Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2007 11:24:58 GMT
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,758
Member is Online
|
Post by Chris M on Oct 5, 2007 11:50:38 GMT
At last!
|
|
mrfs42
71E25683904T 172E6538094T
Big Hair Day
Posts: 5,922
|
Post by mrfs42 on Oct 5, 2007 11:53:00 GMT
One of my mates who's a project manager for this will be pleased! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2007 13:06:52 GMT
Finally! The Central Line is overcrowded as it is, and we definately need new transport links to cope with the increase in City workers in the future due to several skyscrapers being built.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris W on Oct 5, 2007 14:02:59 GMT
Thank goodness.... okay building will take a few years... but the 315's will be gone  |
|
|
|
Post by amershamsi on Oct 5, 2007 15:06:58 GMT
One of my mates who's a project manager for this will be pleased! is that a building project manager - they have all that sorted already kind of jumping the gun!? If it's a planning project manager, it means he can't spend another few years looking into different branch options and so on - I'd be surprised if it hasn't been fully planned, and only a few little things need doing, at least on Crossrail. It now means it's a similar thing on Chelney! I'm waiting for the scheme that will sort out the mess of having two eastern branches, both with too few trains (at least in peaks). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2007 15:33:01 GMT
What does everyone reckon then. Will it become part of the London Overground, which would obviously be the better choice, or be handed over to National Rail hands?
|
|
|
|
Post by tubeprune on Oct 5, 2007 16:27:40 GMT
One of my mates who's a project manager for this will be pleased! is that a building project manager - they have all that sorted already kind of jumping the gun!? If it's a planning project manager, it means he can't spend another few years looking into different branch options and so on - I'd be surprised if it hasn't been fully planned, and only a few little things need doing, at least on Crossrail. It now means it's a similar thing on Chelney! I'm waiting for the scheme that will sort out the mess of having two eastern branches, both with too few trains (at least in peaks). I was involved with Crossrail planning in 1990. I wondered when it was going to get built! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2007 17:14:42 GMT
About time!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2007 23:38:03 GMT
It's been a very very long time!!!
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Oct 6, 2007 2:15:26 GMT
What does everyone reckon then. Will it become part of the London Overground, which would obviously be the better choice, or be handed over to National Rail hands? It was always a National Rail job - it has nothing to do with London Overground, and I can't see any reason why it would given that it will run from Maidenhead to Abbey Wood/Shenfield (ie, it's not wholly in London for starters). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2007 3:27:14 GMT
Personally I think that Chelney is a more pressing issue than Crossrail for relieving overcrowding on the Victoria & Central Lines. Unfortunately as it doesn't serve Canary Wharf, the City, or Heathrow, it would be harder for Chelney to get funding.
Most of the overcrowding and capacity problems that Crossrail solves could be sorted out by cheaper infrastructure and asset improvements improvements. Yes, it may shorten journey times from Heathrow to Canary Wharf, but are many people actually going to travel between these two stations?
|
|
|
|
Post by suncloud on Oct 6, 2007 8:17:53 GMT
Crossrail will provide much needed relief to the central line, especially between stratford and the city. Passengers from the Hainault/Epping heading for Paddington and beyond will be able to change at Stratford. Passengers from the Great Eastern line who flock to the central at either Stratford or Liverpool street may then be able to get close enough to their final destination without getting off the train.
