Waterloo - Movement on the redevelopment

[Olaf]

A consortium has been appointed to design and execute the capacity enhancements at Waterloo:
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...-30-capacity-increase-at-london-waterloo.html

UK: The South West Trains-Network Rail Alliance of train operator SWT and infrastructure manager NR announced on March 18 that it had appointed a consortium of Skanska, Colas Rail, Aecom and Mott MacDonald to plan and undertake a four-year multi-million pound programme to provide a ‘step change’ in capacity at London Waterloo station.

The appointment of the contractors ‘is an important step forward in our commitment to boost peak time capacity by 30% by 2018’, said Christian Roth, Fleet Director of the South West Trains-Network Rail Alliance. ‘Waterloo is the country's busiest station, with 98 million people using it every year and South West Trains has seen passenger numbers double in 20 years.’

The contractors are to develop detailed plans which will then be submitted to the Office of Rail Regulation and Department for Transport for approval. The scope will include lengthening platforms 1-4 to enable the operation of 10-car trains on suburban routes, and reopening the former Waterloo International platforms for regular use by commuter services.

Shorter-term capacity improvement works already in progress include the refurbishment of EMUs to permit the operation of longer trains, associated platform lengthening at 60 stations, track and signalling works and an order for 30 five-car Siemens Desiro City Class 707 EMUs to enter service in 2017-18.

‘A huge amount of work has already been carried out to improve services and increase capacity but we know we need do to much more’, said Roth. ‘The unique alliance between South West Trains and Network Rail allows a project of this size to be delivered efficiently and it will have a real impact on passengers’ journeys.’

So it seems that this is to go ahead without the GBP 1 billion property redevelopment of the site that was to include the under-croft.

"By 2018" suggests the intent is to complete the work by the end of 2017.

... whereas this announcement implies that it is a "four years" plan, thus implying by end of 2018, or even end of Q1/2019:
http://www.southwesttrains.co.uk/Bi...West Trains network moves a step forward.aspx

Biggest investment for decades on South West Trains network moves a step closer

Consortium appointed to support delivery of multi-million-pound improvement programme
Projects include extended and re-opened platforms at UK’s busiest station, London Waterloo
Work already underway on associated delivery of extra trains and better track and signalling
Commitment to boost peak time capacity by 30 per cent by 2018



The biggest investment for decades on the UK’s busiest railway has now moved a step closer with the appointment of a team of contractors who will be responsible for planning and carrying out major improvement works at London Waterloo.

An agreement between the South West Trains-Network Rail Alliance, Skanska, Colas Rail, AECOM and Mott MacDonald has now been agreed following a detailed and stringent procurement process. The consortium will now work with the Alliance to scope out plans to boost capacity at London Waterloo and other inner London stations. These detailed plans will then be submitted to the Office of Rail Regulation and Department for Transport.

The railway from London Waterloo is the UK’s busiest, carrying more than half a million passengers every day and more than 222million every year, an increase of more than 100% in just the last 20 years. London Waterloo is also the UK’s busiest station, with 98 million passengers in 2013/14 and a train arriving or departing virtually every minute during peak times.

In order to boost capacity for passengers and prepare for the continued growth in the coming years, the South West Trains-Network Rail Alliance is planning to invest hundreds of millions of pounds in the next four years to provide a ‘step change’ increase in capacity. The agreement aims to develop detailed plans, including:

Reopening the former Waterloo International Terminal to be used regularly by commuter services. These platforms were closed in 2007 when the Eurostar services moved to St Pancras International.
Lengthening Platforms 1-4 to allow 10-car services to run on suburban routes for the first time ever.



Alongside this major investment, the South West Trains-Network Rail Alliance is continuing to press ahead to deliver capacity improvements in the short term. This includes the ongoing rollout of 108 additional and refurbished carriages, the first of which have already been introduced into service. A further 150 brand new carriages will also start to be introduced in 2017.

Stations have also been improved, with platforms lengthened at 60 stations to accommodate the longer trains and facilities and accessibility improved at many others.

Christian Roth, Fleet Director of the South West Trains-Network Rail Alliance, said: “This is an important step forward in our commitment to boost peak time capacity by 30 per cent by 2018. Waterloo is the country’s busiest station, with 98m people using it every year and South West Trains has seen passenger numbers double in 20 years.


“A huge amount of work has already been carried out to improve services and increase capacity but we know we need do to much more. The unique alliance between South West Trains and Network Rail allows a project of this size to be delivered efficiently and it will have a real impact on passengers’ journeys.”

