I agree that South East London needs better transport, and that Crossrail
isn't it. (I think it's mildly ridiculous that it won't serve Woolwich, for
a start). But I definitely don't think it's TL2000 - if I was living in,
say, Eltham and could choose between two trains per hour to Charing Cross
and two more onto Thameslink, and four to Charing Cross, I'd choose the
latter.* The train services in South East London are appalling, and sending
a few of them to Luton isn't going to change that. What the area needs,
short of an extension of the Bakerloo line, is proper turn-up-and-go metro
services - something that TL2000 is going nowhere near providing.

Which is really an argument for one part of TL2k without the other -
the quadrupling from Met C Jct to Boro Mkt Jct and the London Bridge
station rebuild without silly dual-voltage through routings. The
problem with this is that up to 48tph might be a little much for the 6
platforms at Charing X. The solution might be a nice little bit of
tunnel - either to Victoria or to run as a Chelney style line to
Parson's Green (then Wimbledon to take over the lines to Sutton, Epsom
and Chessington).

The same functionality as TL2k with the added bonus of decongesting
London Bridge a bit would be the construction of an interchange
station in Southwark where the Holborn Line crosses over the SE Main.

*Yes I've just plucked those figures out of the air.

Regardless, you make a good point. Compare the success of
high-frequency metro lines with the mess of branching low-frequency
routes in South London.

Jonn Elledge wrote:
"Gary Jenkins" wrote in message
om...

" It will effectively bring the tube to London's busiest national
rail line

(Liverpool St - Shenfield), provide a new fast link from North Kent to
Docklands, the city and West End, provide a cheap fast route from

Heathrow,

and relieve congestion on the Central, Circle and District lines.



Crossrail may do all these things, but, wherever it crosses the river,
it will be of little ure to most people in South-East London. IMHO
Crossrail should take its place in the queue behind Thameslink 2000
which will allow more trains into Central London from all parts of SE
London including a future link with Crossrail at Farringdon.


I agree that South East London needs better transport, and that Crossrail
isn't it. (I think it's mildly ridiculous that it won't serve Woolwich, for
a start). But I definitely don't think it's TL2000 - if I was living in,
say, Eltham and could choose between two trains per hour to Charing Cross
and two more onto Thameslink, and four to Charing Cross, I'd choose the
latter.* The train services in South East London are appalling, and sending
a few of them to Luton isn't going to change that. What the area needs,
short of an extension of the Bakerloo line, is proper turn-up-and-go metro
services - something that TL2000 is going nowhere near providing.

Jonn

*Yes I've just plucked those figures out of the air.

How about that Jubilee Line extension from North Greenwich...


--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...
I agree that South East London needs better transport, and that
Crossrail
isn't it. (I think it's mildly ridiculous that it won't serve Woolwich,
for
a start). But I definitely don't think it's TL2000 - if I was living in,
say, Eltham and could choose between two trains per hour to Charing
Cross
and two more onto Thameslink, and four to Charing Cross, I'd choose the
latter.* The train services in South East London are appalling, and
sending
a few of them to Luton isn't going to change that. What the area needs,
short of an extension of the Bakerloo line, is proper turn-up-and-go
metro
services - something that TL2000 is going nowhere near providing.

Jonn

*Yes I've just plucked those figures out of the air.

How about that Jubilee Line extension from North Greenwich...


Same problem as Crossrail, to my mind - by coming to the Woolwich line that
far East, you limit the route of any possible extension to pretty much
heading out to Abbey Wood and beyond. Given that the Woolwich line already
has two routes to central London (via Greenwich, and via the Blackheath
tunnel), you'd end up with one suburban route with three different routes
into town - the exact opposite of what makes a useful high-frequency metro
connection.

What any tube extension should do is be able to seperate one route from the
rest of the network. For example, extending teh Bakerloo down the Old Kent
Road to New Cross and Lewisham would allow tube connections to (say) Hayes
and Bromley North, but leave the rest of the network intact. In contrast, if
you take the Jubilee to Thamesmead via Woolwich, you need to double track
the Woolwich line; if you continue it all the way to Dartford you could
avoid this, but then you end up with Greenwich and Deptford cut off.

