|
Post by amershamsi on Jul 8, 2008 14:18:35 GMT
the main section of Chelney through London hasn't changed, with the exceptions of stops at Angel, Piccadilly Circus and Sloane Square disappearing and reappearing. The SW section has changed a couple of times, and there's been a few options on that front, however it's not changed much.
The NE route is incredibly sensible - yes there's the NLL, however Chelney was always to relieve the busiest sections of the tube, as well as serve new areas - it solved the Leytonstone-Holborn section of the central line by removing a branch, and allowing a quicker route from stations north of Leytonstone to the West End, removing that traffic. It then covered the areas where the NLL now acts (in part) as a feeder route of the Victoria line, freeing up that traffic, as well as serving Hackney station and giving a second tube interchange on the Chingford, Enfield Town and Lea Valley lines.
OK, Crossrail is going to try and deal with the Central line's busy bit (by removing the '3rd branch' to Shenfield), and that makes Chelney north of Homerton a bit less needed. IIRC several of the plans had Chelney take over the NLL from Stratford to North Woolwich as well as the Central to Epping. This, of course, can't now be done. The best route for Chelney to take is (and always has been) the GE Electric lines, but Crossrail has always been given them, for re-electrification reasons.
Chingford really needs to keep services to the City - the Victoria line and Chelney at Hackney would cover it's West End route amply.
As for the Northern line to Battersea, why not have it as part of a Clapham Junction-Lewisham Crossrail type line (intermediate stations at Battersea (interacting with both other Battersea stations), Vauxhall, Waterloo, Blackfriars, Cannon Street, Fenchurch Street, Rotherhithe and New Cross Gate). That way, the Northern line can be extended to Brixton, Streatham and possibly Croydon from Kennington
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2008 17:30:46 GMT
Ive never understood the North East part of chelney. The route from Dalston Junction onwards to the central dates from the early 70s, when there wasnt a passenger service on that section of the North London Line. The main section through london has changed since then, so why not this bit? It seems outdated. It could take over the Chingford branch, as suggested before instead. Or perhaps follow the route of the North East London Railway to Waltham Abbey. I don't think it's a bad route, necessarily. Even with the East London Line, Hackney still won't have a tube connection to central London. Essex Road and Angel would make very good interchanges, and then it's Dalston Junction (an important interchange in the future), Hackney Central (a busy station) and Homerton. No problem there. From there on I'm not sure at all. The Chingford branch simply isn't busy enough for a tube frequency I think. The proposed route to Leytonstone and then taking over a central line Branch is ok to me, but not great. Maybe going to Stratford International? Any other ideas?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2008 18:23:46 GMT
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,430
|
Post by Chris M on Jul 8, 2008 19:59:31 GMT
One of the main problems with taking over the Chingford branch is that it doesn't do anything to relieve the overcrowding at the east end of the Central, while giving additional capacity to Chingford that (at least AFAIK) does fine with the existing services. It also doesn't add a connection between Walthamstow and Leytonstone/Woodford/Loughton. Unless of course it frees up enough capacity on the Victoria Line to allow an extension to at least meet the Central if not take over one of its routes, but I just can't see it doing that.
Startford International would only work if it was an additional interchange en route to somewhere from Stratford (regional), but what would probably be better would be to position the station on at Stratford (regional) such as to allow direct pedestrian links to International, perhaps with travelators. As you would need to justify the additional stop, particularly as it would be duplicating the existing DLR links. I just don't see Stratford International being a major interchange point on a Chelney route - traffic from central London could just as easily take the services from St Pancras (giving a quicker journey time) and there isn't likely to be much traffic from NE London for the International or high speed Kent services. There might be some traffic for the KX area using it though, but given the interchange distance at St Pancras, it would probably be easier to use existing interchanges rather than interchange at Stratford to Stratford International and then again at St Pancras.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Jul 8, 2008 20:46:12 GMT
I'm not really qualified to talk of the NE section of the route as I'm based in the NW, but my only point is that it pretty much duplicates the route between Dalston and Homerton. I'm guessing it'll be underground but following the overground route here? It just seems wasteful. Surely there must be a slightly more original corridor it can follow? Or perhaps its creation will allow an abandonment of the passenger services between Stratford and Dalston on the overground.
I really do think that its routing for that part is merely an historical hangover for a transport rejuvenation project for that area from before the NLL services restarted. The fact its still there is therefore not necessarily because its the best path to take, but presumably because there isnt anyting better.
