info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: London Waterloo international
22 views
Skip to first unread message
e27002 aurora
Aug 8, 2017, 1:01:00 PM8/8/17
to
On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 13:57:53 +0000 (UTC), sp...@potato.field wrote:
>Wandered down to the refurbished platforms at waterloo international at
>lunchtime which are now opened for suburban trains (for the time being). So
>in ten years they've managed to reduce the length of the platforms to provide
>a concourse, built a temporary bridge to the main concourse and put some
>destination boards up.
>
>Well I'm impressed. To think in the same time period the chinese have only
>managed to build half a dozen new cities + infrastructure. Amateurs.
>
The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
passengers.
And surely the "hole" in the main concourse should have been covered,
rather than build a new remote concourse.
>Wandered down to the refurbished platforms at waterloo international at
>lunchtime which are now opened for suburban trains (for the time being). So
>in ten years they've managed to reduce the length of the platforms to provide
>a concourse, built a temporary bridge to the main concourse and put some
>destination boards up.
>
>Well I'm impressed. To think in the same time period the chinese have only
>managed to build half a dozen new cities + infrastructure. Amateurs.
>
The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
passengers.
And surely the "hole" in the main concourse should have been covered,
rather than build a new remote concourse.
Graham Murray
Aug 8, 2017, 3:50:54 PM8/8/17
to
e27002 aurora <adrian...@sprintmail.com> writes:
> The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
> down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
> fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
> arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
> passengers.
Why? Before the Waterloo International conversion, the Windsor line
> The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
> down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
> fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
> arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
> passengers.
services always used the high numbered platforms.
sp...@potato.field
Aug 9, 2017, 4:43:44 AM8/9/17
to
shorten all but one of the platforms there so scuppering any possibility of
stabling two 8 car trains in them. There was plenty of room down below where
the old eurostar concourse and waiting areas were, but no, thats not in use
any more. No doubt it'll just be more shops in 5-10 years time when they finally
get around to finishing the project.
--
Spud
Recliner
Aug 9, 2017, 4:58:33 AM8/9/17
to
<sp...@potato.field> wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 18:00:39 +0100
> e27002 aurora <adrian...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 13:57:53 +0000 (UTC), sp...@potato.field wrote:
>>
>>> Wandered down to the refurbished platforms at waterloo international at
>>> lunchtime which are now opened for suburban trains (for the time being). So
>>> in ten years they've managed to reduce the length of the platforms to provide
>>> a concourse, built a temporary bridge to the main concourse and put some
>>> destination boards up.
>>>
>>> Well I'm impressed. To think in the same time period the chinese have only
>>> managed to build half a dozen new cities + infrastructure. Amateurs.
>>>
>> The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
>> down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
>> fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
>> arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
>> passengers.
>>
>> And surely the "hole" in the main concourse should have been covered,
>> rather than build a new remote concourse.
>
> The best part is that in building this new concourse they've had to drastically
> shorten all but one of the platforms there so scuppering any possibility of
> stabling two 8 car trains in them.
Is that meant to be fact, or just opinion?
> On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 18:00:39 +0100
> e27002 aurora <adrian...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 13:57:53 +0000 (UTC), sp...@potato.field wrote:
>>
>>> Wandered down to the refurbished platforms at waterloo international at
>>> lunchtime which are now opened for suburban trains (for the time being). So
>>> in ten years they've managed to reduce the length of the platforms to provide
>>> a concourse, built a temporary bridge to the main concourse and put some
>>> destination boards up.
>>>
>>> Well I'm impressed. To think in the same time period the chinese have only
>>> managed to build half a dozen new cities + infrastructure. Amateurs.
>>>
>> The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
>> down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
>> fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
>> arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
>> passengers.
>>
>> And surely the "hole" in the main concourse should have been covered,
>> rather than build a new remote concourse.
>
> The best part is that in building this new concourse they've had to drastically
> shorten all but one of the platforms there so scuppering any possibility of
> stabling two 8 car trains in them.
> There was plenty of room down below where
> the old eurostar concourse and waiting areas were, but no, thats not in use
> any more. No doubt it'll just be more shops in 5-10 years time when they finally
> get around to finishing the project.
project take, from start to finish?
sp...@potato.field
Aug 9, 2017, 5:12:26 AM8/9/17
to
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 08:54:23 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner <recli...@btinternet.com> wrote:
320m. I'd have thought even you could have managed that maths. However now
they've lopped a considerable amount off the length of the platforms I doubt
two 8 cars would fit.
As for stabling 2 trains in the same platform - it happens elsewhere on the
network, why not at waterloo? Are you saying waterloo is somehow special?
>> There was plenty of room down below where
>> the old eurostar concourse and waiting areas were, but no, thats not in use
>> any more. No doubt it'll just be more shops in 5-10 years time when they
>finally
>> get around to finishing the project.
>
>How long do you think it is since this project started? How long will the
>project take, from start to finish?
Well its taken BRB & NR 10 years to get this far, and its been over a year
since building work actually started for them to do frankly not very much.
I have little confidence the refurbishment of the 2 floors below will be
finished anytime soon.
--
Spud
Recliner <recli...@btinternet.com> wrote:
><sp...@potato.field> wrote:
>>> And surely the "hole" in the main concourse should have been covered,
>>> rather than build a new remote concourse.
>>
>> The best part is that in building this new concourse they've had to
>drastically
>> shorten all but one of the platforms there so scuppering any possibility of
>> stabling two 8 car trains in them.
>
>Is that meant to be fact, or just opinion?
A eurostar is approx 400m long. An 8 car 3rd rail EMU is 8*20 = 160m. x2 gives
>>> And surely the "hole" in the main concourse should have been covered,
>>> rather than build a new remote concourse.
>>
>> The best part is that in building this new concourse they've had to
>drastically
>> shorten all but one of the platforms there so scuppering any possibility of
>> stabling two 8 car trains in them.
>
>Is that meant to be fact, or just opinion?
320m. I'd have thought even you could have managed that maths. However now
they've lopped a considerable amount off the length of the platforms I doubt
two 8 cars would fit.
As for stabling 2 trains in the same platform - it happens elsewhere on the
network, why not at waterloo? Are you saying waterloo is somehow special?
>> There was plenty of room down below where
>> the old eurostar concourse and waiting areas were, but no, thats not in use
>> any more. No doubt it'll just be more shops in 5-10 years time when they
>finally
>> get around to finishing the project.
>
>How long do you think it is since this project started? How long will the
>project take, from start to finish?
since building work actually started for them to do frankly not very much.
I have little confidence the refurbishment of the 2 floors below will be
finished anytime soon.
--
Spud
Recliner
Aug 9, 2017, 5:27:36 AM8/9/17
to
<sp...@potato.field> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 08:54:23 -0000 (UTC)
> Recliner <recli...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> <sp...@potato.field> wrote:
>>>> And surely the "hole" in the main concourse should have been covered,
>>>> rather than build a new remote concourse.
>>>
>>> The best part is that in building this new concourse they've had to
>> drastically
>>> shorten all but one of the platforms there so scuppering any possibility of
>>> stabling two 8 car trains in them.
