My idea for another "Thamelink" route between Waterloo and Euston

[hawaii2468]

Build an underground waterloo station connecting to the current WAT and Waterloo East. The new thameslink crosses the river Thames around the waterloo bridge, via temple, holborn , russell square to a new underground station built before the current Euston and Kingscross St.Pancras, can be called Russell Square station, and will have a link way to Euston and Kingscross St.Pancras respectively.

Direct services may be about to run from as far as Scotland and West Midlands to the Southwest and Southeast networks. For example: Canterbury -Nottingham Birmingham/ Manchester / Liverpool ; Edinburgh / Glasglow, Leeds - Portsmouth / Southampton / Poole.

Will that be very very expensive?

 

[MCR247]

Yes it will be and there is no point having a crossrail type thing for long distances as you will get the most benefit by having one for suburban commuter services

 

[swt_passenger]

There are already services from Newcastle or Leeds to Southampton with the normal XC routes, northbound you can already get to Edinburgh, so it's just a question of minor alterations to what already happens.

Canterbury to Nottingham is already practical using HS1 and MML.

What problem is it you are actually trying to solve?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If you wanted a 'crossrail' from Waterloo, I'd imagine a much cheaper way would simply have been to build a link to Waterloo East, so you could run through trains from the SWT lines onto the SouthEastern lines. With a bit of rearranging of services - Southeastern trains that currently run to Charing Cross diverted to the SWT lines, and replaced by replaced by Southern services running through to Charing Cross - you could probably have done it so nothing needs to terminate at London Bridge any more.

No tunnelling required, although some rather expensive rebuilding at Waterloo.

Unfortunately that plan would probably have been better thought of *before* they started rebuilding London Bridge

 

[hawaii2468]

Yes it will be and there is no point having a crossrail type thing for long distances as you will get the most benefit by having one for suburban commuter services

I am just thinking the time that the HS2 saves (about 40 minutes ) can easily be diminished by the inconvenient interchange between Euston and London Undergrounds to other London terminals and hence destinations further away. Unless HS2 is designed to only serve Central London and the North but it might probably too expensive to use frequently.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There are already services from Newcastle or Leeds to Southampton with the normal XC routes, northbound you can already get to Edinburgh, so it's just a question of minor alterations to what already happens.

Canterbury to Nottingham is already practical using HS1 and MML.

What problem is it you are actually trying to solve?

The point is to integrate the entire Midlands, Sctoland and north england networks with the Southwest and Southeat networks, not just those particular destinations, those are just examples.

It could also be used as through train services for suburban and regional train services in London and homecounties.

 

[Manchester77]

Wouldn't it be easier just to build CrossRail 2? You effectively do the same thing as well as relieving capacity into Waterloo and Kings Cross.

 

[tbtc]

They could use the West London Line to run direct services from Liverpool/ Manchester through to Southampton/ Portsmouth. Or use the new Thameslink connection to the ECML to allow direct services from Newcastle/ Leeds to the south coast.

Fact is, nobody seems interested in running those kind of services with the existing infrastructure, so why go building more infrastructure to solve a "problem" that nobody seems to consider important?

 

[JamesRowden]

The combination of the potential Heathrow HS2 branch plus the abandoned Airtrack project would produce a number of the benefits that the OP seems to want. One would catch:

1. HS2 from one of the northern cities to Heathrow.
2. Airtrack to Woking
3. A Mainline service from Woking towards the South Coast.

Combining this with the presently planned line from Slough to Heathrow and a Waterloo Airtrack service would make Heathrow a very useful air and rail hub.

 

[mr_jrt]

I've long advocated a "Westlink" tunnel between Euston and Waterloo. Aside from the capacity benefits of not having terminal services, it's a really short tunnel, so should be quite cheap, even when you factor in the work for the interchange at TCR to CR1 and CR2. I envision everything out to MK on the WCML slows going down it, hooked up to the SWML slow lines out to Basingstoke/Southampton (hell, even Northampton & Salisbury maybe).