Does anyone know when the routing changed from Farringdon - Old Street - Shoreditch Curch - Dalston to the current route from Kings Cross? Ive pinned it down to some time in the 80's.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2008 22:32:49 GMT
Going back to the Northern to Battersea idea. The more I think about it, the more I think it is a good idea - as long as it serves Vauxhall, Battersea Power Station, and Clapham Junction. The benefits of stopping at these three stations would be:- 1) Access for employees and visitors to the Battersea redevelopment from nearly all directions (not extending to Clapham Junction would restrict the access from the S and SW, and not having a station at Vauxhall would also restrict journey options). 2) Provide alternate access to the West End and maybe even Euston from the S and SW. This may take a little bit of pressure of the Victoria Line and Waterloo and Victoria stations. 3) As Crossrail 2 isn't likely to see the light of day for some time, this would be a cost effective (i.e smaller profile tunnels and stations) stop gap measure for the inner SW of London.
The Northern Line (Charing X) branch does have spare capacity if the line were to be split making this a viable option. I would maybe be concerned that it could add a little bit of pressure onto the Northern Line between Kennington and Bank with commuters from the SW using the Battersea extension, and then changing to the Bank branch at Kennington to access the City and beyond (and vice versa).
I would build the line branching off the Kennington Loop (before the sharp curves - this line should be built with reasonably large curves), making the loop redundant. Vauxhall would be a two platform station with deep level tube construction. A trailing crossover could be built halfway between Vauxhall and Battersea, allowing for trains to terminate at either Vauxhall or Battersea in both directions in an emergency. Battersea would have two platforms, and given that the land is being redeveloped, then a Canary Wharf style box construction station may be most appropriate. Battersea would have two platforms. The line would then continue to Clapham Junction. A grade-seperated crossover on approach to the station would be provided, and there would be two platforms and overrun tracks (also for night storage). This station would probably have to be of deep level tube construction.
|
|
|
Post by DrOne on Jul 8, 2008 22:59:43 GMT
the main section of Chelney through London hasn't changed, with the exceptions of stops at Angel, Piccadilly Circus and Sloane Square disappearing and reappearing. The SW section has changed a couple of times, and there's been a few options on that front, however it's not changed much. The NE route is incredibly sensible - yes there's the NLL, however Chelney was always to relieve the busiest sections of the tube, as well as serve new areas - it solved the Leytonstone-Holborn section of the central line by removing a branch, and allowing a quicker route from stations north of Leytonstone to the West End, removing that traffic. It then covered the areas where the NLL now acts (in part) as a feeder route of the Victoria line, freeing up that traffic, as well as serving Hackney station and giving a second tube interchange on the Chingford, Enfield Town and Lea Valley lines. OK, Crossrail is going to try and deal with the Central line's busy bit (by removing the '3rd branch' to Shenfield), and that makes Chelney north of Homerton a bit less needed. IIRC several of the plans had Chelney take over the NLL from Stratford to North Woolwich as well as the Central to Epping. This, of course, can't now be done. The best route for Chelney to take is (and always has been) the GE Electric lines, but Crossrail has always been given them, for re-electrification reasons. Chingford really needs to keep services to the City - the Victoria line and Chelney at Hackney would cover it's West End route amply. As for the Northern line to Battersea, why not have it as part of a Clapham Junction-Lewisham Crossrail type line (intermediate stations at Battersea (interacting with both other Battersea stations), Vauxhall, Waterloo, Blackfriars, Cannon Street, Fenchurch Street, Rotherhithe and New Cross Gate). That way, the Northern line can be extended to Brixton, Streatham and possibly Croydon from Kennington Ha! amershamsi, now I remember it was you who I was channeling with the Crossrail/Chelney merger. I agree with you that the GE lines would be ideal for Chelney because of similar demand. How would you link the GE lines to Hackney and the City/West End? (I suppose Canary Wharf-Heathrow would take care of itself somehow...) stephenk I just don't see the need for Chelney to serve CJ. Yes it is a very busy station but the problem doesn't lie in the capacity of the existing lines, but with the ability of the station to deal with passenger volume. This won't be improved by a new line, it will be worsened. There are already all those trains to Victoria and Waterloo and I just don't see the need to mirror a corridor already so densely provided for. A better use of new capacity would be to take some of those passengers who pass through CJ from points further out and route them to central London a different way. Much like the Victoria line does for the WA lines and the Central and Metropolitan lines at Liverpool street. Independent of this is the need for the Wimbledon branch to have more than 12-15tph peak. This is very difficult with so many branches on the west end of the district. Run it through Victoria, King X, Liverpool St (or wherever) and beyond as a separate tube and capacity would be doubled, with relief to the Victoria, District and Central lines in one fell swoop.
