Could Charing Cross Be Rebuilt?

[Jorge Da Silva]

A radical scheme to rebuild Charing Cross Railway Station with an entrance on the South Bank is among the options considered by Network Rail as it seeks to accommodate expected growth in passenger numbers over the coming decades.
Network Rail's newly published draft Kent Route Study sets out the strategic vision for the future of the railway lines between Kent and London over the next 30 years.

One of the constraints on running more – and longer – trains into central London is the lack of space at Charing Cross Station, where not all the platforms can be fully used by 12-car trains.

One of the longer-term measures pondered in the Kent Route Study involves a radical rebuilding of Charing Cross Station and Hungerford Bridge, together with the possible closure of Waterloo East Station.

According to Network Rail's draft study, "a major rebuild of the station could allow it to be extended south over the river, like Blackfriars, providing compliant platforms and greater passenger circulation.

"At concept level, a new link to Waterloo from a southern entrance to Charing Cross may supersede Waterloo East allowing the station area to be used for additional track capacity, but there are likely to be many issues with a project on this scale."

Any such scheme is a long way from being a firm proposal let alone a funded project.

Network Rail's route managing director for the South East, John Halsall, said: "A bigger, better and more reliable railway is absolutely vital to support jobs housing and economic growth in Kent and south east London in the decades ahead.

"Our plan sets out how we will cater for forecast passenger growth up to the mid-2020s, primarily through longer trains at the busiest times of day. Beyond that, we need to look at more radical options to enable more frequent services and changing service patterns across the region.

"By working closely together with operators and potential funders, we can keep passengers moving well into the future."

A scheme to replace Charing Cross with a terminus on the South Bank was proposed in 1916 and finally abandoned in 1931.

About a year ago there was mentions of a rebuild of Charing Cross.

Could it happen? Could a new station be built at Southwark (close to the old Blackfriars Road station) as a replacement for Waterloo East?

There are no firm proposals and no such funding but is it a good idea?

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Wouldn’t a Crossrail serving South East London be better?

 

[yorksrob]

They,ve done it at Blackfriars so I don't see why not, although anything would require a widening of Hungerford Bridge.

Other than the hotel, which I'd hope they'd be keeping, there's not much left of architectural significance there.

It'd be a long walk from the buffers to Waterloo though !

 

[swt_passenger]

I think the existing railway formation probably isn’t wide enough to replace Waterloo East anywhere further east without property demolition, which might explain why the referenced info doesn’t mention it.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Also could the platforms be widened as I noticed some of the platforms are quiet narrow?

 

[yorksrob]

Also could the platforms be widened as I noticed some of the platforms are quiet narrow?

If you narrowed the wide one (5 and 6) you could potentially widen the others. It depends on the position of the supports for the building above.

 

[swt_passenger]

Also could the platforms be widened as I noticed some of the platforms are quiet narrow?

That surely goes with phrases such as “radical rebuilding of Hungerford Bridge” and “compliant platforms”, and “like Blackfriars”? Blackfriars railway bridge luckily had spare adjacent piers from the previously removed bridge, but was still widened on both sides, and I read the report as if proposing Hungerford Bridge would be widened to suit all modern capacity requirements.

At the same time it’s not likely to be done anytime soon, is it.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

That surely goes with phrases such as “radical rebuilding of Hungerford Bridge” and “compliant platforms”, and “like Blackfriars”? Blackfriars railway bridge luckily had spare adjacent piers from the previously removed bridge, but was still widened on both sides, and I read the report as if proposing Hungerford Bridge would be widened to suit all modern capacity requirements.

At the same time it’s not likely to be done anytime soon, is it.

No but maybe in a future control period. Something like Blackfriars may be very good for the station and capacity in many of the southern terminals in London are nearly full.

 

[si404]

That surely goes with phrases such as “radical rebuilding of Hungerford Bridge”

And thus problems like the tube lines, potential unexploded bombs, etc that are in the river bed there...

...Blackfriars may have had those spare piers (did it use any, as there's still spares?), but what it really had was what those piers represented: an ability to build additional stuff there. The Golden Jubilee bridges, despite barely having an additional footprint vs what was there, had their construction blocked for a period by LUL due to potential problems with the nearby Bakerloo line until they moved the nearest support to the land, promised to only dig when the tube was closed, and then by-hand rather than by-machine. Now imagine that with far more digging to do and a far heavier structure!

