More platforms at London Victoria?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tommy3000

Member
Joined
14 Feb 2012
Messages
34
I was reading another forum and someone posted a link to this report by TfL: http://www.sutton.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=16498 (hosted by Sutton Borough for whatever reason.)

On p.110, under paras 16 and 21, it says there is a conceptual scheme to reconfigure both sides of Victoria to create additional platforms for Southern and Southeastern services. It links the reconfiguration of the Southeastern side to the grade separation of Herne Hill's junctions on the Chatham line, as presumably there would be no point doing one without the other since both are at capacity. The timescale is 'post-2020'.

Does anyone know more about the plans? Google hasn't turned up much.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
23,473
It doesn't seem up to date either. It refers to the now abandoned Airtrack in a positive sense, with 2011 being referred to in the future.

As there's nothing mentioned about expansion of Victoria in the London and SE RUS, I wouldn't give that proposal much significance...
 

Class377/5

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2010
Messages
5,594
The general thoughts is Herne Hill needs to be sorted out 2020-2030 period. More likely will be held back by money more than anything else.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
23,473
All I found is that it's tentatively mentioned in the South London RUS of 2008.

Page 138 includes safeguarding of land for a Herne Hill flyover.

Page 145 has a table about options for Herne Hill, one of which is:

"Increase capacity at Herne Hill by grade separation.
Not recommended prior to 2020. Protection recommended regarding the land requirements for this scheme."
 

Tommy3000

Member
Joined
14 Feb 2012
Messages
34
It does seem like NR has shied away from grade separating Herne Hill since the 2008 RUS.

As I understood it, the main justification for grade separation was to allow for more fast trains to Kent, but the 2011 RUS is actually projecting a 16% drop in passengers between Victoria and Kent by 2031 (presumably those passengers will be going to St Pancras instead). If the Chatham isn't buckling under the strain, it's hard to see how they could justify reconfiguring Victoria's platforms (at least on the Southeastern side) and grade separating HH.

The problem with leaving HH alone is that the junctions will get in the way of a proper metro service on either of the routes through it, which are both rammed during the peaks. The 2011 RUS doesn't completely ignore this problem - the capacity freed up at the junctions after 2018 (when the diverted Brighton trains go back to London Bridge) will be used for local services and the projected overcrowding on the Blackfriars route will be addressed with high-capacity trains (similar to the 378s) sometime before 2031.

The big downside to this approach is that Camberwell will have to stay closed since there will be no room for the huge number of people who would use the station (it seems the Bakerloo extension, if it happens, is certain to go down the Old Kent Road and miss Camberwell). Perhaps they could turn HH's siding into a bay platform and run shuttles to Blackfriars?
 

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,460
There is a general problem that whilst most of North London's metro services (ie the bulk of London Underground) have their own rail network (most shared tracks are shared with London Overground) the South London metro does share/cross on the flat the tracks of an awful lot of the Southern regions' longer distance lines- which is why Underground-style services can't run on them.

Crossrail will help a bit by taking pressure off the line through Greenwich, hopefully.
 

Barclay

Member
Joined
23 Mar 2010
Messages
93
Could capacity problems at Victoria be eased by using the old Eurostar viaduct and diverting some services from the Brixton direction into Waterloo International?
 

mister-sparky

Member
Joined
28 Jan 2007
Messages
389
Location
Kent
that was proposed initially, but was dropped. i think they decided that the lines into victoria werent at capacity enough to justify it. and southwest wanted the platforms at waterloo for themselves
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
5,862
Could capacity problems at Victoria be eased by using the old Eurostar viaduct and diverting some services from the Brixton direction into Waterloo International?

The capacity problems at Victoria aren't actually much to do with Victoria itself so adding more platforms won't help. Spending money elsewhere will.

Southeastern side: the trains end up sitting in the station due to pathing issues much further out

Problem areas:
Herne Hill flat junction issues (though even a single track grade seperation north of the station would be a big help (i.e. up Blackfriars over the victoria lines?) Full GS would be useful.

Bromley South Area

Lewisham Area: Will be partially improved by Tanner Hill Flydown works as part of Thames link phase 2.
Problems in a number of places extending further out to Dartford.

Platform and train lengthening along the routes.


Southern Side:
Sort out East Croydon Area (i.e. Norwood Junction, East Croydon, Selhurst, South Croydon) NR have medium term plans (CP5 and 6)

Improve line speeds at number of junctions so conflicting movement clear quicker.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top