>>
>> Is that meant to be fact, or just opinion?
>
> A eurostar is approx 400m long. An 8 car 3rd rail EMU is 8*20 = 160m. x2 gives
> 320m. I'd have thought even you could have managed that maths.
Yes, and unlike you, I'm not ignorant.
> On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 08:54:23 -0000 (UTC)
> Recliner <recli...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> <sp...@potato.field> wrote:
>>>> And surely the "hole" in the main concourse should have been covered,
>>>> rather than build a new remote concourse.
>>>
>>> The best part is that in building this new concourse they've had to
>> drastically
>>> shorten all but one of the platforms there so scuppering any possibility of
>>> stabling two 8 car trains in them.
>>
>> Is that meant to be fact, or just opinion?
>
> A eurostar is approx 400m long. An 8 car 3rd rail EMU is 8*20 = 160m. x2 gives
> 320m. I'd have thought even you could have managed that maths.
> However now
> they've lopped a considerable amount off the length of the platforms I doubt
> two 8 cars would fit.
car trains.
>
> As for stabling 2 trains in the same platform - it happens elsewhere on the
> network, why not at waterloo? Are you saying waterloo is somehow special?
>>> There was plenty of room down below where
>>> the old eurostar concourse and waiting areas were, but no, thats not in use
>>> any more. No doubt it'll just be more shops in 5-10 years time when they
>> finally
>>> get around to finishing the project.
>>
>> How long do you think it is since this project started? How long will the
>> project take, from start to finish?
>
> Well its taken BRB & NR 10 years to get this far, and its been over a year
> since building work actually started for them to do frankly not very much.
> I have little confidence the refurbishment of the 2 floors below will be
> finished anytime soon.
confidence in this large project you know so little about.
From
http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/waterloo-station-upgrade-london/
The site preparation works on the station upgrade began in October 2015 and
construction works began in December 2015. The Waterloo International
station was closed for all trains services in April 2016 for construction.
Platform 20 will be returned to Network Rail and train services will be
reinstated by February 2017, while platforms 21 to 24 will be returned in
July 2017, and former international terminal will be opened for temporary
use in August 2017. The station will be closed again for passenger services
so that the remaining construction works can be completed.
Platforms 1 to 4 on the suburban network will be operated with ten-carriage
services from December 2017 during the morning and evening peak periods.
Platforms 21 to 24 will be opened and additional train services operating
on a new timetable starting from December 2018.
…
The consortium consisting of Skanska, Colas Rail, Aecom and Mott MacDonald
was awarded with a £400m ($592.08m) contract to upgrade the Waterloo
station in January 2016.
The contractual scope includes bringing the international terminal at the
station back into use for domestic train services and increasing the length
of certain station platforms.
It also includes delivering track alterations, signalling, communications,
buildings and civil infrastructure along the Wessex Route and at Waterloo,
Vauxhall, Clapham Junction, Richmond, Wimbledon and Surbiton stations.
——
It all seems to be going exactly to plan so far, even without your expert
guidance.
Now, what was that about you claiming you didn't pour scorn on projects you
knew little about?
sp...@potato.field
Aug 9, 2017, 6:55:16 AM8/9/17
to
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 09:23:25 -0000 (UTC)
>> However now
>> they've lopped a considerable amount off the length of the platforms I doubt
>> two 8 cars would fit.
>
>They've moved the buffer stops by 50m, so there will still be room for 2x8
>car trains.
It looks somewhat more than 50m to me.
>> As for stabling 2 trains in the same platform - it happens elsewhere on the
>> network, why not at waterloo? Are you saying waterloo is somehow special?
>
>No — where did I say that?
Then what exactly were you wibbling about then? Or any excuse to have a go eh?
>> Well its taken BRB & NR 10 years to get this far, and its been over a year
>> since building work actually started for them to do frankly not very much.
>> I have little confidence the refurbishment of the 2 floors below will be
>> finished anytime soon.
>
>I'm sure they'll be devastated that an ignoramus like you has little
>confidence in this large project you know so little about.
I don't need to know the details to know that 10 years to do such a small
amount of work is a fucking joke.
>The site preparation works on the station upgrade began in October 2015 and
>construction works began in December 2015. The Waterloo International
>station was closed for all trains services in April 2016 for construction.
Your cut and paste skills are impressive, you could get a job as a secretary
yet. Keep trying.
>It all seems to be going exactly to plan so far, even without your expert
>guidance.
Yes, and we all know how reliable timescales are on the railways when it comes
to engineering works.
>Now, what was that about you claiming you didn't pour scorn on projects you
>knew little about?
You willful misunderstanding of someones position in a feeble attempt to score
points really are tragic.
--
Spud
Recliner <recli...@btinternet.com> wrote:
><sp...@potato.field> wrote:
>> A eurostar is approx 400m long. An 8 car 3rd rail EMU is 8*20 = 160m. x2
>gives
>> 320m. I'd have thought even you could have managed that maths.
>
>Yes, and unlike you, I'm not ignorant.
I guess you were just having a senior moment and couldn't work it out then eh?
><sp...@potato.field> wrote:
>> A eurostar is approx 400m long. An 8 car 3rd rail EMU is 8*20 = 160m. x2
>gives
>> 320m. I'd have thought even you could have managed that maths.
>
>Yes, and unlike you, I'm not ignorant.
>> However now
>> they've lopped a considerable amount off the length of the platforms I doubt
>> two 8 cars would fit.
>
>They've moved the buffer stops by 50m, so there will still be room for 2x8
>car trains.
>> As for stabling 2 trains in the same platform - it happens elsewhere on the
>> network, why not at waterloo? Are you saying waterloo is somehow special?
>
>No — where did I say that?
>> Well its taken BRB & NR 10 years to get this far, and its been over a year
>> since building work actually started for them to do frankly not very much.
>> I have little confidence the refurbishment of the 2 floors below will be
>> finished anytime soon.
>
>I'm sure they'll be devastated that an ignoramus like you has little
>confidence in this large project you know so little about.
amount of work is a fucking joke.
>The site preparation works on the station upgrade began in October 2015 and
>construction works began in December 2015. The Waterloo International
>station was closed for all trains services in April 2016 for construction.
yet. Keep trying.
>It all seems to be going exactly to plan so far, even without your expert
>guidance.
to engineering works.
>Now, what was that about you claiming you didn't pour scorn on projects you
>knew little about?
points really are tragic.
--
Spud
Graeme Wall
Aug 9, 2017, 7:46:03 AM8/9/17
to
On 09/08/2017 09:54, Recliner wrote:
> <sp...@potato.field> wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 18:00:39 +0100
>> e27002 aurora <adrian...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 13:57:53 +0000 (UTC), sp...@potato.field wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wandered down to the refurbished platforms at waterloo international at
>>>> lunchtime which are now opened for suburban trains (for the time being). So
>>>> in ten years they've managed to reduce the length of the platforms to provide
>>>> a concourse, built a temporary bridge to the main concourse and put some
>>>> destination boards up.