James Richardson, speaking on behalf of the consortium of contractors, added: “An investment of this size is excellent news for rail passengers in the region and, of course, an exciting opportunity for our alliance team. Working through a unique collaboration model, we will be able to combine and integrate the skills and expertise of a strong supply chain to deliver this challenging programme.”

South West Trains and Network Rail will now work closely with Skanska, Mott Macdonald, AECOM and Colas Rail to plan and scope the work and present those plans to the Office of Rail Regulation and the Department for Transport.

 

[mr_jrt]

That 10x23m or 10x20m cars for platforms 1-4? 10x23m is ok, but 10x20m does seem short sighted, IMHO.

 

[The Ham]

That 10x23m or 10x20m cars for platforms 1-4? 10x23m is ok, but 10x20m does seem short sighted, IMHO.

However those platforms are very constrained as it is, so to get them to be full length may result in a reduction in the number of platforms.

 

[AM9]

That 10x23m or 10x20m cars for platforms 1-4? 10x23m is ok, but 10x20m does seem short sighted, IMHO.

There are no 23m suburban EMUs on any of the former Southern Region Classic lines so why do the suburban platforms at Waterloo need to be longer than 200m?

 

[21C101]

There are no 23m suburban EMUs on any of the former Southern Region Classic lines so why do the suburban platforms at Waterloo need to be longer than 200m?

Because as sure as night follows day, 10 car inner suburban trains will become 12 car inner suburban trains in a decade or so and it would be a shame to have to tear waterloo up again?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

However those platforms are very constrained as it is, so to get them to be full length may result in a reduction in the number of platforms.

I thought two of them were going to enable the lengthening with two of the International platforms effectively replacing them.

 

[swt_passenger]

I thought two of them were going to enable the lengthening with two of the International platforms effectively replacing them.

That was definitely the solution in an early iteration of the plan, but as I undestand it now they will keep the four platforms by effectively moving the throat away from the station slightly, but with a simplified layout allowing less parallel moves. But then with the mainline side inner suburbans being spread out over platforms 1-7 overall capacity in terms of trains per hour will be maintained.

The advantage over the original plan is that they gain all five of the international side as extras, rather than just three, with two being replacements.

I do agree that they should be planning for 240m, but perhaps they reckon they can get away with 10 car for a couple of decades yet, especially if Crossrail 2 is confirmed.

 

[AM9]

Because as sure as night follows day, 10 car inner suburban trains will become 12 car inner suburban trains in a decade or so and it would be a shame to have to tear waterloo up again?

As I said, 23m coach lengths are irrelevant for at least 25 years. By changing the argument to 12x20m train lengths, the case is at least justifiable, but the additional work to extend the first four platforms on the inside of the curve that extra 40m could make the whole scheme unaffordable or just impractical. If there is a proven case in the future, its BCR will prevail.

 

[The Ham]

Because as sure as night follows day, 10 car inner suburban trains will become 12 car inner suburban trains in a decade or so and it would be a shame to have to tear waterloo up again?

In just over a decade and a half (2030) Crossrail 2 could be built or being built, meaning that Waterloo could find itself with a lot of spare platforms when a lot of the inner suburban services go over to running through London.

 

[21C101]

In just over a decade and a half (2030) Crossrail 2 could be built or being built, meaning that Waterloo could find itself with a lot of spare platforms when a lot of the inner suburban services go over to running through London.

The key driver for Crossrail two is to get those inner suburban services off the slows to make more space for extra outer suburbans and long distances from Alton, Southampton. Bournemouth, Portsmouth, Salisbury etc. - most of which will be 12 car.

 

[The Ham]

The key driver for Crossrail two is to get those inner suburban services off the slows to make more space for extra outer suburbans and long distances from Alton, Southampton. Bournemouth, Portsmouth, Salisbury etc. - most of which will be 12 car.

With extra services it'll probably be a long time before all the extra services would need to be full length. There are currently some peak hour services which are not full length.

 

[MarkyT]

... the additional work to extend the first four platforms on the inside of the curve that extra 40m could make the whole scheme unaffordable or just impractical. If there is a proven case in the future, its BCR will prevail.

10x20m is possible to accomodate on the existing viaducts and the tightly constrained and curved Westminster Bridge road underbridge, all without moving the bufferstops. 10x20m cars is an aspiration for the entire Main Slow service group but not 12x20m or 10x23m in the foreseeable future. If longer trains were ever required, platforms 1-4 might then be extended at the bufferstop end with the tracks extended across the concourse and a new circulating and access area created around the new stops in retail space under the general offices. Being only four platforms at one end of the long concourse, that would not divide the large circulating area not decrease its total area significantly so should be acceptable.

