|
|
Post by ducatisti on Nov 10, 2010 21:17:08 GMT
Does anyone know about the status of the safeguarded route for Chelney?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2010 1:17:29 GMT
If you mean the 1991 Chelney, it was updated in 2007, IIRC.
|
|
|
|
Post by ducatisti on Nov 11, 2010 12:05:22 GMT
Hi Andrew, the answer is, "I don't know"...
What I do know is that a house I am vaguely connected to is in the zone of the protected route. An email to Crossrail has given a map with some lines on it, I am curious to know what that actually means in practice - in terms of what it stops people doing, what the builders of Chelney can do there and what the odds of there being a Chelney and when etc...
(I had a quick search on here, but couldn't find anything)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2010 12:10:50 GMT
If the route is "safeguarded" (that's the jargon used), my understanding is that nobody is allowed to build anything that conflicts with the safeguarded route. If, for example, the house is to have a station built under it, you cannot build a skyscraper over it, because the foundations would be stupidly big, and block the railway. What can they do? My understanding is that they can build the railway there when Parliament says OK. What are the odds? Not very high until Crossrail 1 is done, plus the aftermath of it; sadly. Oh, my dear Chelney...  ;D |
|
|
|
Post by ducatisti on Nov 11, 2010 13:21:07 GMT
Indeed.
Do they safeguard a specific route, or is a vague corridor in which one can't do stuff?
The bit in question is split round a large building - is it likely they are keeping two options opne, or will it be one path per tunnel?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2010 5:11:08 GMT
I believe the general path is safeguarded. There might be a few possibilities, so the corridor might be a little vague. In the case of the split, it could be either one tunnel per side, or both via one side (the other side will be given up). Clicky to see the diagrammatic 1991 route. |
|
|
|
Post by suncloud on Nov 15, 2010 1:15:05 GMT
LINK for fuller details of Chelney safeguarding...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2010 4:51:16 GMT
LINK for fuller details of Chelney safeguarding... Ah, thanks.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2011 11:29:56 GMT
I have read that the protection for the route for Crossrail 2 is going to be adjusted to put an extra station at Euston.
Why do they need to put an extra station? As the Crossrail platforms are 250m long and the distance between Euston and St Pancras is approx 400m couldn’t they place a Crossrail station so that it could serve both stations?
|
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Apr 25, 2011 12:23:03 GMT
If the route is "safeguarded" (that's the jargon used), my understanding is that nobody is allowed to build anything that conflicts with the safeguarded route. If, for example, the house is to have a station built under it, you cannot build a skyscraper over it, because the foundations would be stupidly big, and block the railway. What can they do? My understanding is that they can build the railway there when Parliament says OK. What are the odds? Not very high until Crossrail 1 is done, plus the aftermath of it; sadly. Oh, my dear Chelney... ;D I have always thought it terribly unfair to blight property with such schemes and terribly wasteful to spend taxpayers £millions on inquiries and appeals before eventual compulsory purchase of the required property where necessary. IMO routes should be planned and implemented with a minimum of fuss and without appeal to be fair to both property owners in impacted areas and to taxpayers who have to foot the bill. I think this general principle should apply to any development 'in the national interest' but particularly to road and rail developments. As soon as a route is evaluated all necessary impacted property should be puchased at fair market rate plus a generous universal fixed rate percentage to cover expenses such as relocation costs etc. The planning authority should then be entitled to lease or use the properties appropriately pending demolition or other use as required by the project such that the value of the investment is retained until the project proceeds to implementation. Such would avoid the otherwise inevitable delays which seem to surround all projects in which politicians have their sticky little fingers and eliminate NIMBYism at a stroke, it would also be far cheaper to implement than the current merry-go-round of planning, evaluation, inquiry, appeal, repeat, cancel, replan etc. Of course the planners need to get it right from the off and that requires the politicians to be singing from the same hymm book regardless of their basic political differences which has a dog's chance and no chance! Too often property has been bought up for projects and left derelict for decades, this is particularly true in North and West London but no doubt true across the capital, homeowners and businesses left in doubt about their futures for many years which is also so unfair and results in loss of equity or business and it is all so unnecessary. While nobody wants to be forcibly relocated or have their future indeterminate it will happen one way or another for many under existing methods of planning, safeguarding and procurement even if the projects are never completed and it would be fairer and less hassle to give them the means to go immediately or at a time of their choosing before the start deadline for a project but with no right of objection which would have effectively been bought at a fair price from the start! |
|
|
|
Post by phillw48 on Apr 25, 2011 12:31:51 GMT
I recall at the time the M25 was being built one woman put in a whole string of objections to it because it passed about 100 yards from her house. Every objection was rejected by the inquiry, and some of them were quite puerile. In the end she had to sell the house to pay her legal fees.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Apr 25, 2011 13:29:57 GMT
Theres only a slimish chance that Chelney/XR2 will involve 250m platforms. One of the planning 'standards' that was banded around was apparently 'District Line' (Met not worth it, eh?); this presumably refers to 7 cars of S stock (~54') in length. Thats if its built to tube specs. Mainline theoretically could be 250m, but would entail such a comprehensive platform lengthening campaign that it would probably not be worth it.
