Waterloo East to Waterloo connection?

[MCR247]

Potentially bonkers suggestion here. Would it be possible to build a 2 or 4 track connection from Waterloo to Waterloo East, so that trains could come in to Waterloo then out via London Bridge in order to simplify operations in central London and avoid conflicting train movements from needing to reverse so many trains at these big termini?

I think this would be a solution looking for a problem.

What about passengers heading across the river to Charing Cross?

Who drives these new combined services? Swapping drivers at Waterloo and/or London Bridge wouldn’t work very well.

It’d also mean that any problems on the SWML would be imported to the Southeastern lines and vice versa

 

[swt_passenger]

A few questions to explore:

Which operations would it simplify?

Is it actually a problem to operate Waterloo and Charing Cross in the manner they currently operate?

How many through platforms would be needed at the combined Waterloo / Waterloo East to deal with the dwell time needed to load the trains?

Why hasn't it been done before now?

It was possible prior to the 1900s rebuild, but only via a single track and apparently it was only very rarely used. Impossible after about 1920 as the new Waterloo main station building had blocked the route.

I don’t think it’s a problem waiting to be solved, has it ever been considered for reopening in the subsequent 100 years?

 

[parallelepiped]

I'm not an expert in such matters, just trying to improve my understanding by asking a speculative question.
It seems like the Thameslink core can support up to 24tph, and in peak times Waterloo has maybe 34tph (this is just a guess based on counting departures on realtime trains), so two through platforms should cover over 50% of the capacity of the entire station, and if you had 4 that would replace the whole thing! I presume there are subtle reasons it wouldn't quite work like that, but that seems quite compelling.

As for why the old connection was taken out, I presume that's because it was a single track and the railways on each side were operated by different companies so there was no benefit from it.

I think this would be a solution looking for a problem.

What about passengers heading across the river to Charing Cross?

Who drives these new combined services? Swapping drivers at Waterloo and/or London Bridge wouldn’t work very well.

It’d also mean that any problems on the SWML would be imported to the Southeastern lines and vice versa

It's no so much that there is a problem with the current setup, more that this could increase capacity across the network. Obviously a connection through central London to the north would be better, but this seems like a cheper alternative which achieves some of the benefits for much less cost.

There would obviously have to be a single operator for the through service using the same drivers.

What to do about Charing Cross is a difficult question, it seems to become totally redundant in this plan but there may be a way to have it still connected.

 

[JonathanH]

It seems like the Thameslink core can support up to 24tph, and in peak times Waterloo has maybe 34tph (this is just a guess based on counting departures on realtime trains), so two through platforms should cover over 50% of the capacity of the entire station, and if you had 4 that would replace the whole thing! I presume there are subtle reasons it wouldn't quite work like that, but that seems quite compelling.

One of the main points is whether through platforms could cope with the passengers. Thameslink loadings are spread over four stations, St Pancras, Farringdon, City Thameslink, Blackfriars, London Bridge, and to some extent Elephant & Castle.

Linking services across Waterloo might remove Charing Cross as a terminal, but there would only be three loading points, London Bridge, Waterloo and Vauxhall, so it might not be as easy to deal with passenger volume as well as Thameslink can.

One of the ways Thameslink works is by having trains that can load passengers very quickly. People who travel longer distances complain about 700s. It may well be that only the suburban services at Waterloo could transfer, and not the longer distance ones.

Clearly some demolition would be required. This would have to be paid for. The 'air rights' at Charing Cross have already been sold off. What other land could be released if any?

The number of trains into Charing Cross is less than the number at Waterloo so there is a mismatch there.

 

[Magdalia]

Look at this from the Waterloo East end.

South Eastern already operate 24 tph in the peaks through Waterloo East, with a superior terminal location at Charing Cross.

If you divert those trains through Waterloo, how do you get those thousands of people across the River Thames?

 

[randyrippley]

Look at this from the Waterloo East end.

South Eastern already operate 24 tph in the peaks through Waterloo East, with a superior terminal location at Charing Cross.

If you divert those trains through Waterloo, how do you get those thousands of people across the River Thames?

