Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2007 3:03:27 GMT
In the uk.railway forum I kicked off a longish thread about Crossrail services in the west end of London - I think that reversing 14tph at Paddington is phenomenally stupid. The problem is that the routes that Crossrail could easily take over - Old Oak Common-Wycombe and West Ealing-Greenford - are already well served and don't need the extra service.
I once read somewhere that there is occasional agitation for the restoration of passenger services on the Brentford branch. Likewise, there is also the old Staines West branch (which I believe is partially intact). I wonder why there has been no serious interest in studying potential passenger demand for Crossrail on these branches.
I also read once that Hounslow Borough Council once agitated for some type of Crossrail link, which I find to be very intriguing - such a link would delete a significant amount of traffic from the District and Piccadilly lines, releasing valuable capacity for T5 and the Uxbridge branch. Such a link would only require a chord with flying junctions on either end linking the GWML relief lines to the N&SWJR near North Acton, then electrifying the latter south of South Acton Junction to the Kew triangle, where a central reversing siding at Hounslow could be provided to reverse the service. Does anyone know if Hounslow Council is still pursuing this?
Also, I am surprised that no one has brought up the possibility of linking the GWML and the WLL and projecting Crossrail over the latter, in either direction...
|
|
Oracle
In memoriam
RIP 2012
Writing is such sweet sorrow: like heck it is!
Posts: 3,234
|
Post by Oracle on Oct 9, 2007 7:03:10 GMT
The Brentford branch I knew intimately through my membership of the GWRPG and the trips we used to take down the branch...and the occasional cab ride in the Class 47s on the rubbish trains. There is really nowhere for a station to go at the Great West Road end without demoilition, and who would use it? Tourist out-and-back, fine!
The Staines West branch terminates at Colnbrook old station site, and thereafter, south of the old level crossing, its is all overgrown, and then the railway course runs into the M25, the reason for its final closure. Running to Colnbrook might make sense on paper but it's single track, and goes nowhere really.
|
|
|
|
Post by thc on Oct 9, 2007 7:59:51 GMT
To my mind the proposed Airtrack scheme forms an ideal solution for what to do with the extra 10tph or so that terminate at Paddington under current Crossrail proposals. Crossrail services could be extended through Heathrow T5 to Staines and i) Weybridge to connect into the SW main line and/or ii) Reading via Ascot. Option i) would also minimise "performance pollution" on the wider SW network.
As for the question of replacing the current 16tph from Shenfield with 12tph post-Crossrail, is it not the case that all Crossrail services will be 12-car? Given the capacity limitations of the 315s (eight car and not exactly peak-friendly), this seems to suggest a hike in capacity of 12-20% and not the reduction implied.
THC
|
|
|
|
Post by cetacean on Oct 9, 2007 8:52:01 GMT
I think that reversing 14tph at Paddington is phenomenally stupid. The problem is that the routes that Crossrail could easily take over - Old Oak Common-Wycombe and West Ealing-Greenford - are already well served and don't need the extra service. No, what kills them is the expensive electrification work required, and the Greenford branch having no custom to speak of. I'm quite fond of the idea of going to Uxbridge via a link to Hangar Lane junction, but I've never seen its merits discussed. I have a feeling the limited number of trains west of Paddington is deliberate, to allow freight paths between Crossrail trains. At the east end they don't have this problem, because freight runs on the fast lines. |
|
|
|
Post by amershamsi on Oct 9, 2007 9:10:27 GMT
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. I do mean the DLR - where are these maps? There's nothing on the DLR pages of the TFL website, not have I seen anything like that in all the various studies I've read (I can't seem to get the Horizon study). It's a silly extension as it removes a reversing point from the JLE, a station to use in films, the tunnels at Charing Cross aren't big enough, the Jubilee isn't that far to the south taking Docklands passengers to the West End. If you are going to build a line on that corridor, which is a useful line to have, then it ought not turn into light rail at the end - why not, seeing as the current plans have tunnel enlargement anyway, build it as the Fleet line, and take over some of the SErn network south of Lewisham, or the line through Greenwich (and end it at Abbey Wood). Or you could take it north, taking over the Enfield lines. you mean the screw up of assimilating the Docklands-Waterloo line into the Jubilee, serving Westminster and the Dome rather than doing the less politician friendly idea of doing the line as originally planned, removing a major bottleneck off the national rail network.I'm not sure I get you here does it? a quick look on google earth suggests that you can get to St James Street without too much hassle, definitely less than tunnelling. And if you rebuild St James Street, and maybe one other building, or have the DLR form a second level on top of the mainline, you can get to Queens Road with no demolition. Serving those two stations is probably better than Central, which anyway is linked to Queens Road and could easily be given better links as part of the DLR works. Not too much hassle is removing trees, turning embankment/cutting slopes into retaining walls and moving the Chingford lines north by one line, so as to allow the DLR to run just to the south of it.Rainham? where did that idea come from! You have a pre-existing, higher capacity, faster railway going there, able to serve the places between it and Dagenham Dock better (if and when those places appear), by adding a station or two on it.[/quote]and also to look at ways around Catford with the A2 issue.