|
|
|
|
Post by cetacean on Oct 6, 2007 9:25:15 GMT
It was always a National Rail job - it has nothing to do with London Overground, and I can't see any reason why it would given that it will run from Maidenhead to Abbey Wood/Shenfield (ie, it's not wholly in London for starters). It's a collaboration between TfL and the DfT. Apparently there's some current wrangling between them over who will have operational control. I imagine it will end up as a TfL managed National Rail service, exactly like Overground, but certainly not part of it. Most of the overcrowding and capacity problems that Crossrail solves could be sorted out by cheaper infrastructure and asset improvements improvements. You have a plan to run 50+ tph on the Jubilee Line in the peaks? Because that's what you'd need to match the capacity Crossrail will provide to Canary Wharf, which is one of the biggest drivers of the project. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2007 10:53:43 GMT
Most of the overcrowding and capacity problems that Crossrail solves could be sorted out by cheaper infrastructure and asset improvements improvements. You have a plan to run 50+ tph on the Jubilee Line in the peaks? Because that's what you'd need to match the capacity Crossrail will provide to Canary Wharf, which is one of the biggest drivers of the project. But does it need that extra capacity? The Jubilee Line is soon to have it's capacity increased from 24tph to 30tph+. The DLR is soon to have it's capacity increased by 50% with a third car. If anyone needs a new line to relieve congestion, it isn't Canary Wharf workers, but long suffering users of the Victoria Line! |
|
|
|
Post by cetacean on Oct 6, 2007 12:45:43 GMT
But does it need that extra capacity? The Jubilee Line is soon to have it's capacity increased from 24tph to 30tph+. The DLR is soon to have it's capacity increased by 50% with a third car. I think it does. They'll have built as many as 10 more skyscrapers by the time Crossrail opens, and there's no way upgrades to the existing services will be enough. Running the numbers, I get at most a 30% increase in number of passengers carried per hour. Add in Crossrail and you get a 100% increase, which is much nearer the mark. |
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Oct 6, 2007 12:49:06 GMT
It's a collaboration between TfL and the DfT. Apparently there's some current wrangling between them over who will have operational control. I imagine it will end up as a TfL managed National Rail service, exactly like Overground, but certainly not part of it. Having looked at their website, I stand corrected!  ;D ;D I agree though that it won't be part of London Overground. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2007 3:08:24 GMT
But does it need that extra capacity? The Jubilee Line is soon to have it's capacity increased from 24tph to 30tph+. The DLR is soon to have it's capacity increased by 50% with a third car. I think it does. They'll have built as many as 10 more skyscrapers by the time Crossrail opens, and there's no way upgrades to the existing services will be enough. Running the numbers, I get at most a 30% increase in number of passengers carried per hour. Add in Crossrail and you get a 100% increase, which is much nearer the mark. ....and in the mean time, people still have to queue to get on the overcrowded NB Victoria Line trains at Victoria  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2007 10:59:14 GMT
Has anyone noted that Crossrail 2 a la Hackney-Chelsea has been dropped from the Crossrail website? They have a section on there over the summer as Crossrail's team where charged with working on it as the next project. But it seems all files have gone and no links at all. They had all the 2007 safeguarding docs for Hackney-Chelsea there. Very strange unless TfL are gonna take it over and promote it as there next big thing after the ELLE/Overground?
|
|
|
|
Post by cetacean on Oct 7, 2007 11:24:36 GMT
Yes, that happened a few months ago. I think they're trying to apply the Crossrail brand exclusively to the line that's going ahead, and I'd guess they're going to give actively promoting the Chelsea-Hackney for the next few years, and since the safeguarding consultation is now finished, there's no need to mention it until then, especially as the route is so vague. The documents are still here: www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/closed/consulchelhackney/consulchelhackmain |
|
|
|
Post by suncloud on Oct 7, 2007 13:12:21 GMT
It does make sense to split the 'brands'. While it makes sense to do initial strategic planning and development together, but it's now known that Crossrail and Chelney (the products of the planning phase) will be probably operated as different entities on different 'networks'. Crossrail being integrated into National Rail and Chelney being TfL, whether Under or Overground. (based on Cetacean's link).
Also, most of the existing infrastructure to be taken over for Chelney is currently in TfLs hands/operation - whereas crossrail's is with NR.
To develop Chelney as a Crossrail project would probably lead to some confusion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2007 14:39:28 GMT
Cheers for the link Cetacean, Ive managed to get one of safeguarding files I was looking for (mine had two pages half missing).
As for the spilting of the brands I hadnt thought of that. Likelyhood if the Hackney-Chelsea does ever get built it would be an Overground line under TfL's control. Tho I do think they should re-route it after Hackney towards Walthamstow then Woodford and take the loop off the Central.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2007 17:26:59 GMT
Lately it seems that Chelsea - Hackney would be more of a traditional tube line. "Overground" seems like a bad word for both Crossrail and Chelney, as both of these projects do have big central tunnel-sections.
|
|
|
|
Post by amershamsi on Oct 7, 2007 23:23:02 GMT
mackenzieblu - I believe the safeguarded route is to take the Epping branch, not the loop - there would be a tunnel from Parson's Green to just north of Leyton, then a widening to 4-tracks so that the Central can go to Hainault and Chelney can take the Epping route.
I wonder if Chelney has been downgraded as CLRL have learnt from their mistakes with Crossrail that big gauge tube distance lines (OK, Reading isn't, but that's only there as they don't know where to sent trains from Paddington, and that was the easiest, though maybe not the cheapest, option) with 250% more stuff to move out of the way is a bad idea. Also it enables Chelney to be more effective at congestion relief - it's able to serve more stations. There's also the ease of serving a tube branch without needing to massively upgrade it.
