My idea for Waterloo to regain through services

[DerekC]

It is well known that Waterloo main line station used to have a link to Waterloo East, closed in 1911. In fact the whole design of Waterloo main line, with its curved platforms, is still an echo of the original intention that it should be a through station. A quick look at the OS map shows how the curve lines up with that of the ex-SER line approaching Waterloo East.

A radical (possibly insane) thought - why not make the connection now? The property in the way is not that extensive and a bridge over Waterloo Road would be perfectly feasible. For through services the terminal turnaround would be eliminated, bringing dwell times down to 90 seconds or so. This is a big plus point, increasing the capacity of Waterloo at a stroke and also avoiding turnback at Charing Cross.

The connection would fit best into the main line platforms, so through services between (for example) Basingstoke and Sevenoaks or Guildford and Gravesend would be possible. Would these be valuable in themselves?

Of course there would be some very unhappy Charing Cross commuters. What do to help them? Convert the Hungerford Bridge into a moving walkway, perhaps?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I imagine any plans for cross-London services from the SouthWest have been superceded by Crossrail 2...

 

[Timothy Turtle]

This was briefly looked at a few years ago but quickly rejected because of the huge capital cost, loss of capacity to/from Charing Cross and the relatively small benefit of through services between Kent and SWT land.

 

[Hornet]

It is well known that Waterloo main line station used to have a link to Waterloo East, closed in 1911. In fact the whole design of Waterloo main line, with its curved platforms, is still an echo of the original intention that it should be a through station. A quick look at the OS map shows how the curve lines up with that of the ex-SER line approaching Waterloo East.

A radical (possibly insane) thought - why not make the connection now? The property in the way is not that extensive and a bridge over Waterloo Road would be perfectly feasible. For through services the terminal turnaround would be eliminated, bringing dwell times down to 90 seconds or so. This is a big plus point, increasing the capacity of Waterloo at a stroke and also avoiding turnback at Charing Cross.

The connection would fit best into the main line platforms, so through services between (for example) Basingstoke and Sevenoaks or Guildford and Gravesend would be possible. Would these be valuable in themselves?

Of course there would be some very unhappy Charing Cross commuters. What do to help them? Convert the Hungerford Bridge into a moving walkway, perhaps?

http://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=17&lat=51.5036&lon=-0.1134&layers=163

You can zoom in and also use the blue button and slide it back to reveal the present google map view.

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

The bridge that used to carry trains from Waterloo Main Station over to Waterloo East, is still there, it used to be used as the linkway between the two stations, with a steep slope upto Waterloo East, until about 20 odd years ago, when the present link was opened, no doubt in connection with when Eurostar services were first started. You can easily see the bridge from Waterloo Road.

I used to travel in the 1960s and 1970s alot from Waterloo East to see my Grandparents who lived in Kent and it was still known locally as Waterloo Junction, then just Waterloo.


That is a fascinating map extract that has been posted here. It's interesting too that it show the Necropolis Station as being away from the main station, (I had thought that is was located in the main part, near where platforms 104 are now. As this map appears to be issued before the rebuild of Waterloo in the 1920s, I wonder in the Necropolis station was moved nearer the main station after the rebuild.)

If there was a reconnection made, then there would have to be a large over foot bridge put into Waterloo Station over the connection.

 

[wimbledonpete]

I think as you say the potential loss of Charing Cross would make this difficult - there'd have to be some pretty compelling arguments over replacement access. But it would create a direct South Bank RER-type route Vauxhall-Waterloo-London Bridge (Waterloo East being presumably redundant). Knitting together the fast SWT services with the mix of fast and slow SE services might be a bit of a nightmare but railway planners are fantastic at coming up with workable timetables. It would be complementary with Crossrail 2 - that takes care of the suburban SWT lines and this would address the longer distance ones.

 

[mr_jrt]

I think as you say the potential loss of Charing Cross would make this difficult - there'd have to be some pretty compelling arguments over replacement access. But it would create a direct South Bank RER-type route Vauxhall-Waterloo-London Bridge (Waterloo East being presumably redundant). Knitting together the fast SWT services with the mix of fast and slow SE services might be a bit of a nightmare but railway planners are fantastic at coming up with workable timetables. It would be complementary with Crossrail 2 - that takes care of the suburban SWT lines and this would address the longer distance ones.