[/quote]you mean the brilliant forward vision that made it that extending the DLR South of Lewisham would mean it would hit the A20but likewise, not the most useful - Walthamstow will have far greater benefitsnot to mention having to change unless you want Docklands, which is yucky and will really pi$$ of the users of that line. DLR takeover of Chingford is worse than rerouting it to StratfordI guess this is talking about the stupid rerouting of the Chingford branch via Stratford. You gave three interchanges that would be possible on the current route, one of which is a definite, rather than a possible (Chelney) and one of which doesn't change (Walthamstow) as it already exists with the Hackney route! It would improve links to the Docklands, and that's it. I don't see how it would help with bus links between Walthamstow and Baker's Arms. A GOBLIN station at Baker's Arms would be a good idea, but a tunnelled link looks futile and very expensive. As for the bus links - the point was that there already ways to do such journeys as created by the rerouting and it to give Lea Valley access to Stratford, it should be the longer-distance routes that get it. Anyway, DLR to Walthamstow would solve the problem of overcrowded buses from that part of the world to Stratford.but the overground line doesn't go where a large number of the people want to - they go one way or another along it and change onto the Central, Jubilee or Victoria lines. Neither Chelney, nor the Overground will take them to the City, hence why you need to keep the frequency to Liverpool Street at it's current level. Between Highbury & Islington and Stratford, the NLL works as a feeder line for the links from there to the West End (and City, to an extent, though Hackney would use the line from there).the Docklands would be happy with that  Crossrail would have to take over the Heathrow Express (though whether clever people will realise that they can have a nearly as quick, one seat ride to the City and abandon the Express, which is expensive and doesn't really go to a good location in Central London) and have the Stansted line take over that (with 2tph terminating at Paddington, or going somewhere else with the 6/8tph from Abbey Wood that has nowhere to go to the west of Paddington at the moment - I've taken off 4 from the 14tph for HEx, and a possible 2 for when Reading comes into play (before 2017)). well, you'd have Leytonstone and Stratford for the interchange with the Central on the lines going through Leyton Orient. I couldn't be bothered to look on the map and see where the route exactly went, hence the comment about catchment areas. I forgot that there was some decent traffic generators there (other than the stadium, though that doesn't count for lots outside of brief times). really, I thought Temple Mills was a bit further south, as it would have been a possible central line interchange. It would have been where the loop line merges back into the Lea Valley Line, about as far north of International as International is from the main station. |
|
|
|
Post by cetacean on Oct 9, 2007 9:21:53 GMT
As for the question of replacing the current 16tph from Shenfield with 12tph post-Crossrail, is it not the case that all Crossrail services will be 12-car? Given the capacity limitations of the 315s (eight car and not exactly peak-friendly), this seems to suggest a hike in capacity of 12-20% and not the reduction implied. 10 car. The underground station caverns will be excavated for 12 cars, but only 10 car platforms will be built inside them. The plan is to keep 6tph Gidea Park to Liverpool St. |
|
|
|
Post by trainopd78 on Oct 9, 2007 10:10:54 GMT
As for the question of replacing the current 16tph from Shenfield with 12tph post-Crossrail, is it not the case that all Crossrail services will be 12-car? Given the capacity limitations of the 315s (eight car and not exactly peak-friendly), this seems to suggest a hike in capacity of 12-20% and not the reduction implied. 10 car. The underground station caverns will be excavated for 12 cars, but only 10 car platforms will be built inside them. The plan is to keep 6tph Gidea Park to Liverpool St. Blimey, that means we'll see guards back. |
|
|
|
Post by amershamsi on Oct 9, 2007 10:12:48 GMT
As for the question of replacing the current 16tph from Shenfield with 12tph post-Crossrail, is it not the case that all Crossrail services will be 12-car? Given the capacity limitations of the 315s (eight car and not exactly peak-friendly), this seems to suggest a hike in capacity of 12-20% and not the reduction implied. then why is the plan to run trains into Liverpool Street from the Electric lines as well as Crossrail? Taking your argument to an extreme, how about running 80 car trains on the Victoria line, once every 20 minutes. Also initially Crossrail will be 10-car - that's the equivalent of 15 8-car trains an hour - a capacity reduction. Don't forget the original plans had two Western branches - the GWML (with Heathrow) and the Chiltern line to Aylesbury, but only one to the East - Shenfield. That would make 18tph from what I remember of the proposed frequencies. Lowering frequency, but lengthening trains isn't the way to run commuter rail - you need to both increase frequency and increase train length. There's a lot of suppressed demand on that line, as it's so crowded that people use different routes (like a bus then District/c2c/Central line train). We'll see in 10 years - if there's no extra trains the line will be as overcrowded in the peak, and even if there are extra trains, it will still be rather full, due to that surpressed demand becoming a bit less surpressed. I haven't even considered the growth and so on that Crossrail would bring, and perhaps people changing the other way - from the LTS/District to Crossrail, as it goes to better places quicker. Old Oak Common-Wycombe <snip>already well served and don't need the extra service. that good old one train per day, the return one not reaching Wycombe  . I think that this is being kept safe for HS2, or if not at the moment, it should be! Otherwise for running Birmingham trains, so as to bypass the 'Chiltern Metro' section. Also Northolt Park, the Sudburys and Wembley Stadium are stations where Ken and TfL want more trains. Diverting Wycombe trains off that line lowers the chances of that happening (though diverting Birmingham trains doesn't).indeed, and seeing as CLRL kept pushing Kingston and Richmond despite opposition from locals and Richmond Council. It was considered "too late" for the Montague Report.does it even need a flying junction at the NLL end? OK, it would be nice, but a flat junction can cope.I don't know, but if not they should be - it's a far better idea than Maidenhead/Reading. Why not 6tph to Watford Junction (via the DC lines from Willesden), 6tph to Heathrow and 6tph to Hounslow (and 6tph from Paddington). The trains ought to be dual voltage, given the Ebbsfleet ambitions. It's also better to have just local inner suburban trains, running a metro type service, or longer distance outer