The thing that irks me about 7 cars though (if TfL) is that the Wimbledon branch happily ran 8 cars, and the Epping branch does. As 21146 commented in another thread, the missed oppertunity with the S stock introduction was the District not going back to 8 cars. This would only compound the problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Apr 25, 2011 16:58:55 GMT
I recall at the time the M25 was being built one woman put in a whole string of objections to it because it passed about 100 yards from her house. Every objection was rejected by the inquiry, and some of them were quite puerile. In the end she had to sell the house to pay her legal fees. That example makes the point really, everybody lost, project undoubtedly delayed and I'm sure she was just one of several that objected formerly and thus escalated the cost of the project. Hence, it is far fairer and makes more sense to be firm and generous and to deliver a project as soon as a plan has been formalised without allowing let or hindrance. |
|
|
|
Post by phillw48 on Apr 25, 2011 17:01:53 GMT
Everybody that is except the lawyers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2011 19:03:11 GMT
But how generous is society (that benefits from the project) prepared to be to individuals (who lose). A 'fair market value' is defined as what a willing buyer will pay a willing seller: what premium should an unwilling seller get - 10%? 50%? 100%? Are expenses included or extra - what can they cover? (Removal of 50 year old apple tree from old to new garden?) What is the value of the view that's going to be spoilt? And how's that to be compensated?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2011 20:05:20 GMT
Peter Hendy answered this at a bloggers briefing in December www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2010/12/16/a-chat-with-the-top-man-at-transport-for-london/“The government is pushing ahead with the High Speed 2 railway but if, as expected, Euston station is the London terminus, then the existing Underground services will never be able to cope with the concentration of arriving passengers. HS2 makes Crossrail 2 mandatory. Indeed, they are already working on plans to adjust the presumed route to include Euston station.” BTW excellent artilce in Private Eye a couple of issues ago about HS2 and how there would be much less local objection if there was an intermediate station between London and Birmingham, between Oxford and Milton Keynes (let's say Brackely for example) connecting with an East-West line. Also that Japan's Bullet has a station a simliar distance out from Tokyo, that work fine. I live on Leyton so frankly I couldn't give a monkey's. Sorry. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2011 22:01:41 GMT
Two Points:-
1) I would not have thought that it would have been too much of a problem to extend many of the platforms. After all they are going to do this for Crossrail 1 and are doing it for most Thameslink stations.
2) As for any stations where platforms cannot be extended. They can always do what they are going to do on Thameslink stations that have this problem and that is make sure that only the doors that are next to a platform are able to open.
For me it would be better to build this line to the highest standard now so it is future proofed as far as possible. Especially as the tunnels would have to be bigger than normal deep level tube tunnels to be able to take District Line type trains.
Anyway no one has answered my question. If they do build it to Crossrail 1 standards could they not build a station as I described?