By cablecar of course

 

[MCR247]

It's no so much that there is a problem with the current setup, more that this could increase capacity across the network. Obviously a connection through central London to the north would be better, but this seems like a cheper alternative which achieves some of the benefits for much less cost.

There would obviously have to be a single operator for the through service using the same drivers.

What to do about Charing Cross is a difficult question, it seems to become totally redundant in this plan but there may be a way to have it still connected.

I’m not sure how this would increase capacity across the network. As far as I’m aware, the number of terminal platforms isn’t the single limiting factor for either SW or SE. So removing that ‘constraint’ doesn’t unlock capacity at Clapham Junction or the other side of London Bridge.

In fact, I’d say without some very expensive grade separated junctions between Vauxhall and Waterloo, this plan would increase conflicting moves as you’ll need to get trains from the Windsor and mainline parts of the SWML to the ‘through platforms’.

Regarding the drivers, it’s not so much about whether it’s a single operator or not. It’s more that with this plan, the drivers would have to learn and maintain twice the amount of routes.

Charing Cross might be redundant for you in this plan, but this doesn’t mean it’ll suddenly be redundant for the passengers that currently use it. They’ll still need to get to where they’re going.

 

[778]

Potentially bonkers suggestion here. Would it be possible to build a 2 or 4 track connection from Waterloo to Waterloo East, so that trains could come in to Waterloo then out via London Bridge in order to simplify operations in central London and avoid conflicting train movements from needing to reverse so many trains at these big termini?

How many buildings would have to be knocked down? Looking at google maps I cannot see any possible way the 2 stations could be connected.

 

[parallelepiped]

How many buildings would have to be knocked down? Looking at google maps I cannot see any possible way the 2 stations could be connected.

I did look at google maps myself and I don't see that any buildings would need to be demolished, the only things in the way seem to be the station buildings themselves

 

[Magdalia]

I did look at google maps myself and I don't see that any buildings would need to be demolished, the only things in the way seem to be the station buildings themselves

Waterloo Road, Cornwall Road, Sandell Street and Wootton Street. Rather than look at internet maps, take a walk around the area. The real world is 3 dimensions not 2.

 

[30907]

I'm not an expert in such matters, just trying to improve my understanding by asking a speculative question.
It seems like the Thameslink core can support up to 24tph, and in peak times Waterloo has maybe 34tph (this is just a guess based on counting departures on realtime trains), so two through platforms should cover over 50% of the capacity of the entire station, and if you had 4 that would replace the whole thing! I presume there are subtle reasons it wouldn't quite work like that, but that seems quite compelling.

The last pre Covid timetable has 58 departures from Waterloo between 1700-1759.
Realistically a 4-platform through station could cope with half that number (as W East currently does),.

As for why the old connection was taken out, I presume that's because it was a single track and the railways on each side were operated by different companies so there was no benefit from it.

It was built when there were far fewer trains on either line (and was AIUI little used).

It's no so much that there is a problem with the current setup, more that this could increase capacity across the network.

It would create some capacity at Waterloo, but you can't get many more trains through Clapham Jn (which is why IIRC Network Rail floated the idea of a major rebuild there).

What to do about Charing Cross is a difficult question, it seems to become totally redundant in this plan but there may be a way to have it still connected.

Closing Charing Cross has been proposed before, pre WW2 - essentially because Hungerford Bridge spoilt the view! I can't quickly find a reference online.

 

[AlbertBeale]

Waterloo Road, Cornwall Road, Sandell Street and Wootton Street. Rather than look at internet maps, take a walk around the area. The real world is 3 dimensions not 2.

Actually, using the route of the original single track link would only need knocking down some of the Waterloo station buildings (and dividing the concourse in half...). The bridge over Waterloo Road is still there - it was used as the pedestrian link between the two stations (NB - East was once called Waterloo Junction) until the new higher-level footbridge was built from the Waterloo concourse balcony (30-ish years ago?).

 

[Magdalia]

The bridge over Waterloo Road is still there - it was used as the pedestrian link between the two stations

Thanks, I remember using that bridge, never realising that it was once railway.