suburban/middle distance trains, rather than a mix. If we can have a mix, which is what having Reading is, why not longer distance trains like Thameslink - Oxford, Colchester, Harwich, Southend, Bedwyn, Milton Keynes and so on? At the moment the Reading locals run fast through London, as the inner service serves those stations. No, what kills them is the expensive electrification work required, why do they have Maidenhead/Reading then - lots of expensive electrification needed for that - about the same as High Wycombe and a lot less than Hounslow/Watford Junction (especially with dual voltage trains).they just don't really know what to do with these extra trains, especially as Chiltern and Richmond councils don't really want them (and they are so narrow minded that they kept on trying to get them there, rather than look at new places - even if, in the case of Hounslow, that place is shouting "we want those trains!"), and also they don't want expensive tunnels to make various links. The service pattern planned for the GWML under Crossrail (if you absorb the Padd-Reading trains and Slough-Reading trains (make them Maidenhead-Reading exensions) is about right - there's demand, but not too much so as to demand more than 12tph - 6tph Heathrow, 6tph Reading. They are also worried about performance pollution (though seeing as they will have to have trains sharing tracks, unless they reach Reading, and likewise as there aren't enough to Shenfield at peaks. As for freight, supposedly Crossrail has a carte blanche to remove trains from out of its way.at the east end they have a different problem - too many places to go and not enough trains to serve them - part of this is to do with the history of the tube, which expanded to the west, but not as much to the east. You have W-S lines and W-centre lines and W-E lines, but few E-S lines (the Victoria counts) and no E-centre lines. Partially this is because the city termini in both the South and East are nice and close in, whereas the NW and W have poorly sited termini. The lines in the S and E don't really penetrate as far out into the suburbs. The West London tube lines have more branches in the West, covering a wider area. |
|
|
|
Post by cetacean on Oct 9, 2007 11:25:14 GMT
Blimey, that means we'll see guards back. Why? |
|
|
|
Post by johnb on Oct 9, 2007 11:32:33 GMT
You have W-S lines and W-centre lines and W-E lines, but few E-S lines (the Victoria counts) and no E-centre lines How are you defining E-centre here? I'd've thought that Stratford to Bank and Barking to Monument were both pretty, err, central (one more literally than t'other...) |
|
|
|
Post by amershamsi on Oct 9, 2007 13:20:22 GMT
E-centre would mean ending in Zone1, otherwise it got counted in W-E (or E-W if you will), however they of course balance out in terms of which side of London has more.
I'm counting N as between A5 and A10, E as between A10 and A2/A20/A21, S as between A2/A20/A21 and A316, W as A316 to A5 and centre as zone 1.
non counters
N-S lines: Northern
E-W lines: Jubillee, Central, H&C, District
centre: Circle, W&C
west, not east
N-W lines: Piccadilly
S-W lines: Bakerloo
centre-W: Met
east, not west
S-E lines: Victoria
E-E lines: ELL
so there's a line less in the East. Then when we look at the scope of those lines.
lines into the west:-
Jub/Met - 3 branches (counting Amersham, Watford and Chesham as one) ending at zones 5, 6, 6+
Pic/Dis - 4 branches ending at zones 6, 6, 4 and 3
Bak - ending at zone 5
H&C - ending at zone 2
Cen - 2 branches ending at zones 6 and 3
lines into the east:-
Jub - ending at zone 3
Cen - 2 branches ending at zone 5 and 6
Dis/H&C - 2 branches (kind of) ending at zones 4 and 6
Vic - ending at zone 3
2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6 - Ave 4.7
....3, 3, 4, 5,.....6, 6............ - Ave 4.5
the lines in East London are more intensly trafficked, and don't branch as much, nor, on average, go out as far.
of course, East London has the ELL, DLR and the Shenfield lines too, but in terms of 'through' lines, there are less, but more heavily trafficked NR lines that can be captured by a Crossrail project. South London has more, of course.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2007 16:24:32 GMT
The DLR to Charing Cross was on the recent TfL 2025 Indicative map. Along with alot of extension to the Trams as well. It shows that TfL expect DLR to be in Dagenham and Central London with 18 years. Tho Im sure the DLR will have ideas to go a few other places by then. I cant find the link to the file but I have it if you'd be interested in it? Its dated June 2007, so its fairly recent. As for the Horizon studies, you wont find them any where as DLR only goes public with the ideas it cherry picks. There a few they havent publicly suggested.
I mean the screw of of planning a line then having to abandon it. A link to Lewisham to central London isnt as pressing tho the need for the Jubilee to go Waterloo was O&Y's idea and they pressed for it. In the end the line does serve alot more useful purpose. It will still be key even when Crossrail appears due to this fact due to the major station south of the river it serves.
The issue of two branches mean less trains are possible than with two. Tho the Paddington reverses kill this theory off anyway.
Do you mean Queens Road station? This has already been identified as a poor interchange for Walthamstow. At the moment the plan is for a covered walkway from there to Central station. As for double decking the line I think there would be alot of locals who wouldnt be interest with a double decked line passing there gardens. Running along side is a good idea that would work. Even Possible to go to Central station with a small station between there and James's Street serving Queen's Street. A worthwhile interchange.
Rainham is seem as a extension of the Dagenham branch. There local support for it and DLR is currently looking into ways to serve past the Dagenham Dock station. And yes the A2 in the way of extending south.
I dont know why Tottenham was choosen but DLR's own research pointed out the idea of Tottenham as an idea to go forward with.
DLR and the Chingford line is never going to work. Shame Morgan never got his way.
The bus links between Stratford and the Bakers Arms are very busy. I have actually done that jounery in awhile in the peaks but Ive had to wait for a 2nd or 3rd bus before I could get on at Stratford. The reason I said those station is for the people whose jounery times would be increased could change at thoses staions for alternate services to where they want to be going.
