Chelsea-Hackney line (Crossrail 2)

Why couldn't Piccadilly Circus accommodate mainline trains?

Im not 100% sure why Piccadilly Circus can only be a station on the line if it is built to tube standards i think it is do do with the amount of space within the station... but apart from that im not 100% sure.

I'm guessing he was referring to the design standards and/or signalling/headway standards of a tube (metro) line as opposed to a suburban NR line rather than the tunnel diameter.

I did once do the calculations for running via Earls Court (above ground to West Brompton) so you can get rid of the whole branch. I can't remember the exact number, but it adds a negligible distance to the length of the tunnel.

NOOO.

If money was actually invested into the line it could be a turning point for the tube. I mean the jubilee line extension proved how good a tube line can be if money is invested into it. Yes tube trains are smaller but you dont hit your head on celling. London Underground could design new trains to actually be nice but again its money. Im sorry people say the tube is not nice because its hot and cramped well yes of course it is any underground line would be unless there was air conditioning. Apart from things the tube cant control such as the heat, the tube is much better run , cheaper, easier to use than any National rail service in my opinion.

Your last point contradicts your first... If it wasn't an extension of the Jubilee line then it probably wouldn't have existed.

And it's not at full capacity, since it has rubbish signalling at present.

I'm glad someone likes us! But the size of the trains is irrelevant to the quality of the service - SSR trains are the same size as mainline trains, so it still makes sense to have full size tunnels if possible.

Yes quite often, its the same a most of the tube lines in the peak. The other thing if it was built to tube standards money could be invested into other things such as more stations where necessary as there would be a massive gap between Parsons Green and Chelsea also in other places such as between Homerton and Leytonstone. The platforms should be built so it can accommodate 12 car trains.

When Crossrail is built and running it will run at full capacity eventually then everyone will find faults with it.

The jubilee line is not at full capasity yet at all. Once it switches to ATO the service would be much increased and therefore more trains per hour and therefore more capacity.

Also Crossrail has not been built to help the jubilee line extension, yes it will provide congestion relive but thats it.

To be honest I think the current alignment might be scrapped anyway.

Sorry, but that is a bit of a "trainspotter lacking reality" comment!

The Jubilee Line was the second most expensive metro per km ever constructed, yet thanks to restrictive signalling is already packed to capacity. It was only built to tube profile due to it being an extension. By the way, the most expensive metro per km, the Oedo Line in Tokyo was also small profile!

Smaller profile tunnels and in particular shorter platforms are generally cheaper to construct than large profile (NR), however smaller profile trains cannot hold as many passengers. High train throughput (30tph+) is possible for both loading gauges if the line has good signalling and is self contained. However if the line is not self contained, and has to conform to NR signalling standards then the train throughput will be lower (circa 24tph).

I think favouring small profile and self-contained lines is 'tunnel vision' as far as the big transport picture is concerned. It's fine for pure metro systems, but not everyone's journey begins or ends in Central London; the tube also fulfils another function - to form part of a longer journey. Currently cross London journeys are mostly a nightmare, particularly for anyone with luggage. However the problem seems to me to be that Crossrail has drifted in scope.

Thameslink not only gets people from further away into more parts of the city without interchange, it gets people right through to the other side. If you take the longer distance journeys out of the tube and onto longer distance through routes you gain capacity not only in the trains, but also in the interchanges and termini. Plus many London NR routes are constrained not by track capacity but by terminal capacity.

The main problem I see with Crossrail 1 is that the project has been too preoccupied with being self contained at the expense of the greater benefits we've already seen on Thameslink. The core route should have been Colchester to Reading as a minimum, Ebbsfleet or beyond on the south east branch, and maybe High Wycombe or Milton Keynes to the North West - giving a proper destination for all those Paddington terminators.

I find the argument about people clogging up platforms waiting longer for a train to their destination somewhat spurious - the platforms are huge anyway, but if you need to, spend the money on bigger platforms and you don't need all that interchange capacity at Paddington or Liverpool Street just so people can pile off one train and onto another going in the same direction!