Charing Cross is already going to have to make do as once the Thameslink works are complete it will still be limited to two tracks east of Metropolitan Junction, so the real question is whether it can cope with that two-track section running to west of Waterloo East, or whether it needs four tracks to cope. Short of some novel solution to link Waterloo and Charing Cross stations better (than the Northern Line!) then the CX trains would still need to serve Waterloo East, and given the interchange times I'm not sure it would cope with just two platforms available (which is presumably why it has 4 now).

That said, London Bridge will have two-track sections either side, so I suspect beyond the changes at Waterloo itself, finding a way to get 6 platforms at Waterloo East is the primary obstacle.

 

[DerekC]

Charing Cross is already going to have to make do as once the Thameslink works are complete it will still be limited to two tracks east of Metropolitan Junction, so the real question is whether it can cope with that two-track section running to west of Waterloo East, or whether it needs four tracks to cope. Short of some novel solution to link Waterloo and Charing Cross stations better (than the Northern Line!) then the CX trains would still need to serve Waterloo East, and given the interchange times I'm not sure it would cope with just two platforms available (which is presumably why it has 4 now).

That said, London Bridge will have two-track sections either side, so I suspect beyond the changes at Waterloo itself, finding a way to get 6 platforms at Waterloo East is the primary obstacle.

All good stuff, but if two tracks went via Waterloo Main Line they could take 16 trains per hour and these wouldn't need to stop at Waterloo East. So the residual Charing Cross service would be down to about another 16 TPH - should be easily within the capacity of two tracks and two platforms at Waterloo East.

As somebody said, this would complement rather than compete with Crossrail 2.

 

[Bald Rick]

This has been looked at, indeed there is a thread on it somewhere.

It's bonkers though.

To make it work needs grade separation on the immediate approaches to Waterloo to segregate 'through' trains and those that continue to terminate. And there's nowhere to do that without significant land take.

Also, Charing Cross has 40m passengers a year. These are not going to fit on 16tph in the peak (and presumably somewhat less off peak).

But perhaps the biggest bonkersness of it all, is that all it does is remove the interchange for the approx 5m people a year (at most) who do travel from Waterloo towards London Bridge and beyond on Southeastern services.

So to save these approx 5m people a 4 minute walk and an interchange penalty, we inconvenience at least 20m people who want to go to Charing Cross, and give them an interchange penalty and potentially 10 minute walk.

 

[Bookd]

A remaining curiosity, according to Quail maps, is that mileages at Waterloo and onwards are still taken from the junction, although it closed a century ago. So if parked in the platform at Waterloo you are already 0.06 miles in to the journey.

 

[Dr_Paul]

It could be done... but to have the circulating area cut in half and with the necessary footbridges over or subways under, plus ramps or lifts for those unable to use stairs, etc, would put into the shade any gains by through running. It would make the old Liverpool Street with its two long platforms quite convenient by comparison.

One way it could be done which would avoid the above chaos would be to have the circulating area relocated above the existing one, with ramps leading down onto the platforms, as at Euston. As the roof at Waterloo is some 40 feet up, this is not impossible, although the station entrances, some with escalators, and the ways down to the Underground would need to be modified. The old concourse could be used for office and retail purposes, or perhaps for access to the Underground straight from the platforms.

I still think that the advantages of a link to Waterloo East would be far outweighed by the expense of building it and the potential for inconvenience.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

This was briefly looked at a few years ago but quickly rejected because of the huge capital cost, loss of capacity to/from Charing Cross and the relatively small benefit of through services between Kent and SWT land.

Presumably the Charing Cross issue could in principle have been solved by extending Southern services from London Bridge to run from Charing Cross instead. Would obviously need quadrupling the track all the way from Waterloo East to London Bridge and further grade separation though. As an extra benefit you could probably then completely close Waterloo East (since from what I've seen, almost all passengers who use it really want to be at Waterloo Main). And London Bridge would perhaps no longer need many (any?) terminating platforms).