There is the issue of lines serving Hackney not actually getting to the citybut the question does everyone want to get to the city via Liverpool Street or do they want the Tube? In which case the Hackney-Chelsea will proved more choices from Hackney with less hassle. The idea is that aloth Hackney Downs would suffer less trains, Hackney Central would have better connections.
Why does Crossrail have to take over Heathrow Express? It provides a jounery that Crossrail wont. Its a non stop service. Crossrail is replacing the fairly new Heathrow Connect services which will be stopping at all the station in between Heathrow and Ealing Broadway. But Reading is very much a long term possible addition to the line and requires alot of work at the station to make it possible.
As for traffice generators the Stratford City project means 11,000 new residents not to meantion the new shops etc. This could be an additional access. Look at White City development which is smaller (I think) and have TWO transport interchange points. This could lead the Hackney-Chelsea being apart of the eastern interchange for Stratford City. This would generate traffic for most of the day rather than just a peak service.
The original idea for the DLR's Stratford extension was to continue from the International station to Temple Mills. Your right the station would have been more south than I was thinking. But it doesnt take much to extend this up to the retail park near the A12.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,762
|
Post by Chris M on Oct 9, 2007 16:51:49 GMT
Reading station already requires a lot of work, certainly on its signalling. I've also heard there are proposals to extend the DC electrification to other platforms at the station as well for even more flexibility (something that is currently very much lacking). Given that all this work is being done, it would make sense to carry out work to allow trains (of whatever flavour) to/from Heathrow. I've never used the coach link, but I understand that it gets extremely busy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2007 20:43:53 GMT
Crossrail ought to go to Reading - resignalling will allow this as immunisation costs were touted as a reason not to. (Say 4 tph semi fast as the original scheme had - )
One past idea had it taking over the H&C ! There is a thought ....
|
|
|
|
Post by thc on Oct 9, 2007 20:51:48 GMT
tho the need for the Jubilee to go Waterloo was O&Y's idea and they pressed for it. Splitting hairs, I know, but it wasn't actually their idea. Peter Twelftree of Steer Davies Gleave came up with that one (I was working on his team at the time and was involved in undertaking the demand forecasting). O&Y and Michael Schabas (their transport guru) were firmly behind the Waterloo & Greenwich Railway concept at the time but were persuaded of the alternative when we did a quick canvas of their prospective tenants and all came out in favour of an end-on link to an existing Underground line. The alternative of a diverted Bakerloo was quickly dismissed in favour of the Jubilee extension. All that remained was the issue of routing via CX (as in the Fleet Line stage 2) or Waterloo, and we all know the outcome. THC |
|
|
|
Post by amershamsi on Oct 9, 2007 22:07:42 GMT
The DLR to Charing Cross was on the recent TfL 2025 Indicative map. just found said mapincluding cancelled plans, how interesting!It is in central London, just not the West End. There's far better places for the DLR to go from Bank than rebuilding Bank and using the Fleet alignment - Euston via Kings Cross, or Dalston are two good ideas.linky- pdf but not recent enough to have two tram schemes as at least shelved and unlikely to open in the same form, nor the finallised preferred (and consulted upon) route for the Crystal Palace extension of TramlinkEuston or Dalston, or over the Thames Gateway Bridge, or Barking and so on?they were happy to build a Shuttle to Waterloo. and it wouldn't be a tube line to Lewisham, it would be a tube line to SE London, also allowing high frequency train operations on the SE NR Metro lines, as the bottlenecks and major capacity constraints would have been removed - London Bridge and the Lewisham area. not really, perhaps it is more useful, though the shuttle and the Fleet (or Chelney phase 1) would have been far better - if they hadn't gone for those wonderful big stations, they could have had both. Also O&Y would have put more money into it if they feared that they might not get any link at all, so the London Underground could have had their cake and eaten it.I'm guessing this means the three interchanges south of the River - two of which are major stations? Yes it would be still an important line. Though it does render the DLR extension to Charing Cross fairly silly and never went the best way to Docklands in the first place.I don't quite follow... Do you mean that less trains are possible with just one branch? It's called short turns - as seen at Paddington (in 2017). More trains are possible (with the right signalling) as there's no complexity to the service and the service overall is more reliable. See the Victoria line vs the Northern line.though looking on Google Earth it's not gardens that it will be passing if there's not quite enough room for having it on the same level as the mainline (which isn't really the case, other than at St James St)I'd rather have a decent GOBLIN interchange (Baker's Arms and all) than a Victoria line one. The GOBLIN needs decent interchanges, and I reckon you could get a level one there if you try. With your plan Queen's Road would have to move, or the GOBLIN interchange would be a long walk still!Rainham is a long way out, especially if extended at the London/Stratford station. have the Thames Gateway Transit do it, or put in other mainline station or two if you really must.you've made the same mistake again - it's the A20, not the A2, which is further north, and crossed already at Deptford Bridge. This is why I didn't get you the first time.because it's easy to get to with out much hassle and looks like they are doing something. Still there'll be consultation periods and so on to correct this assumption that it's the best route - there's no point of having a link like that if it just duplicates a route that will see possibly the NLL, and definitely more trains, going along it. Only merit with DLR to Tottenham Hale is to 4 track the Lea Valley with the DLR, but then that would be hideously long way on the DLR for the relatively few passengers that use those stations south of Waltham Cross there.indeed to both points, and