On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 09:47:12 -0000, Solar Penguin wrote:

--- Colin Rosenstiel said:

(Theo Markettos) wrote:

What were platforms 20-24 used for before construction of the
Eurostar terminal?

There were only 2 platforms, 20 and 21. There were also some
sidings and the lift used for access to the Waterloo and City Line.


Are you sure? IIRC there were for platforms (18-21) but when they were
demolished, two new Southampton line platforms were opened up in the
centre of the station, to make up for it, and the Windsor lines --
including the platform numbers -- were shifted along to make room. (I'm
not putting this into words very well, but it makes sense if you think
about it.)

What we really need is someone like Clive to popup with an ASCII
diagram of before and after.

David

In article ,
Solar Penguin wrote:

Are you sure? IIRC there were for platforms (18-21) but when they were
demolished, two new Southampton line platforms were opened up in the
centre of the station, to make up for it, and the Windsor lines --
including the platform numbers -- were shifted along to make room. (I'm
not putting this into words very well, but it makes sense if you think
about it.)

There were at least four platforms - two side ones (with a wall between
them and the new trainshed, I presume the same wall that's still there
now) and one island platform. Like the E* platforms today, the outer
parts were on quite a curve, and bore the painted markings "MIND THE GAP".

I always wanted to alter it to "MIND THE HAP" and photograph one of the
nx2HAPs which frequented that side for many years.

Nick
--
http://www.leverton.org/ ... So express yourself ...

"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.

But it would be great for each platform to take two 8x65' trains. That
way, 5 (maybe 6) trains could be stored between rush hours.

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.

Or there's that little flyover that used to exist in Putney...

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? ;-)

Especially if they forcibly redeploy the customs officers as sales
assistants :-D

Alex Terrell wrote to uk.transport.london on Mon, 15 Nov 2004:

The Daily Telegraph reports that Eurostar will quit Waterloo in 2007.

I think this is a good idea. Even from Waterloo, it would be quicket
to take the tube to St Pancras and then take a fast Eurostar.

I wish I could agree with you. From where I live, in South London, it
was easy to get a bus to Waterloo - much easier, with luggage, than
faffing about on the Tube. Okay, Northern Line to Waterloo and Vicky
line to KingsX/St P are probably about the same in terms of time, but,
dammit, trains from Waterloo go on lines I use and know.... the trains
even go through Brixton Station! It won't be at all the same when they
have their dedicated track.
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 6 November 2004 with new photos

A great shame trains are not going to run into Waterloo. For an extra
journey time of 20 mins the benefits are more then made up when you
consider the extra amount of time it will take to get to St Pancras.
When completed St Pancras will be a superb building, but to withdraw
service from Waterloo could potentially lead to lost revenue as people
from South West London decide on Heathrow as an easier option.

In terms of Waterloo International, I am sure all the vacated space
from Eurostar will be filled up by retail developments.

In terms of trains, it would be ideal terminus if a link was ever
built into Heathrow Airport, much more convenient then Padddington and
in the middle of London to boot. With the numbers using a Heathrow it
is an option that should not be dismissed,indeed it could run via the
West London line and on to Paddington that way

In terms of North Pole how about use as the Crossrail depot, may save
the cost of building a depot at Romford and reduce costs on the
scheme.

Martin


Mrs Redboots wrote in message ...
Alex Terrell wrote to uk.transport.london on Mon, 15 Nov 2004:

The Daily Telegraph reports that Eurostar will quit Waterloo in 2007.

I think this is a good idea. Even from Waterloo, it would be quicket
to take the tube to St Pancras and then take a fast Eurostar.

I wish I could agree with you. From where I live, in South London, it
was easy to get a bus to Waterloo - much easier, with luggage, than
faffing about on the Tube. Okay, Northern Line to Waterloo and Vicky
line to KingsX/St P are probably about the same in terms of time, but,
dammit, trains from Waterloo go on lines I use and know.... the trains
even go through Brixton Station! It won't be at all the same when they
have their dedicated track.

Martin Whelton wrote:

A great shame trains are not going to run into Waterloo. For an extra
journey time of 20 mins the benefits are more then made up when you
consider the extra amount of time it will take to get to St Pancras.
When completed St Pancras will be a superb building, but to withdraw
service from Waterloo could potentially lead to lost revenue as people
from South West London decide on Heathrow as an easier option.