 

[The Ham]

10x20m is possible to accomodate on the existing viaducts and the tightly constrained and curved Westminster Bridge road underbridge, all without moving the bufferstops. 10x20m cars is an aspiration for the entire Main Slow service group but not 12x20m or 10x23m in the foreseeable future. If longer trains were ever required, platforms 1-4 might then be extended at the bufferstop end with the tracks extended across the concourse and a new circulating and access area created around the new stops in retail space under the general offices. Being only four platforms at one end of the long concourse, that would not divide the large circulating area not decrease its total area significantly so should be acceptable.

Especially post Crossrail 2 when passenger numbers at Waterloo will be a LOT lower than at present.

 

[Class 170101]

Especially post Crossrail 2 when passenger numbers at Waterloo will be a LOT lower than at present.

I think that will depend on the route Crossrail 2 takes across London. As I recall it doesn't really serve the City so many people will still want to travel via Waterloo unless capacity is available on the Central Line which in itself is busy now in the peaks (via Tottenham Court Road) or Crossrail.

Additionally that assumes the numbers carried remain constant between now and when (if) Crossrail 2 opens. I would suggest this is unlikely and secondly even once Crossrail 2 opens all it could do is create extra capacity which is filled almost immediately upon opening on both Crossrail 2 and at Waterloo on Main Line services.

 

[21C101]

I think that will depend on the route Crossrail 2 takes across London. As I recall it doesn't really serve the City so many people will still want to travel via Waterloo unless capacity is available on the Central Line which in itself is busy now in the peaks (via Tottenham Court Road) or Crossrail.

Additionally that assumes the numbers carried remain constant between now and when (if) Crossrail 2 opens. I would suggest this is unlikely and secondly even once Crossrail 2 opens all it could do is create extra capacity which is filled almost immediately upon opening on both Crossrail 2 and at Waterloo on Main Line services.

It also dosen't take into account the suppressed demand. A lot of traffic is lost because there are not enough paths which is why Chessington South and Hampton Court only get a paltry half hourly service, even in the peaks. Ditto for outer suburban eg Guildford via Effingham. Get the inner suburbans onto Crossrail and you will end up with far more outer suburban pax. Plus a lot of crossrail pax heading for the city will change at Raynes Park or Wimbledon onto Waterloo trains.

 

[The Ham]

I think that will depend on the route Crossrail 2 takes across London. As I recall it doesn't really serve the City so many people will still want to travel via Waterloo unless capacity is available on the Central Line which in itself is busy now in the peaks (via Tottenham Court Road) or Crossrail.

Additionally that assumes the numbers carried remain constant between now and when (if) Crossrail 2 opens. I would suggest this is unlikely and secondly even once Crossrail 2 opens all it could do is create extra capacity which is filled almost immediately upon opening on both Crossrail 2 and at Waterloo on Main Line services.

Conversely there are a lot of people who don't work in the City who will use Crossrail 2 to get to other places in London (including people who will switch from SWT's services to Crossrail 2 services). A classic example of people who will want to change are those who are heading to catch Eurostar services.

 

[Class 170101]

It also dosen't take into account the suppressed demand. A lot of traffic is lost because there are not enough paths which is why Chessington South and Hampton Court only get a paltry half hourly service, even in the peaks. Ditto for outer suburban eg Guildford via Effingham. Get the inner suburbans onto Crossrail and you will end up with far more outer suburban pax. Plus a lot of crossrail pax heading for the city will change at Raynes Park or Wimbledon onto Waterloo trains.

This is the bit where I was accounting for supppressed demand. Main Lines being everything into Waterloo not subsumed into Crossrail 2.

secondly even once Crossrail 2 opens all it could do is create extra capacity which is filled almost immediately upon opening on both Crossrail 2 and at Waterloo on Main Line services.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Conversely there are a lot of people who don't work in the City who will use Crossrail 2 to get to other places in London (including people who will switch from SWT's services to Crossrail 2 services). A classic example of people who will want to change are those who are heading to catch Eurostar services.

This will relieve some pressure at Waterloo in this respect and I agree with that but the switch / interchange from SWT Main Line services to Crossrail 2 services would be at which station for people from South of Basingstoke or Woking?

 

[The Ham]

This will relieve some pressure at Waterloo in this respect and I agree with that but the switch / interchange from SWT Main Line services to Crossrail 2 services would be at which station for people from South of Basingstoke or Woking?

