Surrey Railway Strategy

Why would you want to comment on this when you are in Australia?

Dave - the sift applied by Arups in preparing the study for Surrey was a fairly crude "traffic light" system of project appraisal and it's riddled with inconsistencies. The most difficult assumption is that XR2 will create paths on the SW fast lines by enabling fasts to switch to the slows just after the Wimbledon portal (with the slows then going through XR2. What is not explained is precisely how all the necessary flyovers are going to be fitted in between Wimbledon and Raynes Park. The treatment of airport traffic is pretty odd, too, and the idea of a high speed Heathrow-Gatwick link will make the opposition to HS2 look like a picnic in the park. I suspect that Surrey have simply commissioned this to show that they are doing something - a something that they know cynically will never happen - after all, Surrey have done absolutely nothing for rail in the last 20-30 years, so why would they start now?

Graham H

Unless you've managed to design a Tardis I really can't see how double decking works - it's been looked at time after time and loading gauge, platform height, interior space and station dwell times all conspire against it.

Chris

Is there any reason why the existing up slow flyover between Wimbledon and Earlsfield cannot be used?

I have now submitted my feedback to Surrey C.C.

I thank all those who have posted comments on this and related topics and threads here and at London Reconnections. I have tried to digest your thoughts and adopted some to include.

If anyone wishes to counter my input where you think I am off the track, you should do so directly to Surrey C.C. - and by all means refer to my input - the DW from Australia.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

RAILWAY STRATEGY CONSULTATION – SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL

This submission relates to four aspects of the discussion and draft outline, plus Crossrail 2:

1) Capacity issues. Assumptions underlying the premature elimination of one potential key element in resolving medium term issues;
2) Access to Heathrow Airport
3) The North Downs Orbital line: Reading – Redhill (and thence ultimately, Ashford)
4) Fast Link Heathrow – Gatwick
5) Crossrail 2

1. CAPACITY ISSUES

1.1. Outer suburban trains on the SWML are forecast to be 37% in excess of capacity. While works in CP6 and the mooted CR2 may relieve some of that, we are looking into the longer term for alleviation. The proposed works are also route specific, whereas a general solution would engender wider benefits.

1.2. Extending trains and platforms has been explored, and is adopted to the extent it practically and economically can.

1.3. The longer platforms of Waterloo International are on the “wrong side” to be of beneficial use in relieving overcrowding, unless expensive works were undertaken immediately south-west of Waterloo. However, the strategy would note plans for one such platform to be brought into service for the Windsor lines, allowing a “cascade of platforms” in the main station.

1.4. The strategy would also note that the former international route’s paths have now been re-allocated, and while there might be some scope for diverting trains to pick up the approach through Clapham Junction towards the International platforms, congestion further out in the south-of-London network precludes beneficial use being made of this infrastructure. A major series of junction upgrades and rationalisations would be needed to leverage this asset.

1.5. The timeframes for most capacity upgrades would be CP6 and beyond.

1.6. The one major capacity uplift that could be achieved within about 5 years relates to rolling stock design. The Consultants illustrated the concept with a Dutch double-deck train. The Dutch DD trains are larger in cross-sectional profile than French or German, due to a more generous loading gauge. Likewise those in Sydney NSW, Long Island USA and Ontario Canada – all of which use the well-type design. The consultants then apply the ASSUMPTION that all DD cars are therefore as wide, tall and long as those illustrated. This assumption cannot be allowed to go untested.

1.7. Clearly, the SWML and other lines in the SW do NOT have such a loading gauge. The question that SHOULD be asked is: can a workable (if not totally ideal) DD design be developed to suit British conditions? Given the forecast overcrowding, an interim solution based on minimal capital works on infrastructure would be indicated. This follows from the lead time such infrastructure works would require, and the fact that few within Surrey and none on the SWML are committed. The W10 works between Basingstoke and Southampton will help with prospective passenger ambience in the upper deck.

1.8. A design concept and several design illustrations were submitted to the Radical Train Innovation competition recently. Copies of these have been forwarded to Lee McQuade at Surrey CC. These illustrations show an interim DD design could be built within the constraints of the British railway network.

1.8.1. The illustrations are for a design to suit the lowest Overhead Line on the 25kV electrified network. This is set at 3925mm above rail level (arl). Such substandard contact wire heights have been used to contain costs (eg Bathgate) or result from heritage infrastructure (eg Thameslink). This limits the height above rail for rolling stock to not higher than 3800mm.

1.8.2. A design specific to DC lines is fully possible, in which case the cars would be built to a static height at the crown of 3965mm (subject to adjustment for kinematic envelope). Any such cars would have slightly improved upper deck seat access.

