Why were SWR's suburban routes not extended to support 12 car trains?

[mr_jrt]

Was there a particular reason they went with 5 & 10 rather than 8 & 4? Would give you more options (4/8/12 vs 5/10), and seems more "standard" across other lines I'm more familiar with? Surely given how busy the lines are sorting SDO or platform extensions to 12 car would make sense? Sorry if that's a bit of a tangent, just popped into my head when reading the 8 car sidings may be wasted on 5 car units.

 

[Domh245]

Was there a particular reason they went with 5 & 10 rather than 8 & 4? Would give you more options (4/8/12 vs 5/10), and seems more "standard" across other lines I'm more familiar with? Surely given how busy the lines are sorting SDO or platform extensions to 12 car would make sense? Sorry if that's a bit of a tangent, just popped into my head when reading the 8 car sidings may be wasted on 5 car units.

SWR's suburban network is based around 10 car units now. (One of) The limiting factor(s) is the low-number platforms at Waterloo which were recently expanded to 10 car, which is as as far as they can be extended. Needless to say that you can't do 12 car trains into a 10 car terminal platform.

 

[Bald Rick]

Was there a particular reason they went with 5 & 10 rather than 8 & 4? Would give you more options (4/8/12 vs 5/10), and seems more "standard" across other lines I'm more familiar with? Surely given how busy the lines are sorting SDO or platform extensions to 12 car would make sense? Sorry if that's a bit of a tangent, just popped into my head when reading the 8 car sidings may be wasted on 5 car units.

Just to add to what @Domh245 has said, the cost of going to 12 car on the suburban services is astronomical. Just doing Waterloo is billions. And you wouldn’t just want Waterloo; as a minimum you’d want Vauxhall to Wimbledon inclusive, and those two in particular are also very, very challenging.

 

[mr_jrt]

Whilst I'm not disagreeing with you, I am curious - assuming you don't touch the international shed so you can slew things across, is Waterloo not (invoking the magic 'j' word!) 'just' a case of widening the bridge over Westminster bridge road, and a bit of infill widening of the existing viaduct either side (there's loads of space on the existing viaduct by the platforms, for example)? Then you just slightly adjust the platforms to point towards the new bit and they'll be able to be longer? Speeds are slow so curvature doesn't seem like it would be a problem, and doesn't look like it would be worse than at present, if anything, may in fact work out gentler.

There's a small hotel/bar that would have to go, but doesn't seem like it would be billions. Many millions, certainly, but billions seems a bit high? Can't comment on Vauxhall to Wimbledon as I've not looked at it even the cursory amount I've looked at Waterloo, but I am curious.

Just to illustrate, here's a very crude illustration that I'm not claiming to be anything more than that!

 

[Bald Rick]

The whole throat has to move c40m further out. That means that when it is crossing Westminster bridge road, it is somewhat wider than your green line, and extends a little further south too. Therefore there is a process necessary to get that land, clear it, and build an extensive viaduct to support the tracks.

Bear in mind that the ten car extension works took a 23 day blockade and seversl hundred million quid, which didn’t include any land take or new viaducts. This is a couple of orders of magnitude larger, and of course there is a decade of inflation to deal with.

 

[PG]

I'm no civil engineer but going by what @Bald Rick has posted then I'd suggest your green line needs to be roughly vertical going through the F of Four corners over towards the right of the picture.
As has been said that makes it an order or two of magnitude greater!

 

[PG]

The thought has occurred to me that the possibility exists of encroaching into the concourse area (as has recently happened at Glasgow Queen Street) this then making the situation similar to your picture in terms of land take and viaduct widening.

However I'm sure that will have been already considered and rejected for reasons which others can enlighten us as to?

 

[Ianno87]

The thought has occurred to me that the possibility exists of encroaching into the concourse area (as has recently happened at Glasgow Queen Street) this then making the situation similar to your picture in terms of land take and viaduct widening.

