| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
After the Ball is over - Waterloo International
http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/3001
quote The international terminal at Waterloo Station will be out of use for more than a year before the platforms are used by domestic rail services, the government has confirmed. Waterloo has enjoyed a direct link to Paris and Brussels since November 1994 The final trains between Waterloo and Paris and Brussels will run on Tuesday 13 November. Eurostar's London terminal will move to St Pancras from the start of service on Wednesday 14 November, thirteen years to the day since the Eurostar service began operations. A banner above the Eurostar concourse says "Goodbye to all our friends at Waterloo". The last public train service will be the 7.58pm arrival from Paris. Responding to a question from shadow transport secretary Theresa Villiers, rail minister Tom Harris wrote: "Officials at the Department for Transport are continuing to work closely with Network Rail and Stagecoach South West Trains (the train operating company) to finalise the design and costs associated with the partial conversion of Waterloo International potentially to accommodate limited domestic passenger services from December 2008." Waterloo International has five platforms (numbered 20 to 24) and was designed by Nicholas Grimshaw to accommodate the quarter-of-a-mile- long Eurostar trains which are far longer than any domestic train. Three stage strategy for Waterloo Last week Network Rail published its business plan for 2009 to 2014. This is what it says about Waterloo: "A three stage strategy for the development of Waterloo station has been agreed between DfT [Department for Transport] and Network Rail. The first stage allows a limited number of domestic train services to utilise elements of the Waterloo International Terminal (WIT) from December 2008, following the vacation of the facility by Eurostar services in November 2007. "Stage two enables the use of the entire WIT facility, providing at least 10-car capability to all platforms at Waterloo. The proposal will seek to maximise commercial property opportunities "Beyond CP4 [ie after 2014], stage 3 proposes to re-develop the entire Waterloo site, integrating the WIT into a new enhanced facility with at least 12-car capability to all platforms and a significantly enlarged concourse, to provide appropriate capacity for the longer term. The proposal will seek to maximise commercial property opportunities." Network Rail proposes to move the station concourse to ground level to link in with the recently announced Waterloo City Square plans. New Waterloo to St Pancras bus link Transport for London has announced that bus route 59, which runs from Streatham Hill to Euston via Waterloo, will be extended to St Pancras and King's Cross from Saturday 10 November. "The extension of route 59 will give a direct journey option between Waterloo, St Pancras and King's Cross," says John Barry, head of network development for London Buses. "It also creates new bus links for Brixton and Kennington." The change comes following a review of the existing service and reflects requests received from a number of passenger groups, including London TravelWatch. Route 59 runs every 8 minutes during the day and every 12 minutes in the evening on Monday-Saturday and every 12 minutes on Sundays. Leake Street Leake Street, the dingy tunnel that runs below Waterloo Station between Lower Marsh and York Road, will be closed to vehicle traffic once Waterloo International shuts. Network Rail is taking over responsibility for the street which provides an important pedestrian link between the shopping area in Lower Marsh and the South Bank. unquote As the closure of Waterloo International has been foreseen for at least three/four years why is there now a year's delay in redeploying the assets? |
After the Ball is over - Waterloo International
Mwmbwls wrote:
http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/3001 As the closure of Waterloo International has been foreseen for at least three/four years why is there now a year's delay in redeploying the assets? On an infrastructure level any remodeling of the Waterloo throat would obviously have to wait until the Eurostar services finished. A project of that scale would take a substantial amount of time - Waverley's taken a year and it's a far smaller station. A. |
After the Ball is over - Waterloo International
"Andrew" wrote in message .uk... Mwmbwls wrote: http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/3001 As the closure of Waterloo International has been foreseen for at least three/four years why is there now a year's delay in redeploying the assets? On an infrastructure level any remodeling of the Waterloo throat would obviously have to wait until the Eurostar services finished. A project of that scale would take a substantial amount of time - Waverley's taken a year and it's a far smaller station. A. If they are going to put SWT main-line services into the former International platforms they will have to cross the busy Windsor-line tracks so presumably an expensive fly-over or fly-under will have to be built. The present means of SWT main-line to reach this side of the station at Waterloo is via the East Putney and Point Pleasant Junction. I.E. Trains would have to leave the main-line at Wimbledon for the District Line as far as East Putney then branch here to Point Pleasant Junction, a slow route and uncacceptable time penalty A far better solution for the International Platforms would be for South Eastern main line trains which at present have to negotiate the congested Borough Market tracks to reach Charing Cross. The Infrastructure to divert these is all in place curtesy of Eurostar, and use paths vacated by the Eurostar trains Charing Cross route would be downgraded and less congested as only used by suburban trains. For the die-hards who want to go to London Bridge or Charing Cross then they could transfer to Waterloo East. |