Did the suburban platforms 1-5 exist when it was railway?

 

[billio]

If there had been a through line along the south bank of the Thames it would have developed into a heavily used service altering the purpose and population of south of the Thames. The fact that it wasn't built and other developments took place instead has distorted the pros and cons for such an idea making it impossible for people to recognise how valuable it would be. The only possible way to make this connection now would be a tunnel, which I suspect would be impractical.

 

[Magdalia]

The only possible way to make this connection now would be a tunnel, which I suspect would be impractical.

Both of the existing routes are on viaducts above ground level.

 

[30907]

Thanks, I remember using that bridge, never realising that it was once railway.

Did the suburban platforms 1-5 exist when it was railway?

No. Waterloo Station was a hodge-podge, as this plan shows, but there were several platforms south of the through line.
https://www.gaugemasterretail.com/rightlines-article/london-waterloo-station.html

 

[mr_jrt]

Ah, I see we have reinvented the County of London Plan again.

London's Railways - Planning For Peace - A London Inheritance

Around this time of year, a number of London stations are in the news for the considerable amount of work that is on-going for rebuilding, the creation of new lines and what always seems to be the inevitable overrunning engineering works. The work at London Bridge and for Crossrail being just...

alondoninheritance.com

 

[30907]

Ah, I see we have reinvented the County of London Plan again.

London's Railways - Planning For Peace - A London Inheritance

Around this time of year, a number of London stations are in the news for the considerable amount of work that is on-going for rebuilding, the creation of new lines and what always seems to be the inevitable overrunning engineering works. The work at London Bridge and for Crossrail being just...

alondoninheritance.com

Thanks, that's one that I was looking for - but I'm fairly sure the Hungerford Bridge (or Thames bridges generally) issue had been kicking around before that.

 

[Peter Sarf]

If Charring Cross station was a limiting factor then I think the idea might hold water. BUT the bottle neck would be on the Western approach to London Bridge as this is only two tracks. So you would only justify two tracks and relieve Waterloo of about 24tph.

The real benefit would be getting Waterloo services further into London which is what Crossrail Two was for. Instead diverting away from central London via the South Eastern route out of Charing Cross as this plan would do achieves nothing for passengers.

By cablecar of course

Ha ha. I guess you were joking as 24 x 10 cars per hour is a LOT of cable car !.

 

[Bald Rick]

Potentially bonkers suggestion here. Would it be possible to build a 2 or 4 track connection from Waterloo to Waterloo East, so that trains could come in to Waterloo then out via London Bridge in order to simplify operations in central London and avoid conflicting train movements from needing to reverse so many trains at these big termini?

This has been suggested before on these pages, and also by an individual / group who evidently had some crayons. I forget exactly what I said back then, but the headlines are:

1) yes it‘s possible - with extensive local disruption (ie demolition) and some rather significant rail dispruption to build it (ie years of engineering works on both routes, very probably with reduced service levels for months at a time)

2) what benefit does it bring?

3) the levels of service into Charing Cross and Waterloo don’t match, so that means having a proportion of the services into one or both terminii using the link, and another proportion continuing to the terminii. (As Charing Cross has fewer, it’s assumed that all the Charing Cross services would go to the Waterloo lines). That means grade separation and more lines on the immediate approach to Waterloo, to split out those that are using the link from those that aren’t.

4) it wouldn’t increase capacity

5) it would reduce journey times, marginally, for the people who currently make the connection by foot

6) it would extend journey times, substantially for the (far higher) number of people who usually travel to Charing Cross from the south east, and for that matter into Charing Cross from the lines into Waterloo.

7) It would cost billions.

 

[dorsetdesiro]

The only realistic options I could see are the existing footbridge being widened & modernised, in the style of Reading's, possibly with the addition of moving walkways also perhaps sloping ramps or travelators connecting to the concourse but with the mezzanine being there so not possible. The current fast escalators are probably sturdy enough for wheeled luggage and the lifts are there.

The other is possibly a people mover shuttle but it isn't really that far to walk between the two stations that moving walkways would be more likely. Anybody with severly restricted mobility probably would need to look for better connections.