>>>>
>>>> Well I'm impressed. To think in the same time period the chinese have only
>>>> managed to build half a dozen new cities + infrastructure. Amateurs.
>>>>
>>> The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
>>> down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
>>> fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
>>> arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
>>> passengers.
>>>
>>> And surely the "hole" in the main concourse should have been covered,
>>> rather than build a new remote concourse.
>>
>> The best part is that in building this new concourse they've had to drastically
>> shorten all but one of the platforms there so scuppering any possibility of
>> stabling two 8 car trains in them.
>
> Is that meant to be fact, or just opinion?
As far as I can make out the platform ends are at the same place they
> <sp...@potato.field> wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 18:00:39 +0100
>> e27002 aurora <adrian...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 13:57:53 +0000 (UTC), sp...@potato.field wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wandered down to the refurbished platforms at waterloo international at
>>>> lunchtime which are now opened for suburban trains (for the time being). So
>>>> in ten years they've managed to reduce the length of the platforms to provide
>>>> a concourse, built a temporary bridge to the main concourse and put some
>>>> destination boards up.
>>>>
>>>> Well I'm impressed. To think in the same time period the chinese have only
>>>> managed to build half a dozen new cities + infrastructure. Amateurs.
>>>>
>>> The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
>>> down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
>>> fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
>>> arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
>>> passengers.
>>>
>>> And surely the "hole" in the main concourse should have been covered,
>>> rather than build a new remote concourse.
>>
>> The best part is that in building this new concourse they've had to drastically
>> shorten all but one of the platforms there so scuppering any possibility of
>> stabling two 8 car trains in them.
>
> Is that meant to be fact, or just opinion?
were in E* days.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Basil Jet
Aug 9, 2017, 8:07:07 AM8/9/17
to
On 2017\08\09 10:23, Recliner wrote:
>
> They've moved the buffer stops by 50m, so there will still be room for 2x8
> car trains.
They've moved the trains 50 metres further from the tubes / buses /
>
> They've moved the buffer stops by 50m, so there will still be room for 2x8
> car trains.
taxis? Why?
Recliner
Aug 9, 2017, 8:10:16 AM8/9/17
to
higher level concourse and gate line.
Roland Perry
Aug 9, 2017, 8:20:59 AM8/9/17
to
In message <ometlg$h06$1...@dont-email.me>, at 13:07:05 on Wed, 9 Aug 2017,
Basil Jet <ba...@spamspamspam.com> remarked:
>> They've moved the buffer stops by 50m, so there will still be room
>>for 2x8 car trains.
>
>They've moved the trains 50 metres further from the tubes / buses /
>taxis? Why?
DfT's keep-fit fanatic has moved his attention to Waterloo, given his
huge success at St Pancras and Kings Cross.
--
Roland Perry
Basil Jet <ba...@spamspamspam.com> remarked:
>> They've moved the buffer stops by 50m, so there will still be room
>>for 2x8 car trains.
>
>They've moved the trains 50 metres further from the tubes / buses /
>taxis? Why?
huge success at St Pancras and Kings Cross.
--
Roland Perry
Graeme Wall
Aug 9, 2017, 8:36:44 AM8/9/17
to
the new concourse they could actually shorten the distance to the tube.
e27002 aurora
Aug 9, 2017, 12:59:19 PM8/9/17
to
passengers, to come into the more modern, better appointed facility.
There may also be opportunities for further platform and train
lengthening. Clearly opinions vary.
e27002 aurora
Aug 9, 2017, 1:02:55 PM8/9/17
to
On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 19:42:39 -0500, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
wrote:
>In article <43rjocds1k7pignt9...@4ax.com>,
>after the Waterloo blockade.
One must ask why? South-eastern commuters can already access
Victoria, Charing Cross, Waterloo East, Canon Street, London Bridge,
and Saint Pancras. Isn't that enough?! Do they really need access to
the SW side of Waterloo?
wrote:
>In article <43rjocds1k7pignt9...@4ax.com>,
>adrian...@sprintmail.com (e27002 aurora) wrote:
>
>> The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
>> down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
>> fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
>> arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
>> passengers.
>
>The Nine Elms flyover is being pressed into service for Southeastern trains
>
>> The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
>> down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
>> fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
>> arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
>> passengers.
>
>after the Waterloo blockade.
One must ask why? South-eastern commuters can already access
Victoria, Charing Cross, Waterloo East, Canon Street, London Bridge,
and Saint Pancras. Isn't that enough?! Do they really need access to
the SW side of Waterloo?
e27002 aurora
Aug 9, 2017, 1:05:45 PM8/9/17
to
of the franchise commitment. D(a)ft and Network Rail together are
worthless.
e27002 aurora
Aug 9, 2017, 1:13:21 PM8/9/17
to
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 15:10:45 +0000 (UTC), sp...@potato.field wrote:
>On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:36:34 -0000 (UTC)
>>> On Wed, 09 Aug 2017 15:05:22 +0100
>>> Recliner <Recli...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 13:59:05 +0000 (UTC), sp...@potato.field wrote:
>>>>> If by on time you mean 9 years later than it should have been completed due
>>>> to
>>>>> incompetance, indifference and procrastination then sure.
>>>>
>>>> This complex project is bang on time, so far at least.
>>>
>>> Complex compared to what? Certainly not any of the other rail projects
>>> happening in London at the moment.
>>>
>>>> Blame someone else for the long gap between Eurostar's departure and
>>>
>>> Network Rail are to blame.
>>
>>No, NR doesn't have the independence, authority or budget to launch huge
>>speculative station and track redevelopments like that. The DfT is in
>>charge and holds the purse strings tightly. Perhaps it has different
>>priorities to you for its finite investment funds?
>
>The eurostar terminal could have been used pretty much as was. All they'd
>have had to install would be gates and departure boards downstairs in the
>former eurostar concourse and the track was already linked to the rest of the
>network.
>
The platforms were the wrong height. Moreover, the track layout and
signalling may not have been appropriate for domestic traffic.
But, you are correct, in that after the international service moved to
Saint Pancras, DfT and Network Rail should have been considering
re-utilizing the station.
>On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:36:34 -0000 (UTC)
>>> On Wed, 09 Aug 2017 15:05:22 +0100
>>> Recliner <Recli...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 13:59:05 +0000 (UTC), sp...@potato.field wrote:
>>>>> If by on time you mean 9 years later than it should have been completed due
>>>> to
>>>>> incompetance, indifference and procrastination then sure.
>>>>
>>>> This complex project is bang on time, so far at least.
>>>
>>> Complex compared to what? Certainly not any of the other rail projects
>>> happening in London at the moment.
>>>
>>>> Blame someone else for the long gap between Eurostar's departure and
>>>
>>> Network Rail are to blame.
>>
>>No, NR doesn't have the independence, authority or budget to launch huge
>>speculative station and track redevelopments like that. The DfT is in
>>charge and holds the purse strings tightly. Perhaps it has different
>>priorities to you for its finite investment funds?
>
>The eurostar terminal could have been used pretty much as was. All they'd
>have had to install would be gates and departure boards downstairs in the
>former eurostar concourse and the track was already linked to the rest of the
>network.