After the Ball is over - Waterloo International
On 8 Nov, 10:21, "Alan Osborn" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote in message .uk... Mwmbwls wrote: http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/3001 As the closure of Waterloo International has been foreseen for at least three/four years why is there now a year's delay in redeploying the assets? On an infrastructure level any remodeling of the Waterloo throat would obviously have to wait until the Eurostar services finished. A project of that scale would take a substantial amount of time - Waverley's taken a year and it's a far smaller station. A. If they are going to put SWT main-line services into the former International platforms they will have to cross the busy Windsor-line tracks so presumably an expensive fly-over or fly-under will have to be built. The present means of SWT main-line to reach this side of the station at Waterloo is via the East Putney and Point Pleasant Junction. I.E. Trains would have to leave the main-line at Wimbledon for the District Line as far as East Putney then branch here to Point Pleasant Junction, a slow route and uncacceptable time penalty A far better solution for the International Platforms would be for South Eastern main line trains which at present have to negotiate the congested Borough Market tracks to reach Charing Cross. The Infrastructure to divert these is all in place curtesy of Eurostar, and use paths vacated by the Eurostar trains Charing Cross route would be downgraded and less congested as only used by suburban trains. For the die-hards who want to go to London Bridge or Charing Cross then they could transfer to Waterloo East. This sounds a good idea imho, at least while London Bridge/TLK is being rebuilt |
After the Ball is over - Waterloo International
"kytelly" wrote in message oups.com... On 8 Nov, 10:21, "Alan Osborn" wrote: A far better solution for the International Platforms would be for South Eastern main line trains which at present have to negotiate the congested Borough Market tracks to reach Charing Cross. The Infrastructure to divert these is all in place curtesy of Eurostar, and use paths vacated by the Eurostar trains Charing Cross route would be downgraded and less congested as only used by suburban trains. For the die-hards who want to go to London Bridge or Charing Cross then they could transfer to Waterloo East. This sounds a good idea imho, at least while London Bridge/TLK is being rebuilt There are 5 main line trains into Charing Cross in the peak hour, or 8 if you include trains starting from Tunbridge Wells, and nowhere near enough paths for them between Bickley Junction and Linford Street Junction, especially as, after pressure from TfL, the E paths have been allocated to increasing frequencies of Victoria - Beckenham Junction - Orpington stoppers. Even if trains have to be diverted away from Charing Cross during Thameslink works, and paths can be found for them on the Chatham line, Victoria (Chatham side) has spare capacity since the Boat Trains left. Peter |
After the Ball is over - Waterloo International
On Nov 8, 11:05 am, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"kytelly" wrote in message oups.com... On 8 Nov, 10:21, "Alan Osborn" wrote: A far better solution for the International Platforms would be for South Eastern main line trains which at present have to negotiate the congested Borough Market tracks to reach Charing Cross. The Infrastructure to divert these is all in place curtesy of Eurostar, and use paths vacated by the Eurostar trains Charing Cross route would be downgraded and less congested as only used by suburban trains. For the die-hards who want to go to London Bridge or Charing Cross then they could transfer to Waterloo East. This sounds a good idea imho, at least while London Bridge/TLK is being rebuilt There are 5 main line trains into Charing Cross in the peak hour, or 8 if you include trains starting from Tunbridge Wells, and nowhere near enough paths for them between Bickley Junction and Linford Street Junction, especially as, after pressure from TfL, the E paths have been allocated to increasing frequencies of Victoria - Beckenham Junction - Orpington stoppers. Even if trains have to be diverted away from Charing Cross during Thameslink works, and paths can be found for them on the Chatham line, Victoria (Chatham side) has spare capacity since the Boat Trains left. Peter Can Waterloo International now be regarded as a closed station? Neill |
After the Ball is over - Waterloo International
On Nov 8, 11:17 am, Neillw001 wrote:
Can Waterloo International now be regarded as a closed station? It was never really a station. Just a few platforms walled off from the rest of the station. B2003 |
