Crossrail 2 consultation

Snoggle: while Zurich and other European cities have retained, maintained and extended their electric street transit, London dumped the lot. London, apart from around Croydon, is starting afresh. There's no legacy system to increment from. It makes no sense WHATSOEVER to adopt obsolete technology which lacks operational flexibility. There's no need for tram tracks - in the few locations where there is space for a segregated alignment, a busway will also work.

My main point was that you can have your electric transit WITHOUT the constraints to flexibility. Basically it's a "wireless trolley bus" system, but really an electric bus with recharging points where the bus can be aligned accurately to dock with the power supply - especially at termini. That's the future of electric transit. You can have your cake (Trolley Buses) and eat it too (able to leapfrog, divert around an incident, follow a detour just like a normal bus).

The ONLY reason for adding the massive cost, disruption and installation time for embedded rails (other than for systems like Manchester, Croydon) is where you want to run very long (eg 7- or 9- segment) or coupled trams - vehicles MUCH larger than buses. If you've got the traffic, fine. But you'd likely then have the traffic for an underground metro (DLR style).

Added advantage of "wireless trolley buses" is aesthetic: visual amenity. No knitting! That reduces first and ongoing maintenance cost, which is offset by the cost of batteries for the buses (no free lunch!).

DD - you may have travelled on the Euro and Sydney deckers. I have too. My designs specifically address the DWELL time issue, and the PLATFORM OCCUPATION time issue. The latter is critical to Thameslink performance, and forms part of the rolling stock spec. It is achieved by having enough power and adhesion to deliver high acceleration and braking.

With DDs, again: the dwell time can only be minimised with short cars, wide doors and wide internal staircases. The triple-door Paris design doesn't work because only one deck has access to the middle door. And you noticed that it didn't work. Neither the Europeans nor Sydney use short cars (which can also be wider on many systems), nor yet do they have wide enough doors - and the Euros were so hung up on accessibility that they used way too many low steps internally, which both restrict capacity and also slow down passenger movement. Better to cater for those with ambulant challenges in the level-access mezzanine, and have taller and fewer steps to the decks.

As for loading gauge, yes sirree, that's a tricky one! As I mentioned, I submitted entries to the Radical Train Innovation competition tackling that very subject. I used the newly available draft LSVG-8 for the lower sector vehicle gauge, but because RSSB Project T978 hasn't yet reported with a draft suburban gauge, I used C1 (Appendix A) for the upper sector. I think it's workable in the sense of a workaround, rather than ideal. The aim is to establish that DD works, and can compete with SD on dwell and platform occupancy when the platform itself isn't THE constraint. And that it can help overcome PiXC while the works planned for CP5 and CP6 (and beyond) come to fruition. It's not meant as a substitute for capacity works, but provides at least a stop-gap.

From the point that production trains are in use and helping overcome PiXC, it becomes easier to present a case for a rolling programme of works to improve gauge clearance. Then more ideal layouts with less compromised accommodation space and ambience become possible. (Think of the progression from the C&SLR "padded cells" to the 09ts).

dw54 - I do understand what you are saying with regard to the wireless trolleybus concept - no need to explain it twice . I also recognise that London was insane enough to scrap both tram and trolleybus networks partly through external and internal politics surrounding LT and partly through a particular view as to how transport needs would develop over the decades. Much of that orthodoxy from the 50s and 60s is now completely discredited. I tend to approach the concept of reintroducing "fixed infrastructure" on road corridors as a market led one. There is well documented evidence that permanent transport systems resonate far better with passengers and are far more successful at ensuring priority over other traffic and securing patronage growth. I am not aware that your wireless trolleybus concept with on street charging is yet proven in a western style democracy. I believe rapid charging electric buses do operate in China but the authorities there can do what they like. I just have doubts as to whether the public will accept charging infrastructure in public areas but I dare say we will find out soon in London given the proposal for a trial, with Chinese buses, on the 507 and 521 routes.

I understand that trams and trolleys are seen as "inflexible" but that can be catered for in the design and maintenance of the system and making sure you buy proven technology of which there is plenty worldwide. My experience of such systems in Europe is that they are responsible for delivering far more reliable and effective public transport which is easy to use because it is usually at street level with easy, level boarding with greater capacity for the mobility impaired and encumbered. Tunnelled or viaduct based automatic metros are not as accessible as trams or trolleys given the reliance on lifts for vertical transport from street to platform. I tend to look at what Paris has achieved with its tram network with a distinct tinge of green and that tinge turns a deeper shade of green (with envy) when I look at proposals through to 2030. Their thinking is light years ahead of ours and they made the same mistakes we made with trams in the past but are not so hidebound about reintroducing them. Ditto with developing their RER system and also recognising that those lines now need upgrades and improved operational management to keep them relevant.

You obviously have engineering knowledge that I don't possess so I can't comment with any extra insight about your DD proposals. I do think you have an interesting point, made in an earlier post, about the relationship between rolling stock design / capacity and how stations are designed. It will be interesting to see if the Crossrail stations work and how they compare to Thameslink which has more of a historic legacy when it comes to its stations. Station location, size and design is clearly a problem with the CR2 options as people prefer the Metro station locations but want the Regional breadth of coverage!