for similar, but not quite as conclusive reasons as the first point implies, rerouting Chingford trains via Stratford won't happen either. Walthamstow for the DLR would be a good thing. And yes, it is a shame Morgan never got to build his tubes!hence why you'd want a decent link to the GOBLIN from the DLR at Walthamstow - a rubbish one isn't going to move people away from the buses, and a central line interchange would be more difficultbut not to the city, other than a change at Essex Road, or pushing it, Dalston (or of course, Stratford).but the connections at Hackney Central won't be heading the way to replace the lost trains at Downs.why doesn't it have to be under Crossrail? I really can't imagine Maidenhead trains calling at stations between Airport Junction and Paddington, other than Ealing and Hayes - there's going to be fast services on Crossrail, why not have the HEx as part of it and take that expensive train to somewhere more useful. You'd be mad if you were a businessman/tourist and took it, unless you were going somewhere that wasn't central London (or on the Euston Road), but then only certain places that weren't central London - eg on the Intercity services out of KX, SP and all the trains out of Euston, or the Met and Chiltern lines (perhaps - the Bakerloo from Marylebone would be about the same difficulty of change to both the low-level and ground level stations at Paddington, so it's a bit of "is it worth £x pounds, and perhaps a slightly longer wait for a few minutes and a nicer train?"). The HEx trains can be stated as going to Paddington HEx, and announcements made on the approach to Paddington that this train will become a fast premium cost train and only people with 'zone X' tickets can use it. A ticket to zone X would be more than a ticket to 'zone H' which is the slow train via the Airport Tunnel (Heathrow special fares for using BAA infrastructure).Surely Acton Main Line as well? I can't see the Maidenheads stopping at local stops in London. Only a couple of the Heathrow trains need stop there.the work got Government Authorisation (which answers Chris M's post too) and funding earmarked, so it's pretty much as ready to go ahead as Crossrail. I will be very surprised if Crossrail doesn't open, yes OPEN, on it's first day with trains to Reading - the obstacles that Crossrail didn't want adding to it's large budget will be solved well before 2017. IIRC the plan is to make the terminal platforms on the south side through tracks, and add a couple more platforms both there and on the northern side of the station. The plans aren't on the web though.both far cheaper surface stations that happen to both be near the development, paid for by the developers and near to pre-existing Central Line stations (which is part of the reason why the developers are building there)surely you mean Northern, or NErn? Or is it all quite a way north of Stratford, even the International station.indeed it would, though I can see that it would have to be a Woolwich job, with the developers paying for the Chelney station.indeed it wouldn't and ought to be proposed by the developers. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2007 0:06:14 GMT
Well West London Tram was only canceled last month or so, so after this map was done. Its not we are going to build but what we expect to build. What was the other canceled tram scheme? I tho they've deferred part of the Cross River Transit one north of Euston but want to keep the central and southern sections unless this has been changed.
As for the extension, one that no-ones ever mentioned before into central London is the Farrington one. Possibly using the soon to be disused Thameslink lines. This was on the Horizon study. With possible further links to Kings Cross/Euston. This would be instead of Charing Cross but that is favored for possible West End connections in the future.
I meant that double decking line would not be poplar but running along side could work very well and provide a useful local service that the DLR's good at. St James's Street would require removing a few buildings in the area but the benefits would out weight this I think. Personally I think that this would be a very good idea of getting to Walthamstow actually. I never thought Tottenham Hale was sensible idea. The heavy rail service would be a much better use with possible links to the line around Lea Bridge Road area. with a new station at Bakers Arms on the GOBLIN as well as the DLR to Walthamstow via the Lea Valley really would work.
Looking at Google maps on the area it doesn't look like it would be too much of a change to take the line under Leyton station to provide a better interchange with Stratford City but I'm not sure if its possible to build there with it being outside of the safeguarding and under the development now taking place.
Yes the Woolwich station has set the scene for developers to actually provide for services rather than just make money off public spending which should be welcomed. Well it might take abit of effort to get the developer to cough up but it would be worthwhile. Yes it would been an north eastern interchange. I thought the city project was going to go alot close to the A12 that it seems it is from what I can see on the net.
The Fleet line was looked at going via Lewisham and then maybe onwards over a rail line like the Central's Loop. I think it might have been better to go past Waterloo to Victoria with a Docks line and east of North Greenwich to Thamesmead with the Jubilee/Fleet providing interchange at Surrey Docks. That way City Airport could have had a link when it was first build. Maybe linking Fleet/Jubilee to a Bakerloo extension would help south London's transport links but thats another story.
Speaking of Lewisham I dont know the name of the road I just thought it was the A2 (might be because I actually live on the A2 bit out of London!).
Morgan's group really did address a need that we are still trying to fix today. Hopefully the Hackney-Chelsea can atleast address some of this.
The Hex service is paid for by BAA and they want to keep it as well as Crossrail. They see a direct non stop service to London as very important where as Crossrail is a feeder. I doubt They'd be happy with Crossrail taking over HEx to turn it into a slow service, a la Gatwick. The problem with Paddington Hex is the tourists who could use it wouldn't realize or you'd have them all stepping off then seeing the indicator and jumping back on when they see Heathrow on the platform indicators. And they would realize the ticket tickets. Dwell times would be hit.