After the Ball is over - Waterloo International
On 8 Nov, 11:05, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"kytelly" wrote in message oups.com... On 8 Nov, 10:21, "Alan Osborn" wrote: A far better solution for the International Platforms would be for South Eastern main line trains which at present have to negotiate the congested Borough Market tracks to reach Charing Cross. The Infrastructure to divert these is all in place curtesy of Eurostar, and use paths vacated by the Eurostar trains Charing Cross route would be downgraded and less congested as only used by suburban trains. For the die-hards who want to go to London Bridge or Charing Cross then they could transfer to Waterloo East. This sounds a good idea imho, at least while London Bridge/TLK is being rebuilt There are 5 main line trains into Charing Cross in the peak hour, or 8 if you include trains starting from Tunbridge Wells, and nowhere near enough paths for them between Bickley Junction and Linford Street Junction, especially as, after pressure from TfL, the E paths have been allocated to increasing frequencies of Victoria - Beckenham Junction - Orpington stoppers. Even if trains have to be diverted away from Charing Cross during Thameslink works, and paths can be found for them on the Chatham line, Victoria (Chatham side) has spare capacity since the Boat Trains left. Peter- Yes; whenever this topic comes up, I comment that the problems are with the approaches and not the capacity at termini, therefore not addressed by freeing up more platforms at Waterloo. The South Eastern side of Victoria is very underused, and Waterloo, with its long turnaround times compared with somewhere like Charing Cross, isn't exactly stretched. The problems are Borough Market, the two two-track routes between Bromley and Victoria and the two-track route through Queenstown Road on the "Windsor" side. It is true that there are capacity problems at Waterloo due to platform lengths, but the Eurostar platforms are on the wrong side to help much. Incidentally, I note an interim stage in plans for Waterloo to be increasing platform lengths to 10. With most trains in units of 4, this isn't going to make much difference. |
After the Ball is over - Waterloo International
On 8 Nov, 11:50, MIG wrote:
Yes; whenever this topic comes up, I comment that the problems are with the approaches and not the capacity at termini, therefore not addressed by freeing up more platforms at Waterloo. The South Eastern side of Victoria is very underused, and Waterloo, with its long turnaround times compared with somewhere like Charing Cross, isn't exactly stretched. The problems are Borough Market, the two two-track routes between Bromley and Victoria and the two-track route through Queenstown Road on the "Windsor" side. But that doesn't explain why they're not planning to send some suburban Charing Cross trains to Waterloo via Lewisham and Peckham Rye. That would help to free up the Borough Market tracks without adding to congestion between Bromley and Victoria. |
After the Ball is over - Waterloo International
wrote in message oups.com... On 8 Nov, 11:50, MIG wrote: Yes; whenever this topic comes up, I comment that the problems are with the approaches and not the capacity at termini, therefore not addressed by freeing up more platforms at Waterloo. The South Eastern side of Victoria is very underused, and Waterloo, with its long turnaround times compared with somewhere like Charing Cross, isn't exactly stretched. The problems are Borough Market, the two two-track routes between Bromley and Victoria and the two-track route through Queenstown Road on the "Windsor" side. But that doesn't explain why they're not planning to send some suburban Charing Cross trains to Waterloo via Lewisham and Peckham Rye. That would help to free up the Borough Market tracks without adding to congestion between Bromley and Victoria. They probably see no point in doing something temporarily, which can't continue once the Nine Elms flyover is demolished to rework the station approaches properly. From the NR documents it has basically already been decided that the platforms will be used by SWT during the coming Waterloo rebuild. The WIT report on the DfT site suggests that there is only capacity for 6-8 trains per hour from the Nine Elms flyover, as it is only single track. Paul |
After the Ball is over - Waterloo International
wrote
But that doesn't explain why they're not planning to send some suburban Charing Cross trains to Waterloo via Lewisham and Peckham Rye. That would help to free up the Borough Market tracks without adding to congestion between Bromley and Victoria. It would be so slow that passengers wouldn't use them. The Dartford - Blackfriars/Holborn trains never loaded well, and were eventually withdrawn, while the Dartfod - Bexleyheath - Victoria service, a comparatively recent innovation, are also lightly loaded. Peter |
After the Ball is over - Waterloo International
Mwmbwls wrote:
http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/3001 As the closure of Waterloo International has been foreseen for at least three/four years why is there now a year's delay in redeploying the assets? Personally I would like to see some Guildford - Effingham - Epsom - Raynes Park - Waterloo fast trains, And Im sure the poor Earlsfield rush hour people who never, ever, ever get a seat and have to cram onto the trains would like to see some Wimbledon - Earlsfield - Waterloo fast services too. I seem to remember more Wimbledon - Waterloo fast services when I was younger. Still. No chance of that happening... mf |