>
The platforms were the wrong height. Moreover, the track layout and
signalling may not have been appropriate for domestic traffic.
But, you are correct, in that after the international service moved to
Saint Pancras, DfT and Network Rail should have been considering
re-utilizing the station.
Roland Perry
Aug 9, 2017, 1:46:28 PM8/9/17
to
In message <3dgmoctlvki573lh1...@4ax.com>, at 18:13:20 on
Wed, 9 Aug 2017, e27002 aurora <adrian...@sprintmail.com> remarked:
>you are correct, in that after the international service moved to
>Saint Pancras, DfT and Network Rail should have been considering
>re-utilizing the station.
They were, but it took a while for them to decide.
--
Roland Perry
Wed, 9 Aug 2017, e27002 aurora <adrian...@sprintmail.com> remarked:
>you are correct, in that after the international service moved to
>Saint Pancras, DfT and Network Rail should have been considering
>re-utilizing the station.
--
Roland Perry
Graeme Wall
Aug 9, 2017, 2:39:00 PM8/9/17
to
Tony Dragon
Aug 9, 2017, 3:02:12 PM8/9/17
to
Waterloo, those that were used by Eurostar.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Tony Dragon
Aug 9, 2017, 3:07:39 PM8/9/17
to
Basil Jet
Aug 9, 2017, 4:08:43 PM8/9/17
to
would be better value for money to leave the flyover alone and renovate
the low numbered platforms up to the quality of the international
platforms, so that all passengers would have a high quality terminal.
Recliner
Aug 9, 2017, 4:50:58 PM8/9/17
to
Tony Dragon <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 09/08/2017 18:02, e27002 aurora wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 19:42:39 -0500, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <43rjocds1k7pignt9...@4ax.com>,
>>> adrian...@sprintmail.com (e27002 aurora) wrote:
>>>
>>>> The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
>>>> down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
>>>> fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
>>>> arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
>>>> passengers.
>>>
>>> The Nine Elms flyover is being pressed into service for Southeastern trains
>>> after the Waterloo blockade.
>>
>> One must ask why? South-eastern commuters can already access
>> Victoria, Charing Cross, Waterloo East, Canon Street, London Bridge,
>> and Saint Pancras. Isn't that enough?! Do they really need access to
>> the SW side of Waterloo?
>>
>
> IIRC they are only using Waterloo because of the London Bridge work.
And only for a week, I think.
> On 09/08/2017 18:02, e27002 aurora wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 19:42:39 -0500, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <43rjocds1k7pignt9...@4ax.com>,
>>> adrian...@sprintmail.com (e27002 aurora) wrote:
>>>
>>>> The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
>>>> down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
>>>> fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
>>>> arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
>>>> passengers.
>>>
>>> The Nine Elms flyover is being pressed into service for Southeastern trains
>>> after the Waterloo blockade.
>>
>> One must ask why? South-eastern commuters can already access
>> Victoria, Charing Cross, Waterloo East, Canon Street, London Bridge,
>> and Saint Pancras. Isn't that enough?! Do they really need access to
>> the SW side of Waterloo?
>>
>
> IIRC they are only using Waterloo because of the London Bridge work.
Recliner
Aug 9, 2017, 5:00:21 PM8/9/17
to
beneath:
<https://www.corstorphine-wright.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/D_Internal2.RGB_color_with-people.jpg>
The bridge, of course, is sloped, as the new platforms and concourse are
about 5 feet higher than the old ones.
Graeme Wall
Aug 9, 2017, 5:15:25 PM8/9/17
to
Recliner
Aug 9, 2017, 5:33:47 PM8/9/17
to
international platforms as they're in the extreme right wing of the
station?
Basil Jet
Aug 9, 2017, 6:05:16 PM8/9/17
to
But imagine that the east half of Victoria was tarted up, and they
decided to build a flyover so the Brighton lines could use it. Then
twenty years later the west half is tarted up to be nicer than the east
half, so they demolish the flyover. Then twenty years later they tart up
the east side again and rebuild the flyover. Even Michael Bell wouldn't
dream of advocating such a thing.
Graeme Wall
Aug 10, 2017, 2:58:30 AM8/10/17
to
sp...@potato.field
Aug 10, 2017, 4:29:35 AM8/10/17
to
On Wed, 09 Aug 2017 18:13:20 +0100
e27002 aurora <adrian...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 15:10:45 +0000 (UTC), sp...@potato.field wrote:
>>The eurostar terminal could have been used pretty much as was. All they'd
>>have had to install would be gates and departure boards downstairs in the
>>former eurostar concourse and the track was already linked to the rest of the
>>network.
>>
>The platforms were the wrong height. Moreover, the track layout and
I'll have to go back and see if they've raised them. It didn't look as though
e27002 aurora <adrian...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 15:10:45 +0000 (UTC), sp...@potato.field wrote:
>>The eurostar terminal could have been used pretty much as was. All they'd
>>have had to install would be gates and departure boards downstairs in the
>>former eurostar concourse and the track was already linked to the rest of the
>>network.
>>
>The platforms were the wrong height. Moreover, the track layout and
they had when I went there on tuesday and lowering the track is obviously
not feasible.
>signalling may not have been appropriate for domestic traffic.
but how long would that take at worst, 6 months?
>But, you are correct, in that after the international service moved to
>Saint Pancras, DfT and Network Rail should have been considering
>re-utilizing the station.
view of rail being a liability that seems to have been prevelant in the DfT
for years is slowly going by the wayside.
--
Spud
sp...@potato.field
Aug 10, 2017, 4:34:28 AM8/10/17
to
in service. However if network rail had asked to take it off their hands back
in 2007 I doubt there would have been too many objections.
--
Spud
Theo
Aug 10, 2017, 6:10:57 AM8/10/17
to
In uk.railway Basil Jet <ba...@spamspamspam.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure exactly what the difference is, except for the pretty roof.
> But imagine that the east half of Victoria was tarted up, and they
> decided to build a flyover so the Brighton lines could use it. Then
> twenty years later the west half is tarted up to be nicer than the east
> half, so they demolish the flyover. Then twenty years later they tart up
> the east side again and rebuild the flyover. Even Michael Bell wouldn't
> dream of advocating such a thing.
Losing the flyover would enable reinstatement of an 8th track through
> I'm not sure exactly what the difference is, except for the pretty roof.
> But imagine that the east half of Victoria was tarted up, and they
> decided to build a flyover so the Brighton lines could use it. Then
> twenty years later the west half is tarted up to be nicer than the east
> half, so they demolish the flyover. Then twenty years later they tart up
> the east side again and rebuild the flyover. Even Michael Bell wouldn't
> dream of advocating such a thing.
Queenstown Road (where it goes from 8 down to 7 to accommodate it, then 8
once the flyover has merged). I don't know enough about the (complex) track
layout and platforming to know if that would give any useful increase in
capacity.
If the infrastructure elsewhere limits trains to ~240m long, there's no
advantage for anyone from the much longer platforms to be had.