 

[swt_passenger]

And thus problems like the tube lines, potential unexploded bombs, etc that are in the river bed there...

...Blackfriars may have had those spare piers (did it use any, as there's still spares?), but what it really had was what those piers represented: an ability to build additional stuff there...

They used the downstream pier only of each set of three of the old (removed 1985) bridge, and also widened the downstream part of the “in use” Blackfriars Rail Bridge slightly. The wiki article has a decent picture showing the two rows of unused piers, the third row has been combined with the piers of the newer bridge: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackfriars_Railway_Bridge#/media/File:Pillars_of_old_Blackfriars_Railway_Bridge_-_02.jpg

Agree with you that Hungerford Bridge wouldn’t be straightforward, but I’d also think that the authors must be aware of that.

 

[Bald Rick]

Just two questions

1) why would you want to rebuild Charing Cross?
2) why would you want to move Waterloo East further away from Waterloo?

 

[infobleep]

Just two questions

1) why would you want to rebuild Charing Cross?
2) why would you want to move Waterloo East further away from Waterloo?

So that even more passengers have to use the tube. I mean its not as if the jubilee line is busy towards London Bridge during the morning peak now is it...... Hahahahaha

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Just two questions

1) why would you want to rebuild Charing Cross?
2) why would you want to move Waterloo East further away from Waterloo?

1) To allow longer trains and more capacity as stated in the article provided at the top. Allowing 12-car operations on Southeastern services from Charing Cross (similar to what happened at Blackfriars)
2) If the station is rebuilt then relocation of Waterloo East would be required due to them being too close. A possible location for this is Southwark (allowing interchange with the Jubilee Line).

 

[Bald Rick]

Apologies I missed the article.

Lots of 12 car trains use Charing Cross every day. It is only some of the platforms that can not take the trains.

Such a proposal in a route study falls into the category of “we are writing this to show we have thought of it and what the consequences are, and also to stop people suggesting it”. It’s not going to happen.

And neither is dropping the line into a tunnel to make another Crossrail.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Realistically it is needed. Not least because some extra platforms wouldn't go amiss.

An entrance at both ends (Embankment and Waterloo) would be needed; but the benefit there is that the LU connectivity is better at Embankment and at Waterloo you could close Waterloo East. With the re-development, you could also introduce a more flexible track layout between Ewer Street and the new station. The freed up development land alone at Charing Cross must be worth a small fortune!

 

[Bald Rick]

Realistically it is needed. Not least because some extra platforms wouldn't go amiss.

An entrance at both ends (Embankment and Waterloo) would be needed; but the benefit there is that the LU connectivity is better at Embankment and at Waterloo you could close Waterloo East. With the re-development, you could also introduce a more flexible track layout between Ewer Street and the new station. The freed up development land alone at Charing Cross must be worth a small fortune!

There’s only three things wrong with this.

1) more platforms at Charing Cross are not required - you couldn’t get any more trains to it unless you also added extra tracks from Lewisham / St Johns to London Bridge and London
Bridge to Ewer St.
2) there is no need for a more flexible track layout London side of Ewer St, it is plenty flexible enough, and also mostly on curves where putting additional points / crossovers is difficult at best.
3) the land above Charing Cross has already been developed, and the value realised. The south end and Hungerford bridge is not developable as it sits in a protected view, and the station itself cannot go higher because it is immediately adjacent to several protected views.

 

[swt_passenger]

2) If the station is rebuilt then relocation of Waterloo East would be required due to them being too close. A possible location for this is Southwark (allowing interchange with the Jubilee Line).

The route study you quoted (6.11.2) doesn’t seem to mention relocating Waterloo East though? It uses the words ‘may supersede’. Is relocating just your own extra suggestion?

 

[4-SUB 4732]

There’s only three things wrong with this.

1) more platforms at Charing Cross are not required - you couldn’t get any more trains to it unless you also added extra tracks from Lewisham / St Johns to London Bridge and London
Bridge to Ewer St.
2) there is no need for a more flexible track layout London side of Ewer St, it is plenty flexible enough, and also mostly on curves where putting additional points / crossovers is difficult at best.
3) the land above Charing Cross has already been developed, and the value realised. The south end and Hungerford bridge is not developable as it sits in a protected view, and the station itself cannot go higher because it is immediately adjacent to several protected views.