But wasn't Reading dropped for cost reasons? It does make more sense to use Reading as its a more important station. Personally Id love to see you right with Reading part of Crossrail the day it opens.
|
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Oct 10, 2007 2:00:32 GMT
I was involved with Crossrail planning in 1990. I wondered when it was going to get built! I spent two years on the CrossRail project circa 1992 as an enabling works surveyor. I surveyed the LU side of Paddington, Liverpool St., Moorgate, Barbican, Farringdon and Tottenham Court Road in preparation for the diversion of signals, comms, HV, HVAC and Electrical assets and services. The project was shelved on the day I was to begin the last of the LU surveys at Bond Street. I thought CrossRail was dead in the water after all these years of dithering! Brian |
|
|
|
Post by amershamsi on Oct 10, 2007 14:29:12 GMT
Well West London Tram was only canceled last month or so, so after this map was done. Its not we are going to build but what we expect to build. What was the other canceled tram scheme? I tho they've deferred part of the Cross River Transit one north of Euston but want to keep the central and southern sections unless this has been changed. I'm fairly sure that it was north of the Thames, not just north of Euston that got the WLT shelf-where-it's-hard-to-find-again treatment and in the meantime, the southern bit has been shelved in the "we will need that again" section. My point was that while it's fairly recent, it has a lot of stuff on there that has had more recent developments. Thames Gateway Transit was completely different on the London Papers' map (see other Crossrail thread). Likewise we learnt in the past day or so that ELLX phase 2 and various tram schemes are having their funding transferred to Crossrail, and that the Isle of Dogs branch of Crossrail may not open until 2020 (though that doesn't change the map). reasonably sound plan, coupled with an extension a very good plan.there's a gradient that I'd like to see. It would also be hard to extend - it's very unlikely not to use this.there's possibly the best place for an extension - it's somewhere not that well connected to the Docklands, even post Crossrail and is a major hub.dare I suggest that as Docklands will have 2 West End connections, it really doesn't need a third! In my view, there are only two worthwhile places to extend the DLR to - KXSP/Eus and Dalston. Dalston would take up the spare bit of alignment on the ELL, and give a route from Dalston, Hoxton and Haggerston to zone 1, and much better interchange for central London. This would mean only a minor rebuilt of Bank, and a short tunnel, about the length of the current Bank one. Euston would be something like Bank, maybe Moorgate/Barbican (station linking to both stations - Moorgate itself would make heading to Farringdon hard, and you ought to serve it. The line would be very deep there anyway, so long escalators would be used), Farringdon, Chancery Lane, Russell Square and a station under the British Library with travelator links to both Euston and KXSP (and at the same time forming a travelator link between the two stations, which needs to be done). The alternate route is along the Circle line's route, adding a station to the circle line (as it's cheaper) at Mount Pleasant and having the DLR as the main route into the City from KingsX/Euston (which would make it very busy) so Euston-Kings Cross-Farringdon-Bank. I prefer the first one, as it provides the link, but doesn't make it too tempting, due to stops, going out of the way to get there, so won't draw everyone away from their pre-existing routes.thanks!though Imperial Wharf and Shepherds Bush and Wood Lane are similar, though not as expensive, things (Shepherds Bush is having some problems - 18 inches too short for safety requirements, and it'll cost 7mill to fix it!). Of course, Crossrail and the JLE had this, with various private companies putting money towards the line. yes, that would have been the way forward. Have Hammersmith - Olympia - HSK - Knightsbridge - Victoria - Westminster - Waterloo - Southwark - London Bridge - Bermondsey - Canada Water - Canary Wharf - North Greenwich then split to Stratford and Woolwich for the Docks line, then Green Park - Bond Street - Charing Cross - Aldwych - Blackfriars/City Thameslink - Cannon Street/Bank - Fenchurch Street - Canada Water - Surrey Quays - New Cross-St Johns-Lewisham and then over NR to Hayes and Bromley North (and then having it so that very few trains crossed over each other at Lewisham, maybe by having the Victoria trains go only via Sidcup, and no trains go Sidcup-Lewisham-London Bridge, thus removing the bottleneck, and allowing higher frequencies on the SE Metro lines) for the Fleet.rather than the Walworth Road, go Bricklayers Arms, you mean? not as good as the Fleet, really, due to not serving the City, not to mention that Bricklayers Arms is built on now. Peckham is the best place for the Bakerloo.I never said anything about turning it into a slow service, I talked about turning it into a useful service post-Crossrail. I believe Ken is to have a serious chat with BAA about HEx's future once Crossrail is built.true, it would better without the premium of fast trains (like Stansted), but if HEx stays, it's unlikely that the premium would go.Yes - Crossrail didn't want to pick up the bill for the improvements to layout and signalling (changing it so that the signal area doesn't change at Maidenhead), but as that bill has been picked up, and the signalling problems will be long gone, it's simply the case of finding some money for the wires - not building the reversing sidings at Maidenhead would help. If it was the cost of wires, then Maidenhead would have been dropped too.not to mention the peak flow towards Reading, or the problem of performance pollution (something the Montague report seems to hate, yet ignores things like the extra Gidea Park-Liverpool Street, and Paddington/Slough-Reading trains) due to having to have Paddington-Reading stoppers, and a Slough-Reading shuttle (stopping) to serve Twyford and the Reading commute. |
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Oct 10, 2007 14:51:18 GMT
Without wishing to offend anyone I think amershamsi and mackenzieblu remind me of UK transport planners in general, just as successive governments seem to spend hours discussing details and having endless enquiries for it all to come to nowt.
Am I the only one that believes in making a plan, sticking to it and then funding it? CrossRail seems to have been rehashed endlessly and I won't be surprised if the final route looks nothing like the original and if the original purpose is lost by the time it is completed if indeed it ever is and letting Uncle Ken get anywhere near it is a big mistake as London council tax payers should already know.
There is far too much red tape, too many committees, too much politics, too much consultation and as ever too many promises, not enough funding and no guarantees!