(is there any realistic prospect of longer trains out of any part of
Waterloo?)
Theo
Graeme Wall
Aug 10, 2017, 6:12:55 AM8/10/17
to
sure who dreamt that one up, possibly a southern edition of M Bell
(Tyneside) Ltd.
sp...@potato.field
Aug 10, 2017, 7:27:48 AM8/10/17
to
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
while after St P opened in case of teething problems either at the station
or on HS1 but I suppose the cost would have been prohibitive.o
--
Spud
Graeme Wall <ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 10/08/2017 09:34, sp...@potato.field wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100
>> Graeme Wall <ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 09/08/2017 18:13, e27002 aurora wrote:
>>>> The platforms were the wrong height. Moreover, the track layout and
>>>> signalling may not have been appropriate for domestic traffic.
>>>> But, you are correct, in that after the international service moved to
>>>> Saint Pancras, DfT and Network Rail should have been considering
>>>> re-utilizing the station.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Who actually owned it?
>>
>> British Railways Board after it closed. Don't know who owned it when it was
>> in service. However if network rail had asked to take it off their hands back
>> in 2007 I doubt there would have been too many objections.
>>
>
>There was for a while an idea that E* could use both terminals. Not
>sure who dreamt that one up, possibly a southern edition of M Bell
>(Tyneside) Ltd.
There was probably a reasonable argument to keep Waterloo in service for a
>On 10/08/2017 09:34, sp...@potato.field wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 19:38:59 +0100
>> Graeme Wall <ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 09/08/2017 18:13, e27002 aurora wrote:
>>>> The platforms were the wrong height. Moreover, the track layout and
>>>> signalling may not have been appropriate for domestic traffic.
>>>> But, you are correct, in that after the international service moved to
>>>> Saint Pancras, DfT and Network Rail should have been considering
>>>> re-utilizing the station.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Who actually owned it?
>>
>> British Railways Board after it closed. Don't know who owned it when it was
>> in service. However if network rail had asked to take it off their hands back
>> in 2007 I doubt there would have been too many objections.
>>
>
>There was for a while an idea that E* could use both terminals. Not
>sure who dreamt that one up, possibly a southern edition of M Bell
>(Tyneside) Ltd.
while after St P opened in case of teething problems either at the station
or on HS1 but I suppose the cost would have been prohibitive.o
--
Spud
Graeme Wall
Aug 10, 2017, 7:53:24 AM8/10/17
to
were proposals that it would be a good idea to continue a passenger
service into Waterloo for those who found the UndergrounD too exotic.
Basil Jet
Aug 10, 2017, 8:05:11 AM8/10/17
to
ending up on the wrong side of the river again, even for Europe.
Graeme Wall
Aug 10, 2017, 9:54:31 AM8/10/17
to
the saving in international journey time was neatly cancelled out by the
journey from Waterloo to SPI, which also involved an extra two changes.
So it wasn't the South Londoners so much as the whole of the Wessex
region that was complaining :-)
Conversely, of course, those from north of the Watford Gap got to spend
as little time as possible in the hated London area, source of all their
misfortunes (@M Bell).
Roland Perry
Aug 10, 2017, 10:15:39 AM8/10/17
to
In message <omhoar$mq5$2...@dont-email.me>, at 14:54:30 on Thu, 10 Aug
2017, Graeme Wall <ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
Probably quicker to switch to the Victoria Line at Vauxhall, in
practice.
--
Roland Perry
2017, Graeme Wall <ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>On 10/08/2017 13:05, Basil Jet wrote:
>> On 2017\08\10 12:53, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>> On 10/08/2017 12:27, sp...@potato.field wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
>>>> Graeme Wall <ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> There was for a while an idea that E* could use both terminals. Not
>>>>> sure who dreamt that one up, possibly a southern edition of M Bell
>>>>> (Tyneside) Ltd.
>>>>
>>>> There was probably a reasonable argument to keep Waterloo in
>>>>service for a
>>>> while after St P opened in case of teething problems either at the
>>>>station
>>>> or on HS1 but I suppose the cost would have been prohibitive.o
>>>
>>> It effectively was while HS1 was still in its testing phase but
>>>there were proposals that it would be a good idea to continue a
>>>passenger service into Waterloo for those who found the UndergrounD
>>>too exotic.
>> I think it was only ever a sop to stop South Londoners complaining
>>about ending up on the wrong side of the river again, even for Europe.
>
>Anybody coming in from SWT territory got no advantage from the switch
>as the saving in international journey time was neatly cancelled out by
>the journey from Waterloo to SPI, which also involved an extra two
>changes.
Cross platform at Oxford Circus is pretty trivial.
>> On 2017\08\10 12:53, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>> On 10/08/2017 12:27, sp...@potato.field wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:12:53 +0100
>>>> Graeme Wall <ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> There was for a while an idea that E* could use both terminals. Not
>>>>> sure who dreamt that one up, possibly a southern edition of M Bell
>>>>> (Tyneside) Ltd.
>>>>
>>>> There was probably a reasonable argument to keep Waterloo in
>>>>service for a
>>>> while after St P opened in case of teething problems either at the
>>>>station
>>>> or on HS1 but I suppose the cost would have been prohibitive.o
>>>
>>> It effectively was while HS1 was still in its testing phase but
>>>there were proposals that it would be a good idea to continue a
>>>passenger service into Waterloo for those who found the UndergrounD
>>>too exotic.
>> I think it was only ever a sop to stop South Londoners complaining
>>about ending up on the wrong side of the river again, even for Europe.
>
>Anybody coming in from SWT territory got no advantage from the switch
>as the saving in international journey time was neatly cancelled out by
>the journey from Waterloo to SPI, which also involved an extra two
>changes.
Probably quicker to switch to the Victoria Line at Vauxhall, in
practice.
--
Roland Perry
Graeme Wall
Aug 10, 2017, 10:50:04 AM8/10/17
to
Roland Perry
Aug 10, 2017, 11:09:37 AM8/10/17
to
In message <omhrj0$111$2...@dont-email.me>, at 15:50:03 on Thu, 10 Aug
--
Roland Perry
>>> Anybody coming in from SWT territory got no advantage from the
>>>switch as the saving in international journey time was neatly
>>>cancelled out by the journey from Waterloo to SPI, which also
>>>involved an extra two changes.
>> Cross platform at Oxford Circus is pretty trivial.
>> Probably quicker to switch to the Victoria Line at Vauxhall, in
>>practice.
>
>Not when you are coming in from, eg, Southampton.
I'm not going to let pax from 2tph upset the general idea.
>>>switch as the saving in international journey time was neatly
>>>cancelled out by the journey from Waterloo to SPI, which also
>>>involved an extra two changes.
>> Cross platform at Oxford Circus is pretty trivial.
>> Probably quicker to switch to the Victoria Line at Vauxhall, in
>>practice.
>
>Not when you are coming in from, eg, Southampton.