After the Ball is over - Waterloo International
On 8 Nov, 15:30, "Peter Masson" wrote:
wrote But that doesn't explain why they're not planning to send some suburban Charing Cross trains to Waterloo via Lewisham and Peckham Rye. That would help to free up the Borough Market tracks without adding to congestion between Bromley and Victoria. It would be so slow that passengers wouldn't use them. The Dartford - Blackfriars/Holborn trains never loaded well, and were eventually withdrawn, while the Dartford - Bexleyheath - Victoria service, a comparatively recent innovation, are also lightly loaded. Peter I would contest that at peak times the Dartford to Victoria service is loaded pretty heavily, at least it is on leaving Victoria. It also seems to have a reasonable patronage by day, but then again perhaps my subjective judgement is a bit out on that one. |
After the Ball is over - Waterloo International
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 03:50:09 -0800, MIG
wrote: Incidentally, I note an interim stage in plans for Waterloo to be increasing platform lengths to 10. With most trains in units of 4, this isn't going to make much difference. If it is 10 23m coach-lengths, that'd fit a double IC Desiro, surely? Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
After the Ball is over - Waterloo International
"Neil Williams" wrote in message ... On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 03:50:09 -0800, MIG wrote: Incidentally, I note an interim stage in plans for Waterloo to be increasing platform lengths to 10. With most trains in units of 4, this isn't going to make much difference. If it is 10 23m coach-lengths, that'd fit a double IC Desiro, surely? For some reason though platform lengths are normally described in terms of 20m car lengths, so a 10.444 needs a '12 car platform'... Paul |
After the Ball is over - Waterloo International
On 8 Nov, 15:30, "Peter Masson" wrote:
wrote But that doesn't explain why they're not planning to send some suburban Charing Cross trains to Waterloo via Lewisham and Peckham Rye. That would help to free up the Borough Market tracks without adding to congestion between Bromley and Victoria. It would be so slow that passengers wouldn't use them. The Dartford - Blackfriars/Holborn trains never loaded well, and were eventually withdrawn, while the Dartford - Bexleyheath - Victoria service, a comparatively recent innovation, are also lightly loaded. Peter I would contest that at peak times the Dartford to Victoria service is loaded pretty heavily, at least it is on leaving Victoria. It also seems to have a reasonable patronage by day, but then again perhaps my subjective judgement is a bit wonky. |
After the Ball is over - Waterloo International
|
After the Ball is over - Waterloo International
Mizter T wrote:
I would contest that at peak times the Dartford to Victoria service is loaded pretty heavily, at least it is on leaving Victoria. It also seems to have a reasonable patronage by day, but then again perhaps my subjective judgement is a bit wonky. My limited experience would bear that out. When I boarded the train it about 10 min before departure I thought it was fairly empty. By the time it left, people were standing on each others shoulders. -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9633027.html (47 206 at York, 4 Oct 1997) |
After the Ball is over - Waterloo International
On Nov 8, 8:03 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote: "Neil Williams" wrote in message ... On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 03:50:09 -0800, MIG wrote: Incidentally, I note an interim stage in plans for Waterloo to be increasing platform lengths to 10. With most trains in units of 4, this isn't going to make much difference. If it is 10 23m coach-lengths, that'd fit a double IC Desiro, surely? For some reason though platform lengths are normally described in terms of 20m car lengths, so a 10.444 needs a '12 car platform'... This has overtones of the story of the space exploration vehicle lost because one manufacturer was callibrating in Imperial Measures and another in metric. Canadian aircraft have run out of jet fuel in mid Atlantic for the same reason. I do hope that this is checked before we have another Shepherd's Bush platform snafu. |
After the Ball is over - Waterloo International
"Mwmbwls" wrote in message
oups.com On Nov 8, 8:03 pm, "Paul Scott" wrote: "Neil Williams" wrote in message ... On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 03:50:09 -0800, MIG wrote: Incidentally, I note an interim stage in plans for Waterloo to be increasing platform lengths to 10. With most trains in units of 4, this isn't going to make much difference. If it is 10 23m coach-lengths, that'd fit a double IC Desiro, surely? For some reason though platform lengths are normally described in terms of 20m car lengths, so a 10.444 needs a '12 car platform'... This has overtones of the story of the space exploration vehicle lost because one manufacturer was callibrating in Imperial Measures and another in metric. Canadian aircraft have run out of jet fuel in mid Atlantic for the same reason. Actually, the Canadian airliner that ran out of fuel did so in the middle of Canada (or it wouldn't have got down safely). It's nicknamed the Gimli Glider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider The 767 subsequently had a full flying career and was retired last month. It was a different Canadian airliner that ran out of fuel over the Atlantic, for completely different reasons. It had a fuel leak because of a maintenance error. |