Obviously though, that would have required a London Bridge rebuild rather different in nature from the one that is currently taking place, so it's a bit late to suggest something like that now. Always seemed to me like quite a good idea if it'd been possible, though.

This has been looked at, indeed there is a thread on it somewhere.

But perhaps the biggest bonkersness of it all, is that all it does is remove the interchange for the approx 5m people a year (at most) who do travel from Waterloo towards London Bridge and beyond on Southeastern services.

Are you sure it's only 5M people? I'm guessing those would be the figures for people transferring between Waterloo and Waterloo (East), but a more realistic figure would also include many of those who transfer from SWT to the Jubilee line to get to London Bridge.

 

[chivers49]

I never knew such a link existed. Thanks for posting this fabulous map, Hornet.

 

[Philip C]

I never knew such a link existed. Thanks for posting this fabulous map, Hornet.

You may be interested to know that use of the connection was, I'm all but certain, referred to by HG Wells in the early part of his novel 'The War of The Worlds'.

 

[infobleep]

People use to get confused and joke about which platform at Waterloo you needed as both stations were called Waterloo!

 

[DerekC]

This has been looked at, indeed there is a thread on it somewhere.

It's bonkers though.

To make it work needs grade separation on the immediate approaches to Waterloo to segregate 'through' trains and those that continue to terminate. And there's nowhere to do that without significant land take.

Also, Charing Cross has 40m passengers a year. These are not going to fit on 16tph in the peak (and presumably somewhat less off peak).

But perhaps the biggest bonkersness of it all, is that all it does is remove the interchange for the approx 5m people a year (at most) who do travel from Waterloo towards London Bridge and beyond on Southeastern services.

So to save these approx 5m people a 4 minute walk and an interchange penalty, we inconvenience at least 20m people who want to go to Charing Cross, and give them an interchange penalty and potentially 10 minute walk.

It is clearly not going to happen, but I don't think it's bonkers. Waterloo is (as it has always been) three stations. The Windsor lines could carry on as now. The suburban service (less Crossrail 2) can continue to operate from Platforms 1-5. All that would happen is that some (about 2/3) of the arrivals on the fast lines would become through trains. This just happens to be about the proportion which returns on the fast lines, the remainder (in the AM peak) going out ECS to Clapham sidings, which are usually accessed via the Windsor lines, so it all looks feasible without any bigger need for grade separation than there is now.

The big advantage is that it replaces terminating with through platforms, which would increase the train handling capacity by a factor of 2 (at least).

The big issue (apart from knocking down the Union Jack Club, which I don't think would be missed too much) would be passenger handling. An elevated deck with escalators down to platform level would work very well, as somebody suggested.

Someone also mentioned that it would relieve Jubilee line to London Bridge. That must be right. It would also relieve some load on the Waterloo & City.

 

[infobleep]

It is clearly not going to happen, but I don't think it's bonkers. Waterloo is (as it has always been) three stations. The Windsor lines could carry on as now. The suburban service (less Crossrail 2) can continue to operate from Platforms 1-5. All that would happen is that some (about 2/3) of the arrivals on the fast lines would become through trains. This just happens to be about the proportion which returns on the fast lines, the remainder (in the AM peak) going out ECS to Clapham sidings, which are usually accessed via the Windsor lines, so it all looks feasible without any bigger need for grade separation than there is now.

The big advantage is that it replaces terminating with through platforms, which would increase the train handling capacity by a factor of 2 (at least).

The big issue (apart from knocking down the Union Jack Club, which I don't think would be missed too much) would be passenger handling. An elevated deck with escalators down to platform level would work very well, as somebody suggested.

Someone also mentioned that it would relieve Jubilee line to London Bridge. That must be right. It would also relieve some load on the Waterloo & City.

Why do people use the Jubilee line when they can use Waterloo East, outside of the current engineering works admittedly?

 

[3141]

In the 1950s, if you looked out of the left hand side of a train from Waterloo East to Charing Cross you could clearly see that there had once been a rail connection between the two Waterloos, with a bit of platform still visible on the curve.

 

[yorksrob]

You may be interested to know that use of the connection was, I'm all but certain, referred to by HG Wells in the early part of his novel 'The War of The Worlds'.

