Waterloo Platform Extensions, Station Platforms and Throat Remodeling.

[hwl]

That only applies to the Southern (Central) side. Diesel and, with regards to charters, steam services can run into the Southeastern (Eastern) side. That said, it all depends on how many services Southeastern need to run, and whether HSTs and other GWR stock can be cleared for the route (probably more about short swing link / long swing link issues than other dimensions; believe it or not, the lines via Grosvenor Rail Bridge into London Victoria were originally designed to accept GWR broad gauge freight anyway).

Except the bridge got rebuilt in the 1950s.
GatEx 442s have run via Herne Hill on diversion during the Balham closure a few years ago so should be able to do the short Battersea - VIC stretch.

However SET will have diverted services into VIC due to London Bridge works...

 

[Goldfish62]

One thing I've always wondered. The WIT platforms are about 1 m above the main station platforms, presumably on an incline into the station rather than the main station platforms and tracks sloping downwards. Was this done to create enough room for the facilities below the tracks and above the LUL station?

 

[cle]

Cutting back the Windsor lines to two isn't going to help things, as I've been on several trains that have been held at Clapham Junction (up services) or after Vauxhall (down) under the existing arrangement. However, I think that fixing the bottleneck by having two up and two down lines -- the best solution for the Windsor lines -- all the way from Vauxhall to Clapham Junction will be very difficult, as it would require the rebuilding of Queenstown Road station, and, if the junction flyover is not removed, extending the viaduct sideways, and I'm not sure whether this is feasible.

If the NLE extended beyond the Power Station to Clapham Junction, I could see the possible benefit of closing Queenstown Road. There would be local, more frequent tube trains to both CJ and Waterloo - and on, into town.

It might possibly keep some locals away from the Victoria line at Vauxhall - plus speed up Windsor line services and add capacity there. It could then probably operate as a 2-line service between the four platforms at Vauxhall and the four at Clapham quite easily.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Wasn't the flyover part EC grant funded so if it is demolished before a certain date the grant would be to be repaid hence making it extremely unlikely?

It's nearly 25 years old so I doubt that would apply now.

 

[Class 170101]

That only applies to the Southern (Central) side. Diesel and, with regards to charters, steam services can run into the Southeastern (Eastern) side. That said, it all depends on how many services Southeastern need to run, and whether HSTs and other GWR stock can be cleared for the route (probably more about short swing link / long swing link issues than other dimensions; believe it or not, the lines via Grosvenor Rail Bridge into London Victoria were originally designed to accept GWR broad gauge freight anyway).

Having consulted the Quail map I have for this area I think the only route available would be West Byfleet, Staines, Richmond (or Putney), Wimbledon, Clapham Jn, Ludgate Lines and the LBSC Battersea Reversible into Platforms 1 to 15 at Victoria.

 

[swt_passenger]

Having consulted the Quail map I have for this area I think the only route available would be West Byfleet, Staines, Richmond (or Putney), Wimbledon, Clapham Jn, Ludgate Lines and the LBSC Battersea Reversible into Platforms 1 to 15 at Victoria.

However there's really no viable route through Wimbledon if heading to Victoria. They'd have to go via Staines, Virginia Water and the Byfleet curve, which is the normal route for charters to/from Victoria for destinations accessed via the SWML.

 

[Goldfish62]

Nonetheless that is the aim of the layout shown in fig 5.5 on page 79 of the Wessex route study published a few months ago.

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/Public...ssex-route-study/Wessex-Route-Study-Final.pdf

Hmm. While have the carriage road completely separate operationally it will create problems if the Down Windsor is reduced to one line all the way from Waterloo as PM Peak services have to utilise both the slow and fast lines as some are scheduled only 2 min apart.

 

[Goldfish62]

The International platforms came under procession yesterday and the diggers moved in. No time was wasted in partially removing the scissors crossing at International Junction. It's going to be very interesting watching progress of the project.

 

[tsr]

Except the bridge got rebuilt in the 1950s.
GatEx 442s have run via Herne Hill on diversion during the Balham closure a few years ago so should be able to do the short Battersea - VIC stretch.

However SET will have diverted services into VIC due to London Bridge works...

Was it not the 1960s when it was refurbished (not rebuilt)? Much of the structure and its dimensions remained the same; AIUI the bridge deck was simply replaced, but there is still decent clearance on many parts of the infrastructure round there. Not all, but many.

442s are rather different from loco-hauled/HST Mk3s for a number of reasons - 442s may operate over some routes where HSTs may not. You are correct about the diversions of 442s, but these diversions also happen much more regularly than you think.

As for Southeastern needing to divert, if that is the case, that would really put a spanner in the works.

 

[hwl]

Was it not the 1960s when it was refurbished (not rebuilt)? Much of the structure and its dimensions remained the same; AIUI the bridge deck was simply replaced, but there is still decent clearance on many parts of the infrastructure round there. Not all, but many.