As for the above point about Docklands, I don't think Crossrail does enough to serve it - splitting Crossrail to two Eastern branches is a big mistake - the peak service on the Shenfield lines is a packed 16tph at the moment - they are planning on having extra trains use pretty much the current route into Liverpool Street, in order to serve the line well in peaks. Likewise Docklands really won't cope with just 12tph in the peaks - my best plan is to convert Shenfield into the Chelney route (as opposed to Epping, and when it opens), and run 18tph to Docklands, and then rejig Stratford so that the Crossrail route heads to Stansted with 6tph.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2007 23:51:29 GMT
The safeguarding files show only as far as Leytonstone. it would be useful to have a link to Walthamstow from Hackney via Baker arms giving the Victoria line some relief then coming towards leytonstone from an eastern direction and continuing more of a straight line over the loop. That would give the Hackney-Chelsea access to a depot and provide a rail link that there isnt rather than paralleling the Victoria and Central without meeting the former. I know its not in the safeguarding but its not a massive route change and could link to the Goblin at Bakers arms where there is talk of a new station there anyway giving a new interchange with an area always busy with buses. it could also interchange with the DLR if it ever went to Tottenham Hale rather than just adding a section of the Central line to the plans. As it is theres no plans for anything between Homerton and Leytonstone, where as this way it can open up a new area to the Tube.
|
|
|
|
Post by amershamsi on Oct 8, 2007 15:10:33 GMT
the safeguarding is only to Leytonstone as there is no need to safeguard space for a railway in a place where one already exists - at the other end, the safeguarding doesn't cover the district line south of Parson's Green (though there is/was some safeguarding in the depot area near Wimbledon Park).
It doesn't need, nor will it be worth the cost, to go to Walthamstow to relieve the Victoria line - it already intersects the lines that the Victoria does north of Finsbury Park, at Hackney. It provides two options for changes from the Lea Valley, Enfield and Chingford lines to the West End. What you are suggesting also gets rid of the Cross-platform interchange planned at Leytonstone, meaning that interchange between the two routes is a lot worse - the branch (Hainualt loop/Epping) that gets Chelney would have a poor route to the city, with a nasty interchange somewhere along the line - I can't imagine that it's worth massively inconveniencing those people for a GOBLIN interchange, especially with a roundabout route (and the dog leg to serve Leytonstone) to get to it.
Also what would happen to the Central line if you removed the depot at Hainault from it? Chelney has planned depots that are big enough so it doesn't need to have Hainault - originally the plan was to go that way, however studies on the route and detailed planning decided to change that, and depot considerations must have taken place.
A better change of the northern bit of the route is to take over the Shenfield lines, especially compared to your roundabout route to Leytonstone. Homerton needs radial, not just orbital service (ditto Hackney Wick, though not as badly). The current route had lots of planning done on it. The take over of Epping is due to the massive relief of the central line (though it would be done better by going to Shenfield) that that would bring. The Victoria line gets it's relief through Chelney serving Hackney, Essex Road, Kings Cross, Tottenham Court Road, Piccadilly Circus and Victoria. It scoops up the same lines as the Victoria, gives a better southern West End destination, and a decent Oxford Street one (though not as good). It also has less stops between KX and Victoria and KX and the West End, which will massively relieve the Victoria at it's busiest points. I'd be very surprised if Chelney, in it's current safeguarded route wasn't overcrowded from Hackney to Putney rather quickly, with the Victoria line being greatly relieved, especially the northern bit beyond Seven Sisters.
What DLR interchange at Tottenham Hale? Are you suggesting Hackney-Tottenham Hale-Walthamstow-Bakers Arms-Leytonstone-Wanstead? That's a nice big detour.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2007 16:02:26 GMT
looking again on the map I see your point with Walthamstow, it is detour that isnt that important, tho an extenstion towards Leytonstone via Baker Arms could be possible after the line is built. I didnt mean to say go to Epping via the loop but terimate trains at Woodford.
The idea of having Hainault as a depot would mean not having to kick SWT trains out at the southern end. Plus the plan to have a depot or stabling at Stratford Marsh could be replaced by Hainault. Tho that idea does mean either depot sharing or some major work to give the Central somewhere else, not very likely in that area on the Epping route. It does depends on if its a Tube line or main line sized line on depot sharing.
Wouldn't Crossrail (1) mean putting the Hackney-Chelsea to Shenfield be abit of an overkill?
The DLR interchange would be for the DLR Tottenham extension thats proposed. As it would run up the Lea Valley parallel to the current main route. There was talk of an station at Lea Bridge Road before getting to Tottenham. There are also plans to reopen the station there on the main line services to serve the local community there. There also has been talk of moving the Chingford lines down the Lea Valley to serve Stratford in the long term. This would make the interchange here more worthwhile and increase the importance of the Chingford line. Or a station at Leyton Orient to interchange as Homerton to Leytonstone is a fair distance. This could link to DLR and main line services to Chingford etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by suncloud on Oct 8, 2007 17:22:06 GMT
I wonder, assuming Chelney happens and it goes to Epping, who would end up with Hainault-Woodford?