However I'm sure that will have been already considered and rejected for reasons which others can enlighten us as to?

The concourse is relatively narrow at that point (probably about 30 metres or so...or a carriage length and a half), so there'd be little concourse left after any extension. And Platforms 1-6 are quite close to the congested area by the escalators down to the Jubilee Line.

 

[Bald Rick]

The thought has occurred to me that the possibility exists of encroaching into the concourse area (as has recently happened at Glasgow Queen Street) this then making the situation similar to your picture in terms of land take and viaduct widening.

However I'm sure that will have been already considered and rejected for reasons which others can enlighten us as to?

Yep it pushes the buffer stops to roughly the far side of the cab road. That means either having a concourse where the Union Jack club is, or going underneath - and both are big, big bucks.

 

[JonathanH]

Yep it pushes the buffer stops to roughly the far side of the cab road. That means either having a concourse where the Union Jack club is, or going underneath - and both are big, big bucks.

Wouldn't the concourse "simply" go on top with presumably the building extending over Waterloo Road (not that I think that is practical)?

I note that https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1063898 (the listing for Victory Arch) indicates that "The rest of the station is not of special architectural or historic interest." even though from a heritage point of view it actually would be a shame to see it changed with, for example, an office block (or shopping centre) on top.

How close did Waterloo get to having an office block stuck on top when that was all the rage?

 

[Romsey]

Wouldn't the concourse "simply" go on top with presumably the building extending over Waterloo Road (not that I think that is practical)?

I note that https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1063898 (the listing for Victory Arch) indicates that "The rest of the station is not of special architectural or historic interest." even though from a heritage point of view it actually would be a shame to see it changed with, for example, an office block (or shopping centre) on top.

How close did Waterloo get to having an office block stuck on top when that was all the rage?

Not that close due to the strength or lack of in the arches under the platform area. The arches under the concourse and General Offices have a wider span than those under the tracks. Below road level there were three underground lines at different level and alignments which would make piling through the brick structure of Waterloo station difficult. I would hazard a guess that the foundations are not piles going down to the gravel or London clay. ( One of the viaducts on the approach to Victoria didn't have foundations more than a few feet deep until it was rebuilt 8 years ago.)

When Waterloo International was built the whole of the structure of the Windsor Line platforms was removed partly due to the age (1880's) and the structure of soft brick and to provide decent foundations for the much heavier concrete box of the international station.

 

[London Trains]

Currently on the SWR metro network, Dorking and Surbiton are the only stations with 12 car platforms. Extending everything to 12 car would be astronomically expensive and would be very difficult, especially at the biggest stations such as Waterloo, Vauxhall, Clapham Junction and Wimbledon.

The Southern metro network is also 10 car, and would be much easier to extend to 12 car, already having 12 cars at some stations (Victoria, London Bridge, East Croydon, Sutton, Dorking, Horsham), most importantly the London Terminals, a lot of stations with space for extensions, and a very good SDO system for the stations which can't be extended.

 

[Ianno87]

Currently on the SWR metro network, Dorking and Surbiton are the only stations with 12 car platforms. Extending everything to 12 car would be astronomically expensive and would be very difficult, especially at the biggest stations such as Waterloo, Vauxhall, Clapham Junction and Wimbledon.

The Southern metro network is also 10 car, and would be much easier to extend to 12 car, already having 12 cars at some stations (Victoria, London Bridge, East Croydon, Sutton, Dorking, Horsham), most importantly the London Terminals, a lot of stations with space for extensions, and a very good SDO system for the stations which can't be extended.

Add Epsom to the 'Difficult' list as well.

 

[Snow1964]

I think it was simply cost of extending the platforms for the extra 40m is it would have been very difficult (and expensive) with much bridge and viaduct alterations. Many stations received fairly short platform extensions as already had 600-650 feet (183-198m) platforms. Others had been built with 540 feet (164m) platforms

However, a variation of the question as to why the length was set to 10x 20m is much harder to answer, with all the work done (platforms lengthened, signals moved, the massive rebuild of Waterloo platforms 1-6, etc), would it have been possible to have gone for say 10x 21m at marginal incremental cost.