1.8.3. A full gauging exercise for the SW lines may reveal better clearances than the minima – in which case designs optimised for SW lines could provide less compromised seat access in both decks.

1.8.4. The primary negative in the designs lies in seat access in some parts of the vehicle. Accessing and egressing seats occupies some tens of seconds per trip – a negligible period in a journey of 20-60 minutes. So long as the seating itself is acceptably comfortable, those few seconds of awkwardness would not be mission critical for a high percentage of passengers. Nonetheless, there will be plenty of seats with more usual access available.

1.9. The key features of these designs are:

1.9.1. Short vehicles, with wide doors and wide stairways: for minimising dwell time;

1.9.2. A range of seating types to suit different needs – and fit the various passenger spaces that have been created.

1.9.3. Short mezzanine adjoining vestibules: for disabled passengers, those with prams or pushchairs, those with wheeled luggage and those unable to negotiate stairs comfortably. The mezzanine area also provides a standing space buffer for the vestibules. All mezzanine seats are high and fold-back.

1.9.4. High acceleration and braking, and excellent adhesion characteristics from permanent magnet AC motors, all axles motored, tread brakes complementing regenerative and disc brakes – to help keep wheels clean especially during leaf fall conditions. These capabilities minimise platform occupation time. They also maximise reliability and punctuality.

1.9.5. Either a high-density or medium density seating design for the lower deck. 2+2 in the upper. (But the upper can be changed as required). Possibility of compartments on the lower deck for longer distance variant of these trains, with 1st Class and toilets.

1.9.6. Conventional 2-bogie design (with articulated variants also possible) for minimum resistance from NR, and lowest track stresses. Lightweight axles and bogies.

1.9.6.1. The prototype Siemens SV7000 bogie (for Desiro City trains such as the 700 class Thameslink design) is slightly larger than that shown on the diagrams, but would be entirely suitable.

1.9.7. Air conditioned throughout.

1.9.8. Multi-voltage with battery back up for service reliability even during icy conditions.

1.9.9. Open gangwayed throughout.

1.9.10. Steps within the upper deck into the seats (not unlike modern dual-purpose buses which have the seats on a plinth alongside the aisle in the forward area, all seats thus facing forward). The step can be on one side or both of the aisle.

1.9.11. Equipment contained under back-to-back seats, above the vestibules/mezzanine areas and outside the inside-framed bogies. Various ducts fitted around the passenger space.

1.9.12. Seats moulded into the body shell to maximise passenger space.

1.9.13. Minimum depth, very high strength body materials at all points critical for passenger space (including side walls, roof sheet, bottom deck floor/vehicle underside, and the ‘tween decks floor/ceiling).

1.9.14. Excellent headroom in the vestibules and mezzanine. Good headroom above the upper deck aisle. But compromised headroom in the lower deck aisle, and above some seats (somewhat like aircraft with the overhead lockers). This latter forms the interim workaround to get DD to fit.

1.9.15. Vestibule/mezzanine height matches platform height (915mm above rail level) for direct access for wheeled devices (wheelchairs, scooters, prams, luggage, etc).

1.9.16. Well equipped for standing passengers to secure themselves. Fitted with suitable grab rails for passengers when entering and leaving the seats, as well as in the aisles, staircases and mezzanine/vestibules. It is acknowledged that the seating space restrictions make grab rails in the seat space most desirable.

1.9.17. Designed for 110mph operation.

1.9.18. Once the design has proven its value, a case can more readily be made for a rolling programme of works to obtain better clearances. A Mk 2 design could then follow a first round of clearance improvements, and a final design when full clearance is achieved. The principles provide the toolkit for the Mk 2 design as well as our “Day 1” situation.

1.9.19. SDO – for use at shorter platforms.

1.10. Possible technologies for inclusion (if required):

1.10.1. Variable platform height adjustment. This would build on the SDO technology, but add several extra levels of data and confirmation – using balises, and radar/laser detection of platform height in real time. Any application of this technology is subject to overhead clearance being available; and must have fail-safe and fail-graceful elements built in (to prevent a car running overheight and coming into collision with an overhead obstruction – bridge, tunnel, etc). It’s not used today, and would represent significant risk until fully matured.

1.10.2. Step extension system – to fill gaps between doors and platform – using the same SDO technology basis, data confirmation and real time detection as the platform height adjustment system. The step extension itself should be frangible (ie weak enough to break off if it comes into contact with lineside fixtures). The PTA of Western Australia have a 50mm frangible step edge on their level boarding TransPerth suburban electrics – often these are found worn down to 25mm due to platform contact arising from sway. The step edge is outside the vehicle/loading gauge.