If you extend the tunnels further out (say Willesden to Clapham), then you further relieve the throats of the two stations, which should be be beneficial, though whether the BCR stacks up is up for debate.

This link would effectively make the Southern service via the WLL redundant, freeing up paths for more frequent LO services.

 

[swt_passenger]

Willesden and Clapham already have a direct link. Why bother duplicating it?

There's probably a good reason why links such as Crossrail and Thameslink attempt to connect radial routes that are 180 degrees apart...

The logical 'couplings' are WCML suburbans to Crossrail, and SWML inners to GA inners via CR2. Funnily enough just what the experts who wrote the London and SE RUS thought of already...

 

[MidlandMainlie]

The combination of the potential Heathrow HS2 branch plus the abandoned Airtrack project would produce a number of the benefits that the OP seems to want. One would catch:

1. HS2 from one of the northern cities to Heathrow.
2. Airtrack to Woking
3. A Mainline service from Woking towards the South Coast.

Combining this with the presently planned line from Slough to Heathrow and a Waterloo Airtrack service would make Heathrow a very useful air and rail hub.

An interesting suggestion a few years ago by Geengauge 21 was to extend the HS2 Heathrow spur southwards and link it to the SWML near Woking and run the Airport services from Manchester/Leeds via Heathrow to the south coast.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Too much risk, suicide in Leeds destroys services down south. etc etc etc.

Much better for suburban services ala Crossrail and Crossrail 2.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Cross-river Tram concept had many good ideas - particularly as a street route Euston - Kings Cross - Grays Inn Road - Holborn(ish) - Waterloo and then into South London. Apart from a link between Euston and Kings Cross without the melee of the tube - would relive the overburdened Northern line as well as opening up some new central and South London areas.

Its time may yet come.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

If you wanted a 'Crossrail' from Waterloo, I'd imagine a much cheaper way would simply have been to build a link to Waterloo East, so you could run through trains from the SWT lines onto the SouthEastern lines.

There was originally such a link and some traces of it are still visible even today if you know where exactly to look.

 

[Bushy]

There was originally such a link and some traces of it are still visible even today if you know where exactly to look.

The feasibility of re-establishing the link has been considered fairly recently.

 

[34D]

The feasibility of re-establishing the link has been considered fairly recently.

Vic Mitchell wrote a very interesting book on it

 

[pablo]

Wot? Queen Victoria re-incarnated?

 

[alwaystouchout]

If Crossrail 2 gets the go ahead and is built to heavy rail standards, won't most routes coming into London be able to travel straight through anyway? Seems like you'd begin to be duplicating routes then for what is simply a commuter network with plenty of existing interchanges.

 

[CNash]

Vic Mitchell wrote a very interesting book on it

What's the name of the book? Mitchell's written quite a few...

 

[mr_jrt]

Willesden and Clapham already have a direct link. Why bother duplicating it?

Because it's full. And TfL are bloody-mindedly refusing to quadruple-track (or at the very least, safeguarding it where possible) the WLL to relieve it, so you will forever have freight, all stations LO services, and all-stations Southern services squeezed onto a pair of tracks and wasting capacity on the WCML and BML into Euston and Victoria (respectively).

Build the tunnel and the southern services can be routed via Waterloo and Euston, making the most of the paths north of Willesden and south of Clapham. Removing these "mainline" services then enables you to enhance the LO service.

There's probably a good reason why links such as Crossrail and Thameslink attempt to connect radial routes that are 180 degrees apart...

The logical 'couplings' are WCML suburbans to Crossrail, and SWML inners to GA inners via CR2. Funnily enough just what the experts who wrote the London and SE RUS thought of already...

Waterloo and Euston are no different to Blackfriars and KXStP, both are simply north-south. I'd go further and suggest the mooted proposal for Thameslink to build a second tunnel from Finsbury Park to Bermondsey (rather than the canal tunnels) would complete the trifecta. That way you get the full 24tph all the way out on each line rather than having hundreds of branches all funnelling down into a single core, each with a rubbish service provision.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

There was originally such a link and some traces of it are still visible even today if you know where exactly to look.