--
Roland Perry
Graeme Wall
Aug 10, 2017, 11:53:28 AM8/10/17
to
e27002 aurora
Aug 11, 2017, 3:31:22 AM8/11/17
to
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 21:08:42 +0100, Basil Jet <ba...@spamspamspam.com>
wrote:
Mr. Brush, you have been told a million times not to exaggerate. :-)
wrote:
e27002 aurora
Aug 11, 2017, 3:36:10 AM8/11/17
to
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 23:05:14 +0100, Basil Jet <ba...@spamspamspam.com>
OK, OK Mr. Brush, calm down, calm down. You have won the debate. Be
careful, or you will be back at your Doctor's Office. :-) Think of
your blood pressure.
careful, or you will be back at your Doctor's Office. :-) Think of
your blood pressure.
e27002 aurora
Aug 11, 2017, 3:43:47 AM8/11/17
to
On 10 Aug 2017 11:10:54 +0100 (BST), Theo
Barnes. I do not know how much the reduction around the Nine Elms
flyover reduced needed capacity.
<theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>In uk.railway Basil Jet <ba...@spamspamspam.com> wrote:
>> I'm not sure exactly what the difference is, except for the pretty roof.
>> But imagine that the east half of Victoria was tarted up, and they
>> decided to build a flyover so the Brighton lines could use it. Then
>> twenty years later the west half is tarted up to be nicer than the east
>> half, so they demolish the flyover. Then twenty years later they tart up
>> the east side again and rebuild the flyover. Even Michael Bell wouldn't
>> dream of advocating such a thing.
>
>Losing the flyover would enable reinstatement of an 8th track through
>Queenstown Road (where it goes from 8 down to 7 to accommodate it, then 8
>once the flyover has merged). I don't know enough about the (complex) track
>layout and platforming to know if that would give any useful increase in
>capacity.
Historically, IIRC, there were four tracks between Waterloo and
>In uk.railway Basil Jet <ba...@spamspamspam.com> wrote:
>> I'm not sure exactly what the difference is, except for the pretty roof.
>> But imagine that the east half of Victoria was tarted up, and they
>> decided to build a flyover so the Brighton lines could use it. Then
>> twenty years later the west half is tarted up to be nicer than the east
>> half, so they demolish the flyover. Then twenty years later they tart up
>> the east side again and rebuild the flyover. Even Michael Bell wouldn't
>> dream of advocating such a thing.
>
>Losing the flyover would enable reinstatement of an 8th track through
>Queenstown Road (where it goes from 8 down to 7 to accommodate it, then 8
>once the flyover has merged). I don't know enough about the (complex) track
>layout and platforming to know if that would give any useful increase in
>capacity.
Barnes. I do not know how much the reduction around the Nine Elms
flyover reduced needed capacity.
>
>If the infrastructure elsewhere limits trains to ~240m long, there's no
>advantage for anyone from the much longer platforms to be had.
> (is there any realistic prospect of longer trains out of any part of
>Waterloo?)
>
Probably not. I wonder how long are the platforms at Southampton?
>If the infrastructure elsewhere limits trains to ~240m long, there's no
>advantage for anyone from the much longer platforms to be had.
> (is there any realistic prospect of longer trains out of any part of
>Waterloo?)
>
e27002 aurora
Aug 11, 2017, 3:48:35 AM8/11/17
to
electrification projects has caused the D(a)ft to become very wary of
rail investment. One fears lean times lie ahead.
e27002 aurora
Aug 11, 2017, 3:54:27 AM8/11/17
to
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:29:04 -0700 (PDT), rcp...@gmail.com wrote:
>On Wednesday, 9 August 2017 19:13:22 UTC+2, e27002 wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 15:10:45 +0000 (UTC), sp...@potato.field wrote:
>
>> The platforms were the wrong height.
>
>You sure about that? I was under the impression that Waterloo International platforms were built to UK rather than UIC spec.
>
You may be right. I thought I had read something about the platforms
being lower in the railway press. But, my memory could be at fault,
and the press is often wrong.
>On Wednesday, 9 August 2017 19:13:22 UTC+2, e27002 wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 15:10:45 +0000 (UTC), sp...@potato.field wrote:
>
>> The platforms were the wrong height.
>
>
You may be right. I thought I had read something about the platforms
being lower in the railway press. But, my memory could be at fault,
and the press is often wrong.
Graeme Wall
Aug 11, 2017, 4:06:59 AM8/11/17
to
Basil Jet
Aug 11, 2017, 4:12:57 AM8/11/17
to
On 2017\08\11 08:43, e27002 aurora wrote:
> On 10 Aug 2017 11:10:54 +0100 (BST), Theo
> <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Losing the flyover would enable reinstatement of an 8th track through
>> Queenstown Road (where it goes from 8 down to 7 to accommodate it, then 8
>> once the flyover has merged). I don't know enough about the (complex) track
>> layout and platforming to know if that would give any useful increase in
>> capacity.
>
> Historically, IIRC, there were four tracks between Waterloo and
> Barnes. I do not know how much the reduction around the Nine Elms
> flyover reduced needed capacity.
Discussion of new services from Waterloo to Heathrow always seems to
> On 10 Aug 2017 11:10:54 +0100 (BST), Theo
> <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Losing the flyover would enable reinstatement of an 8th track through
>> Queenstown Road (where it goes from 8 down to 7 to accommodate it, then 8
>> once the flyover has merged). I don't know enough about the (complex) track
>> layout and platforming to know if that would give any useful increase in
>> capacity.
>
> Historically, IIRC, there were four tracks between Waterloo and
> Barnes. I do not know how much the reduction around the Nine Elms
> flyover reduced needed capacity.
flounder on the need to replace level crossings around Mortlake rather
than limited capacity in Nine Elms.
Recliner
Aug 11, 2017, 4:14:15 AM8/11/17
to
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/eurostar/738800/Eurostar-platform-controversy-at-Waterloo.html>
Little did they know…
"Plans to mothball five platforms at Waterloo for more than a year before
bringing them into use to ease congestion has sparked outrage from rail
passenger groups.
The five platforms, vacated by Eurostar's move to St Pancras, are unlikely
to see any trains until December 2008, partly because Eurostar has an
agreement not to vacate them for another six months.
…
A spokesman for Network Rail said that six months' work would be needed
before the five platforms could be added to the 19 already in use at
Waterloo."
sp...@potato.field
Aug 11, 2017, 4:36:44 AM8/11/17
to
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 08:10:03 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner <recli...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Graeme Wall <ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Recliner <recli...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Graeme Wall <ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> It effectively was while HS1 was still in its testing phase but there
>> were proposals that it would be a good idea to continue a passenger
>> service into Waterloo for those who found the UndergrounD too exotic.
>
>I've found this old report from almost a decade ago
>
><http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/eurostar/738800/Eurostar-platform-controvers
>> were proposals that it would be a good idea to continue a passenger
>> service into Waterloo for those who found the UndergrounD too exotic.
>
>I've found this old report from almost a decade ago
>
><http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/eurostar/738800/Eurostar-platform-controvers
>-at-Waterloo.html>
>
>Little did they know…
>
>"Plans to mothball five platforms at Waterloo for more than a year before
>bringing them into use to ease congestion has sparked outrage from rail
>passenger groups.
