On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Angus Bryant wrote:

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
...

I remember one plan postulated when the East-West Rail study was
commissioned a few years ago was to make Goblin the primary
cross-London freight line (with a new junction at Forest Gate and a
new tunnel from Gospel Oak to Primrose Hill)? Its advantages being
that it avoids freight clashing with Crossrail on the GE, and
removes any freight activity from the NLL (and WLL if you route
Channel freight via the CTRL at Dagenham). Any news on that plan?

The East-West study you mention has the more involved idea of a
'freight focused route' [...] and is more explicit, not to mention
ambitious. The tunnel bit is about bypassing the Hampstead Tunnel,
which is clear to W8 gauge, not big enough for heavy cargo.

If a way could be found to 4-track the NLL from Dalston to Stratford, to
avoid conflict with Crossrail 1 at Forest Gate and to avoid conflict
with the ELL/NLL between Camden and Dalston (i.e. ELL/NLL running on the
southern pair Dalston-Canonbury - see Mod Rlys Dec issue - but NLL
towards Hampstead leaving to the north at Camden, therefore requiring
that freight crosses the path of the NLL passenger services), then the
Goblin upgrade and the tunnel to Primrose Hill are unnecessary.

Hang on, how do trains get from Camden to the WCML? Oh, i see! I think
that's called the Primrose Hill branch of the NLL - runs from Camden Road
to South Hampstead (and not used for passenger services at the moment,
AFAICT). Very clever. I love the idea of London's main freight route
running slap bang through the middle of Camden market! I don't know about
how many tracks there are there, but since the SRA plan would have had
their tunnel surfacing around there anyway (and god knows where they were
going to put the portal), there must be enough.

You should write to the ministry with that idea. I'd guess there was some
reason they didn't come up with it themselves, though. Gauge issues?

But cost of 2 flyovers and the 4-tracking would be an issue....

Likely to be cheaper than a new tunnel, though!

They then go on to suggest, for a mere 215 million, a tunnel under the
Thames, so traffic from Kent can get up onto the GOBLin, thus relieving
all the south London lines and the WLL and Hounslow Loop.

Indeed. I wonder how much traffic would be able to use the CTRL and
therefore avoid this tunnel being built (should it get that far of course -
unlikely).

The east-west study says of the proposed tunnel:

"If this is to make use of the route described above[,] the appropriate
location would be close to the proposed Channel Tunnel Rail Link tunnel in
the Dartford area. Although it may be possible to use the CTRL route for
some specialised freight, capacity constraints and gradients would limit
this."

Rather, they suggest that:

"A dedicated tunnel route would connect with the North Kent Lines[,]
giving direct access for freight from the Hoo Junction, Thamesport area.
Re-gauging work and a short new chord in the Maidstone area would be
requires to pick up Channel Tunnel freight."

These guys really need to learn to use commas.

Also, i've just noticed that the East-West study was carried out by the
'shadow strategic rail authority' - what the hell is that? I assume it's
not the Opposition's version of the SRA (which would imply the existence
of shadow versions of the entire civil service, which is far too
frightening to contemplate), and i doubt it's the public transport arm of
MI5, so what it is?

tom

--
Gin makes a man mean; let's booze up and riot!