After the Ball is over - Waterloo International
"Mwmbwls" wrote in message oups.com... On Nov 8, 8:03 pm, "Paul Scott" wrote: "Neil Williams" wrote in message ... On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 03:50:09 -0800, MIG wrote: Incidentally, I note an interim stage in plans for Waterloo to be increasing platform lengths to 10. With most trains in units of 4, this isn't going to make much difference. If it is 10 23m coach-lengths, that'd fit a double IC Desiro, surely? For some reason though platform lengths are normally described in terms of 20m car lengths, so a 10.444 needs a '12 car platform'... This has overtones of the story of the space exploration vehicle lost because one manufacturer was callibrating in Imperial Measures and another in metric. Canadian aircraft have run out of jet fuel in mid Atlantic for the same reason. I do hope that this is checked before we have another Shepherd's Bush platform snafu. I don't think so - the whole area (SW division of SR) seems to have been designed for 8 car then some parts for 12 car 20m EMUs. When the 442s came along they decided upon a 'mainline style' 23m vehicle which would fit the existing platforms wheen coupled as 2 5 car units. It certainly wasn't accidental... The current announcements about platform lengthening are usually about specific routes and the actual type of stock that runs on, it isn't as random as you seem to think... Paul |
After the Ball is over - Waterloo International
Recliner wrote:
Actually, the Canadian airliner that ran out of fuel did so in the middle of Canada (or it wouldn't have got down safely). It's nicknamed the Gimli Glider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider Wow, what an amazing story! |
After the Ball is over - Waterloo International
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 10:36:06 -0000, "Recliner"
wrote: "Mwmbwls" wrote in message roups.com This has overtones of the story of the space exploration vehicle lost because one manufacturer was callibrating in Imperial Measures and another in metric. Canadian aircraft have run out of jet fuel in mid Atlantic for the same reason. Actually, the Canadian airliner that ran out of fuel did so in the middle of Canada (or it wouldn't have got down safely). It's nicknamed the Gimli Glider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider The 767 subsequently had a full flying career and was retired last month. It was a different Canadian airliner that ran out of fuel over the Atlantic, for completely different reasons. It had a fuel leak because of a maintenance error. ....and that one got down safely, too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236 |
After the Ball is over - Waterloo International
On 8 Nov, 07:26, Mwmbwls wrote:
http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/3001 quote The international terminal at Waterloo Station will be out of use for more than a year before the platforms are used by domestic rail services, the government has confirmed. Waterloo has enjoyed a direct link to Paris and Brussels since November 1994 The final trains between Waterloo and Paris and Brussels will run on Tuesday 13 November. Eurostar's London terminal will move to St Pancras from the start of service on Wednesday 14 November, thirteen years to the day since the Eurostar service began operations. A banner above the Eurostar concourse says "Goodbye to all our friends at Waterloo". The last public train service will be the 7.58pm arrival from Paris. Responding to a question from shadow transport secretary Theresa Villiers, rail minister Tom Harris wrote: "Officials at the Department for Transport are continuing to work closely with Network Rail and Stagecoach South West Trains (the train operating company) to finalise the design and costs associated with the partial conversion of Waterloo International potentially to accommodate limited domestic passenger services from December 2008." Waterloo International has five platforms (numbered 20 to 24) and was designed by Nicholas Grimshaw to accommodate the quarter-of-a-mile- long Eurostar trains which are far longer than any domestic train. Three stage strategy for Waterloo Last week Network Rail published its business plan for 2009 to 2014. This is what it says about Waterloo: "A three stage strategy for the development of Waterloo station has been agreed between DfT [Department for Transport] and Network Rail. The first stage allows a limited number of domestic train services to utilise elements of the Waterloo International Terminal (WIT) from December 2008, following the vacation of the facility by Eurostar services in November 2007. "Stage two enables the use of the entire WIT facility, providing at least 10-car capability to all platforms at Waterloo. The proposal will seek to maximise commercial property opportunities "Beyond CP4 [ie after 2014], stage 3 proposes to re-develop the entire Waterloo site, integrating the WIT into a new enhanced facility with at least 12-car capability to all platforms and a significantly enlarged