442s are rather different from loco-hauled/HST Mk3s for a number of reasons - 442s may operate over some routes where HSTs may not. You are correct about the diversions of 442s, but these diversions also happen much more regularly than you think.

As for Southeastern needing to divert, if that is the case, that would really put a spanner in the works.

Apologies 1963 to 1967

The existing piers were partially rebuilt (as it was effectively several separate bridges originally) and encased in concrete and the number of tracks increased to 10 (needed to reduce disruption during the rebuild) with complete deck replacement.

Film of the rebuild from the time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSfa90avBzI

 

[Phil.]

Cutting back the distance between buffer stops and starter signal is also necessary to give a line of sight from the driver of a starting train to the starter train. With the original 400m platform lengths, the driver of a 4/8/10/12 car train sat at the original buffer stops wouldn't be able to see the starter signals at their original location, due to the distance and (primarily) platform curvature.

That's why there were/are three signal repeaters on each of the five platforms.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

All i can say is... A year and a half????!!!!

Why does everything take so long in this country these days...

We don't have a "can do" attitude nowadays.

The foundations were started to be dug on January 22nd 1930.
Building construction began on March 17th 1930.
Building work was completed on April 11th 1931.
The building was officially opened on May 1st 1931.
So, that's just over fifteen months from start to finish. That's a "can do" attitude.
At 1,250 feet high incorporating 102 storeys it's New York's Empire State Building.

 

[NSEFAN]

We don't have a "can do" attitude nowadays.

We also have safer working practices. Taking dodgy short cuts to get the job done quicker is no longer permitted.

 

[Deepgreen]

Cutting back the distance between buffer stops and starter signal is also necessary to give a line of sight from the driver of a starting train to the starter train. With the original 400m platform lengths, the driver of a 4/8/10/12 car train sat at the original buffer stops wouldn't be able to see the starter signals at their original location, due to the distance and (primarily) platform curvature.

That's why there were/are three signal repeaters on each of the five platforms.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


We don't have a "can do" attitude nowadays.

The foundations were started to be dug on January 22nd 1930.
Building construction began on March 17th 1930.
Building work was completed on April 11th 1931.
The building was officially opened on May 1st 1931.
So, that's just over fifteen months from start to finish. That's a "can do" attitude.
At 1,250 feet high incorporating 102 storeys it's New York's Empire State Building.

Imagine that famous photograph of the ESB contruction workers in 1931-ish having their lunch sitting on the narrow girders 1000 feet up, but with them wearing hard hats and hi-vis jackets!

 

[Wolfie]

We don't have a "can do" attitude nowadays.

The foundations were started to be dug on January 22nd 1930.
Building construction began on March 17th 1930.
Building work was completed on April 11th 1931.
The building was officially opened on May 1st 1931.
So, that's just over fifteen months from start to finish. That's a "can do" attitude.
At 1,250 feet high incorporating 102 storeys it's New York's Empire State Building.

Building on a distinct seperate site probably rather helped... I am sure that Waterloo could be rebuilt MUCH faster if it was closed... a 9-12 month closure wouldn't cause any problems in London of course....NOT!

 

[southern442]

It's three years altogether, if you read the first post fully...

The Metrolink could double their network size in that time!

 

[Phil.]

We also have safer working practices. Taking dodgy short cuts to get the job done quicker is no longer permitted.

You don't have to take short cuts, you simply get on with it.

 

[jopsuk]

We don't have a "can do" attitude nowadays.

The foundations were started to be dug on January 22nd 1930.
Building construction began on March 17th 1930.
Building work was completed on April 11th 1931.
The building was officially opened on May 1st 1931.
So, that's just over fifteen months from start to finish. That's a "can do" attitude.
At 1,250 feet high incorporating 102 storeys it's New York's Empire State Building.

On the official record five men lost their lives on that building site

 

[Goldfish62]

Is anything actually happening in the terminal? Since the closure and part removal of the scissors crossing near International Junction I can't see any sign of anything further happening.

 

[swt_passenger]

Network Rail video on the alterations here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhQqKqpESYA

Doesn't really give a lot of detail that isn't already known.

 

[Tio Terry]

That's why there were/are three signal repeaters on each of the five platforms.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


We don't have a "can do" attitude nowadays.

The foundations were started to be dug on January 22nd 1930.
Building construction began on March 17th 1930.
Building work was completed on April 11th 1931.
The building was officially opened on May 1st 1931.
So, that's just over fifteen months from start to finish. That's a "can do" attitude.
At 1,250 feet high incorporating 102 storeys it's New York's Empire State Building.

Don't agree that we don't have a "can do" attitude. We certainly had it with HS1, but it's very different working on a green field site than working with an operating railway. When you can fence off the site and prevent anyone other than authorised personnel in it's not quite the same as having thousands of people moving through the site. If we could shut Waterloo it would take considerably less time.
Everybody off at Clapham?