It is not as if the UK railway has to have exactly 20m coaches, there are plenty of 23m (and more recently 26m), and manufacturer’s can build variations (eg EMR 810s). My own hunch is someone didn’t really think ahead and consider possibility of adding 0.5m or 1m to each vehicle. More usefully extra 0.8m (about one extra row of seats) and added extra 8m to every platform.

I suspect the platform lengthening was based on the 455+456 fleet with no consideration that next generation trains could be built tad longer.

 

[edwin_m]

I think it was simply cost of extending the platforms for the extra 40m is it would have been very difficult (and expensive) with much bridge and viaduct alterations. Many stations received fairly short platform extensions as already had 600-650 feet (183-198m) platforms. Others had been built with 540 feet (164m) platforms

However, a variation of the question as to why the length was set to 10x 20m is much harder to answer, with all the work done (platforms lengthened, signals moved, the massive rebuild of Waterloo platforms 1-6, etc), would it have been possible to have gone for say 10x 21m at marginal incremental cost.

It is not as if the UK railway has to have exactly 20m coaches, there are plenty of 23m (and more recently 26m), and manufacturer’s can build variations (eg EMR 810s). My own hunch is someone didn’t really think ahead and consider possibility of adding 0.5m or 1m to each vehicle. More usefully extra 0.8m (about one extra row of seats) and added extra 8m to every platform.

I suspect the platform lengthening was based on the 455+456 fleet with no consideration that next generation trains could be built tad longer.

Outside the main lines, large parts of the SWR network are barred to 23m stock. The fact they run 23m stock on some routes suggests there are good reasons why they didn't get the whole network cleared. We don't know whether a hypothetical 21m body would fit easily or trigger a lot of extra work.

 

[Snow1964]

Outside the main lines, large parts of the SWR network are barred to 23m stock. The fact they run 23m stock on some routes suggests there are good reasons why they didn't get the whole network cleared. We don't know whether a hypothetical 21m body would fit easily or trigger a lot of extra work.

23m stock works to Portsmouth, Weymouth, Exeter. Also lines via Fareham, Cobham and diversionary routes via Richmond and Hounslow. The 165 routes via Wokingham etc. Must be about 90% of the network

 

[edwin_m]

23m stock works to Portsmouth, Weymouth, Exeter. Also lines via Fareham, Cobham and diversionary routes via Richmond and Hounslow. The 165 routes via Wokingham etc. Must be about 90% of the network

I did the list of routes for the safety cases of the 444 and 450 back in around 2000. That was about the maximum extent and there were quite a lot of other routes that were 20m only. Maybe not in terms of mileage but a lot of the more intensive inner suburban services used those sections.

 

[Dunfanaghy Rd]

Was there ever any truth in the story I was given in the 70s, that BR owned the pub on the corner (now The Walrus) with a view to widening the bridge?
Pat

 

[30907]

23m stock works to Portsmouth, Weymouth, Exeter. Also lines via Fareham, Cobham and diversionary routes via Richmond and Hounslow. The 165 routes via Wokingham etc. Must be about 90% of the network

With high-capacity stock on high-density routes, though, there is a lot to be said for a standard platform, and for the NR network that's 20m across the whole ex SR and the London and Glasgow 25kv networks.
Up North we might be able to do things differently, and 23m units are pretty standard, but not at 200/240m train length!

 

[edwin_m]

With high-capacity stock on high-density routes, though, there is a lot to be said for a standard platform, and for the NR network that's 20m across the whole ex SR and the London and Glasgow 25kv networks.
Up North we might be able to do things differently, and 23m units are pretty standard, but not at 200/240m train length!