concourse, to provide appropriate capacity for the longer term. The proposal will seek to maximise commercial property opportunities." Network Rail proposes to move the station concourse to ground level to link in with the recently announced Waterloo City Square plans. New Waterloo to St Pancras bus link Transport for London has announced that bus route 59, which runs from Streatham Hill to Euston via Waterloo, will be extended to St Pancras and King's Cross from Saturday 10 November. "The extension of route 59 will give a direct journey option between Waterloo, St Pancras and King's Cross," says John Barry, head of network development for London Buses. "It also creates new bus links for Brixton and Kennington." The change comes following a review of the existing service and reflects requests received from a number of passenger groups, including London TravelWatch. Route 59 runs every 8 minutes during the day and every 12 minutes in the evening on Monday-Saturday and every 12 minutes on Sundays. Leake Street Leake Street, the dingy tunnel that runs below Waterloo Station between Lower Marsh and York Road, will be closed to vehicle traffic once Waterloo International shuts. Network Rail is taking over responsibility for the street which provides an important pedestrian link between the shopping area in Lower Marsh and the South Bank. unquote As the closure of Waterloo International has been foreseen for at least three/four years why is there now a year's delay in redeploying the assets? The explanation is actually quite simple. Firstly, there would have to be some work done to make use of these platforms, which are lower than standard UK platforms. It will also take time before the building is vacant - Eurostar are recycling much of the equipment at Ebbsfleet, for example. Further, the track layout would require changes, too, and there will have to be changes to the access to the platforms because there won't be the international formalities to accommodate any more. All this takes time. But why more than a year? Well, the next opportunity for a major timetable change, to take advantage of the new infrastructure, is December 2008 now we're working to the European model. Most of the suggestions for revised service patterns here will take some planning and, if they happen at all, will probably have to wait for a later timetable cycle. Rob |
After the Ball is over - Waterloo International
On Nov 10, 12:20 am, wrote:
On 8 Nov, 07:26, Mwmbwls wrote: http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/3001 quote The international terminal at Waterloo Station will be out of use for more than a year before the platforms are used by domestic rail services, the government has confirmed. As the closure of Waterloo International has been foreseen for at least three/four years why is there now a year's delay in redeploying the assets? The explanation is actually quite simple. Thanks for that concise relevant reply - yes it really is quite simple. .. |
After the Ball is over - Waterloo International
Would it be feasible to retain at least some sort of international service
from Waterloo, even if it would be short hops across the Channel to Lille or Brussels? On another note, what is the deal for a prospective tunnel connection to Ireland? I seem to recall talk about this in times past but, because the earth between the two islands is largely sand, it is quite difficult to build any sort of subterranean structure there. |
After the Ball is over - Waterloo International
wrote in message . uk... Would it be feasible to retain at least some sort of international service from Waterloo, even if it would be short hops across the Channel to Lille or Brussels? This was the original plan - but the number of passengers using E* falls far short of what would be needed to justify two central London stations. Peter |
After the Ball is over - Waterloo International
In message
wrote: Would it be feasible to retain at least some sort of international service from Waterloo, even if it would be short hops across the Channel to Lille or Brussels? No, once the service starts from St Pancras there will be no stock capable of using third rail cleared for CT use. On another note, what is the deal for a prospective tunnel connection to Ireland? I seem to recall talk about this in times past but, because the earth between the two islands is largely sand, it is quite difficult to build any sort of subterranean structure there. Isn't going to happen any time soon. -- Graeme Wall This address is not read, substitute trains for rail. Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html |
After the Ball is over - Waterloo International
On 10 Nov, 13:01, rail wrote:
In message wrote: Would it be feasible to retain at least some sort of international service from Waterloo, even if it would be short hops across the Channel to Lille or Brussels? No, once the service starts from St Pancras there will be no stock capable of using third rail cleared for CT use. This is putting the cart before the horse. The only reason why it's becoming possible to remove the shoegear from the Eurostars is because a decision has been taken to run all international services from St Pancras. If the decision had been to run two terminals, with Waterloo keeping some of the traffic, then the trains would have kept the shoegear. It wasn't the decision to remove the shoegear that led to the closure of Waterloo International ! Rob. |
