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

[Bald Rick]

Extensions of some SWT peak services to Cannon Street.

But Cannon St is full. And on the wrong side of the tracks...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

Not quite sure how you'd get 28 tph ex London Bridge in the peak on to the main fasts and main slows from Waterloo without conflicting with trains that have to terminate at Waterloo, but am sure there must be an answer.

 

[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.

But Cannon St is full. And on the wrong side of the tracks...

Presently it is double track between Waterloo East and London Bridge. I think that it is platform 3 at London Bridge and the approaches to London Bridge that is full rather than Cannon Street. Of course, there might well not be the capacity to have extra crossing moves and trains at both ends of the double tracked section. Once the Thameslink upgrades are completed it won't be hypothetically practical at all since as far as I know the Waterloo East to Connon Street track is being removed.

I was just thinking about what the link would have been built for and I thought that it could have been to allow the London and South Western Railway to run through services to the city before the Waterloo and City line was built.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Not quite sure how you'd get 28 tph ex London Bridge in the peak on to the main fasts and main slows from Waterloo without conflicting with trains that have to terminate at Waterloo, but am sure there must be an answer.

That would be the easiest bit really - you'd simply be linking the Waterloo and Charing Cross suburban routes into RER style through routes. You'd still have the problem of bisecting the busiest part of the Waterloo main concourse and having to get all the people across from one side to the other without causing any more congestion than there already is, though.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

That would be the easiest bit really - you'd simply be linking the Waterloo and Charing Cross suburban routes into RER style through routes. You'd still have the problem of bisecting the busiest part of the Waterloo main concourse and having to get all the people across from one side to the other without causing any more congestion than there already is, though.

A fair point. If (hypothetically) I was designing this, I don't think I would take the lines where the old bridge is and through the middle of the Waterloo concourse. Doing that would connect to the long distance platforms, whereas it's probably more useful to link to the suburban platforms - since suburban services are where crossrail-type links tend to be most used.

I'd probably build a new connecting line to slightly to the North and link Waterloo East to the Richmond line platforms instead. That would mean cutting through the northern edge of the concourse instead. Still would require some tricky redesigns to sort out the flow of people (especially since the main underground entrance is there), but probably not as bad as running through the centre of the concourse.

(My reason for picking Richmond local rather than Wimbledon local platforms is a combination of: Buildings blocking any potential route to the WBH platforms, and most of the WBH local trains will probably end up diverted into Crossrail 2 so won't be serving Waterloo in 20-30 years time anyway).

 

[pablo]

In Victorian times it was road 5, between roads 4 and 6. They numbered the roads rather than the platforms. There was an engine shed and turntable between 3 and 4!
This subject and plans have been on here before. I have copies but can't link to them. Try a search.

 

[Bald Rick]

That would be the easiest bit really - you'd simply be linking the Waterloo and Charing Cross suburban routes into RER style through routes. You'd still have the problem of bisecting the busiest part of the Waterloo main concourse and having to get all the people across from one side to the other without causing any more congestion than there already is, though.

But it isn't easy.

Capacity. There's 29 trains per hour into Charing Cross in the high peak. Of the three main service groups into Waterloo (main fast, main suburban, windsor), none have more than 24 tph, with little prospect of expansion on the last two. On the assumption that you dont want to reduce capacity by 5tph on the Southeastern, you have to send Charing Cross services to more than one Waterloo service group. Which means that at least one Waterloo service group must have services from both the Southeastern and the terminating platforms at Waterloo. And that means conflicting moves or at least one big flyover (and major viaduct widening) somewhere between Waterloo and Vauxhall.

Train lengths. From this December, almost all Southeastern routes into Charing Cross will be capable of operating 12 coach trains. Conversely, only the main fast services from Waterloo are (or likely to be) 12 car capable. So we either reduce the 'southeastern' services to 10 car, extend the entire SWT network to 12 car, or send services from the southeastern to southwestern main fast destinations. Hayes to Weymouth anyone (this train does not call at Clapham Jn...)

Purpose. If the answer is 'link the southeastern and southwestern services at Waterloo', what is the question?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

But it isn't easy.

Ah, but I didn't say it would be easy did I? Only that it would be the easiest part of it. Quite a big difference there...

 

[Bald Rick]

Ah, but I didn't say it would be easy did I? Only that it would be the easiest part of it. Quite a big difference there...

The easiest part, by a long way, is building a bridge across Waterloo Rd and a new route through Waterloo itself. In the same way that the easiest part of Thameslink is rebuilding London Bridge (genuinely, it is).

The hardest part is working out how train services from two separate and very complex networks could be married together.

Actually in this case the hardest part is trying to work out why you would want to do it...

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Actually in this case the hardest part is trying to work out why you would want to do it...

This thread was supposed to be about a link from Waterloo to Euston - it seems to have been well and truly hijacked - although since I'm the one that started this sub-thread about Waterloo East, I guess I'm the most guilty party here

But since this subthread is interesting, I hope no one will mind if I continue...

Why would you want to do it? It seems to me there are several reasons.

Firstly, you would be removing two bottlenecks: The point where trains have to cross tracks to get to the right terminal platform at Waterloo, and the similar places on the line into Charing Cross.

