to offload Johnny Foreigner if an incident
closes the Stratford / St Pancras line.

Kensington Olympia?

Neil

"John Rowland" wrote in
:

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...

once you do away with customs, immigration
and insecurity. build a mezanine over the current
sunken area before the barrier line and have level access to the
platforms as per the rest of the station.

I suspect customs etc at Waterloo will be mothballed rather than
removed, because they will want somewhere to offload Johnny Foreigner
if an incident closes the Stratford / St Pancras line.


Can't see this happening. The new line will have Ashford, Ebbsfleet and
Stratford for detraining is there is a problem at St. Pancras and I'd be
surprised if the 3rd rail capability of the 373's wasn't removed at the
first opportunity.

In message
"John Rowland" wrote:

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...

once you do away with customs, immigration
and insecurity. build a mezanine over the current
sunken area before the barrier line and have level
access to the platforms as per the rest of the station.

I suspect customs etc at Waterloo will be mothballed rather than removed,
because they will want somewhere to offload Johnny Foreigner if an incident
closes the Stratford / St Pancras line.


KO as now I would assume.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

"Peter Masson" wrote in message ...
"Alex Terrell" wrote in message
om...

My suggestion. Act now, build extended, 400m platforms at a few outer
London station (perhaps Surbiton and Staines), and use these to
consolidate 8 carriage trains into 16 carriage trains for the final
trip through London.

It would not be difficult to use these platforms for Windsor Line trains,
making it much less likely for any trains to have to queue up outside
Waterloo waiting for platforms. But that wonn't make use of the platform
length - it would probably be too expensive to extend any Windsor line
station to take 12x20m trains, let alone 16- or 20-car.

There could be a case for running 15x23m trains on the Southampton Main
Line, with platform extensions at, say, Woking, Basingstoke, Winchester,
Southampton Airport Parkway and Southampton Central. But to make use of the
long platforms at Waterloo, the Fast Lines on the SWML would have to cross
the Windsor Lines. I don't think there's room after the Chatham Line bridge
to get up to the Linford Street flyover, so it would mean something like
getting the Windsor Lines to dive under the Main Lines between Clapham
Junction and Culvert Road. The cost would be likely to get so many noughts
on it to destroy any business case.

I was thinking you only need ONE inbound extension on each route, e.g
Woking or Surbiton, and Staines. Use this to consolidate trains.

There's also the question of what to do with all the passenger accommodation
at Waterloo International, waiting rooms, immigration offices, etc. Would it
convert into a shopping mall? ;-)

Undoubtedly.

They also need to build a travelator through the terminal to speed up
commuter flows.

Peter

"Peter Masson" wrote in message ...
"Alex Terrell" wrote in message
om...

My suggestion. Act now, build extended, 400m platforms at a few outer
London station (perhaps Surbiton and Staines), and use these to
consolidate 8 carriage trains into 16 carriage trains for the final
trip through London.

It would not be difficult to use these platforms for Windsor Line trains,
making it much less likely for any trains to have to queue up outside
Waterloo waiting for platforms. But that wonn't make use of the platform
length - it would probably be too expensive to extend any Windsor line
station to take 12x20m trains, let alone 16- or 20-car.

Not to mention the fact that they still can't even run a full complement
of 8 car trains of the new stocks on the 3rd rail system because of power
supply issues.

B2003

It would not be difficult to use these platforms for Windsor Line trains,
making it much less likely for any trains to have to queue up outside
Waterloo waiting for platforms. But that wonn't make use of the platform
length - it would probably be too expensive to extend any Windsor line
station to take 12x20m trains, let alone 16- or 20-car.

Not to mention the fact that they still can't even run a full complement
of 8 car trains of the new stocks on the 3rd rail system because of power
supply issues.


Leaving aside the power supply issues, which will have to be resolved in any
event, why cannot 12-car or 16-car trains be run on the Windsor lines. What
law is there that EVERY car has to be accessible to each platform?

Why couldn't for example, a Reading train leaving Waterloo specify that only
the doors of the first 8 carriages will open at certain stations and the rear 8
carriages at the others?

This could not have happened with slam-door trains, but with controlled doors,
why can this not happen?

Those making the whole joruney could sit anywhere, and others would be
directed by signs to the correct part of the train for their station.

Marc.

In message , at 13:15:07
on Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Mait001 remarked:
Leaving aside the power supply issues, which will have to be resolved in any
event, why cannot 12-car or 16-car trains be run on the Windsor lines. What
law is there that EVERY car has to be accessible to each platform?

Why couldn't for example, a Reading train leaving Waterloo specify that only
the doors of the first 8 carriages will open at certain stations and the rear 8
carriages at the others?

This could not have happened with slam-door trains, but with controlled doors,
why can this not happen?

It seems that the trains have been incompetently specified or designed,
and not all of them will allow this feature.
--
Roland Perry

Mait001 wrote to uk.transport.london on Tue, 16 Nov 2004:

Why couldn't for example, a Reading train leaving Waterloo specify that only
the doors of the first 8 carriages will open at certain stations and the rear 8
carriages at the others?

At that, why could two stops at certain stations not be planned, with
the first 8 carriages, then another brief halt for the rear 8 carriages?
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 6 November 2004 with new photos

In message , Mrs Redboots
writes

Mait001 wrote to uk.transport.london on Tue, 16 Nov 2004:

Why couldn't for example, a Reading train leaving Waterloo specify
that only the doors of the first 8 carriages will open at certain
stations and the rear 8 carriages at the others?

At that, why could two stops at certain stations not be planned, with
the first 8 carriages, then another brief halt for the rear 8 carriages?

Both ideas need to consider the huge operational problems of the Windsor
lines through Barnes and Richmond - successive level crossings in an
urban area, stations abutting those crossings, Barnes station abutting
the Hounslow loop junction, frequent local stoppers to fit between the
fast services.

--
Paul Terry