Would that by any chance be what the structure directly underneath the Waterloo-Waterloo East walkway that crosses Waterloo Road is?

 

[swt_passenger]

Would that by any chance be what the structure directly underneath the Waterloo-Waterloo East walkway that crosses Waterloo Road is?

Certainly is.

 

[CNash]

Slightly off-topic, but does anyone know of any online archives that have pictures of the interior and exterior of London Waterloo as it was in previous decades? A sort of "Waterloo through the ages" if you will.

 

[MikeWh]

Would that by any chance be what the structure directly underneath the Waterloo-Waterloo East walkway that crosses Waterloo Road is?

Certainly is.

Really? Was that before it was used as the footway between the stations that involved crossing the road via a pedestrian crossing?

 

[swt_passenger]

Really? Was that before it was used as the footway between the stations that involved crossing the road via a pedestrian crossing?

Yes. The bridge is the original which although supposedly wide enough for a pair of tracks only ever carried one. A satellite view will show it significantly wider than the modern footbridge at high level.

The most detailed picture I can find is here, looking over towards Waterloo East:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eNsih-0TwpI/UFNHuMgBsRI/AAAAAAAAVWk/VmOeurtNU_M/s1600/wlooeastlink2.jpg

... the style and construction detail dates it as an early railway bridge, I think - it looks like the railings have been added later? It's possible that before the high level footbridge was added, you didn't see the actual girders of the bridge because some sort of walls and roof had been added.

I don't remember using it and thinking I was in the open air, but I'm going back to the sixties when I might have used it in the previous state...

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Yes, the footbridge is built above the original rail bridge. The other remnant is the extra wide arch at Waterloo that the course of that bridge leads to - that's where the tracks went, and if you follow the angle through you can see which platforms it would have connected to.

Which immediately shows why it would be rather impractical to re-introduce it today; it would bisect the main concourse at Waterloo. Imagine bridging that in a DDA compliant way which would not hinder the sheer volume of passengers passing there.

There would also be issues with creating conflicting movements at Waterloo East.

In the ( very! ) long term the most likely development is more Crossrail style links between directionally opposing termini into which suburban workings would be fed leaving the main termini to concentrate on longer distance workings.

Rather like the RER in Paris, in fact, but with a much longer gestation period!

 

[alwaystouchout]

On a purely hypothetical level what services could be provided on the link being restored between Waterloo and Waterloo East? Would Inner/Outer South London line loop services be practical? Diverting them away from Victoria at Clapham Junction and joining London Bridge via a restored link at Waterloo?

 

[pablo]

Only Royal trains from Windsor to Port Victoria on the Hoo Peninsular..... Purely hypothetical, of course.

 

[JamesRowden]

On a purely hypothetical level what services could be provided on the link being restored between Waterloo and Waterloo East? Would Inner/Outer South London line loop services be practical? Diverting them away from Victoria at Clapham Junction and joining London Bridge via a restored link at Waterloo?

Extensions of some SWT peak services to Cannon Street.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

There would also be issues with creating conflicting movements at Waterloo East.

I would have thought that in the hypothetical situation that Waterloo and Waterloo East was done, the most likely way would be for the lines through Platforms C and D at Waterloo East to be given over entirely to through SE London->London Bridge -> Waterloo -> SW London services, with a reduced Charing Cross service operating entirely from Platforms A and B. You would have conflicting moves where the four lines merge to two lines east of Waterloo East, but you have those already.

Indeed you could argue a more sensible solution might be for *all* services on that line to continue through to Waterloo and SW London, which would imply both Waterloo East and Charing Cross stations closing, and no conflicting moves at all For people who do want specifically to get to Charing Cross, connections to the underground would be fairly easily available at Waterloo. My observation from commuting around that area is that almost everyone who gets off a train at Waterloo East heads for Waterloo main anyway, so I doubt losing Waterloo East would cause much hardship.