The leasing companies certainly wanted trains that could be used on a wide range of routes, in case the next franchise decided they didn't want them on their original operation. That was also part of the reason to make provision for dual voltage. Apart from the 444s, all post-privatization commuter EMUs were built to 20m length up until relatively recent fleets (I think the 380s were the first). BR had of course ordered the 323s for the Regional business where almost all routes were suitable for a 23m bodyshell.

 

[Metal_gee_man]

Not cheap, but extend the balcony across the Waterloo concourse, use that as the new concourse and run escalators/lifts down to the extended platforms which would be extended platforms on the old concourse below.
Or use the St Pancras solution use the extensive tunnels, arches and undercroft under Waterloo and build the platforms on the old concourse above!

 

[HSTEd]

Outside the main lines, large parts of the SWR network are barred to 23m stock. The fact they run 23m stock on some routes suggests there are good reasons why they didn't get the whole network cleared. We don't know whether a hypothetical 21m body would fit easily or trigger a lot of extra work.

Are there still any "WES" negative differentials for long bodied stock, or have those all be removed?

Does anyone know?

 

[The Ham]

The other thing which has to be considered is that with the building of Crossrail 2 it would increase the frequency of services to much of the network. As such if you're looking for a scheme to build that's probably a better one with a greater return.

Once that's running then look at 12 coach lengthening to the existing services as you inconvenience fewer people by having blockades, also (depending on the length of trains for Crossrail 2) it may well be that the lengthening of the platforms beyond the Crossrail 2 portals could benefit more services.

Would there be benefit in creating a design so that was an understanding of land take requirements so that if land became available then it could be purchased on the open market?

 

[43096]

The leasing companies certainly wanted trains that could be used on a wide range of routes, in case the next franchise decided they didn't want them on their original operation. That was also part of the reason to make provision for dual voltage. Apart from the 444s, all post-privatization commuter EMUs were built to 20m length up until relatively recent fleets (I think the 380s were the first). BR had of course ordered the 323s for the Regional business where almost all routes were suitable for a 23m bodyshell.

333s are 23m length.

 

[swt_passenger]

Not cheap, but extend the balcony across the Waterloo concourse, use that as the new concourse and run escalators/lifts down to the extended platforms which would be extended platforms on the old concourse below.
Or use the St Pancras solution use the extensive tunnels, arches and undercroft under Waterloo and build the platforms on the old concourse above!

There isn’t enough length available with just the concourse width, as someone already mentioned. You‘d need far more than the assumed 40 metres, potentially around 50 metres, with modern standards of over run distance beyond the buffers being required.

 

[HSTEd]

There isn’t enough length available with just the concourse width, as someone already mentioned. You‘d need far more than the assumed 40 metres, potentially around 50 metres, with modern standards of over run distance beyond the buffers being required.

The safety ratchet strikes again.

 

[swt_passenger]

The safety ratchet strikes again.

I expect even if they bashed through the building onto the cab road there‘d be even more rules found suddenly to guard against trains reaching Waterloo Road in extremis...

 

[Domh245]

There isn’t enough length available with just the concourse width, as someone already mentioned. You‘d need far more than the assumed 40 metres, potentially around 50 metres, with modern standards of over run distance beyond the buffers being required.

Surely that 'buffer distance' is already built in to the new platforms, so it could just be a 40m extension above whatever currently exists

 

[swt_passenger]

Surely that 'buffer distance' is already built in to the new platforms, so it could just be a 40m extension above whatever currently exists

No, the buffer end of the rebuilt platforms wasn’t altered. Trains still run up as far as the existing hydraulic buffers, which have “grandfather rights”.

 

[Romsey]

Was there ever any truth in the story I was given in the 70s, that BR owned the pub on the corner (now The Walrus) with a view to widening the bridge?
Pat

I think I heard that the BRB Property board sold the freehold of the Red Lion sometime in the late 1980's along with a fair bit of Lower Marsh.