Brian
|
|
|
|
Post by johnb on Oct 10, 2007 15:12:36 GMT
Am I the only one that believes in making a plan, sticking to it and then funding it? CrossRail seems to have been rehashed endlessly and I won't be surprised if the final route looks nothing like the original and if the original purpose is lost by the time it is completed if indeed it ever is Well, I bet you £15bn it's completed by 2018 at the absolute latest, with the core tunnel exactly as planned today (not quite so sure about Custom House -> Abbey Wood. XR either needs to run Reading -> Ebbsfleet or it might as well terminate at Custom House). Why not actually take a look at your next council tax bill, rather than parroting Evening Standard rants? Above-inflation increases are *entirely* down to local councils, with the Mayor's contribution making up a tiny and not-fast-growing proportion. Ken might be a newt-loving leftie loon, but *everything* he has done under the current administration has been to London's benefit. Apart from all the funding and all the guarantees, you mean? |
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Oct 10, 2007 15:33:07 GMT
Am I the only one that believes in making a plan, sticking to it and then funding it? CrossRail seems to have been rehashed endlessly and I won't be surprised if the final route looks nothing like the original and if the original purpose is lost by the time it is completed if indeed it ever is Well, I bet you £15bn it's completed by 2018 at the absolute latest, with the core tunnel exactly as planned today (not quite so sure about Custom House -> Abbey Wood. XR either needs to run Reading -> Ebbsfleet or it might as well terminate at Custom House). Why not actually take a look at your next council tax bill, rather than parroting Evening Standard rants? Above-inflation increases are *entirely* down to local councils, with the Mayor's contribution making up a tiny and not-fast-growing proportion. Ken might be a newt-loving leftie loon, but *everything* he has done under the current administration has been to London's benefit. Apart from all the funding and all the guarantees, you mean? I don't have to put up with Uncle Ken anymore and my council tax bills are much better 150 miles from London! He is not the messiah that many think him to be and on a personal level I would have worse to say about him. I don't read the Evening Standard or any of the other comics printed for the masses, nor am I hypnotised by media hype. I have a mind of my own and opinions of my own based upon more than 50 years living in London and 35 years working there. FYI what the councils do is largely dictated by government action and the current wunch have fuelled and continue to fuel the inflationary pressures which force rises in council tax. In my opinion there should never be a need for above inflation rises for public services but this is not the forum to discuss such issues. You will find that Uncle Ken has used this tactic frequently though he is not the only one as the Police think they have a mandate to do the same as well. It is a trend and it will get worse, just wait for green taxes which are in reality nothing more than beeper sentex! Brian |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2007 16:41:43 GMT
Do you mean the Cross River Transit rather than the West London Transit as the latter was an Uxbridge to Shepherd's Bush where as the Cross River was Camden/King's Cross to Peckham/Brixton via Holborn? As for the Tramlink, theres alot of ideas where they want to go but lot alot of work on how to get there. Tho a extension by extension approach is best, look what happened to Metrolink's Big Bank idea. Its taken them seven years or so to sort the mess out and they still are unlikely to get all what they wanted
The East London Transit and Greenwich Waterfront Transit are now just going to be bus routes under that name, i.e. ELT1, ELT2 etc so its likely that the routes will vary week form week even when its and running with bendy buses (as is the plan).
As for Crossrail eating up everything Else's funding, well Ive not heard that but I'm not surprised. Its a big project thats gonna eat up alot of resources in London, not to mention draining staff of other projects such as the Olympics. Which is why I thought they said they wouldn't start till after the games?
As for the DLR proposed extensions, the west one is either going to be Charing Cross or Farringdon/Euston. There is a need to provide something around King's Cross/Euston area as they are close but a low level (if possible) travelator might be an cheaper answer. Maybe linking Euston Square station too? As for the gradient, well I'm sure now the ideas been put forward to go there it will be the engineers that look at it closely and see if Thameslink will used for it or maybe it would be better for LUL to reuse? I agree that DLR to Kings Cross is providing a link there is not other plan for a link to the Docklands. Looking at it on the map, going via Chancery Lane takes to pretty close to Farringdon as it is. Tho Moorgate might need a curve either side but look at the Woolwich extension where it curves back on itself. This could be similar to Moorgate but much less of a turn overall.
Shepherd's Bush station platform error seems silly. Can it really cost £7m to put 36 inches (both sides) of platforms on a station? Thats £194K per inch.
As for the Bakerloo, if it had been extended to Lewisham via Peckham you'd have the link there with the Fleet/Jubilee. Then the Fleet and Bakerloo could have had one branch each (Hayes & Bromley North), but a short link from Bromley North to Bromley south would be in order and make for a much better interchange.
As for when Crossrail's build, do you still expect Ken to be around as mayor? Or just generally the Mayor chat to BAA? As for turning HEx into a slow service, I thought the idea that Crossrail was to provide an all stations service and leave the express & semi stopping to other operators? Agree that finding the money for Reading would be useful but I wonder who would pay for it?I doubt NR would unless they put wires up on the western lines. Its a shame there are afraid of "performance pollution" so much they dropped Ebbsfleet to Crossrail. This would have provide alot of interchange options for those living in Kent. Instead to use Crossrail most people from Kent will have to travel to Stratford to use it increasing the pressure on both the International and Regional stations and any links between them (ie DLR, buses).
As for why don't we built it as first planned, theres alot of money involved in this and its taken this long to agree on the costs and get those who can make the decision to say yes. Adding the link to the Isle Of Dogs has helped Crossrail. Canary Wharf provided a sizable sum as did the city which wants a Link to the Wharf.
|
|
|
|
Post by amershamsi on Oct 10, 2007 17:03:04 GMT
Am I the only one that believes in making a plan, sticking to it and then funding it? The people at Crossrail do - most of the problems stem from people having plans and sticking to them: - the lack of Western branches as they kept looking at the same ones again to see if the "no" response had turned to yes (Kingston, Amersham).
