After the Ball is over - Waterloo International

On Nov 8, 11:17 am, Neillw001 <wormwood...@m> wrote:
> Can Waterloo International now be regarded as a closed station?

It was never really a station. Just a few platforms walled off from
the rest of the station.

B2003

On 8 Nov, 11:50, MIG <googles...@doreenbird.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Yes; whenever this topic comes up, I comment that the problems are
> with the approaches and not the capacity at termini, therefore not
> addressed by freeing up more platforms at Waterloo.
>
> The South Eastern side of Victoria is very underused, and Waterloo,
> with its long turnaround times compared with somewhere like Charing
> Cross, isn't exactly stretched.
>
> The problems are Borough Market, the two two-track routes between
> Bromley and Victoria and the two-track route through Queenstown Road
> on the "Windsor" side.

But that doesn't explain why they're not planning to send some
suburban Charing Cross trains to Waterloo via Lewisham and Peckham
Rye. That would help to free up the Borough Market tracks without
adding to congestion between Bromley and Victoria.

On 8 Nov, 15:30, "Peter Masson" <peter.mass...@> wrote:
> <pippa.mo...@> wrote
>
> > But that doesn't explain why they're not planning to send some
> > suburban Charing Cross trains to Waterloo via Lewisham and Peckham
> > Rye. That would help to free up the Borough Market tracks without
> > adding to congestion between Bromley and Victoria.
>
> It would be so slow that passengers wouldn't use them. The Dartford -
> Blackfriars/Holborn trains never loaded well, and were eventually withdrawn,
> while the Dartford - Bexleyheath - Victoria service, a comparatively recent
> innovation, are also lightly loaded.
>
> Peter


I would contest that at peak times the Dartford to Victoria service is
loaded pretty heavily, at least it is on leaving Victoria. It also
seems to have a reasonable patronage by day, but then again perhaps my
subjective judgement is a bit out on that one.

On 8 Nov, 15:30, "Peter Masson" <peter.mass...@> wrote:
> <pippa.mo...@> wrote
>
> > But that doesn't explain why they're not planning to send some
> > suburban Charing Cross trains to Waterloo via Lewisham and Peckham
> > Rye. That would help to free up the Borough Market tracks without
> > adding to congestion between Bromley and Victoria.
>
> It would be so slow that passengers wouldn't use them. The Dartford -
> Blackfriars/Holborn trains never loaded well, and were eventually withdrawn,
> while the Dartford - Bexleyheath - Victoria service, a comparatively recent
> innovation, are also lightly loaded.
>
> Peter


I would contest that at peak times the Dartford to Victoria service is
loaded pretty heavily, at least it is on leaving Victoria. It also
seems to have a reasonable patronage by day, but then again perhaps my
subjective judgement is a bit wonky.

Would it be feasible to retain at least some sort of international service
from Waterloo, even if it would be short hops across the Channel to Lille or
Brussels?

On another note, what is the deal for a prospective tunnel connection to
Ireland? I seem to recall talk about this in times past but, because the
earth between the two islands is largely sand, it is quite difficult to
build any sort of subterranean structure there.

<hounslow3m> wrote in message
news:LBgZi.60799$7_4.40571@fe3.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
> Would it be feasible to retain at least some sort of international service
> from Waterloo, even if it would be short hops across the Channel to Lille
or
> Brussels?
>
This was the original plan - but the number of passengers using E* falls far
short of what would be needed to justify two central London stations.

Peter

On 10 Nov, 13:01, rail <R...@greywall.> wrote:
> In message <LBgZi.60799$7_4.40...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk >
> <hounsl...m> wrote:
>
> > Would it be feasible to retain at least some sort of international service
> > from Waterloo, even if it would be short hops across the Channel to Lille
> > or Brussels?
>
> No, once the service starts from St Pancras there will be no stock capable of
> using third rail cleared for CT use.
>

This is putting the cart before the horse.

The only reason why it's becoming possible to remove the shoegear from
the Eurostars is because a decision has been taken to run all
international services from St Pancras. If the decision had been to
run two terminals, with Waterloo keeping some of the traffic, then the
trains would have kept the shoegear.

It wasn't the decision to remove the shoegear that led to the closure
of Waterloo International !

Rob.

"Martin Rich" <M.G.Rich@city.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:aoecj3d88k2h6alf23hpuph5fkug1adc5p@...

> Somewhere I also remember reading that the Irish Sea is much deeper
> than the English Channel, which makes tunnelling more difficult than
> the tunnel length would suggest, but I haven't been able to verify
> that

From a wander around GOOGLE I find......

The Irish Sea is a semi enclosed shelf sea bordered by the island of
Ireland, Scotland England and Wales. The depth in the western Irish Sea is
characterised by a channel of greater than 80m depth that runs from St.
George's Channel in the south to a maximum depth of 275m in the North
Channel.

also...

The English Channel has a maximum depth of 100 m at the western mouth (5deg
W) shallowing to 40 m in the central Dover Strait


Which does confirm your memory.

KW

Ken Ward wrote:
> "Martin Rich" <M.G.Rich@city.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:aoecj3d88k2h6alf23hpuph5fkug1adc5p@...
>
>> Somewhere I also remember reading that the Irish Sea is much deeper
>> than the English Channel, which makes tunnelling more difficult than
>> the tunnel length would suggest, but I haven't been able to verify
>> that
>
> From a wander around GOOGLE I find......
>
> The Irish Sea is a semi enclosed shelf sea bordered by the island of
> Ireland, Scotland England and Wales. The depth in the western Irish
> Sea is characterised by a channel of greater than 80m depth that runs
> from St. George's Channel in the south to a maximum depth of 275m in
> the North Channel.
>
> also...
>
> The English Channel has a maximum depth of 100 m at the western mouth
> (5deg W) shallowing to 40 m in the central Dover Strait
>
>
> Which does confirm your memory.

Does depth make a difference? It won't be cut and cover!

"Ken Ward" <ken.g1itv@MTLworld.com> wrote in message
news:TQCZi.4797$dN2.4667@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Martin Rich" <M.G.Rich@city.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:aoecj3d88k2h6alf23hpuph5fkug1adc5p@...
>
>> Somewhere I also remember reading that the Irish Sea is much deeper
>> than the English Channel, which makes tunnelling more difficult than
>> the tunnel length would suggest, but I haven't been able to verify
>> that
>
> From a wander around GOOGLE I find......
>
> The Irish Sea is a semi enclosed shelf sea bordered by the island of
> Ireland, Scotland England and Wales. The depth in the western Irish Sea is
> characterised by a channel of greater than 80m depth that runs from St.
> George's Channel in the south to a maximum depth of 275m in the North
> Channel.
>
> also...
>
> The English Channel has a maximum depth of 100 m at the western mouth
> (5deg W) shallowing to 40 m in the central Dover Strait
>
Which does confirm your memory.
>
> KW
>

Hurd Deep in the English Channel is 172 m its deepest.
Beaufort Dyke, in the North Channel is between 200 and 300 m deep.
From Wikipedia :-
"Projects for a rail tunnel between Ireland and Scotland have been
suggested at various times from the late nineteenth-century onwards. The
Dyke has always been an important problem for such proposals, in terms both
of practicality and cost."

Jim Hawkins