I would have thought that there would be a lot more longer distance services able to stop at Clapham Junction, so that would likely be the interchange point. As even if the service someone was catching called there the time saved by getting fast to there having changed at Woking and Clapham would still be more than catching a slower service. (I.e. to get to Winchfield it is quicker to get a fast train to Farnborough and change, where there are 4tph, than catch the semi fast to Basingstoke all the way from Waterloo).

 

[21C101]

I would have thought that there would be a lot more longer distance services able to stop at Clapham Junction, so that would likely be the interchange point. As even if the service someone was catching called there the time saved by getting fast to there having changed at Woking and Clapham would still be more than catching a slower service. (I.e. to get to Winchfield it is quicker to get a fast train to Farnborough and change, where there are 4tph, than catch the semi fast to Basingstoke all the way from Waterloo).

I would imagine that the two major interchange points would be Raynes Park for suburban traffic changing to crossrail as it could be done cross platform and Clapham Junction for longer distance traffic.

I would be a little wary of expecting lots of west end pax/ travellers to Kings Cross/ St Pancras to desert Waterloo for Crossrail, as I suspect a lot of them already bail out at Clapham Junction and go via Victoria.

 

[edwin_m]

I would imagine that the two major interchange points would be Raynes Park for suburban traffic changing to crossrail as it could be done cross platform and Clapham Junction for longer distance traffic.

I would be a little wary of expecting lots of west end pax/ travellers to Kings Cross/ St Pancras to desert Waterloo for Crossrail, as I suspect a lot of them already bail out at Clapham Junction and go via Victoria.

Hopefully they will stop most of the main line trains at a suitable station with cross-platform interchange to Crossrail 2. If some but not all stopped then that would reduce capacity. Clapham Junction may not be the best interchange, depending how easy it is to get to and from the new underground platforms there.

Assuming such an interchange is provided, Euston area should be quicker via Crossrail 2 than making two difficult changes at Clapham Junction and Victoria, and probably easier than via Vauxhall too. The layout at TCR suggests the change between the two Crossrails will also be an easy route to get to the City, assuming neither is excessively crowded.

 

[21C101]

Hopefully they will stop most of the main line trains at a suitable station with cross-platform interchange to Crossrail 2. If some but not all stopped then that would reduce capacity. Clapham Junction may not be the best interchange, depending how easy it is to get to and from the new underground platforms there.

Assuming such an interchange is provided, Euston area should be quicker via Crossrail 2 than making two difficult changes at Clapham Junction and Victoria, and probably easier than via Vauxhall too. The layout at TCR suggests the change between the two Crossrails will also be an easy route to get to the City, assuming neither is excessively crowded.

I'm assuming that Crossrail will have its own tracks between at least New Malden and the entrance to the tunnels between Raynes Park and Wimbledon.

Ideally you want an interchange where all the crossrail trains stop and there is cross platform interchange.

As I would see it the current Epsom line platforms would become the crossrail platforms which means you would have an island platform cross platform interchange between crossrail and Waterloo trains.

You could do (and they probably will do) something similar at New Malden if you abolished the fast line platforms and moved the fast into the centre to make room for two island platforms, but half of the crossrail trains won't go there as they would have turned off at Raynes Park so Raynes park is the better interchange point to stop outer suburbans at.

 

[Chris125]

The key driver for Crossrail two is to get those inner suburban services off the slows to make more space for extra outer suburbans and long distances from Alton, Southampton. Bournemouth, Portsmouth, Salisbury etc. - most of which will be 12 car.

I believe the current plans for Crossrail 2 involve suburban services continuing to run into Waterloo, though at a reduced frequency - in which case the use of those platforms by 10-car suburban trains will likely continue for the foreseeable future.

I'm assuming that Crossrail will have its own tracks between at least New Malden and the entrance to the tunnels between Raynes Park and Wimbledon.

The current plan has the tunnel portals north of Wimbledon. I'm not sure separate tracks to Raynes Park are currently proposed but there doesn't seem to be much detail on the Network Rail elements.

Chris

 

[Tio Terry]

I believe the current plans for Crossrail 2 involve suburban services continuing to run into Waterloo, though at a reduced frequency - in which case the use of those platforms by 10-car suburban trains will likely continue for the foreseeable future.

Chris

Plans are in place to increase the length of platforms 1 to 4 to ten car length to cater for inner suburban services - Epsom, Chessington, Hampton Court etc. Platforms 1 to 5 are due to be closed for some 6 weeks whilst this work is progressed early next year.

 

[59CosG95]

The current plan has the tunnel portals north of Wimbledon. I'm not sure separate tracks to Raynes Park are currently proposed but there doesn't seem to be much detail on the Network Rail elements.