The upshot of this seems to be that any tubes into North Kent of suburbs
shoudl avoid the Woolwich line like the plague. I'm already at a loss as to
how the post-Crossrail service pattern will look, and what will happen to
the Blackheath tunnel and Greenwich lines.

Jonn

Richard J. wrote:
Aidan Stanger wrote:
Michael Bell wrote:

snip
There a trickle of mentions of Crossrail in the press to
give the impression that the project exists and is going to
happen, but it is pie in the sky because it is not value for
money. So as not to formally abandon the idea, the promoters don't
mention the alternative, the butter, the home comforts. That
money and effort could be much better spent in another way,
obvious every day to travellers in London.

It would be far better to abolish Crossrail Corporation (the #1
enemy of Crossrail) and make Crossrail value for money.

Do you mean Cross london Rail Links Ltd?

That's them.

In what way are CLRL the No.1 enemy of Crossrail?

They push up the cost while making decisions that reduce the financial
benefits. Just look at what they've done to the core section:

* They've insisted that the Canary Wharf branch be part of the core
route. While there is some merit in the idea of a Crossrail branch to
the Docklands area, it should not be a priority because they've just had
the JLE (constructed at vast expense) and because extra connectivity and
capacity could be provided with a boat service (fully under the
travelcard scheme) which would link communities north and south of the
river far better than Crossrail ever could.

* They also insisted on having the Great Eastern branch surface near
Stratford, when a GlobeTown portal (near the canal) would've been much
cheaper.


Those have added billions of pounds to the initial cost, but it gets
worse. They've based their decisions on incorrect assumptions:

* They assumed a line to Dagenham (to link with the Tilbury Line) would
have to be in tunnel until beyond Barking Creek. This was a stupid
assumption because there's plenty of room alongside the DLR (and as DLR
are planning a Dagenham branch, it would make sense for it to be
designed to be upgradable to heavy rail standards, so that Crossrail
could eventually take it over).

* They don't know the difference between suitability and optimality.
They say the trains needed for the busy core section would be unsuitable
for longer distance services because the core section needs high
acceleration and plenty of standing room while the longer services need
high top speed and seats all round. However, in reality this just means
it's suboptimal. If you accept the complications of having to have
longer trains with slightly more expensive motors, the Milton Keynes
route (terminating at Wolverton and giving Virgin Northampton) is still
extremely attractive. Longer distance passengers are generally more
profitable, and as Crossrail stations are so much more convenient than
Euston for many passengers, loadings at Watford Junction would be
balanced (allowing abolition of Virgin's pickup/setdown restrictions at
Watford Junction). Not only would the route into London from Willesden
be more direct, it would free up two tracks East of Willesden, creating
a dedicated freight route from Willesden Junction to Dalston Junction
via Primrose Hill (a grade separated crossover would be required, but
that could easily be provided N of Kings Cross).


I had thought they might improve, as their line 6 (to Kingston) didn't
look too bad. Alas, they have got worse! Take a look at some of their
more recent decisions:

* Their Docklands branch would go under the Thames at Woolwich... but
would fail to stop there! DLR have also decided to go to Woolwich and
instead of saying "STOP! There's no point spending money on your
indirect Woolwich branch because after ours opens, yours will run empty!
Try extending it to Thamesmead instead" they just took the attitude "OK,
you can have Woolwich, we'll run under a busy town center (that's one of
the biggest bus interchanges in SE London) without stopping!"

* After that, they propose that new tracks be constructed (expensively)
alongside the existing tracks all the way to Ebbsfleet. There's no
demand for services to Ebbsfleet from N of the river (where Stratford
will still be a more convenient CTRL railhead) and the benefits of extra
tracks on the North Kent line come nowhere near the cost.

* Things are just as bad at the western end. Instead of running an all
stations, they want to take over the Heathrow Express service. Not only
will a profitable service be lost, the passengers of West London will
gain nothing from Crossrail!

* Some of the trains will run through the Crossrail tunnel and terminate
at Paddington because CLRL can't figure out what to do with them.

* Meanwhile on the Great Eastern branch, they've decided to keep a ten
minute all stations service running into Liverpool Street. They seem to
have forgotten the project's original objectives.