 

[HarleyDavidson]

Yep. Just the one problem.

I don't sign Clapham Yard.

 

[Class 170101]

Yep. Just the one problem.

I don't sign Clapham Yard.

I am sure we can find someone to hold your hand

 

[w1bbl3]

You don't have to take short cuts, you simply get on with it.

Working at height without a means of fall arrest is a short cut and deadly one at that. Harnessing up the empire state steel erectors would have required a completely different method of working, man riding certainly wouldn't have been possible.

It's quite possible to start with virgin ground and build quickly today someone just needs to be prepared to pay for it with alterations it is slightly more complex particularly if the asset needs to remain open throughout. Keeping it open without disruption is the hard bit.

 

[WWTownEnth]

The NR video suggests 60 TPH during peak times on the Windsor line. That is a very significant jump from the current 28. Does anyone know what the changes will be, and if even more rolling stock will be required to implement them?

Also, surely four tracking will have to be reinstated at Queenstown Road by the international ramp?

 

[swt_passenger]

The NR video suggests 60 TPH during peak times on the Windsor line. That is a very significant jump from the current 28. Does anyone know what the changes will be, and if even more rolling stock will be required to implement them?

'Over 60 tph' is the whole station number of arrivals across all 3 service groups, not just the Windsor lines, despite how they report it in the video. Capacity on the Windosr side after the changes is only increased to 20 tph.

Also, surely four tracking will have to be reinstated at Queenstown Road by the international ramp?

There are no plans to reinstate four tracking, or demolish the flyover. If anything they intend to run the Windsor side service on only two tracks, as described in the Route Study. I attached the proposed track layout drawing in post #26 a few weeks ago.

There's a short summary of the four main parts of the Waterloo Capacity Improvement Project WCIP in the planning application:

The agreed infrastructure and rolling stock improvements as part of the WCIP sit in four main projects as follows:

Windsor 20 trains per hour (tph) - to re-open the former WIT for all Windsor line services, and outlying track and station works (described below) to enable 20tph to operate at the busiest peak hour. The Planning Application Works form part of this project.

10-car suburban - To enable a 10-car suburban network by extending Waterloo platforms 1-4 and to develop additional infrastructure and rolling stock solutions. This includes additional provisions to address congestion at Waterloo Station.

Outlying stations - the development of solutions to address station congestion at outlying stations on the Wessex route.

Mainline – to facilitate 28 tph in the weekday morning peak period to London Waterloo for mainline services from the South Coast and South West. This involves a grade separated junction at Woking and a number of track modifications along the lines.

 

[infobleep]

Where's the like button when you need it?!

If you have a smartphone and install Tapatalk, you will get a like button for the forum.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Don't agree that we don't have a "can do" attitude. We certainly had it with HS1, but it's very different working on a green field site than working with an operating railway. When you can fence off the site and prevent anyone other than authorised personnel in it's not quite the same as having thousands of people moving through the site. If we could shut Waterloo it would take considerably less time.
Everybody off at Clapham?

That would be great and can they have a trail run tomorrow when I need to get from Guildford to Twickenham and back during the morning and evening peak rush hours. Lol.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[HarleyDavidson]

So what's the point of keeping the former international flyover if nothing is ever going to use it?

It's a white elephant and one that should be removed as so to improve the running of services on the Windsor lines.

 

[HowardGWR]

Everybody off at Clapham?

That didn't go well at Finsbury Park did it?

 

[Bald Rick]

So what's the point of keeping the former international flyover if nothing is ever going to use it?

It's a white elephant and one that should be removed as so to improve the running of services on the Windsor lines.

1) you don't need to remove the flyover to get some extra capacity on the route (I have the plans).

2) even if more capacity than (1) delivers is required, you have to sort out, ie close and bridge, the level crossings on the Richmond line and/or the Hounslow loop.

3) that flyover is built like the proverbial brick outhouse. Getting it down will require multiple, extended all line closures. Which as per (1) and (2) above does nothing to improve capacity on the Windsor side. A lot of expense for no benefit. Easy decision?

 

[HarleyDavidson]

1) you don't need to remove the flyover to get some extra capacity on the route (I have the plans).

2) even if more capacity than (1) delivers is required, you have to sort out, ie close and bridge, the level crossings on the Richmond line and/or the Hounslow loop.

3) that flyover is built like the proverbial brick outhouse. Getting it down will require multiple, extended all line closures. Which as per (1) and (2) above does nothing to improve capacity on the Windsor side. A lot of expense for no benefit. Easy decision?

So what you're saying is, despite the fact that nothing uses it, nothing is ever likely to use it in the near or immediate future, NR is going to keep it in situ and pay to maintain it for no good reason, when you could disconnect it, demolish it and not have to pay for any maintenance to be carried out.