Digital railway I am sure will expect to increase capacity but most importantly what you need that Charing Cross cannot reliably provide is 12 car platforms on all platforms as well as removing the difficult Platform 4 entry / exit.

The other thing is reliability and ability to recover from service perturbation. The 6 platforms maxed out are not suitable for service recovery and nor realistically now is London Bridge.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

The route study you quoted (6.11.2) doesn’t seem to mention relocating Waterloo East though? It uses the words ‘may supersede’. Is relocating just your own extra suggestion?

Yes but I cannot see Waterloo East lasting if the station is rebuilt.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Yes but I cannot see Waterloo East lasting if the station is rebuilt.

Arguably it would be better to close Waterloo East and re-develop relevant land; adding in a station instead at Southwark on the main road.

 

[Meerkat]

I can’t see how a bulkier, wider, bridge would ever get approval in such a prominent site, but even if it did it really wouldn’t be close enough to justify closing Waterloo East, which is a very busy interchange.

 

[JamesRowden]

Section 4 of the Route Study explains that the estimated extra paths required by 2044 (post full Thameslink timetable) are 7tph of Mainline paths. 2tph of those extra paths are being created in the 2022 service specification by rerouting 2tph of Hayes Line services to Victoria instead of via London Bridge, subsequently allowing Tonbridge-London to increase from 10tph to 12tph during the peak. Another 4tph of peak paths can be freed up by converting the Hayes Line into an extension of the Bakerloo Line. This makes the idea of increasing the terminating capacity at Charing Cross (and obviously also needing to invest in increasing the line capacity between Charing Cross and Lewisham) appear to be an alternative idea to the Hayes Bakerloo Line extension idea.

 

[Daz28]

I can’t see how a bulkier, wider, bridge would ever get approval in such a prominent site, but even if it did it really wouldn’t be close enough to justify closing Waterloo East, which is a very busy interchange.

The bridge is roughly the length of a 12 car set, if the platforms were built directly on the bridge, then an escaltor link down to embankment underground could be built at one end of the new platforms. The old platforms could be redeveloped into new retail units. At the Southbank end of the new platforms it would be walkway access to the Southbank Centre and Waterloo main. The distance is a little over the length of a 12 car set, so a fairly short walk, even quicker with some travelators. Waterloo East would then be superfluous.

 

[Meerkat]

More than a 12 car walk and that would be to the highest number platform at Waterloo, still a long way from the suburban platforms. It would also put a lot of pressure on that very crowded corner of the Waterloo concourse.
It will also be pretty cramped on the Southbank as the platforms would have to end rapidly if the throat can avoid the new developments on the Shell centre site.
Where would the trains go while the bridge was demolished and rebuilt btw?

 

[MarkyT]

The first interim SER station at Charing Cross was (or was planned to be) on the bridge according to this drawing:
https://www.antiquemapsandprints.co...ing-cross-precursorbaly-1855-map-221015-p.asp
I would have thought a more practical way of creating more 12-car platforms of adequate width might be by extending platforms #2, #3 and #4 at the buffer stop end, so they terminate approximately in line with #5 and #6, perhaps creating a new concourse under the track level as suggested for Waterloo, or just opening up the space more at platform level under the hotel building. Lengthening #1 this way looks rather more difficult as it looks like it would conflict with the east side wing of the hotel building.

 

[MarkyT]

The first interim SER station at Charing Cross was (or was planned to be) on the bridge according to this drawing:
https://www.antiquemapsandprints.co...ing-cross-precursorbaly-1855-map-221015-p.asp

I was wrong. It was actually a proposal by the South Western Railway (says so on the drawing!).
This further drawing shows the larger context:
https://www.antiquemapsandprints.co...e-station-on-thamesbaly-1855-map-221019-p.asp

 

[DynamicSpirit]

1) more platforms at Charing Cross are not required - you couldn’t get any more trains to it unless you also added extra tracks from Lewisham / St Johns to London Bridge and London
Bridge to Ewer St.