Also what is the problem with having a station at Picadilly Circus if they do build it to national rail standards.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bighat on Apr 25, 2011 22:08:57 GMT
Peter Hendy answered this at a bloggers briefing in December www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2010/12/16/a-chat-with-the-top-man-at-transport-for-london/“The government is pushing ahead with the High Speed 2 railway but if, as expected, Euston station is the London terminus, then the existing Underground services will never be able to cope with the concentration of arriving passengers. HS2 makes Crossrail 2 mandatory. Indeed, they are already working on plans to adjust the presumed route to include Euston station.” BTW excellent artilce in Private Eye a couple of issues ago about HS2 and how there would be much less local objection if there was an intermediate station between London and Birmingham, between Oxford and Milton Keynes (let's say Brackely for example) connecting with an East-West line. Also that Japan's Bullet has a station a simliar distance out from Tokyo, that work fine. I live on Leyton so frankly I couldn't give a monkey's. Sorry. Guess where Ian Hislop (editor of Private Eye) lives! |
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Apr 25, 2011 22:41:14 GMT
I still think the plan to divert via Euston is madness.
Crossrail 2 will reduce the demand on the Victoria and Northern lines by virtue of providing the passengers north of Kings Cross a faster route to Victoria. There are already 2 tube lines duplicating the route, not to mention the SSL route for Pete's sake...so why slow down the route for those wanting to quickly travel between Kings Cross and Victoria?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2011 4:04:16 GMT
Guess where Ian Hislop (editor of Private Eye) lives! Sissinghurst, Kent I believe, unless he's moved recently I still think the plan to divert via Euston is madness. Crossrail 2 will reduce the demand on the Victoria and Northern lines by virtue of providing the passengers north of Kings Cross a faster route to Victoria. There are already 2 tube lines duplicating the route, not to mention the SSL route for Pete's sake...so why slow down the route for those wanting to quickly travel between Kings Cross and Victoria? Peter Hendy already answered your question, because the Northern and Victoria will not be able to cope with HS2. Surely it makes more sense to stop at a major mainline rail terminus than to have stops at places like Sloane Square and Angel. The current journey time from Victoria to King's Cross on the Viccy is ten minutes. Crossrail 2 would stop at Piccadilly Curcus and Tottenham Court Road so an additional stop at Euston shouldn't make too much difference. CR2 is not about speed, it's about diverting passengers away from exisiting lines. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2011 6:41:41 GMT
Is there any reason the platform at Kings X couldn't also serve Euston? If we look at Crossrail1, Farringdon Station will also serve Barbican and Liverpool St will also serve Moorgate i.e. 2 entrances one et each end of the platform. The distance between St Pancras mainline and Euston mainline is prob about 400 m as the crow flies. Platform length could be 250m as suggested on this thread if built to NR standard or if built to S Stock profile (S8 are 133m according to Bombardier's website) meaning maybe a 150m-175m (future proofed) platforms. If the platform box were located between the two mainline stations and either of these train and therefore platform lengths were utilised, wouldn't travelators and escalators do the rest in terms of getting people to the mainline stations or onto other forms of subsurface transport?
|
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Apr 26, 2011 12:12:26 GMT
Peter Hendy already answered your question, because the Northern and Victoria will not be able to cope with HS2. Surely it makes more sense to stop at a major mainline rail terminus than to have stops at places like Sloane Square and Angel. The current journey time from Victoria to King's Cross on the Viccy is ten minutes. Crossrail 2 would stop at Piccadilly Curcus and Tottenham Court Road so an additional stop at Euston shouldn't make too much difference. CR2 is not about speed, it's about diverting passengers away from exisiting lines. What's the point of duplicating routes? If you insist on doing so, make one of them faster so there's an obvious choice for passengers between them! A mainline Crossrail 2 will not stop at Piccadilly Circus, and besides, it will pass through that area en route to Victoria anyway, so adding a tube station is not as much of a disbenefit as one at Euston. Euston is a diversion that will increase journey times for all passengers. Just to duplicate what is already there. Crossrail 2's core should be Kings X - TCR - Victoria, and mainline gauge preferably. The Victoria line will cope just fine as HS2 passengers will be able to use the capacity vacated by the majority of Kings Cross passengers now using the quicker Crossrail 2 route, and likewise the majority of Victoria passengers doing the same. Provision on additional capacity at Euston if required should be by building Crossrail 3 - a tunnel from Euston to TCR to Charing Cross/Waterloo taking all the suburban services. |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Apr 26, 2011 13:58:17 GMT
There won't be many suburban services though at Euston by that point as TfL want the DC service to go to the Bakerloo and NR want the slow WCML service to be joined onto Crossrail at Old Oak.
A station at Euston has been mulled over since before HS2 was announced, so years now.