After the Ball is over - Waterloo International
"James Farrar" wrote in message
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 10:36:06 -0000, "Recliner" wrote: "Mwmbwls" wrote in message oups.com This has overtones of the story of the space exploration vehicle lost because one manufacturer was callibrating in Imperial Measures and another in metric. Canadian aircraft have run out of jet fuel in mid Atlantic for the same reason. Actually, the Canadian airliner that ran out of fuel did so in the middle of Canada (or it wouldn't have got down safely). It's nicknamed the Gimli Glider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider The 767 subsequently had a full flying career and was retired last month. It was a different Canadian airliner that ran out of fuel over the Atlantic, for completely different reasons. It had a fuel leak because of a maintenance error. ...and that one got down safely, too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236 Indeed it did, though it suffered some epic flat spots, as the flap-free landing was at much higher speeds than usual, so the brakes and wheels had to absorb far more energy than they were designed for: http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/image...y/mvc-003f.jpg http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/image...y/mvc-002f.jpg http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/image...y/mvc-004f.jpg |
After the Ball is over - Waterloo International
Am Sat, 10 Nov 2007 11:28:43 UTC, schrieb auf
uk.railway : On another note, what is the deal for a prospective tunnel connection to Ireland? Connecting a network with standard 1435 mm track gauge to another network with 1600 mm wide track gauge? And then? Curious, L.W. |
After the Ball is over - Waterloo International
On another note, what is the deal for a prospective tunnel
connection to Ireland? (Yeah, right.) Connecting a network with standard 1435 mm track gauge to another network with 1600 mm wide track gauge? If that was the only problem, it wouldn't be a problem. And then? Most conveniently, what they do with some trains at the French- Spanish border: slide the wheels along the axles to fit the other gauge. Other solutions include mixed-gauge track, bogie changing, and (of course) having the passengers change trains. -- Mark Brader | "For the stronger we our houses do build, Toronto | The less chance we have of being killed." | -- William McGonagall, "The Tay Bridge Disaster" |
After the Ball is over - Waterloo International
|
After the Ball is over - Waterloo International
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 11:28:43 GMT, wrote:
On another note, what is the deal for a prospective tunnel connection to Ireland? I seem to recall talk about this in times past but, because the earth between the two islands is largely sand, it is quite difficult to build any sort of subterranean structure there. A tunnel from Holyhead to Dublin would be nearly twice the length of the channel tunnel, though proposals do get raised every now and then. The shortest Irish Sea crossing, and so the easiest place to build a tunnel is between Scotland and Northern Ireland (eg Stranrear-Larne). even with trains running at TGV speed on both sides of the Irish Sea this would be a long enough way round for many journeys, including London-Dublin, for rail to remain uncompetitive with air. Somewhere I also remember reading that the Irish Sea is much deeper than the English Channel, which makes tunnelling more difficult than the tunnel length would suggest, but I haven't been able to verify that Martin |
After the Ball is over - Waterloo International
On 11 Nov, 00:32, rail wrote:
In message . com wrote: On 10 Nov, 13:01, rail wrote: In message wrote: Would it be feasible to retain at least some sort of international service from Waterloo, even if it would be short hops across the Channel to Lille or Brussels? No, once the service starts from St Pancras there will be no stock capable of using third rail cleared for CT use. This is putting the cart before the horse. The only reason why it's becoming possible to remove the shoegear from the Eurostars is because a decision has been taken to run all international services from St Pancras. If the decision had been to run two terminals, with Waterloo keeping some of the traffic, then the trains would have kept the shoegear. It wasn't the decision to remove the shoegear that led to the closure of Waterloo International ! That wasn't the question if you bothered to read it. -- Graeme Wall This address is not read, substitute trains for rail. Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Er, I did read it. And I've read it again, several times. The question asked if it would be possible to retain (not reintroduce) at least some services from Waterloo International to international destinations. You answered that no, there won't be any third rail-capable stock cleared for the Channel Tunnel available. My point is that there won't be any third-rail capable stock available *because* the decision has been taken to abandon Waterloo. If Eurostar had decided to retain a presence at Waterloo, then the Eurostar trains wouldn't be losing their third-rail capability. Your answer says that the decision not to run Waterloo/Lille (for example) is driven by the rolling stock capability, whereas the rolling stock capability is actually being driven by the decision not to use Waterloo anymore. Rob. |