2. ACCESS TO HEATHROW AIRPORT

2.1. +There was some merit in the original AirTrack scheme. It is a shame that it foundered on the failure of all authorities involved to agree and implement a level crossing elimination strategy for SW London. Attention to these crossings will be needed in due course. It is recognised that other factors were at play, so it’s a case of “which straw broke the camel’s back?”

2.2. The primary need remaining (after WRAtH) is for access from the South and Southwest to Heathrow.

2.3. Staines is well positioned to serve as an Interchange.

2.4. Crossrail as presently constituted has carefully avoided the operational risks associated with voltage changeover. It is unlikely that through operation on to DC tracks will be countenanced in the early period of operation.

2.5. Item 2.4 should NOT preclude an extension of Crossrail (as a separately sponsored project) as an AC powered mid-suburban railway, to both Maidenhead and Staines
.
2.6. I suggest including in the Surrey CC Strategy such a Staines extension, with some BCA estimates. I would suggest passively designed for a triangular junction @ Staines, with scope for future through running – whether dual voltage onto DC powered tracks, or AC onto repowered tracks to the SW. This is much as discussed by the Consultants.

2.7. With an interchange to Crossrail at Staines, and timetabling and routeing adjustments to suit, there is scope for a significant shift of traffic. With the different range of destinations available from Staines via Crossrail (including Canary Wharf), a change at a nicely equipped interchange onto an empty and relatively fast service across London may appeal when compared to heavily overcrowded trains into Waterloo, and then a significant trek to pick up an equally overcrowded Jubilee Line train.

2.8. The only complication is that the number and length of trains traversing the level crossings concerned must not be allowed to increase. In essence that means some DC trains from further afield terminating at Staines until such time as through operation onto Crossrail of dual-voltage stock is approved.

2.9. Construction of a chord near Weybridge would extend the scope for through Crossrail trains (when dual voltage operation permitted) to reach Woking and Guildford. Once this is achieved, together with well-equipped Parkway stations, a significant modal shift of Surrey originated journeys can be expected.

3. NORTH DOWNS LINE – ORBITAL

3.1. This line has significant potential as a freight route as well as for passenger services.

3.2. The limited plans for extra facilities at Redhill for reversing appear to be a rather modest effort in the face of the crowding and congestion levels faced elsewhere.

3.3. Can the North Downs line abstract more of the traffic from crowded routes, if it had an appropriate quality, frequency and speed of service?

3.4. At minimum, I would propose that Surrey CC consider sponsoring two important links in the Redhill area:

3.4.1. A chord permitting direct services from Reading and Guildford to Gatwick and beyond;

3.4.2. A link connecting the Tonbridge route from the east across the BML to the North Downs line.

3.5. I would propose that both routes, through to Ashford International and Gatwick be electrified at 25kV AC OHLE. That will cause some interim complications in Kent, which is beyond the scope of Surrey’s Rail Strategy. There will also be some complications around Reigate and Guildford, but no more so than any other location where both systems are in use.

3.6. I would also propose that the Strategy include longer term plans for upgrading speeds on the route, up to a maximum of 110mph to ensure that future generations of rolling stock can be fully utilised to create fast links to Gatwick.

3.7. The Tonbridge – Redhill chord – Reading corridor has the potential to replace many freight paths on the West London Line (WLL). This 2-track line is the major means by which Surrey travellers will be able to reach the mooted Old Oak Common (OOC) major interchange. The other route is via Richmond, where applicable. To the extent that freight can be diverted from the WLL, so London Overground and through passenger services can replace it. It most certainly isn’t a case of Surrey gets the freight (with the noise and level crossing nuisance) that London doesn’t want, but gets nothing in return. Major accessibility benefits accrue to users of the BML and SWML when an excellent service between Clapham Junction and OOC is offered. Beyond that, through services connecting Gatwick, Redhill, OOC (and Milton Keynes) via the WLL benefit Surrey residents. These are not offered during the peaks due to lack of paths.

3.8. In proposing the Redhill-Reading route become a major corridor for freight, this does mean that 775m trains of international freight ex-Channel tunnel would be presented.

3.8.1. Such traffic, coupled with service frequency improvements through Reigate would mean major issues at the level crossing in the town centre. It is my understanding that the geography and topology of the railway and station there preclude any simple grade separation project. Therefore, a freight relieving line may be needed. I understand the high ground to the north of Reigate is a chalk escarpment. Such material is normally regarded as good tunnelling media. I also understand that a relief line to the south is at risk of significant environmental opposition (as per HS2 in the Chilterns AONB).