Previous plans had XR2 as a line between Cannon Street and Waterloo (or something similar...) with an interchange with XR1 at Ludgate; XR1 being still Paddington-Liverpool Street. Chelney was totally seperate and went <-Victoria-Waterloo-Holborn-Farringdon-Dalston->. The current encarnations of XR1 and Chelney seem very much to be just not-quite-express/duplicate versions of the Central and Victoria respectively. And whereas both lines were in need of such things the two projects are too dissimilar from each to be considered straight additions, yet not dissimilar enough that they provide largely different routings within the central area, nor allow the future option of properly duplicating each line to be viable.
Any line involving Wimbledon and Epping should IMO be an entirely TfL one both for service and infrastructure as both points are already TfL, and it should be in the companies interest to increase its scope to include as many London lines as possible. XR1 is done and dusted now, without the option of a strategic interchange of similar fashion to that provided formerly at Ludgate, but Chelney still has a lot of wiggle room. And, ultimately, what it does and how it does it will depend on whether its part of the tube/SSR or part of NR.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,758
|
Post by Chris M on Apr 26, 2011 16:24:06 GMT
What's the point of duplicating routes? If you insist on doing so, make one of them faster so there's an obvious choice for passengers between them! The point of duplicating routes is that so many people use the existing ones that they can't cope. The ideal situation for urban mass transit like the tube is that there is no obvious choice between routes so that the loadings balance out. I think in a near perfect world, each route would routinely work at just below 50% capacity so that when one breaks down/needs engineering work/is otherwise closed the other could take all the strain without problems. Of course in a perfect world both would be available 24/7/365  |
|
|
|
Post by mrjrt on Apr 26, 2011 21:11:21 GMT
The point of duplicating routes is that so many people use the existing ones that they can't cope. I suspected I'd get that response The point I'm trying to make (somewhat badly), is that the existing tube lines will be relived at Euston regardless of whether CR2 serves it, as it will abstract passengers by virtue of being a distinctive route with obvious benefits. As for the WCML....I'm somewhat disappointed by the options on the table that NR are pushing. I'm a regular user of Euston, and I'd much rather LO for the DC lines, and CR3 instead of CR1. Euston is too useful a location to be diverted away from. Having to get back to it via a change at TCR or Farringdon will be a PITA. The capacity they claim is "spare" and can be used on the WCML should be used to improve the GWML service. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2011 6:16:50 GMT
Everything I’ve read seems to suggest that Mr Hendy at TfL, the people at HS2 and the people at Crossrail seem to think that it needs to go to Euston and it will stop at Piccadilly Circus.
What is unclear is who is going to pay for it so until that insignificant matter is settled then CR2 is just a paper exercise, I suspect that I will still be running up to Epping on a Central Line 92 in 15 years time and CR2 will still be in the planning stage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2011 21:55:23 GMT
Theres only a slimish chance that Chelney/XR2 will involve 250m platforms. One of the planning 'standards' that was banded around was apparently 'District Line' (Met not worth it, eh?); this presumably refers to 7 cars of S stock (~54') in length. Thats if its built to tube specs. Mainline theoretically could be 250m, but would entail such a comprehensive platform lengthening campaign that it would probably not be worth it. It all depends who is doing the planning, left to their own devices TfL may well prefer a RATP Metro type Chelney but Network Rail seem have more of an RER approach to these matters. In the latest RUS they favour feeding services into the Chelney line from the south west lines via Clapham Junction www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/rus%20documents/route%20utilisation%20strategies/rus%20generation%202/london%20and%20south%20east/london%20and%20south%20east%20route%20utilisation%20strategy.pdffigure 8.2 page 155 refers to their preferred routes. Political pressure extended CR1 from Maidenhead to Reading and now looks like extending CR1 to Tring or Milton Keynes. As the Mayor probably will not be able to go back for an additional contribution to CR2 from all those businesses who contributed to CR1 he/she will invariably have to look to central Government for support which means put together a body of political support wider than just London MP's - getting the support of other South East MP's means catering for their WIITFM factor ( What is in this for me). Having extended CR1 the RER genie is out of the bottle. CR2 will IMHO have to built to Crossrail Standards so planning for 250m platforms is not unreasonable.Mystic Mwmbwls predicts Southern terminus probably Surbiton - Northern termini Harlow (but may be Stansted) and possibly Chelmsford. Any better guesses? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2011 1:03:57 GMT
CR1 to Tring or Milton Keynes? I haven't heard that before - by what route?