- the weird thing of Maidenhead - so set were they on getting to Reading, that they changed the scope of the whole scheme to not be a metro line for London, but a major railway.
- being set upon serving Shenfield, when Chelney would be so much better for that line, especially with Crossrail serving the Docklands as well. Likewise the mainline gauge, which isn't necessary - S stock size would be fine.
- so set were they on self-containedness that Ebbsfleet is off the agenda.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2007 9:36:45 GMT
I have to agree that reversing 14tph at Paddington is a total waste, and shows that Crossrail is not designed to cut congestion, but to allow Canary Wharfer's to get to their Friday night flight out of Heathrow easier.
As I've mentioned before Crossrail 2/Chelney could have been built to reduce the congestion on the two most overcrowded tube lines (Central & Victoria), whilst Crossrail just relieves one (Central). But, oh dear, it doesn't go near the financial sectors of the city, so there goes any funding for Chelney!
One Crossrail western option that has been mentioned before is for it to take over the Hammersmith & City Line west of Paddington. If this was done it would allow for better use of 14tph that will terminate at Paddington. The existing tph could be run on the SSLs with the existing Wimbleware and H&Cs services being combined and running Wimbledon-Barking, and the Circle staying as it is. It would remove a flat junction from the SSLs (Praed Street), but also remove a potential alternative reversing point and depot (Hammersmith). The stations on the H&C would have to be rebuilt, and possibly combined or relocated due to the increased train length.
On the subject of self-containedness (i.e not running to Ebbsfleet, or Reading). I have to agree with the current planners on trying to keep Crossrail self-contained. Now if the British rail system could be run with Japanese punctuality, then it wouldn't be a problem. But given the poor British punctuality, any delays on one suburban rail network would cause knock on delays to Crossrail, which in turn would cause knock on delays to the suburban networks on the other side of London. So keeping things self contained is probably better.
|
|
|
|
Post by cetacean on Oct 11, 2007 10:16:51 GMT
I have to agree that reversing 14tph at Paddington is a total waste, and shows that Crossrail is not designed to cut congestion, but to allow Canary Wharfer's to get to their Friday night flight out of Heathrow easier. Sorry, don't get this logic at all. 10 tph west of Paddington is still a huge amount given the capacity of the trains, as is the 24 tph east of there. Er, Jubilee? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2007 10:53:46 GMT
The Jubilee is only presently overcrowded due the poor signalling system. Once the tph is increased in a few years, it will have spare capacity. Tube Line's claim that the lines capacity will be increased by 45% (from pre7 car project). Even with the present 24tph, the Jubilee (to Canary Wharf) is far from being the most overcrowded part of the tube network. Central Line (Leytonstone - City), Victoria Line (Vauxhall-Highbury), Northern Line (Clapham's - Stockwell) are far more overcrowded, and in much more need for relief! In fact the busiest part of the Jubilee Line is Finchley Rd - Baker Street - I don't see Crossrail going there! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2007 11:10:37 GMT
From www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23415950-details/CrossUnder the deal struck with the Government, TfL will bear the risk of building Crossrail. Mr Livingstone said he expected to have an "intense debate" with BAA about the possible integration of the Heathrow Express into the line. See that's good news. That'd mean another 4 trains per hour to Heathrow, serving all the Heathrow Terminals, and less trains terminating at Paddington! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2007 11:13:53 GMT
Sorry, don't get this logic at all. 10 tph west of Paddington is still a huge amount given the capacity of the trains, as is the 24 tph east of there. £16bn for a cross London line which is only really needed at one end. I don't see the logic behind that! |
|
|
|
Post by DrOne on Jan 6, 2008 15:22:52 GMT
Everyone is right - crossrail has turned into an ugly beast with four very awkward-looking arms. It's trying to match outer suburban services from the west with metro trains from the east while serving major traffic generators of Heathrow and Canary Wharf. The central tunnel is great but how about a western route that looks like this. Extend Central line to Hayes & Harlington in tunnel and allow it to take over all stops up to that point. Continue crossrail over 'slow' GWML from Paddington as planned but have the following service pattern: - Paddington - Hayes & Harlington - Heathrow (12/14tph)
- Paddington - Hayes & Harlington - West Drayton, Iver, Langley, Slough, Burnham, Taplow, Maidenhead, Twyford, Reading (12/10tph)
- Greenford - Ealing Broadway could be converted to tram?
Satisfying the demand for a frequent Heathrow Express, and provides a decent outer suburban to Reading relieved and simplified by an extended central line. Feasible? Sorry for re-hashing an old thread. |
|
Crossrail would have to take over the Heathrow Express (though whether clever people will realise that they can have a nearly as quick, one seat ride to the City and abandon the Express, which is expensive and doesn't really go to a good location in Central London) and have the Stansted line take over that (with 2tph terminating at Paddington, or going somewhere else with the 6/8tph from Abbey Wood that has nowhere to go to the west of Paddington at the moment - I've taken off 4 from the 14tph for HEx, and a possible 2 for when Reading comes into play (before 2017)).
. I think that this is being kept safe for HS2, or if not at the moment, it should be! Otherwise for running Birmingham trains, so as to bypass the 'Chiltern Metro' section. Also Northolt Park, the Sudburys and Wembley Stadium are stations where Ken and TfL want more trains. Diverting Wycombe trains off that line lowers the chances of that happening (though diverting Birmingham trains doesn't).