IMO Crossrail 2 is a disappointment with an Epping terminus. It needs to connect onward to the main line at Chelmsford, and/or have a link through to Stansted, otherwise what is the point in converting miles of central line to a new loading gauge, other than a slightly quicker journey for a few Epping folk? I can't remember if there were any definite service plans at the other end but I'd say Basingstoke and Guildford as a minimum. Perhaps Gatwick too. I'd also favour a plan that provided an interchange at Clapham, rather than using the wimbledon route.

As originally conceived, a regional through route, the NR gauge is essential for both projects, but as they've become scaled back to more limited routes it is hard to see what the point of the NR gauge is, other than greater capacity. On Crossrail 2 in particular, if it can't connect Chelmsford and Stansted to Guildford and Gatwick, and it's just going to join the Wimbledon branch to the Epping branch, maybe it should be a tube line.

All this said, I'm pleased to support Crossrail in its current form as the only major transport project likely to happen anytime soon. Apart from anything else it's much better than money spent bailing out more banks.

I apologise for such a long winded post before!

I understand the 'performance pollution' argument. However to me, it negates most of the benefit of having an NR profile line in the first place. In the case of Chelsea to Hackney, it's very hard to see how a mainline profile could be justified unless the line connects into mainline services.

Finally, if 'performance pollution' is such a problem, how does Thameslink manage to function most of the time? Isn't it so very British to essentially accept poor performance to the extent that your flagship project is designed around it? They wouldn't be impressed in Tokyo!

Why restrict to NR gauge. To deliver the most bang for the buck the logical thing would be to adopt Chinese type A metro trains , or possibly go to 3.2m wide like HK and Singapore . NR gauge is a rather narrow minded approach IMHO.

One debate about Crossrail is whether it should be a suburban stopper or a semi-fast/fast regional express with a more strategic cross-country role.

The current set-up is an extremely expensive way of enabling people to have a one-seat ride from Ilford to Southall, and the claim that it is essential for London's prosperity is bizarre. Why does the future of London depend on giving a handful of east/west destinations a one-seat ride to Central London. Or depend on relieving the Central Line for that matter? Why Shenfield not Enfield? Of course, there is the one seat ride from the City to Heathrow. But that's the problem. Years of planning by career bureaucrats has resulted in something hopelessly confused and politicised. The rest of us become impatient, "just build the damn thing", but not because its necessarily the best way to spend £20 billion, but because until it gets built, nothing else will get built

So what is the best use for a Cross-London tunnel? My argument has always been that a longer distance service to regional railheads around Britain is better because there are a lot more people who want to travel from Norwich to Bristol (and their hinterland), peak and off-peak, than Brentwood to Maidenhead, and this long-distance option is the sort of journey where the train fails badly because of those blasted 18th century rail terminals in London, and people drive or fly instead.

Compare with Thameslink, which is functioning very well as a regional semi-fast service, well beyond the boundaries of London. The Sutton Loop is really there as an afterthought, no one else wanted it, and the Midland stations in North London are relatively sparse. The core service is Brighton to Bedford, but that's because that is where the wires stop. Were it not for privatisation, the wires would very likely have been progressively extended, and then you would have seen Brighton to Nottingham services as well. With Thameslink 2000, it will be interesting to see which of the proposed services prosper and which services fade away.

Well, then why pick one of the least important commuter railheads in London? Apart from Marylebone, is there any other terminus than Paddington that brings fewer commuters into London? Go from Liverpool Street to Waterloo and Heathrow instead.

This is precisely my point, too many blind assertions and assumptions about the importance of Crossrail descend into hopeless confusion if they are prodded in any way.

Last time I looked, stations beyond Shenfield (Southend, Colchester, Ipswich, Norwich) etc. were bringing in more people into London than London to Shenfield. The problem here is the peak load problem. Spending £20 billion on something that is going to be useful for two hours a day doesn't make any sense, and if all we need is a Stratford to Heathrow shuttle (which I dispute) then what is going on spending all those millions on extra trains and upgrading the extra bits. Whatever the solution, it should prove to be useful 24 hours a day, not 4.

This is beginning to sound distinctly cultish, either people understand and worship Crossrail, or they are inferior beings in some way. Crossrail supporters: the Scientologists of the railway world.