I can see this, but with a small proviso: From memory, I'd say well over half the trains to CHX I'm on get held up outside the station waiting for another train to leave the station. I'm not sure to what extent that's the result of waiting for the previous train to leave the platform we're booked into vs conflicting moves on the points just outside the station, but the fact that it happens so often, plus usually when I'm in CHX, there seem to be trains in most platforms, suggests the former to me. That in turn suggests perhaps an extra platform or two would keep the current timetable running more smoothly (or at least: allow less padding in the timetable for trains arriving at CHX). Obviously, though, by itself that's not remotely a good enough reason to justify the huge disruption and expense that building another platform would entail.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

About a year ago there was mentions of a rebuild of Charing Cross.

Could it happen? Could a new station be built at Southwark (close to the old Blackfriars Road station) as a replacement for Waterloo East?

There are no firm proposals and no such funding but is it a good idea?

Even if the funds could be found to rebuild Charing Cross over the Thames, It would arguably make things less convenient for passengers. People heading for Waterloo (main) would face a far longer walk than they do at present. People heading for buses at CHX would also face a longer walk to the bus stops, as would most of those continuing their journeys on foot (on the reasonable supposition that most of those are heading for the West End and very few would be walking to Embankment). The only people who'd be better off would be those heading for the tube (more convenient tube access at Embankment plus access to the Circle/District lines) - but I believe it's been established that those form only a minority of CHX rail users.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I would have thought a more practical way of creating more 12-car platforms of adequate width might be by extending platforms #2, #3 and #4 at the buffer stop end, so they terminate approximately in line with #5 and #6, perhaps creating a new concourse under the track level as suggested for Waterloo, or just opening up the space more at platform level under the hotel building. Lengthening #1 this way looks rather more difficult as it looks like it would conflict with the east side wing of the hotel building.

I was thinking about this earlier today as a solution to longer platforms (if that's required although I see Bald Rick seems to cast doubt on that). In fact I wonder if you could go further: There's currently a largish space for the taxi rank outside the station, which seems to be much bigger than required... so could you perhaps lose all of the existing concourse and put a new one where some of the shops and some of the taxi rank is? If you extended the tracks to cover the entire current station concourse, then I think that would give you perhaps an extra 2 carriage lengths for platforms 5-6, and 3 carriage lengths for 1-4 (although noting your mention of possible problems with 1) - which would go a long way to enabling longer trains.

Further, if you put a second concourse under the platforms next to Embankment station, with stair/escalator access up to the platforms, that would absorb most passengers heading for the underground - and be more convenient for most of them, especially given the current long walks to the Bakerloo line. In turn that would allow the replacement concourse at the ends of the platforms to be a little smaller than the current one - which it would probably need to be if it's to fit where the shops/part of the current taxi rank is. An additional advantage is that tube passengers would have an incentive to sit towards the country end of trains, reducing the tendency for trains to be excessively loaded at the London end.

Obviously, this is all way in the realms of, loads of expense for probably not that much practical gain, but as a speculation, I'm wondering how practical it would be . Sadly, it would likely also need a rebuild of Embankment station if national rail passengers started using it en masse, as Embankment barely seems able to cope with passenger numbers as it is.

 

[adrock1976]

And thus problems like the tube lines, potential unexploded bombs, etc that are in the river bed there...

...Blackfriars may have had those spare piers (did it use any, as there's still spares?), but what it really had was what those piers represented: an ability to build additional stuff there. The Golden Jubilee bridges, despite barely having an additional footprint vs what was there, had their construction blocked for a period by LUL due to potential problems with the nearby Bakerloo line until they moved the nearest support to the land, promised to only dig when the tube was closed, and then by-hand rather than by-machine. Now imagine that with far more digging to do and a far heavier structure!

They used the downstream pier only of each set of three of the old (removed 1985) bridge, and also widened the downstream part of the “in use” Blackfriars Rail Bridge slightly. The wiki article has a decent picture showing the two rows of unused piers, the third row has been combined with the piers of the newer bridge: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackfriars_Railway_Bridge#/media/File:Pillars_of_old_Blackfriars_Railway_Bridge_-_02.jpg

Agree with you that Hungerford Bridge wouldn’t be straightforward, but I’d also think that the authors must be aware of that.

Regarding Blackfriars Bridge, is that the one where Roberto Calvi's body was found hanging back in 1982 and was made to look like a suicide attempt?