Henry wrote:

[W&C]

I've long thought it should be extended to Vauxhall and possibly
Clapham
Junction, to spread the load a bit. There was a discussion about that
here
a long time ago, and I've forgotten why it turned out to be a bad
idea.

Can't see much advantage in connecting the W&C and Victoria, though...


The problem with the W&C is that, because of the short trains, it can
get horrendously overcrowded in the peaks (with queues up the ramps at
Waterloo).
This isn't too bad if everyone gets on at one end and gets off at the
other, but if you had an intermediate station, you'd be packing people
onto already full trains with very few getting off.
The only fix would be to extend the platforms at both stations to fit
proper length trains of 7 or 8 cars.

Spyke wrote:
Henry wrote:

[W&C]

I've long thought it should be extended to Vauxhall and possibly
Clapham
Junction, to spread the load a bit. There was a discussion about that
here
a long time ago, and I've forgotten why it turned out to be a bad
idea.
....

The problem with the W&C is that, because of the short trains, it can
get horrendously overcrowded in the peaks (with queues up the ramps at
Waterloo).
This isn't too bad if everyone gets on at one end and gets off at the
other, but if you had an intermediate station, you'd be packing people
onto already full trains with very few getting off.

I like the idea of "stopping" and "fast" services
on the W&C!

More deviously, what about running just Bank-Vauxhall(direct) and
Bank-Waterloo only? Would there be sufficient capacity to
turn more trains at Bank?

The only fix would be to extend the platforms at both stations to fit
proper length trains of 7 or 8 cars.

That would certainly improve the capacity of the line overall.
I'm just wondering whether there could be benefits elsewhere
from separating out suburban and long-distance rail users before
they reach Waterloo.

Hth

Henry

On May 3, 10:48 pm, Henry wrote:
Spyke wrote:
Henry wrote:

[W&C]

I've long thought it should be extended to Vauxhall and possibly
Clapham
Junction, to spread the load a bit. There was a discussion about that
here
a long time ago, and I've forgotten why it turned out to be a bad
idea.
...

The problem with the W&C is that, because of the short trains, it can
get horrendously overcrowded in the peaks (with queues up the ramps at
Waterloo).
This isn't too bad if everyone gets on at one end and gets off at the
other, but if you had an intermediate station, you'd be packing people
onto already full trains with very few getting off.

I like the idea of "stopping" and "fast" services
on the W&C!

More deviously, what about running just Bank-Vauxhall(direct) and
Bank-Waterloo only? Would there be sufficient capacity to
turn more trains at Bank?

The only fix would be to extend the platforms at both stations to fit
proper length trains of 7 or 8 cars.

That would certainly improve the capacity of the line overall.
I'm just wondering whether there could be benefits elsewhere
from separating out suburban and long-distance rail users before
they reach Waterloo.

Hth

Henry-



There are problems with this, to put it mildly. Firstly, the Waterloo
and City didn't have any other tube lines to connect with when it was
built, because it connected the LSWR with the City, for which reason
it comes pretty much to the surface at both ends and would have to
tunnel down again through significant obstructions.

Secondly, it doesn't point anywhere vaguely in the direction of
Vauxhall. It actually points towards Elephant and Castle, so there
would have to be a big loop.

"MIG" wrote in message
oups.com...


More deviously, what about running just Bank-Vauxhall(direct) and
Bank-Waterloo only? Would there be sufficient capacity to
turn more trains at Bank?


There are problems with this, to put it mildly. Firstly, the Waterloo
and City didn't have any other tube lines to connect with when it was
built, because it connected the LSWR with the City, for which reason
it comes pretty much to the surface at both ends and would have to
tunnel down again through significant obstructions.


What sort of depth are the Waterloo platforms at, wrt the outside ground
level - presumably they are only just underneath the station undercroft, at
approximately cut and cover level compared to the outside streets?

Paul

In message , Paul Scott
writes

What sort of depth are the Waterloo platforms at, wrt the outside ground
level - presumably they are only just underneath the station undercroft, at
approximately cut and cover level compared to the outside streets?

Yes. In fact you can see the lines in the depot from the street on the
south side of the station - about 20 feet below ground level, I's say.
--
Paul Terry

MIG wrote:

There are problems with this, to put it mildly. Firstly, the Waterloo
and City didn't have any other tube lines to connect with when it was
built, because it connected the LSWR with the City, for which reason
it comes pretty much to the surface at both ends and would have to
tunnel down again through significant obstructions.

Secondly, it doesn't point anywhere vaguely in the direction of
Vauxhall. It actually points towards Elephant and Castle, so there
would have to be a big loop.


Wonder if it would be possible to branch off before the track goes up to
Waterloo and build new tunnels towards Vauxhall. As I have understood it
the W&C Line goes under Stamford Road up to the IMAX Cinema and then
goes up under the Waterloo mainline station so it might be possible as I
can see to branch off under or right before the IMAX.

That would leave the line with two branches of course with trains
running either Bank - Waterloo and Bank - Vauxhall but would that
necessarily be a problem? For such a line I don't think so. I think the
trains would be filled anyway and that not many people getting on at
Vauxhall would find it useful to be able to get off at Waterloo anyway.

--
Olof Lagerkvist
ICQ: 724451
Web: http://here.is/olof

On May 4, 11:52 am, Olof Lagerkvist wrote:
MIG wrote:
There are problems with this, to put it mildly. Firstly, the Waterloo
and City didn't have any other tube lines to connect with when it was
built, because it connected the LSWR with the City, for which reason
it comes pretty much to the surface at both ends and would have to
tunnel down again through significant obstructions.

Secondly, it doesn't point anywhere vaguely in the direction of
Vauxhall. It actually points towards Elephant and Castle, so there
would have to be a big loop.

Wonder if it would be possible to branch off before the track goes up to
Waterloo and build new tunnels towards Vauxhall. As I have understood it
the W&C Line goes under Stamford Road up to the IMAX Cinema and then
goes up under the Waterloo mainline station so it might be possible as I
can see to branch off under or right before the IMAX.

That would leave the line with two branches of course with trains
running either Bank - Waterloo and Bank - Vauxhall but would that
necessarily be a problem? For such a line I don't think so. I think the
trains would be filled anyway and that not many people getting on at
Vauxhall would find it useful to be able to get off at Waterloo anyway.


I tend to think that nearness to the surface would always be a problem
with extending the Waterloo and City. I think this suggestion would
probably involve going through the Eurostar terminal (although if
that's going to be demolished/redeveloped, who knows). There's also
the LU escalators heading down roughly under the Euro concourse. Just
too much stuff around when you are near the surface.