With regard to the Crossrail 2 route I understood the most recently safeguarded plan was Wimbledon - Parsons Green on the District, new tunnel through the centre then Central line from Leytonstone - Epping. Has this option now been officially discarded, or at least as officially as anything to do with Crossrail 2 is? What is your source for Surbiton to Harlow/Stanstead?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2011 7:34:31 GMT
CR1 to Tring or Milton Keynes? I haven't heard that before - by what route? With regard to the Crossrail 2 route I understood the most recently safeguarded plan was Wimbledon - Parsons Green on the District, new tunnel through the centre then Central line from Leytonstone - Epping. Has this option now been officially discarded, or at least as officially as anything to do with Crossrail 2 is? What is your source for Surbiton to Harlow/Stanstead? A link via Old Oak Common with 8tph from CR1 to Tring/Milton Keynes is recommended in the London and SE RUS and in many responses to the HS2 consultation. As I indicated in earlier post my prediction was just that – a speculation but as with all good charlatans I mixed and matched a number of earlier reports that are gathering dust in a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory, with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard’, somewhere in the south east England. www.harlowrenaissance.co.uk/media/docs/Final%20Harlow%20CLE%20report%20280311.pdfColin Buchannan’s report details plans to extend the Central line from Epping to Harlow. As the line from Leyton to Epping and indeed Ongar was originally built in1856 to standard loading gauge whereas the Hainault spur opened in 1947 is tube only gauge from Leytonstone to Newbury Park. www.eera.gov.uk/publications-and-resources/studies/transport-studies/multi-modal-studies/lois-london-to-ipswich-multi-modal-study/The now abolished East of England’s Development Agency report presses the case for relieving the GE main line by building a route from Chelmsford to Stansted to cater for inter-regional travel and also a route from Chelmsford to Stratford, to relieve the GE main line, to run via Ongar and Epping. There was also a suggestion in one of the responses to the BAA consultation on surface access strategy for Stansted when an extra runway was being considered favouring an extension north from Epping following the alignment of the M11. Unfortunately I have filed that in such a safe place I cannot lay my hands on this at the moment – when I find it I will. www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/rus%20documents/route%20utilisation%20strategies/rus%20generation%202/london%20and%20south%20east/london%20and%20south%20east%20route%20utilisation%20strategy.pdfChapter eight contains Network Rail’s view that CR2 should continue in tunnel from Clapham Junction to Wimbledon with a possible terminus at Surbiton. Including relatively self-contained branches to Hampton Court or Guildford via Oxshott might be a possibility. The previously GE RUS also reports at length on the need to relieve congestion between Chelmsford and Shenfield. All these schemes have been proposed and rejected before because they were suggested on a piece-meal basis – string them together and something else emerges. It is understandable that TfL seeks to manage the problem within a somewhat classical view of what constitutes London – the raw political and economic fact is that London’s travel to work area, which TfL ought to be responsible for, extends well beyond the existing boundaries. I repeat my basic point if Londoners wish to see these mega project upgrades in the centre they will need to pay attention to the supporting business and political cases in the periphery. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2011 9:59:22 GMT
All these schemes have been proposed and rejected before because they were suggested on a piece-meal basis – string them together and something else emerges. It is understandable that TfL seeks to manage the problem within a somewhat classical view of what constitutes London – the raw political and economic fact is that London’s travel to work area, which TfL ought to be responsible for, extends well beyond the existing boundaries. I repeat my basic point if Londoners wish to see these mega project upgrades in the centre they will need to pay attention to the supporting business and political cases in the periphery. While I agree that London's Transport needs to be planned on a regional basis - going far beyond the GLA/Mayor's domain definition of London, what that area should be is unclear - my own view is that it should be basically the BR L&SE/Network South East area. But there are umpteen official or former official definitions of 'Greater' London and the Home Counties around, which would be more or less appropriate - the London Passenger Transport area of 1933 for one. The London Travel to Work Area - as formally defined, see here with map here , rather than the generic 'area within which people commute to London' - is actually not that much bigger than the Mayor's domain, and is also unsuitable as it liable to redefinition after every census. |
|
;D