|
|
|
Post by amershamsi on Jul 8, 2008 23:11:15 GMT
I'm not really qualified to talk of the NE section of the route as I'm based in the NW, but my only point is that it pretty much duplicates the route between Dalston and Homerton. I'm guessing it'll be underground but following the overground route here? It just seems wasteful. Surely there must be a slightly more original corridor it can follow? Or perhaps its creation will allow an abandonment of the passenger services between Stratford and Dalston on the overground. and by doing so gives Dalston, Hackney and Homerton a one seat ride to the West End, when only one of these will have a one seat ride to anywhere in zone 1 (Hackney). You don't call the southern parts of ELLX wasteful, do you? Or even the Canonbury-Highbury section. It gives the bonus of relieving the Central line, something that Crossrail will fail to do fully with the problem of the Canary Wharf branch and having to run Shenfield-Liverpool Street (mainline) trains. You are supplementing an orbital line with radial services - not everyone in Dalston, Hackney and Homerton wants to go to Stratford, Highbury and Camden (indeed look at the number of changees at Highbury to see how many want the West End). It's giving this area a needed service - functioning in a similar way to the NLL and District at Richmond, Kew and Gunnersbury, or (in the near future) the Thameslink trains stopping at local Brighton ML stops that are also served by ELLX. Going back to the Northern to Battersea idea. The more I think about it, the more I think it is a good idea - as long as it serves Vauxhall, Battersea Power Station, and Clapham Junction. indeed. I'm looking for an extension beyond Clapham Junction and can't really find one (perhaps Sutton via Wimbledon & Earlsfield). I'd also add the possibility of a station at Battersea Town centre, though keeping journey time down between CJ and Waterloo is a good thing. Ha! amershamsi, now I remember it was you who I was channeling with the Crossrail/Chelney merger. I agree with you that the GE lines would be ideal for Chelney because of similar demand. How would you link the GE lines to Hackney and the City/West End? (I suppose Canary Wharf-Heathrow would take care of itself somehow...) I stole the idea off someone else, and the original one-line idea for Crossrail was Stratford-Liverpool Street-Farringdon-Tottenham Court Road-Piccadilly Circus-Victoria-Clapham Junction as it had the most useful mainline ends of both Crossrail 1 and Crossrail 2. However what I propose is Chelney via Hackney to Stratford (cross platform with Central line) and then onto Shenfield (with appropriate re-electrification). Don't be deceived by the tube map geography - we're talking about the same number of stops between Stratford and TCR and a straighter (and therefore faster) route of about the same distance, if not slightly shorter. The cross platform at Stratford would be a more even split, as opposed to the one sided one it is now (with the GE beyond it). The Chelney lines would need to approach Stratford quite a way to the South to clear the Liverpool Street lines and the Central line (it could just go up at the same kind of slope as the Central line and clear the main line before dropping down into a tunnel in quite a small distance), though Hackney Wick could still be fairly easily served however Stratford is sorted. Docklands-City-West End-Heathrow would be served by Crossrail still, though perhaps as a less grand scheme - shorter, smaller gauge trains (and Watford via DC, Heathrow and Hounslow as the routes)
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Jul 8, 2008 23:41:38 GMT
I don't call the southern parts of the ELLX wasteful atall, since the line is being integrated with NR.