Shame Jeff Wayne didn't include that in the Richard Burton preamble to the classic War of the Worlds album.

 

[cool110]

People use to get confused and joke about which platform at Waterloo you needed as both stations were called Waterloo!

I've managed to carry that on as a running joke in a certain chatroom by assuming that everyone's talking about Waterloo (Merseyside).

 

[mr_jrt]

Just to play the "it needn't reopen what there once was" card...

...just because the link came from the main station back in the day doesn't mean that makes the most sense today, what would be the better option for pairing up with a London Bridge service? Waterloo's long-distance services, Waterloo's residual suburban services, or the Windsor line services?

Assume for a moment that you can build your new link as you please. What do you build?

I'm tempted to argue that there will be much fewer suburban services after CR2, and given they will have the newly-freed up slow lines all to themselves from Raynes Park, you may well be able to send the lot across to London Bridge...if you could work out how to solve the Borough Market bottleneck - 9 through platforms could be used as 2 to CS, 3 to Blackfriars, 2 to CX, and 2 to Waterloo, but that won't help you immediately to the west where you will only have at best 6 tracks.

I just can't see where they would go unless you rerouted services from CX to Waterloo, but then you'd want a north facing link from Waterloo as well, and thus you'd have cloned the triangle of junctions west of London Bridge!

 

[swt_passenger]

I'm tempted to argue that there will be much fewer suburban services after CR2, and given they will have the newly-freed up slow lines all to themselves from Raynes Park,

But they won't have the slow lines all to themselves, because of the regularly explained intention to transfer some existing outer suburban trains from fast onto the slow lines, to allow more long distance trains to run on the fast lines. This was discussed a few times in the early stages of our Crossroad 2 thread...

 

[Bald Rick]

It is clearly not going to happen, but I don't think it's bonkers. Waterloo is (as it has always been) three stations. The Windsor lines could carry on as now. The suburban service (less Crossrail 2) can continue to operate from Platforms 1-5. All that would happen is that some (about 2/3) of the arrivals on the fast lines would become through trains. This just happens to be about the proportion which returns on the fast lines, the remainder (in the AM peak) going out ECS to Clapham sidings, which are usually accessed via the Windsor lines, so it all looks feasible without any bigger need for grade separation than there is now.

What about the PM peak? How do all those ECS get to the right platforms and/or back out to the Down Main Fast at Waterloo without conflicting with either the Windsor line services or the new through services, or both?

Where are the approx 16tph main line services going to go in Kent with main line specified stock? Today, out of Charing cross between 0800 and 0900 there are 5 Kent Main Line services. Where do the other 11 ex Waterloo 'through' go?

And I'll say again, what is the benefit, other than saving a small interchange penalty to a relatively small number of people, to the disadvantage of at least 4 times as many?

 

[DerekC]

What about the PM peak? How do all those ECS get to the right platforms and/or back out to the Down Main Fast at Waterloo without conflicting with either the Windsor line services or the new through services, or both?

Where are the approx 16tph main line services going to go in Kent with main line specified stock? Today, out of Charing cross between 0800 and 0900 there are 5 Kent Main Line services. Where do the other 11 ex Waterloo 'through' go?

And I'll say again, what is the benefit, other than saving a small interchange penalty to a relatively small number of people, to the disadvantage of at least 4 times as many?

The PM peak ECS problem is not yet solved in current plans for extra train paths as far as I know. It needs to be fixed anyway.

The through services would mostly (in current rolling stock terms) be 450s, which could do most ex-Charing X jobs, I would have thought.

And I'll say again, the benefit is in extra capacity at Waterloo Terminal stations are always less efficient than through stations in moving trains. And relieving some of the Waterloo & City crowding. I accept that inconvenienced Charing Cross passengers would kill the idea, however.

 

[mr_jrt]

But they won't have the slow lines all to themselves, because of the regularly explained intention to transfer some existing outer suburban trains from fast onto the slow lines, to allow more long distance trains to run on the fast lines. This was discussed a few times in the early stages of our Crossroad 2 thread...