I am not sure that the 09 stock is much of a progression from a padded cell from a passenger perspective. I loathe the small window design and huge slab panels where the doors are on 09 stock. 1967 stock was much lighter and easier to see out of at stations. It was also far more comfortable than 09 stock whose seats put my legs to sleep. 40 odd years of 09s is not something I relish given the Vic Line is my local tube route. Speed and performance is good, comfort is an afterthought.

As I said I think we both hold quite different views about "solutions" to some problems and I detect we might also hold quite "firm" views too. Let's agree to differ as I doubt either of us will persuade the other.

Ah, the ' gentrification' matter is raised again.

Why is this always done with mention of Hackney only?

I know of people in east London (Manor Park) who cannot wait for Crossrail (1) to bail them out of negative equity.

If the concern is that house owners are getting an unwarranted uplift in their property values on public investment, there is a way to claw it back - taxation.

It should not be a reason to vary an extremely viable transport project.

As to the General future, we need a drastic increase in funds available and reduction in construction costs to achieve what Paris is doing.

Unless battery technology undergoes some material science revolution, the rechargeable bus is not going anywhere. We could have a hybrid solution where the main roads are wired up and buses switch over to battery or other fuel sources once they are away from these main routes.

Alternative fuels do not solve the congestion problem, so we are left with Trams, DLR style tubes or Crossrails. For the core areas of Central London, with the limited number of tunnel routes left, that means Crossrails, but routes further out could be DLR style underground lines, such as Edgware road - Marble Arch - Knightsbridge - Victoria - Vauxhall - Peckham - New Cross or the West London orbital

The solution for overcrowded bus routes is, long term, trams, but considering the width of Londons roads, we will have to accept them running in mixed traffic. There maybe greater opportunities for trams in Londons suburbs, where there grass verges. parks and dual carriageways to use. How about a double deck articulated tram! There is a sexy swedish design study floating around the net somewhere.

It's not that I object to people in Hackney making money on their houses, not at all. That isn't my point. Prices of houses, and jobs (not necessarily for locals) will follow the line wherever it goes. I'm merely saying that the redevelopment of Hackney should not need to be a primary objective of this scheme. By needing to go via Hackney and thus avoiding Finsbury Park (and the, admittedly, total rebuild associated therewith) and Highbury & Islington, the branch to Alexandra Palace becomes a necessity to relieve the north-eastern ends of the Victoria and Piccadilly lines.

If you assume in the first place that the core can run at 24tph, how many would you take to Hertford East on what is now a 2-3 tph service? 6 maybe? That leaves 18 to terminate at Ally Pally or to move on to Hertford North or WGC. Minimal relief for Liverpool Street and possible relegation of Moorgate to a shuttle. It doesn't feel like progress to me when you can follow the Victoria Line to Tottenham Hale from Euston, and take over at least the Enfield Town line. Many people using that line are as close to the Hertford North branch for a City bound train in any case - and it has to be remembered that the West End is a more popular destination outside of the rush hour.

This way the opportunity for increased long-distance travel into Liverpool Street has the potential to be enhanced in the same way that the scheme enhances long-distance travel into Waterloo. It matters, as that is how the train companies make their money. I know it needs a lot of investment beyond Shenfield, but the reason I believe this may be viable (similar to Waterloo via the W&C) is the proximity to the City.

@stephenk - you are right: it's a serious issue that - as usual - gets overlooked in the excitement of drawing a new route! A rough back of envelope suggests that for the line as a whole, accommodation is needed for about 40+ trains at a 3 min frequency. This a sizeable depot by any standards and given the prospective fleet size, maybe two sites are needed. The other desiderata included using sites on the core route as positioning on any individual branch could lead to substantial dead mileage, and the need ideally to select a site which is double ended to avoid trains becoming trapped by a failure in the depot throat.

None of the obvious sites is ideal in those respects. Of the sites you mention, the Chelney safeguarded site is quite small, and SWT's Wimbledon Park depot is difficult to replace (the Woking alternative - again, a bit far away for the SW Inners - is about to be lost to NR and more housing). Maybe an excavated depot (under Ally Pally itself?) or one which can be rafted over to provide housing?

GH

The tfl website mentions a 28 min run time for the metro option. Adding a a nominal 2 mins for terminus dwell, and this would result in the number of trains required for service being similar to the required frequency e.g. 36tph = 36 trains in service. Allowing for 6 trains not in service, this would require approx. 42 trains in total. If 4 trains were stored in each terminus overnight (in overrun tracks), then the depot would need to be large enough for approx. 34 trains.

Given cost reduction measures in modern times, I doubt that double ended depots are required (very few new driverless metros have double ended depots). However, dual depot access tracks are almost certainly required for reliability.

I've seen this idea before. Ensuring safe access to the upper deck could mean "gap filler" platforms and PEDs. It's a rather academic exercise for the UK. Min height would be of the order of 4800mm - not unlike US gallery cars. 