Thats a nice idea about beyond CJ though. The sutton loop has been crying out for being brought into the tubes fold, and maybe a complete takeover of Earlsfield station could increase capacity on the mainline?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2008 23:47:25 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2008 0:48:10 GMT
We really don't need another tube line in London. Even the Victoria Line was a big mistake as it exists, this is really obvious when you change to/from an NR service and realise how crowded it gets and the difference in comfort and space. The big issue should be how many Crossrail lines London needs and where they should go. Ideally South London suburban routes would get direct access to the West End and/or City and tube services would get some relief.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,430
|
Post by Chris M on Jul 9, 2008 1:26:15 GMT
Are you talking simply about gauge or about line length and/or station density? If you are talking solely about gauge then I agree that new tunnels should be constructed to at least sub-surface gauge rather than tube gauge. However, I think there is a need both for cross-London suburban routes (Ã la Crossrail) with longer routes and comparatively few stops, and shorter distance urban metro routes with a higher frequency of station calls.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2008 11:41:36 GMT
We really don't need another tube line in London. Even the Victoria Line was a big mistake as it exists, this is really obvious when you change to/from an NR service and realise how crowded it gets and the difference in comfort and space. The big issue should be how many Crossrail lines London needs and where they should go. Ideally South London suburban routes would get direct access to the West End and/or City and tube services would get some relief. I think you are forgetting that Crossrail style lines are much more expensive to build than tube profile lines. The Victoria Line is very overcrowded, and it was obvious that it was built on a budget. However, given how busy it is (and it is much busier than was ever envisaged), it was a very cost effective choice. There just wasn't the money available at the time to build a large profile tunnel under London. Likewise at present there just isn't the money to build multiple Crossrail style lines. Whilst Crossrail style lines should allow for more direct journeys and less changes for many passengers (i.e more one seat journeys), they also tend to run at lower frequency and poorer reliability than segregated metro lines. There is also the issue mentioned above of considerably greater construction cost! Interestingly in Japan, things are heading in the opposite direction. Metro's traditionally were built to large profile with some trains continuing onto commuter lines at the end of the metro line. However to keep construction costs down, many new metro lines are now segregated from commuter railways, and use small profile tunnels (and linear induction motors).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2008 13:10:25 GMT
While this is a good debate, surely it's just a cynical way for the developer to prevent local opposition. I've already read reports that house prices in the area would increase when (sic) the tube is built. The article claimed "Who would object to the planning permissions now?"
|
|
|
Post by cetacean on Jul 10, 2008 0:45:20 GMT
I think the economics of tunnelling have changed to the point where the cost of building to mainline size is negligible compared to that of the overall project. And the increase in capacity available is pretty compelling - the Crossrail branch service to Docklands (12 tph) will carry roughly the same number of people as the fully upgraded Jubilee Line. Given the proven high levels of demand in London, it would be madness to build anything new to tube profile.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2008 9:19:33 GMT
I think the economics of tunnelling have changed to the point where the cost of building to mainline size is negligible compared to that of the overall project. And the increase in capacity available is pretty compelling - the Crossrail branch service to Docklands (12 tph) will carry roughly the same number of people as the fully upgraded Jubilee Line. Given the proven high levels of demand in London, it would be madness to build anything new to tube profile. I'm not too sure about your capacity statistics. I assume you are using the 78,000pph at 24tph figure which is often quoted by TfL. This would be 39,000pph at 12tph on the Docklands branch. 39,000/12=3250 passengers/train. Do you really think that 3250 passengers will fit on the train? I certainly don't, unless TfL plan employ Japanese style pushers to cram people on the trains! I have also seen slightly more realistic figures quoted from government sources of 1500 passengers/train. This would equal 18,000pph at 12tph. The Jubilee line will carry approximately 1000 passengers/train at 31tph after the upgrade. This is 31,000pph. This is substantially more than the Docklands branch of Crossrail. So lets look at a new large profile Crossrail style line carrying 1500 passengers/train at 24tph vs a new small profile tube or Japanese style linear motor metro at 1000 passengers/train at 33tph. The Crossrail style line would carry 36,000pph, the smaller profile line will carry 33,000pph. So if the Crossrail style line costs more than approx 10% more than the smaller profile line (which given the significantly increased size of the station, and larger tunnels is very likely), then the smaller profile line would be better value for money. Now I'm not saying that we should build smaller profile lines instead of larger profile lines. But a small profile line operated at high frequency is pretty good value for money compared to a large profile line with lower frequency services extending onto NR tracks. I really don't think that a completely new line should be built at traditional tube profile. A roomier Japanese style linear motor metro would be a better option to keep costs down - it has full headroom for a start! A large profile line is only really needed if it is a must to run services from NR lines on one side of London to NR lines on the other. In the case of the Northern Line extension to Battersea, I think that extending an existing tube line which still has spare capacity (Charing X branch) would be reasonably cost effective option to serve this development compared to other underground rail options.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2008 12:41:43 GMT
They have been saying that it's not possible to build a stop at TCR if it's built with a bigger tunnel profile.
|
|
|
Post by cetacean on Jul 10, 2008 13:06:52 GMT
Of course the 24 tph line is going to be more reliable and have room for growth, whereas the 33 tph line is going to be at capacity the day it opens, which is not so good. And I think a tube train with 1000 people on is going to be far more crowded than a Crossrail train with 1500.
sweek: It's Piccadilly Circus that's been said about. But from what I understand the line will run beneath all other lines, so the tunnel diameter shouldn't make a blind bit of difference. I don't know what the source is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2008 13:27:03 GMT
The 24 tph isn't necessarily more reliable if there are different branches and trains can have a knock on effect because of that with Crossrail. Especially because some of those branches will probably be sharing trains with other mainline services.
Is there going to be a flat junction at Whitechapel when it branches off between the Shenfield and the Canary Wharf branch?
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,430
|
Post by Chris M on Jul 10, 2008 13:58:31 GMT
Is there any reason why a segregated full profile tunnel couldn't run at 33tph?
|
|
|
Post by amershamsi on Jul 10, 2008 18:45:24 GMT
The 24 tph isn't necessarily more reliable if there are different branches and trains can have a knock on effect because of that with Crossrail. Especially because some of those branches will probably be sharing trains with other mainline services. yes, and it's all their fault with their bad planning. 12tph wasn't enough for Shenfield (or Docklands for that matter - as shown by stephenk's numbers) - two branches cannot be operated in the east. The West should be fully segregated, IIRC, though HEx and Airtrack are problems on that front.no, but they've made the same mistake there that they made at SPILL - not having three platforms, so that merging trains can both enter a platform and wait somewhere more useful than a tunnel for the track ahead to be clear.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2008 20:40:03 GMT
Of course the 24 tph line is going to be more reliable and have room for growth, whereas the 33 tph line is going to be at capacity the day it opens, which is not so good. And I think a tube train with 1000 people on is going to be far more crowded than a Crossrail train with 1500. More than 24tph on a Crossrail style line will only be possible if 1) State of the art signalling is used as on Paris RER A, 2) Trains arrive at converging junctions on time - which seems to be a bit of a problem on the UK rail network! It may be possible that a bit more than 33tph could be run on a segregated metro with state of the art signalling, and possibly even driverless operation. Kiev runs 40tph, Moscow and Paris run 38tph, Sao Paulo 36tph, and St Peterburg & Santiago 34tph. Train capacity will depend upon internal layout. If Crossrail trains have all longitudinal seating then the capacity may approach 2000. However if less space efficient transverse seating is used then 1500 may be an accurate figure. Tokyo's Yamanote Line can apparently fit 3,500 on it's 220m trains. However, these trains are wider than Crossrails, have all longitudinal seating in some cars and no seating in a few cars, have 4-6 doors per 20m car, and have staff to squeeze people in. This is not forgetting that the Japanese are smaller, and can tolerate being packed like sardines more than the British! I've always thought what you are thinking - why is there an issue at Piccadilly Circus if the platforms will be below the existing lines? I'm pretty sure I read about this problem on Crossrail's website many years ago. The only reasons I can think that may be an issue is that maybe the platforms will have to be built above the existing lines (as the Victoria Line was in a few locations) due to the water table? Or maybe the longer Crossrail 2 platforms would make it difficult to find a suitable surface location for emergency exits?
|
|
|
Post by cetacean on Jul 10, 2008 21:55:13 GMT
Crossrail is going to have automatic train operation and possibly moving block signalling on the central section.
I know for certain that Crossrail 2 at Tottenham Court Road is pencilled in as being below Crossrail 1 (which in turn is below everything else), so I can't imagine it being different at Piccadilly Circus.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2008 3:01:33 GMT
Wouldn't a 'tube' line in tunnel that was difficult to construct and then converting NR branches to tube standards be more expensive than three or four short tunnels linking two suburban services together. You would be able to dispose of real estate at termini to cover some costs and routes that terminate outside zone 1 are usually a more efficient use of resources.
Piccadilly Circus would need a total rebuild to handle Crossrail 2. The crowds at rush hour are currently bad enough, reckon at least double the size of booking hall would be needed as well as new escalators and maybe some exits further down the roads off the circus. Might be why the scheme is off the cards.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2008 7:18:10 GMT
12tph wasn't enough for Shenfield (or Docklands for that matter - as shown by stephenk's numbers) - two branches cannot be operated in the east. The West should be fully segregated, IIRC, though HEx and Airtrack are problems on that front. But Shenfield would keep some of its services to Liverpool Street, Crossrail wouldn't replace all trains there. With the Docklands branch I suppose all the created capacity is extra, but it would be great if it could run more trains than those twelve per hour.
|
|
|
Post by cetacean on Jul 11, 2008 10:04:09 GMT
Crossrail is of course segregated all the way between Westbourne Park sidings and Abbey Wood, so in theory they can run as many services as they like on the Docklands branch. I'm sure the central section will be able to handle more than 24 tph if necessary.
The line will share track with all GWML freight trains and a semi-fast service to get people in from Maidenhead (and Twyford) quicker than Crossrail's all stops trains. Plus Heathrow Express at Terminal 1-2-3.
The Shenfield branch will be almost segregated because freight and semi-fasts run on the fast lines there. It'll only have to share track with peak hour Liverpool Street trains and freight trains crossing from the fast lines onto the North London Line at Stratford.
|
|
|
Post by amershamsi on Jul 11, 2008 11:30:22 GMT
But Shenfield would keep some of its services to Liverpool Street, Crossrail wouldn't replace all trains there. which came in because Crossrail couldn't supply enough trains - it will have enough, however not all of them will be Crossrail. 'But' was the wrong word to use - I said that Crossrail didn't provide enough trains, not that there won't be enough overall. The problem is that Crossrail branches at Whitechapel and tries to do too many things at once. indeed, I've always said that 12tph won't be enough here - especially if stephenk's figure of 18k (compared to 31k on the JLE) is right. Crossrail is of course segregated all the way between Westbourne Park sidings and Abbey Wood, so in theory they can run as many services as they like on the Docklands branch. I'm sure the central section will be able to handle more than 24 tph if necessary. only with NR rules changing, signalling being a lot more state of the art (and expensive) than currently planned and FULL segregation to get over the problems of different signalling networks - not even the freight trains crossing and so on. the plan was to take over HEx (at least Ken and TfL were working on it, even if CLRL weren't) and also kick the freight and semi-fast trains onto the fast lines. Also, by the time it opens, Reading would have been added to it - the semi-fast trains will have been modified and made part of Crossrail. Crossrail services will not be all-stations on the GWML - there's all sorts of different stopping patterns. Heathrow trains are usually stoppers (IIRC), and the 2tph West Drayton trains are stoppers at peak times (IIRC), however beyond there and you have trains that skip stops. You (and I) also forgot the Slough-Reading trains (which should be gone when Crossrail finally gets built all the way to Reading). yes, it's pretty segregated. However it's not fully segregated. Will the peak Liverpool Street services get completely segregated, or it will not be able to get beyond 24tph. IMV, the best thing that can happen to Crossrail is to drop the Shenfield branch. That way, it can serve the Docklands properly. However almost all the overcrowding benefits for the Central line disappear and the line is far more blatantly a pork-barrel project, interested only really with rich businessmen on the M4 corridor, and in the City and Docklands. Shenfield gives Crossrail most of it's justification, however it's also the bit that in every sense but politically, is the bit that the problem (and it's the biggest problem) can be solved by something else the easiest.
|
|
|
Post by DrOne on Jul 11, 2008 13:26:33 GMT
I see where you're going with that... because it allows for your modified Shenfield-Chelney service which, whether constructed to tube or mainline size tunnels, would provide much more capacity out to Shenfield.
One way through might be to build the whole thing as planned. Soon enough (with all the houses planned on the Thames Gateway, the extra jobs on the Docklands etc) the undersupply on both eastern branches would become so overwhelmingly apparent. The best way to provide a better service to both branches would be to re-route the Shenfield branch through a new central section (Chelney?) much like the Stanmore branch of the bakerloo.
The advantage is that some of the work required to take the Shenfield line underground would have been done. If the rest of the line were then constructed tube guage it would make it cheaper. However, considering the sloth-like pace of many other necessary extensions (Bakerloo, CX branch, Jubilee) some major oomph would be required to complete the Shenfield line.
Lastly (and to return to the topic of the thread) IF an extension of the CX branch to SW London goes ahead this wouldn't help the case for routing Shenfield-Chelney through to the southwest.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2008 0:36:48 GMT
Crossrail is going to have automatic train operation and possibly moving block signalling on the central section. Well that is good news, as most information I could find was that Crossrail were still undecided upon ATO based upon the maturity of ETCS. I would think that ETCS level 3 would be required to compete with current moving block metro signalling as far as headways are concerned. Unfortunately ETCS level 3 is still under development. However, even if Crossrail did use the highest capacity signalling available, there is still the issue of operating margin required for late running. The removal of the Kingston branch, and cutting back of the Dockland's branch to Abbey Wood should help here as Crossrail is now more segregated. However it is still far from completely segregated, and to achieve higher than 24tph will require considerable effort to improve on-time performance over current figures.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2008 23:17:52 GMT
|
|