 

[swt_passenger]

The only realistic options I could see are the existing footbridge being widened & modernised, in the style of Reading's, possibly with the addition of moving walkways also perhaps sloping ramps or travelators connecting to the concourse but with the mezzanine being there so not possible. The current fast escalators are probably sturdy enough for wheeled luggage and the lifts are there.

The other is possibly a people mover shuttle but it isn't really that far to walk between the two stations that moving walkways would be more likely. Anybody with severly restricted mobility probably would need to look for better connections.

The problem is it’s only about 110m from the main station along the existing footbridge to the first ‘split point’ for the different platforms at Waterloo East, and that distance includes two changes of direction. I think moving walkways on the present route would be overkill. A Reading style transfer deck might improve the ambience at Waterloo East, but it’s going to be difficult to get planning permission for something light and airy that wound also directly overlook so many private properties…

 

[BrianW]

I read the OP's post as being about a rail connection between the two stations. maps from the excellent National Library of Scotland free online service show the prior link from the 'middle' of the main station: https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/sid...1.50280&lon=-0.11280&layers=6&right=ESRIWorld

I imagine there will be archive material which will pin down its location with more precision.

IIRC there was also a rail link from Waterloo to Charing Cross, but that may have been magical memory.

That they are not there now suggests they were not particularly useful; perhaps in the same way as no service between Charing Cross to Cannon Street.

In essence each train using such a link has to come from somewhere, and go somewhere- where would those places be; would they be additional to or replacing existing services? Both stations are already busy. Is there additional stock sitting empty and crews sitting on their hands? Eastbound Inter-station Services would need to cross CXbound trains, limiting frequencies.

Sadly, with other contributors, OP, its a solution looking for a problem. Good to have and share ideas though- a 'bonkers' idea can have within it the kernel of the next big idea.

 

[swt_passenger]

I read the OP's post as being about a rail connection between the two stations. maps from the excellent National Library of Scotland free online service show the prior link from the 'middle' of the main station: https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/sid...1.50280&lon=-0.11280&layers=6&right=ESRIWorld

I imagine there will be archive material which will pin down its location with more precision.

You can still see exactly where the route went, the original girder bridge over Waterloo Rd is still in situ, the current footbridge is vertically above it. Using Google Streetview you can see it easily from ground level on Waterloo Road, or from the cab road just outside the Network Rail station reception office.

But the current Waterloo station main building obliterated the direct route to the original platforms within Waterloo, in previous discussions a couple of people had assumed wrongly that the route came through the present arched entrance to the station, but that’s about 30m away from the projected centreline of the rail bridge.

 

[eh_oh]

Surely something could be done by turning the international platforms into through platforms and building a bridge over Cab Rd/Mepham St. The corner may be a bit tight but the speeds wouldn't be high anyway.

I envision something like this:

 

[Magdalia]

Surely something could be done by turning the international platforms into through platforms and building a bridge over Cab Rd/Mepham St.

Straight through the Victory Arch, which is listed.

 

[Trackman]

If it's not broke, don't fix it.

 

[Bald Rick]

Surely something could be done by turning the international platforms into through platforms and building a bridge over Cab Rd/Mepham St. The corner may be a bit tight but the speeds wouldn't be high anyway.

I envision something like this:
View attachment 158971

But why?

 

[Bevan Price]

You can see the location of the connection by zooming to the Waterloo area on these maps:

RCH map, London 1869

View map: Airey, John., Railways diagram of London and its suburbs ... / by John Airey and certified by the companies ... (J... - Town Plans / Views, 1580-1919

RCH map, London 1899

Harvard Image Delivery Service

iiif.lib.harvard.edu

Whilst it had been removed when the 1921 map was printed:

View map: J. & W. Emslie., East sheet - Official railway map of London and its environs / prepared and published at the railway... - Town Plans / Views, 1580-1919

 

[eh_oh]

But why?

Oh, sure it's not useful, just saying how it's theoretically possible.

Although post #28 seems to have shot my idea dead in the water