3.8.2. I also understand that there are issues at Redhill with building a chord directly between the Reigate line and the Tonbridge line. These issues relate to the height that an overpass would need to be, with the resultant adverse effects on local visual amenity and aural amenity.

3.8.3. At Guildford, I understand that the present at-grade junctions north and south create a significant bottleneck to increasing Redhill – Reading train paths across the complex. Some form of grade separation should be envisaged, and built into any strategy to upgrade the corridor for both freight and passenger service.

3.8.4. A further town centre level crossing issue along the route, but outside Surrey, has been identified at Wokingham. From the proposals I’ve seen, some traffic management measures are proposed around Station Rd. With an increase in both passenger and freight, that may be inadequate, and steps would then be needed to ensure that the grade separated crossings nearby are fully able to take the town centre traffic, including heavy vehicles.

3.8.5. Some of these are as much Surrey CC planning issues as local Borough or Network Rail. For Surrey residents to gain the benefit of higher service frequencies on the corridor, strenuous efforts and some expenditures by Surrey CC will be needed to bring about a suitable train operating regime.

3.8.6. Co-operation from adjoining Counties as well as NR and many levels of government and public authorities will be needed if the corridor is to be successful in diverting freight traffic away from the West London Line (freight traffic on which would limit Surrey residents’ future access to the Old Oak Common interchange site) and in providing a quantum change in passenger service levels.

4. FAST LINK between HEATHROW and GATWICK

4.1. The available railways between Heathrow and Gatwick lack suitable chords for such a route.

4.2. A link could be built based on points 2.6ff above to reach Staines, by installation of a suitable chord near Weybridge and the chord at Redhill proposed at point 3.4.1 above.

4.3. Current and future traffic levels may dictate that a Heathrow-Gatwick link requires additional track capacity to avoid compromising the core radial service(s). An example would be between Weybridge and Guildford.

4.3.1. To minimise impact on existing congested routes, grade separation at the new chords would be a long-term aspiration.

4.4. Use of existing infrastructure limits the service to existing loading gauges until long-term clearance improvements are achieved.

4.5. If an HS2 Connection is desired, HS2 would need to use “Classic Compatible” trains.

4.6. A route weaving through and along existing railways and needing paths on each section, is unlikely to end up being a “fast” service.

4.7. Could a fast GC loading gauge rail link between Heathrow’s potential HS2 station and Gatwick benefit Surrey? The Consultants’ comments about a station on an M25 alignment are noted. However, unless that was a full and major interchange (and Parkway), the benefits to Surrey may end up being limited.

4.7.1. An M25 based link would be attractive to HS2 because it gives access from the North to key intercontinental flights from both Heathrow and Gatwick, maximising the economic benefit of the Heathrow link (subject to 4.7.1.3 below).

4.7.1.1. I’m told that any proposal to build a HS line alongside the M25 is at risk of similar environmental objections to those that have been raised for HS2.

4.7.1.2. The capital cost of a complete new railway is such that, with CR2, HS2-stage 1 and HS2-stage 2 and the Davies Commission report on airport capacity inevitably leading to massive demands on the exchequer – unlikely to be included in forward estimates this side of the 2030s. Whether it would then be high enough priority to start before the 2040s is another key question. How far out does this strategy wish to look?

4.7.1.3. The whole question of linking airports is so tied to the Davies Commission report that it cannot be but premature to incorporate anything but a broad aspiration for Surrey to be connected by fast, frequent services to wherever the South East England Aviation Hub ends up.

4.7.2. How much demand would there be for direct Brighton-Birmingham Classic Compatible trains? Could this be the “core” direct airport service route via Heathrow and Gatwick (noting 4.7.1.3 above)?

4.8. Or: could a link from OOC via Clapham Junction to Gatwick do the same job without any adverse impact on Surrey?

4.8.1. An OOC – Gatwick link (for through or interchanging passengers) would not strengthen the HS2 case for Heathrow.

4.8.2. Such a link would be beneficial to Surrey (Redhill area) by giving direct access to OOC and through trains via HS2, Chiltern and WCML to the North.

4.8.3. Such links rely on the West London Line (WLL). To release freight paths from the WLL to accommodate more LO, regional and long-distance passenger trains requires that the North Downs Line become a preferred FoC route for international freight from the Channel Tunnel to/from the North.