If the central kept woodford-hainault either they would have to share tracks or there'd need to be big infrastructure changes somewhere. Options would be a new interchange station at Roding Valley or a new track (could be single) from Roding Valley to Woodford.
Sharing tracks would be a more sensible option, but I guess signalling/ato issues might arise. That said Chelney is unlikely to be finished before the next large scale upgrade on the central.
|
|
|
|
Post by amershamsi on Oct 8, 2007 19:03:53 GMT
Wouldn't Crossrail (1) mean putting the Hackney-Chelsea to Shenfield be abit of an overkill? no, it'll mean getting rid of Crossrail to Shenfield, which is woefully inadequate as there are too few trains to serve that line. It also means that Crossrail can focus on the Isle of Dogs, which also has too few trains planned to serve it.is this 'proposed' like the Charing Cross travesty of an idea is 'proposed'? A DLR branch to Walthamstow (see below) would make more sense. bad news for all those on the Chingford line, due to longer journey times (ditto the Lea Valley line, as an extra stop at Clapton would have to be added). Lower frequencies at Clapton and Hackney as well. Not a good idea - work out a way to get the DLR to Walthamstow Central/Queens Road and go there rather than Tottenham Hale, and just improve the Tottenham Hale-Stratford frequency, say by having Cambridge slow, or Stansted, trains, rerouted via Stratford (perhaps make use of the Whitechapel to Stratford bit of Crossrail, and have that go up to Stansted at 6tph (giving a reasonable frequency to Docklands still)), or the NLL extended to Tottenham Hale. A few minutes on a longer journey for the interchange isn't that much bother, but on a short journey that is covered by bus links it's not very good.oh, you mean a station on Chelney where it's planned to cross the Lea Valley line - maybe a good idea. A small diversion to get a better catchment area of the station would be allowable, but not a massive one. I think part of the reason why there isn't one planned is that 1)Hackney Marshes mean that there's no much to have in the catchment area there. 2)Leyton station is fairly close, and spending a lot of money on a sub-surface station isn't a good use of money. The interchange angle is the only way to get it built, but still would be dubious on a cost-benefit ratio, mostly due to just being an interchange (see Shoreditch High Street on the Central line for more details) and not much more. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2007 22:24:15 GMT
is this 'proposed' like the Charing Cross travesty of an idea is 'proposed'? Do you mean DLR or Jubilee/Fleet line? The DLR extension has been picked up by TfL now and there maps of what they expect the network to look like now includes the DLR to Charing Cross. For the DLR Bank's an issue as its running out of capacity now. as for the Fleet/Jubilee, well thats famous for the screw up there. Is it a good idea to have two branches leading to one? The idea is to keep core services high and create new links across the city. Not to serve as Canary Wharf completely. The District has this problem of multiple lines into one branch and it doesnt always work. Problem with DLR to Walthamstow is that it means tunnels which in turns means higher costs. The last DLR Horizon Study suggested DLR should focus on Charing Cross and Tottenham Hale after Rainham and also to look at ways around Catford with the A2 issue. Tottenham would be cheaper as its in the open. Thats unless you the Chingford branch on to DLR (not a good idea as its way to far out especially if running to Lewisham/Catford), then you'd get the Walthamstow link. It might be longer to Liverpool Street but with links to Victoria (Walthamstow), Hackney-Chelsea (Leyton?) and Crossrail (Stratford) the Lea Valley route would open up more choices for those living on the line rather than depending on the bus services in the area. Walthamstow-Bakers Arms is bad at peak as it is, this would offer a way to move people off the roads and onto the trains. Hackney would benefit from the new line so reduced main line trains wouldn't be so bad as you'd also have the Overground line which will be increasing trains from what there is now on the central station. The Stanstead to Crossrail isnt a bad idea. This could go Heathrow to Stanstead linking the two airports. Where as Maidenhead to Abbey wood would be the other. I can see them advertised as Airports line and Docks line. Actually the station idea for Leyton Orient is where the safeguarding is. Right underneath the new retail park there. Actually putting it there is likely have a walking interchange with the Central at Leyton, tho I doubt it would be promoted as that. You'd also link the link the the eastern side of the Stratford City site increasing traffic there too. Only problem with the idea of a station there is if its possible with the new Eurostar depot as Im not sure how it affects the track layout there for a decent interchange. Ive not been down that side of Leyton since they built it. Well a main line/Hackney-Chelsea would attract the DLR in that direction. Remember it the DLR was supposed to go there anyway. The original terimus of International extension would have been Temple Mills, where this station would be located. |
|