Yes, the railways may lose a small amount of revenue by closing
Waterloo International. But the additional cost of maintaining and
serving two international terminal stations in London would be far
higher than the revenue that will be lost from the few passengers who
will defect to air travel or other means.

It is about the best use of limited resources. Most passengers will be
content to use SPI or Stratford or Ebbsfleet or Ashford for their
Eurostar travels, and while it would be more convenient for some
passengers if trains did continue to serve Waterloo, there is no
justifiable case for doing so.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

"Stevie D" wrote in message
news
Martin Whelton wrote:

A great shame trains are not going to run into Waterloo. For an extra
journey time of 20 mins the benefits are more then made up when you
consider the extra amount of time it will take to get to St Pancras.
When completed St Pancras will be a superb building, but to withdraw
service from Waterloo could potentially lead to lost revenue as people
from South West London decide on Heathrow as an easier option.

Yes, the railways may lose a small amount of revenue by closing
Waterloo International. But the additional cost of maintaining and
serving two international terminal stations in London would be far
higher than the revenue that will be lost from the few passengers who
will defect to air travel or other means.

It is about the best use of limited resources. Most passengers will be
content to use SPI or Stratford or Ebbsfleet or Ashford for their
Eurostar travels, and while it would be more convenient for some
passengers if trains did continue to serve Waterloo, there is no
justifiable case for doing so.

Your argument defies logic; how can it be demonstrated that there are not
enough resources to maintain services to Waterloo and yet open not one but
three new station to replace it? I don't know where E* passengers originate
from but it is a good bet that a large proportion of them are in direct rail
communication with Waterloo. It is these passengers who, if there is a
regional airport close by, will desert E* simply because their current
relatively seamless journey would be extended by at least half an hour and
involve enduring travel on one of the worst underground lines.
There is another matter which has not been noted in this discussion large
sums have been invested in infrastructure to get E* to Waterloo the most
recent being the relaying of the line on the Gravesend West branch to
Longfield and the burrowing junction at Shortlands. Whilst the latter has a
general use why should the other capital investments be wasted?
MJW

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004, Stevie D wrote:

Yes, the railways may lose a small amount of revenue by closing
Waterloo International. But the additional cost of maintaining and
serving two international terminal stations in London would be far
higher than the revenue that will be lost from the few passengers who
will defect to air travel or other means.

I don't see it quite that way. They're opening two new intermediate
stations, after all: they clearly feel they can "afford" the cost of
running those.

Surely the key point is that the Waterloo route has no sensible access
to 25kV overhead power, let alone to the high-speed line? So they'd
be stuck with the existing third-rail infrastructure as far as Fawkham
Junction, which, in spite of past upgrades, still leaves E* trains
under-powered.

Nevertheless, if you search the web you find lots of places where it's
reported that some E* traffic to/from Waterloo will be maintained.
So if it's true that E* is going to totally abandon Waterloo, either
someone has been telling porkies in the past, or the intentions have
changed.

Some improvements in connecting services would be most welcome. But
the past record of joined-up thinking in this land does not exactly
fill me with hope.

all the best

In message . ac.uk,
Alan J. Flavell writes

Nevertheless, if you search the web you find lots of places where it's
reported that some E* traffic to/from Waterloo will be maintained.
So if it's true that E* is going to totally abandon Waterloo, either
someone has been telling porkies in the past, or the intentions have
changed.

The whole reason why this thread started is because Eurostar announced
last week that they have finally decided to totally abandon any facility
at Waterloo!

--
Paul Terry

(Alex Terrell) wrote in message . com...
Considerable debate took place over whether to change the station's
name because the fourth-century saint sparked little recognition among
the French and Belgians but St Pancras was a widely known name in
Britain.


Maybe Brits think that because in France they spell his name
'Pancrace' - there is a district of Nice called St-Pancrace that I
know personally, and a quick Google reveals places or districts named
after him in the Dordogne (near Brantôme), Rouen, the Alps, Provence,
in fact there are dozens all over France - more than in England! I
would not exactly call that "little recogised".