5. CROSSRAIL 2

5.1. In the context of CR2, some commentators on forums I frequent have proposed in place of an underground line between Wimbledon and Clapham Junction, with a series of stations that will need fitting out (at considerable cost), an underground express tunnel from Esher (I guess other portal sites more NE could also be considered) to CJ. The local trains continue to call at Earlsfield then enter tunnel in the vicinity of CJ. The argument being that open line tunnelling has become sufficiently cheap to consider in place of surface construction (eg HS2) but station fit out has continued to become more costly in real terms. Hence CR2 having a lower station density than common, even in the Metro option.

5.1.1. I am of the view that the express tunnel idea has some merit, but Surrey would need to examine whether the fast trains that call at Surrey stations (eg Guildford) should have access to Wimbledon for interchange.

5.1.2. The express tunnel idea would release a substantial number of paths towards Central London.

5.1.3. The express tunnel concept has the advantage that the London end portals near Clapham Junction could be positioned on the North side to gain access to Waterloo International platforms.

5.1.3.1. This advantage needs to be read in conjunction with the present layout for passenger movements at Waterloo International – using the basement level also called the “Orchestra Pit.” There would be capital works needed to provide some of the pedestrian movements needed at Waterloo to cater for use of these platforms.

5.2. In conjunction with CR2, I and others have raised the question of access to the City. I would STRONGLY urge Surrey CC to examine how this is planned to work, over against forecast loadings on CR1 and the interchange load at Tottenham Court Rd (TCR) underground station. I and others recognise that your constituents may become signally disadvantaged if City Access is not thoroughly addressed.

5.2.1. Increasingly, I am of the view that CR2 has little to do with Chelsea other than historical (Chelney line of route). I am one of several who now think CR2 should be routed via the Battersea development, and Chelsea served by a less ambitious secondary project.

5.2.2. There are those who have argued that the Northern Line Extension (NLE) should continue to Clapham Junction. Certainly, an interchange there would be of some merit, BUT at the risk of overloading the Northern Line so that it becomes inefficient in serving its purpose at Waterloo.

5.2.2.1. I personally regarded the idea that the Northern Line should serve Nine Elms and Battersea development area as a furphy. But now that CR2 is on the agenda, even more so. I have promoted the idea that the Waterloo and City line, long overdue for major upgrade and repurposing, should form the means of City access from CR2. This means extension to an interchange: either CJ or Battersea. The NLE will not give City access without overloading the City Branch and causing much congestion at Kennington. According to CR2 forecasts, after the NTfL and other projects, the Northern Line City Branch will still be extremely overcrowded, indeed THE most overcrowded tube line.

5.2.3. CR2 serving Battersea would (with a station at or near Piccadilly Circus) serve the West End, while the W&CX would serve the City. For the W&C to be effective, it would need the ability to terminate longer trains in the City and access to depot facilities. I have proposed several means of depot access.

5.2.3.1. With regard to longer W&C trains to serve the City, I have proposed following through some very late NSE (Network South-East) examinations of the feasibility of extension of the W&C beyond Bank. Staff at the time were looking at Moorgate. Instead I have proposed a cross-platform interchange at Liverpool St, crossovers to/from the Central Line east of there, and reversing platforms at Bishopsgate (serving Shoreditch High St and the LO station there).

5.2.3.2. Depot access would be, in this scenario, via the crossovers east of Liverpool St.

5.3. CALL TO ACTION

5.3.1. It is very much in the interests of Surrey County Council to incorporate CR2 into your Rail Strategy. Much of what you will do is advocacy – unseen but potentially effective. Look at how Kent has shot itself in the foot with regard to TfL managing rail concessions on services towards their direction. You can gain victories where they have won themselves a singular own-goal!

5.3.2. In your advocacy, it would be in your constituents’ best interest to push for:

5.3.2.1. Full provision of City access – push for upgrade of the W&C into a full-capacity tube line.

5.3.2.2. Examine the benefit to your constituents of routeing via the Battersea development vs Chelsea, and if beneficial to push for CR2’s rerouting. Your constituents are the primary non-London beneficiaries of CR2(south) so your view should carry great weight.

5.3.2.3. If you support a route via Battersea, then extension of the W&C to Battersea is prima facie the best basis for City access. Upgrade at Waterloo, plus extension to Battersea together ensure Surrey commuters have good City access. At the other end, extension of the W&C to Liverpool St would give Surrey commuters changing at Battersea access to CR1 and Canary Wharf after the heavy loads from TCR – City have alighted. This at least means that there is a fall-back position if CR1 becomes intolerably crowded at TCR. These considerations render the NLE null and irrelevant.

5.3.2.4. Examination of the express tunnel concept to BCR stage to see whether it is a more effective means of achieving desired outcomes, and releasing unused capacity at Waterloo International.

So, so true. So, so sad.