Secondly, you enhance journey opportunities for many passengers to travel with fewer changes of train. Most obviously many SWT passengers heading for destinations along the Northern line City branch (other than bank) require one fewer change of trains, which of course in turn will ease some station overcrowding. You will also allow people to travel directly from many destinations in SE London to destinations in SW London.

Thirdly (I accept this is a much more minor point) the overwhelming majority of passengers who currently need to walk between Waterloo and Waterloo East to make their connections will have a much shorter walk between their connections. (And from observation, that's I'd guess that's well over 90% of the people who get off at Waterloo East). In short, it solves the problem of Waterloo East station being in the wrong location for almost everyone who uses the station.

And in terms of ongoing cost - you will have managed to closed two entire stations without that much loss of service - which I would have thought ought to be good on efficiency/ongoing cost grounds.

Set against that - you'd be forcing one additional change for South Eastern passengers whose final destination is Charing Cross - they would need to change to the tube at Waterloo. I'm not clear how many people that would affect.

Now in terms of travel opportunities opened up, that's certainly less than the opportunities created by - say - Crossrail or Thameslink, since it doesn't get quite into the heart of London. But then again, the amount of building work required would appear to be vastly less (no tunnelling). Whether the benefits are enough to be worth the cost is something that I don't know, though to my laymans eye, it looks plausible.

 

[CNash]

Might be a silly question, but could this hypothetical scheme not make use of the disused international platforms in some way?

 

[swt_passenger]

Might be a silly question, but could this hypothetical scheme not make use of the disused international platforms in some way?

The Waterloo - Euston scheme? Highly unlikely, assuming you want to go under the Thames, and therefore under all the existing LU lines. You probably need a ramp starting a few miles out...

Or the Waterloo to London Bridge scheme? No - unless you can get trains to go round a right angled corner...

 

[CNash]

Thought so. It's just a shame that those platforms have been sitting there for so long without any use for them. I read somewhere that it costs Network Rail a fortune to keep them maintained, too.

 

[swt_passenger]

Thought so. It's just a shame that those platforms have been sitting there for so long without any use for them. I read somewhere that it costs Network Rail a fortune to keep them maintained, too.

They do cost a fortune, but the international station is not actually in Network Rail ownership, it was with BRB residuary, and is now under one of DfT's 'holding companies'; I think it might be LCR, but not sure without some searching.

The site also includes everything underneath the platforms in the various arrival and departure halls as well. There's 4 or more stories in the whole building.

 

[Bald Rick]

This thread was supposed to be about a link from Waterloo to Euston - it seems to have been well and truly hijacked - although since I'm the one that started this sub-thread about Waterloo East, I guess I'm the most guilty party here

But since this subthread is interesting, I hope no one will mind if I continue...

Why would you want to do it? It seems to me there are several reasons.

Firstly, you would be removing two bottlenecks: The point where trains have to cross tracks to get to the right terminal platform at Waterloo, and the similar places on the line into Charing Cross.

Secondly, you enhance journey opportunities for many passengers to travel with fewer changes of train. Most obviously many SWT passengers heading for destinations along the Northern line City branch (other than bank) require one fewer change of trains, which of course in turn will ease some station overcrowding. You will also allow people to travel directly from many destinations in SE London to destinations in SW London.

Thirdly (I accept this is a much more minor point) the overwhelming majority of passengers who currently need to walk between Waterloo and Waterloo East to make their connections will have a much shorter walk between their connections. (And from observation, that's I'd guess that's well over 90% of the people who get off at Waterloo East). In short, it solves the problem of Waterloo East station being in the wrong location for almost everyone who uses the station.

And in terms of ongoing cost - you will have managed to closed two entire stations without that much loss of service - which I would have thought ought to be good on efficiency/ongoing cost grounds.

Set against that - you'd be forcing one additional change for South Eastern passengers whose final destination is Charing Cross - they would need to change to the tube at Waterloo. I'm not clear how many people that would affect.

Now in terms of travel opportunities opened up, that's certainly less than the opportunities created by - say - Crossrail or Thameslink, since it doesn't get quite into the heart of London. But then again, the amount of building work required would appear to be vastly less (no tunnelling). Whether the benefits are enough to be worth the cost is something that I don't know, though to my laymans eye, it looks plausible.

To pick up these points:

1) you don't remove the bottlenecks, the one on the SE is at Borough Market Jn, the one on the SW remains as you have to still have trains terminating at Waterloo.

2) Is there much demand for SW to Old St and Angel? Moorgate users generally walk from Bank. All the SW to SE flows happen now with a simple change at Waterloo, accepting this would be easier for some (but by no means all)

3) In the peaks, a lot of Waterloo East passengers go to Southwark and out to Blackfriars Rd...

4) You wouldn't be closing Waterloo, not by a long way. Charing Cross maybe, but the development rights for that are already sold.

5) At the last count 40 million people a year used Charing Cross, 8 million at Waterloo East. So to make the journey easier for some of the minority, 5 times as many are inconvenienced more. As an aside, I'm not sure LU would welcome an extra 120,000 people a day on the Northern / Bakerloo at Waterloo.