After the Ball is over - Waterloo International
"Martin Rich" wrote in message ... Somewhere I also remember reading that the Irish Sea is much deeper than the English Channel, which makes tunnelling more difficult than the tunnel length would suggest, but I haven't been able to verify that From a wander around GOOGLE I find...... The Irish Sea is a semi enclosed shelf sea bordered by the island of Ireland, Scotland England and Wales. The depth in the western Irish Sea is characterised by a channel of greater than 80m depth that runs from St. George's Channel in the south to a maximum depth of 275m in the North Channel. also... The English Channel has a maximum depth of 100 m at the western mouth (5deg W) shallowing to 40 m in the central Dover Strait Which does confirm your memory. KW |
After the Ball is over - Waterloo International
Ken Ward wrote:
"Martin Rich" wrote in message ... Somewhere I also remember reading that the Irish Sea is much deeper than the English Channel, which makes tunnelling more difficult than the tunnel length would suggest, but I haven't been able to verify that From a wander around GOOGLE I find...... The Irish Sea is a semi enclosed shelf sea bordered by the island of Ireland, Scotland England and Wales. The depth in the western Irish Sea is characterised by a channel of greater than 80m depth that runs from St. George's Channel in the south to a maximum depth of 275m in the North Channel. also... The English Channel has a maximum depth of 100 m at the western mouth (5deg W) shallowing to 40 m in the central Dover Strait Which does confirm your memory. Does depth make a difference? It won't be cut and cover! |
After the Ball is over - Waterloo International
|
After the Ball is over - Waterloo International
"Ken Ward" wrote in message ... "Martin Rich" wrote in message ... Somewhere I also remember reading that the Irish Sea is much deeper than the English Channel, which makes tunnelling more difficult than the tunnel length would suggest, but I haven't been able to verify that From a wander around GOOGLE I find...... The Irish Sea is a semi enclosed shelf sea bordered by the island of Ireland, Scotland England and Wales. The depth in the western Irish Sea is characterised by a channel of greater than 80m depth that runs from St. George's Channel in the south to a maximum depth of 275m in the North Channel. also... The English Channel has a maximum depth of 100 m at the western mouth (5deg W) shallowing to 40 m in the central Dover Strait Which does confirm your memory. KW Hurd Deep in the English Channel is 172 m its deepest. Beaufort Dyke, in the North Channel is between 200 and 300 m deep. From Wikipedia :- "Projects for a rail tunnel between Ireland and Scotland have been suggested at various times from the late nineteenth-century onwards. The Dyke has always been an important problem for such proposals, in terms both of practicality and cost." Jim Hawkins |
After the Ball is over - Waterloo International
On 11 Nov, 15:06, rail wrote:
In message .com wrote: On 11 Nov, 00:32, rail wrote: In message . com wrote: On 10 Nov, 13:01, rail wrote: In message wrote: Would it be feasible to retain at least some sort of international service from Waterloo, even if it would be short hops across the Channel to Lille or Brussels? No, once the service starts from St Pancras there will be no stock capable of using third rail cleared for CT use. This is putting the cart before the horse. The only reason why it's becoming possible to remove the shoegear from the Eurostars is because a decision has been taken to run all international services from St Pancras. If the decision had been to run two terminals, with Waterloo keeping some of the traffic, then the trains would have kept the shoegear. It wasn't the decision to remove the shoegear that led to the closure of Waterloo International ! That wasn't the question if you bothered to read it. -- Graeme Wall This address is not read, substitute trains for rail. Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Er, I did read it. And I've read it again, several times. Try understanding it next time. The question asked if it would be possible to retain (not reintroduce) at least some services from Waterloo International to international destinations. You answered that no, there won't be any third rail-capable stock cleared for the Channel Tunnel available. My point is that there won't be any third-rail capable stock available *because* the decision has been taken to abandon Waterloo. If Eurostar had decided to retain a presence at Waterloo, then the Eurostar trains wouldn't be losing their third-rail capability. Your answer says that the decision not to run Waterloo/Lille (for example) is driven by the rolling stock capability, whereas the rolling stock capability is actually being driven by the decision not to use Waterloo anymore. Come back when you understand both question and answer. -- Graeme Wall This address is not read, substitute trains for rail. Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I've had the decency to justify my understanding of both question and answer. Are you gentleman enough to explain your understanding of the question and answer? Rob |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:12 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk