Abbey Wood

A large part of why it stops there is to avoid performance pollution. Also with the size of the bill and supporting documents, it was probably easier to limit the scope initially and build later.

It struck me the other day that it could in future take the old jubilees route to Thamesmead; that could do with a rail link still.

I contributed to an earlier thread on a similar matter, though the proposal for Clapham Junction there was a southern projection of the old Moorgate City line. As I said in there, surely bringing an underground or sub-surface railway to surface at one of the UK's busiest, if not the UK's busiest, rail junction would be quite a challenge, if not impossible?

I don't think it could link into Crossrail (though you probably could divert the Paddington terminators SW from TCR - after all, if they can justify two branches in the east, and a 12-12 split at TCR would probably be less bad as the 12-12 split at Whitechapel in under-supplying the branches). However, upon finding it in the RUS (para 10.5.6 I presume) its a Crossrail-type solution. The paragraph then continues to say that capacity south of Clapham Junction would rule it out, and also doesn't deal with the capacity of London Bridge-BML services - both will be at capacity, despite 12-car trains. It suggests some kind of tunnel from near the M25 to Central London, but also says that that will cost a fortune. Reopening rail lines isn't really an option, as they are relief for the southern section, which, while needing some support, doesn't deal with the main problem and will exacerbate it.I'm guessing the GN&C was a fantasy proposal there, also the problem is not bringing an underground railway up - there would be low level platforms at CJ, and the junction and bottleneck in that area is entirely north of there. The problem is the lack of capacity at the junction north of Croydon, and the line south of there.Other than the Crossrail portal being right where the branch would divert, thus making it rather difficult to add the Thamesmead branch - after all, The JLE would have emerged before Plumstead, but Crossrail uses (like some JLE options) Abbey Wood as 'Thamesmead' - in Crossrail's case to go on to Gravesend one day.

For any extension beyond Abbey Wood, major track works in the Dartford area, and possibly some others in the Gravesend area. Crossrail, like the Reading station reconstruction, didn't want a massive cost increase.

I'm sure it's a major objective for people who live in Abbey Wood.


There is also a major problem with knock on effects of late running. If Crossrail terminates at Abbey Wood then it will be more self contained, and thus more reliable.

If you look on Google Maps or similar there's a nice corridor branching off after Plumstead up to Thamesmead that would perfect for a branch with two or three stations. Serve it with TfL's requirement of 4 tph and Crossrail could soak up this capacity down towards Dartford and Gravesend.

The problem of performance pollution is still there though.

Capacity on the eastern branches - which would be an issue whether extended or not - could be enhanced by a new curve east of Stepney Green allowing trians to travel between Stratford/Shenfield and Canary Wharf/Abbey Wood. Stratford-CW would be express (no intervening stations) and phase two of the project could spur off under Stratford International (with a station linking the two Statfords) to the Lea Valley route providing an eastern north-south crossrail to Tottenham Hale (eventually to Stansted).

A mile of new tunnel with no stations for phase 1. Under £100m?

Half a mile to a mile of tunnel with 1 station and new signalling etc to Tottenham Hale for phase 2. £300m?

Extension of Crossrail beyond Abbey Wood is 'unlikely to be funded' until 2019, but is being examined nonetheless. The South London RUS also mentions a 'safeguarded track alignment' for extension to alleviate constraints in the Dartford Area with extra tracks, and by taking much of North Kent Line Demand away from the London Bridge, helping things there also, being quoted as 'post-2015'.

AFAIK a depot is planned for Hoo Junction which has marshalling yards and which could be the prime reason for going so far east of Gravesend. Only Gravesend has been mentioned for services but I also think possible future extension to the Medway Towns has been considered. I'd guess that any restricted sections like through parts of Gravesend would mean Crossrail goes into tunnel, but this is mainly EAST of the station at Gravesend. Cost could be the main reason why extending Crossrail so far out is way down the list of priorities or it could just be that Crossrail trains can trundle along to Hoo Junction once they head for the depot, so no need for tunnelling past Gravesend Station.

Anyways recently I saw this quote from the Mackenzieblu blogspot:

Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon has been discussing getting Crossrail proposal back to Ebbsfleet for interchange with Eurostar and Southeastern's High Speed services as part of the overall Crossrail project. It has been stated that Reading is much more likely due to the electrification of the Great Western main line will improve the business case for Reading.

mackenzieblu.blogspot.com/2009/04/transport-news-bites-14th-april.html

So at least Ebbsfleeet might come on stream before Gravesend. Though the safeguarded route actually goes through Northfleet, makes you wonder if the interchange might involve a spur Ebbsfleet International, or diversion closer to it.

That's Government-speak for "we messed up the design of Ebbsfleet, but we don't want to admit it".

Hoo Junction has stabling facilities, or at least proposed ones.

We're basically talking extra tracks from Slade Green depot, to just past Dartford, a rebuild of Dartford station and maybe some works at Gravesend.

Not having an Ebbsfleet spur suggests to me that they didn't mess up Ebbsfleet - diverting the Gravesend line would have been costly and they have realised that the guided busways would cover a lot of the (fairly small) interchange traffic, and for everything else, they could just have a Stratford GEML-Stratford HS1 set up. Given that 4, if not eventually 6, tph during the peaks will serve Gravesend-Ebbsfleet (OK, some skip one of them) then the interchange is really from Dartford and Bexley boroughs.

it's costly for the minimal benefits, and the busway (it's unguided, but segregated - best of both worlds!) is already there.

Given that the North Kent lines have an unusual definition of the word "fast", I doubt most commuters around here would care if all their trains ran via Crossrail instead. At least they'd get to the City more quickly. They can always change at Dartford or Abbey Wood for orbital journeys.

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I feel that this is an excellent answer to North Kent's problems: a segregated extension of CR from Abbey Wood to Dartford, with all routes beyond using the Crossrail tunnels, makes good sense. Crossrail's stations are better sited for both the City and the West End than either Charing Cross or Cannon Street. The long distance services are also a better balance for the western end of CR, which has a similar stopping frequency.

As an aside: I don't think the HS1 Domestic services via Gravesend and Ebbsfleet will be particularly successful as commuters can already get trains direct to where they want to go as the awkward interchanges at St. Pancras aren't particularly attractive when you can just sit on one train and do your crossword all the way into Cannon Street. The Ashford routes, on the other hand, shave far more time off the journey to London, with many commuters already used to a mode change at Victoria or Blackfriars.

Divert the long distance Gillingham and Faversham services over Crossrail and you'd free up a lot of capacity on the three lines to Dartford. It's a (relatively) cheap alternative to digging long tunnels all the way out to Hoo Junction.

Freight is the only thorn left to resolve, but this might be able to use the freed slots via the classic routes from Dartford to begin with, with more emphasis on running freights at night (German-style).

Alternatively, it's worth noting just how close the Swanley - Strood route is to the North Kent line via Gravesend: there are a few potential connection options between these routes I can see, which would allow freight to avoid the North Kent lines entirely: one would involve a line diverging almost immediately west of Hoo Junction, around Thong (no, I'm not making that name up), and connecting near Sole Street.

Another, probably cheaper, option would be to simply reopen the disused Gravesend West branch as far as Dover Road, where the North Kent line crosses it. (Beyond this point, the branch has been buried under the new "Thames Way" road now used by the "Fastrack" buses mentioned earlier.) A single-line curve from the NK line onto the original formation would allow a relatively straightforward single track connection to the Swanley route via a connection at Fawkham Junction. (HS1 already has a link to the classic lines via this junction along part of the old branch line, but that connection is no longer in use.)

The Chislehurst line runs mainly through open countryside, so adding an additional track or two as far as the new freight chord wouldn't be too difficult should the traffic warrant it. It's already four-tracked from Swanley through to St. Johns and Shortlands.

And that's it, problem solved! And I'll even waive my preferred £3m. consultancy fee.