>
>The five platforms, vacated by Eurostar's move to St Pancras, are unlikely
>to see any trains until December 2008, partly because Eurostar has an
>agreement not to vacate them for another six months.
>
>…
>
>A spokesman for Network Rail said that six months' work would be needed
>before the five platforms could be added to the 19 already in use at
>Waterloo."
Someone should have got a good kicking for them lying idle for 10 years but
>
>Little did they know…
>
>"Plans to mothball five platforms at Waterloo for more than a year before
>bringing them into use to ease congestion has sparked outrage from rail
>passenger groups.
>
>The five platforms, vacated by Eurostar's move to St Pancras, are unlikely
>to see any trains until December 2008, partly because Eurostar has an
>agreement not to vacate them for another six months.
>
>…
>
>A spokesman for Network Rail said that six months' work would be needed
>before the five platforms could be added to the 19 already in use at
>Waterloo."
of course they won't because incompetance is par for the course with upper
management in government bodies.
--
Spud
sp...@potato.field
Aug 11, 2017, 4:40:13 AM8/11/17
to
trains wouldn't be able to get there.
--
Spud
e27002 aurora
Aug 11, 2017, 7:51:04 AM8/11/17
to
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:07:08 +0100, Basil Jet <ba...@spamspamspam.com>
wrote:
>On 2017\08\10 07:15, Garde...@live.co.uk wrote:
>
>Only because the so called far-right are actually socialists - national
>socialists - and so are not really right wing at all.
So, let me be sure I understand the point of view being expressed
here. Posters are positing that there is a left and a right, and they
become similar at 6:00 in the clock face. This is because according
to this view both extremes are about totalitarian government control.
So, we can logically conclude that according to this view 12:00 on the
clock face represents anarchy, the absence of governing authority.
Which would put libertarianism at about 11:0 or 1:00.
Is this what folk are saying?
For what it's worth I do not share this viewpoint.
wrote:
>On 2017\08\10 07:15, Garde...@live.co.uk wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 9 August 2017 22:33:50 UTC+1, Recliner wrote:
>>>
>>> Presumably Adrian would prefer to arrive in the high numbered former
>>> international platforms as they're in the extreme right wing of the
>>> station?
>>
>> Only as you depart - they'll be extreme left as you arrive!! (Which goes to show that the extreme right and left are just as bad as each other!!! :-))
>>>
>>> Presumably Adrian would prefer to arrive in the high numbered former
>>> international platforms as they're in the extreme right wing of the
>>> station?
>>
>
>Only because the so called far-right are actually socialists - national
>socialists - and so are not really right wing at all.
So, let me be sure I understand the point of view being expressed
here. Posters are positing that there is a left and a right, and they
become similar at 6:00 in the clock face. This is because according
to this view both extremes are about totalitarian government control.
So, we can logically conclude that according to this view 12:00 on the
clock face represents anarchy, the absence of governing authority.
Which would put libertarianism at about 11:0 or 1:00.
Is this what folk are saying?
For what it's worth I do not share this viewpoint.
Message has been deleted
sp...@potato.field
Aug 11, 2017, 8:59:49 AM8/11/17
to
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:54:47 +0100
e27002 aurora <adrian...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:07:08 +0100, Basil Jet <ba...@spamspamspam.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 2017\08\10 07:15, Garde...@live.co.uk wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 9 August 2017 22:33:50 UTC+1, Recliner wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Presumably Adrian would prefer to arrive in the high numbered former
>>>> international platforms as they're in the extreme right wing of the
>>>> station?
>>>
>>> Only as you depart - they'll be extreme left as you arrive!! (Which goes to
>show that the extreme right and left are just as bad as each other!!! :-))
>>
>>Only because the so called far-right are actually socialists - national
>>socialists - and so are not really right wing at all.
>
>So, let me be sure I understand the point of view being expressed
>here. Posters are positing that there is a left and a right and they
e27002 aurora <adrian...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:07:08 +0100, Basil Jet <ba...@spamspamspam.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 2017\08\10 07:15, Garde...@live.co.uk wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 9 August 2017 22:33:50 UTC+1, Recliner wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Presumably Adrian would prefer to arrive in the high numbered former
>>>> international platforms as they're in the extreme right wing of the
>>>> station?
>>>
>>> Only as you depart - they'll be extreme left as you arrive!! (Which goes to
>show that the extreme right and left are just as bad as each other!!! :-))
>>
>>Only because the so called far-right are actually socialists - national
>>socialists - and so are not really right wing at all.
>
>So, let me be sure I understand the point of view being expressed
>become similar at 6:00 in the clock face. This is because according
>to this view both are about totalitarian government control.
https\://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory
--
Spud
ColinR
Aug 11, 2017, 12:00:52 PM8/11/17
to
e27002 aurora
Aug 12, 2017, 3:31:12 AM8/12/17
to
On Wed, 09 Aug 2017 16:47:09 -0500, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
wrote:
>In article <v2gmoc5iee6s5rnrr...@4ax.com>,
>adrian...@sprintmail.com (e27002 aurora) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 09:12:18 +0000 (UTC), sp...@potato.field wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 08:54:23 -0000 (UTC)
>> >Recliner <recli...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> >Well its taken BRB & NR 10 years to get this far, and its been over a
>> >year since building work actually started for them to do frankly not very
>> >much. I have little confidence the refurbishment of the 2 floors below
>> >will be finished anytime soon.
>> >
>> More reason to make responsibility for track and infrastructure part
>> of the franchise commitment. D(a)ft and Network Rail together are
>> worthless.
>
>That's all very well until more than one company runs trains on the tracks,
>especially freight companies.
This is hardly a new problem! Join arrangements, running powers,
access charges, there are several solutions.
wrote:
>In article <v2gmoc5iee6s5rnrr...@4ax.com>,
>adrian...@sprintmail.com (e27002 aurora) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 09:12:18 +0000 (UTC), sp...@potato.field wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 08:54:23 -0000 (UTC)
>> >Recliner <recli...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> >Well its taken BRB & NR 10 years to get this far, and its been over a
>> >year since building work actually started for them to do frankly not very
>> >much. I have little confidence the refurbishment of the 2 floors below
>> >will be finished anytime soon.
>> >
>> More reason to make responsibility for track and infrastructure part
>> of the franchise commitment. D(a)ft and Network Rail together are
>> worthless.
>
>That's all very well until more than one company runs trains on the tracks,
>especially freight companies.
This is hardly a new problem! Join arrangements, running powers,
access charges, there are several solutions.
e27002 aurora
Aug 12, 2017, 3:36:48 AM8/12/17
to
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 03:29:29 -0500, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
wrote:
>In article <3rnqocp2e69so01r7...@4ax.com>,
>Queens Road Battersea). It only ever had 3 platforms (the side platform has
>long been out of use) and 3 passenger tracks. A fourth track, between the
>two up tracks, served the late lamented Nine Elms Goods Station. There was
>an attempt to work up a scheme to have one up and two down tracks there (to
>ease ECS moves from Waterloo to Clapham Yard) but the cost of rebuilding the
>station was found to be prohibitive.