Putting the tunnel portal to the south would be more beneficial from an interchange point of view; outer suburban services (e.g. Basingstoke semi-fasts and Alton services) would be able to use P5 and P8 at WIM, while the CR2 services could use new dedicated platforms under the main station. Raynes Park, while it has good connectivity, has nowhere near the same connectivity as Wimbledon.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
It may of course be an ideal opportunity to completely remodel Wimbledon, allowing a larger concourse to be constructed, as well as a new Thameslink/Tramlink layout.

 

[swt_passenger]

I believe the current plans for Crossrail 2 involve suburban services continuing to run into Waterloo, though at a reduced frequency - in which case the use of those platforms by 10-car suburban trains will likely continue for the foreseeable future.



The current plan has the tunnel portals north of Wimbledon. I'm not sure separate tracks to Raynes Park are currently proposed but there doesn't seem to be much detail on the Network Rail elements.

Chris

The main details in both the London and SE RUS, and the recent Wessex route study both refer to six tracks inbound from New Malden, but not in great detail.

This from the recent route study draft:

The Crossrail 2 infrastructure proposals to support the new cross
London service includes a tunnel portal in the Wimbledon area
connecting to the central tunnel section and a six track layout
between New Malden and Wimbledon.
The proposal has been assessed and would allow for the following
re-ordering of services between the tunnel section, fast and slow
lines:
• The six track formation inwards of New Malden allows all
suburban services which would currently join the Slow Line
inwards of New Malden to instead be routed on the new 6th
track
• Inwards of Wimbledon a large proportion of existing Slow Line
services would become Crossrail 2 services and therefore be
routed into the central tunnel section at Wimbledon. This would
free up capacity on the Slow Lines inwards of Wimbledon and
platform capacity at London Waterloo
• The capacity released on the Slow Line and at London Waterloo
can then be used by the six to seven trains per hour which
currently join the Fast Lines inwards of Surbiton.

Specifically though, they don't really discuss the tunnel portal's exact location, it all depends on how much they can (or want to) rebuild Wimbledon station and the adjacent shopping centre etc.

 

[Chris125]

Specifically though, they don't really discuss the tunnel portal's exact location, it all depends on how much they can (or want to) rebuild Wimbledon station and the adjacent shopping centre etc.

The most recent TfL route maps, including the one on the official website now show the tunnel portal north of Wimbledon and this appears to be reflected in the safeguarding - it is also mentioned in the Consultation Report:

Consultation – Stage 2 Analysis Report (June 2014)

The Council also notes Crossrail 2’s intention to relocate the southernmost tunnel portal just north of Wimbledon, which the council supports in principal, as this is likely to have less impact on Merton residents than the previous option, although it recognises that this will be subject to detailed investigations.

Chris

 

[Feathers44]

The most recent TfL route maps, including the one on the official website now show the tunnel portal north of Wimbledon and this appears to be reflected in the safeguarding

Chris

That's a shame. I'm sure it saves a packet on a new underground station at Wimbledon but the platform space is already under pressure with trams etc without any real room to expand in my opinion. Nor am I sure quite where a portal can go to the north. In the yard? There is at least a little space to play with to the south (where they've just renewed all the points... Hmmm).

 

[21C101]

Looks like some serious demolition at Wimbledon to fit an extra pair of tracks then - unless they intend to convert the wall of death line to light rail as part of tramlink and move it on street a la West Croydon in which case it will be dead easy, and free up four Thames link paths an hour to go somewhere more useful

 

[swt_passenger]

The most recent TfL route maps, including the one on the official website now show the tunnel portal north of Wimbledon and this appears to be reflected in the safeguarding - it is also mentioned in the Consultation Report:

I was using 'they' in the context of Network Rail's own information - and their description doesn't correspond to TfL's description. Make of that what you will...

 

[Bald Rick]

Tunnel portal location still to be decided I gather.

I can imagine that rebuilding Wimbledon is not a particularly attractive option and likely to be very disruptive. Which means expensive. Extending the tunnel will be cheap, but an underground station not so.

 

[edwin_m]

unless they intend to convert the wall of death line to light rail as part of tramlink and move it on street a la West Croydon in which case it will be dead easy, and free up four Thames link paths an hour to go somewhere more useful

There seems to be quite a lot of momentum behind a Wimbledon-Sutton Tramlink extension with no suggestion that conversion of the railway is being considered. Which suggests nobody is thinking in terms of conversion, as I doubt it could justify two tram routes on the same corridor.