Snoggle. Have tried twice to reply to yr post of May 29, 2013 at 4:38am. Both have, like that of one of the Mods on another thread, got lost in the ether.

So I'll try again.

Re: reliability, etc.

No matter how well established a design is, and how reliable it is, a conventional tram or trolley bus cannot:

1) leapfrog another - a lightly loaded vehicle pass to the front of an overloaded vehicle;
2) without substantial prior preparations, avoid obstructions on the route: incidents, flooding, traffic crashes, detours, police directions. As we're talking about a highly reliable proven model which is meticulously maintained by diligent, enthusiastic fitters, I've left out passing a failure.
3) provide temporary service off-route (including twice a day school diversions during term, etc)

Our task isn't to quibble about these things. The contemporary and emergent technologies deal with them. But they don't deal with the "resonance" that the travelling public have with fixed infrastructure services. It speaks of "the b--tards can't take away my service" despite evidence to the contrary. So our task is to devise a way in which modern solutions can leverage the best of new technology with the resonance of the old. This means, IMHO, that an "eTransit" [(C) Copyright DW 2013] line must incorporate sufficient fixed infrastructure to give the sense of permanence, while limiting this to a small % of the route. Implementation time and disruption during construction also need to be minimised.

Snoggle: finally, the third key point I wanted to make:

The wireless tram/trolleybus technologies used by the Chinese are actually European in origin. Some may be licenced for them to build.

Batteries: In the initial stages, batteries would be Li-ion or Li-Polymer. These are relatively expensive but generally suit traction applications. The GE co in the US bought up a company that was developing Sodium Hyroxyl batteries. GE went as far as product launch for static applications (wind farms, solar PV arrays), and to offer their EVO range of locos with 2000 extra HP for the 6000hp unit through use of the batteries to boost power to 8000hp when needed.

To my knowledge, none have been built - and things on this front have gone quiet @ GE.

Nonetheless, if they succeed, the dividend is massive. The basic materials for NaHx are very cheap (sea water) and so once the development cost has been recovered, volume production is likely to be an order of magnitude cheaper than today's lightweight, high capacity batteries.

norbitonflyer - In fact, the Board went as far as getting statutory powers for a clutch of trolleybus routes through the subway in 1937. "London Trolleybus Routes" by Hugh Taylor has a map showing what was proposed until the war supervened. There would have been a 533 West Norwood to Newington Green, a 535 Forest Hill to Archway, and a 631 Wandsworth to Hackney, all via the subway, as well as numerous other routes round the Embankment and into S London, with a view to seeing off the trams by about 1942; as it was, the trams lasted until July 1952 - a very long stay of execution.

I agree entirely about trolleybuses overtaking each other. This happened a lot on the busy routes (by "busy", is meant that some routes ran every 2-3 minutes) and the crews developed quick re-poling routines to enable the service to be regulated properly, even on plain wiring.

Dave - the two Q classes were quite different beasts in both engineering and time. The similar names were just a coincidence. The trolleybus classes were allocated letters in the order they were built and had simply reached Q by the time they were built. The bus class names were usually chosen with some relation to the chassis' commercial or design name eg ST=Short Type, RF=Regal Five although Q doesn't obviously fit that pattern - maybe chosen for its striking effect, or because most of the adjacent single letters had been used - the buses looked radically different to anything that had gone before and coincidentally appearing also in that "annus mirabilis" for vehicle design in which, suddenly, both bus and trolleybus design adopted streamlined integrated art deco design ideas and stopped looking like the descendants of horse buses..

On the question of OPO operation of trolleypoles without having to leave the cab, I know that some operators of dual mode vehicles have used automatic guidance systems to enable the poles to rise accurately to the wires when entering the electrified sections and one can imagine similar arrangements associated with charging points at, say, stops where dwell times enabled the vehicle to pick up a charge or over short but key distances - uphill for example.

G

The stabling question is a serious concern. Look at Crossrail that prior to Plumstead sidings being agreed was looking all over the place. Woking, Colchester, Hither Green and Reading were looked at as possible sites. Woking and Colchester's distance from the operational Crossrail shows how big a problem this is.

fleetline - I very much agree about the neglect of depot issues; for much of the post war period, it didn't matter, but now with the expansion of the national fleet again, it will soon become a very serious constraint. What is really needed is a national depot strategy which looks at the competing demands of intercity and commuter operations and the opportunities for re-shuffling the pack - and the need to safeguard key potential sites. Bounds Green and Willesden are perhaps key sites in this respect, and safeguarding sites in the Lea valley, as one of the few remaining areas for substantial redevelopment in the right sector of London, are another (it may already be too late there, alas). But - as you imply - it's also as much about sites at the end of commuter runs that need to be safeguarded - Peterborough, for example. There ought to have been a depot RUS but I doubt if NR think it's their problem and the spread of "company" depots hardly helps. DfT will not admit to the point, of course, because they try not to believe that the rail system needs to be managed as a whole.

GH