So, the absence of a fourth track for the Windsor lines approach to
Waterloo is not really an issue. That is good.
After TfL's Northern Line reaches Battersea, will Queenstown Road
still be needed?
It is a pity the tube could not have reach Battersea Park.
wrote:
>In article <3rnqocp2e69so01r7...@4ax.com>,
>adrian...@sprintmail.com (e27002 aurora) wrote:
>
>> On 10 Aug 2017 11:10:54 +0100 (BST), Theo
>> <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >In uk.railway Basil Jet <ba...@spamspamspam.com> wrote:
>> >> I'm not sure exactly what the difference is, except for the pretty
>> >> roof. But imagine that the east half of Victoria was tarted up, and
>> >> they decided to build a flyover so the Brighton lines could use it.
>> >> Then twenty years later the west half is tarted up to be nicer than the
>> >> east half, so they demolish the flyover. Then twenty years later they
>> >> tart up the east side again and rebuild the flyover. Even Michael Bell
>> >> wouldn't dream of advocating such athing.
>> >
>> >Losing the flyover would enable reinstatement of an 8th track through
>> >Queenstown Road (where it goes from 8 down to 7 to accommodate it, then 8
>> >once the flyover has merged). I don't know enough about the (complex)
>> >track layout and platforming to know if that would give any useful
>> >increase in capacity.
>>
>> Historically, IIRC, there were four tracks between Waterloo and
>> Barnes. I do not know how much the reduction around the Nine Elms
>> flyover reduced needed capacity.
>
>Historically the constraint is at Queenstown Road Battersea (previously
>
>> On 10 Aug 2017 11:10:54 +0100 (BST), Theo
>> <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >In uk.railway Basil Jet <ba...@spamspamspam.com> wrote:
>> >> I'm not sure exactly what the difference is, except for the pretty
>> >> roof. But imagine that the east half of Victoria was tarted up, and
>> >> they decided to build a flyover so the Brighton lines could use it.
>> >> Then twenty years later the west half is tarted up to be nicer than the
>> >> east half, so they demolish the flyover. Then twenty years later they
>> >> tart up the east side again and rebuild the flyover. Even Michael Bell
>> >> wouldn't dream of advocating such athing.
>> >
>> >Losing the flyover would enable reinstatement of an 8th track through
>> >Queenstown Road (where it goes from 8 down to 7 to accommodate it, then 8
>> >once the flyover has merged). I don't know enough about the (complex)
>> >track layout and platforming to know if that would give any useful
>> >increase in capacity.
>>
>> Historically, IIRC, there were four tracks between Waterloo and
>> Barnes. I do not know how much the reduction around the Nine Elms
>> flyover reduced needed capacity.
>
>Queens Road Battersea). It only ever had 3 platforms (the side platform has
>long been out of use) and 3 passenger tracks. A fourth track, between the
>two up tracks, served the late lamented Nine Elms Goods Station. There was
>an attempt to work up a scheme to have one up and two down tracks there (to
>ease ECS moves from Waterloo to Clapham Yard) but the cost of rebuilding the
>station was found to be prohibitive.
So, the absence of a fourth track for the Windsor lines approach to
Waterloo is not really an issue. That is good.
After TfL's Northern Line reaches Battersea, will Queenstown Road
still be needed?
It is a pity the tube could not have reach Battersea Park.
Anna Noyd-Dryver
Aug 13, 2017, 11:22:47 AM8/13/17
to
disadvantaged by E*'s move to St Pancras, would have been 1tph SET Javelin
from Ashford-or-beyond to Waterloo, with connecting E*s at Ashford.
Anna Noyd-Dryver
Recliner
Aug 13, 2017, 11:29:29 AM8/13/17
to
don't stop at Ashford.
Roger Lynn
Aug 13, 2017, 2:08:03 PM8/13/17
to
On 13/08/17 16:18, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> I thought at the time that a solution to the SWT-area passengers who felt
> disadvantaged by E*'s move to St Pancras, would have been 1tph SET Javelin
> from Ashford-or-beyond to Waterloo, with connecting E*s at Ashford.
Would a Javelin have any advantage on that route over whatever third rail
> I thought at the time that a solution to the SWT-area passengers who felt
> disadvantaged by E*'s move to St Pancras, would have been 1tph SET Javelin
> from Ashford-or-beyond to Waterloo, with connecting E*s at Ashford.
stock usually operates in that region? Presumably both would be restricted
to the same line speed, which I believe wasn't very high when Eurostars than
that way?
Roger
Graeme Wall
Aug 13, 2017, 2:42:22 PM8/13/17
to
Recliner
Aug 13, 2017, 3:11:45 PM8/13/17
to
Junction route to HS1? If not, their route to Ashford would surely be
slower?
Graeme Wall
Aug 13, 2017, 4:20:46 PM8/13/17
to
Also the Javelins didn't exist at the time.
Anna Noyd-Dryver
Aug 13, 2017, 4:33:33 PM8/13/17
to
395s would use HS1 and then follow the route that E* used during that time.
OTTOMH I forget the junction names involved.
Anna Noyd-Dryver
Anna Noyd-Dryver
Aug 13, 2017, 4:33:33 PM8/13/17
to
from Waterloo to Ashford...
Anna Noyd-Dryver
Anna Noyd-Dryver
Aug 13, 2017, 4:33:33 PM8/13/17
to
Anna Noyd-Dryver
Recliner
Aug 13, 2017, 4:35:29 PM8/13/17
to
> Also the Javelins didn't exist at the time.
even been ordered back then.
Anna Noyd-Dryver
Aug 13, 2017, 5:41:07 PM8/13/17
to
395 had been delivered for testing (first service trains 2009).
Anna Noyd-Dryver
Theo
Aug 13, 2017, 5:56:21 PM8/13/17
to
In uk.railway Anna Noyd-Dryver <An...@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> Other than use of HS1 for part of the journey, and that there are no trains
> from Waterloo to Ashford...
Only every half an hour, taking 1h17:
> Other than use of HS1 for part of the journey, and that there are no trains
> from Waterloo to Ashford...
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/WAE/to/AFK/2017/08/14/0600-2000
What would a hypothetical Waterloo-Ashford Javelin via HS1 do it in?
Theo
Recliner
Aug 13, 2017, 6:16:05 PM8/13/17
to
via Tonbridge; it was then extended to Fawkham Junction, for the route via
Swanley to Waterloo. It was then completed to St Pancras, whereupon
Eurostar moved from Waterloo, and the Fawkham Junction link was no longer
used (it's now out of service).
Charles Ellson
Aug 14, 2017, 1:40:46 AM8/14/17
to
>It is a pity the tube could not have reach Battersea Park.
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Anna Noyd-Dryver
Aug 14, 2017, 4:47:31 AM8/14/17
to
all about Waterloo East!! D'oh :/
Anna Noyd-Dryver
Roger Lynn
Aug 14, 2017, 3:08:02 PM8/14/17
to
to Ashford. Shame it couldn't get from Waterloo into Ebbsfleet. That would
make the connection faster. A connection with the North Kent Line would have
helped too.
Roger
0 new messages