I must've missed that

Which platforms do the outer suburbans currently use? ...and are we expecting them to use 1-4 once CR2 is operational?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It is clearly not going to happen, but I don't think it's bonkers.

That would be my sense too.

Waterloo is (as it has always been) three stations. The Windsor lines could carry on as now. The suburban service (less Crossrail 2) can continue to operate from Platforms 1-5. All that would happen is that some (about 2/3) of the arrivals on the fast lines would become through trains.

I think there is a problem there, in that the services you'd really want to extend are the metro services, not the long-distance ones. I solution I'd be inclined go for would be to swap platforms so the metro services go into platforms 6-10-ish and on to London Bridge, and the long-distance ones into 1-5-ish. I don't think this would require a big land-grab near Waterloo, as you could do it by redesigning the grade separation near Wimbledon to get the trains onto the right tracks there (yes I know it would be a lot of rebuilding, though)

And I'll say again, what is the benefit, other than saving a small interchange penalty to a relatively small number of people, to the disadvantage of at least 4 times as many?

I think that's somewhat understating the problem at Waterloo East. It's not a cross-platform interchange - it's a (by rail standards) extremely long walk. I'll grant that to most passengers that's little more than an annoyance and an extra 5 minutes to add to your journey time, but to elderly or disabled passengers, it's long enough to be a serious barrier to travel. And as others have pointed out, there are other benefits (fewer terminating trains, less pressure on the Jubilee line).

Of course if you close CHX, then you're right - the disbenefits outweigh the benefits. But if you follow through my idea of extending LBG Southern services to start at CHX, to replace the Southeastern trains that would no longer go there, then the benefits become massively greater. Southern passengers heading for the West End don't have to change at London Bridge - that alone is likely to relieve considerable pressure on the Jubilee (and to a lesser extent the Northern) lines - both of which in my experience regularly leave passengers behind because trains are so full at London Bridge. If you can arrange it so that nothing terminates at London Bridge, then capacity there presumably becomes greater. The only (modest) disbenefit is that SouthEastern passengers heading for CHX would need to change at LBG (but without the long walk).

Why do people use the Jubilee line when they can use Waterloo East, outside of the current engineering works admittedly?

Not as far to walk, and more frequent trains (in my experience, slightly more reliable too). Depending where you want to be at London Bridge, or if you're planning to change to the Northern line there, you may have a shorter walk from the Jubilee line there too.

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

In the 1950s, if you looked out of the left hand side of a train from Waterloo East to Charing Cross you could clearly see that there had once been a rail connection between the two Waterloos, with a bit of platform still visible on the curve.

If you look carefully, you can still see part of that connection now, and (As mentioned above in post 16, I don't think you would have to knock any buildings down in Waterloo Road as the old rail connection bridge is still there, I presume just used for storage now, since the building 20 odd years ago of the higher foot bridge connection.)

 

[jopsuk]

Since the link was removed, an extra track & platform has been added and the platforms lengthened through Waterloo East.

And the old link was single track.

OTOH if you were doing this, then it would make sense to make the link double track and close two of the Waterloo East platforms. In fact, closing the whole existing station and rebuilding the remaining two Charing Cross line platforms closer to the main station on Meepham Street would make sense. The through services would then have to be SEML services towards/through Ashford. Could be fun... "direct" Portsmouth-Dover services?

 

[chivers49]

You may be interested to know that use of the connection was, I'm all but certain, referred to by HG Wells in the early part of his novel 'The War of The Worlds'.

No, I didn't know that either. Certainly learning a lot on this forum!

 

[Philip C]

To clarify:

My Pan Classics edition of 'The War of the Worlds' (pub. 1975) includes in Chapter 14 ('In London') at page 82/3 the following wording:

'About five o'clock the gathering crowd in the station was immensely excited by the opening of the line of communication, which is almost invariably closed, between the South Eastern and the South-Western stations, and the passage of carriage-trucks bearing huge guns, and carriages crammed with soldiers. These were the guns which were brought up from Woolwich and Chatham to cover Kingston.'

HG Wells makes quite a lot of fascinating reference to the impact of 'the invasion' on pre-grouping railway operation. The book was written in the period 1895-7 and I'm sure would be enjoyed by almost any reader.