Whom would you get to design and develop the scheme
instead of them?

The leading contender would be London Regional Metro Co.

I agree that South East London needs better transport, and that Crossrail
isn't it. (I think it's mildly ridiculous that it won't serve Woolwich, for
a start). But I definitely don't think it's TL2000 - if I was living in,
say, Eltham and could choose between two trains per hour to Charing Cross
and two more onto Thameslink, and four to Charing Cross, I'd choose the
latter.


But wouldn't TL2000 offer the possibility of four an hour to Charing
Cross plus two on Thameslink?



The train services in South East London are appalling, and sending
a few of them to Luton isn't going to change that. What the area needs,
short of an extension of the Bakerloo line, is proper turn-up-and-go metro
services - something that TL2000 is going nowhere near providing.

Jonn


Personally I think the problem is worst at peaks and extra trains via
TL2000 would help to alleviate overcrowding, although a short term
solution would be longer trains and lengthening platforms where
necessary to accommodate them.

I'm not sure a tube type service off peak is really needed. Moving
from four to six trains an hour, as the Strategic Rail Authority is
currently suggesting, seems to be a lot of investment for
comparatively little benefit. It shouldn't be beyond the wit of most
people to plan their journey to cope with four evenly spaced trains an
hour, at the same times past each hour. If someone does just turn up
on spec then a maximum wait of 15 mins isn't that much worse than one
of ten minutes.


As an alternative to a Bakerloo extension is it feasible to hope for a
Jubilee line branch from North Greenwich in a south-easterly direction
towards Charlton. Eltham and Sidcup? Alternatively this could be a
completely new line going on northwards to Canary Wharf, Mile End and
Hackney and finishing off at Finsbury Park or Tottenham Hale. This
could be delivered either for the 75th Jubilee of Elizabeth II (2027),
the 80th birthday of Charles III (2028) or the 50th birthday of
William V (2032)

"Gary Jenkins" wrote in message
om...

I agree that South East London needs better transport, and that
Crossrail
isn't it. (I think it's mildly ridiculous that it won't serve Woolwich,
for
a start). But I definitely don't think it's TL2000 - if I was living in,
say, Eltham and could choose between two trains per hour to Charing
Cross
and two more onto Thameslink, and four to Charing Cross, I'd choose the
latter.


But wouldn't TL2000 offer the possibility of four an hour to Charing
Cross plus two on Thameslink?

Not without some serious work upgrading the lines. And any suggestions would
no doubt be met with, "What do you need more trains for? You've already got
two to Charing Cross, and two on Thameslink."


I'm not sure a tube type service off peak is really needed. Moving
from four to six trains an hour, as the Strategic Rail Authority is
currently suggesting, seems to be a lot of investment for
comparatively little benefit. It shouldn't be beyond the wit of most
people to plan their journey to cope with four evenly spaced trains an
hour, at the same times past each hour. If someone does just turn up
on spec then a maximum wait of 15 mins isn't that much worse than one
of ten minutes.


I agree that for a lot of suburban routes trains per hour should do it. But
I think it would be better to have 4tph to a single destination - people
don't just want to go to "London", they want to go to Charing Cross, or
Victoria, or London Bridge. If it's 2tph to Charing Cross and another 2tph
to Victoria, that's effectively only a half-hour frequency to my mind.

I think Thameslink would be better providing 4+ trains per hour on a
smaller number of routes, taking them over completely. That way, there's
service predictability - you can turn up and know there'll be a train to
Blackfriars and King's Cross (timetabled) within the next fifteen minutes.

If Thameslink took the Bexleyheath, Swanley and Sutton loop routes over
completely for 4tph each, and then served some longer distance routes less
regularly, I think that'd be a much bigger improvement to services than just
redirecting a random selection of trains to Blackfriars every day.


As an alternative to a Bakerloo extension is it feasible to hope for a
Jubilee line branch from North Greenwich in a south-easterly direction
towards Charlton. Eltham and Sidcup? Alternatively this could be a
completely new line going on northwards to Canary Wharf, Mile End and
Hackney and finishing off at Finsbury Park or Tottenham Hale. This
could be delivered either for the 75th Jubilee of Elizabeth II (2027),
the 80th birthday of Charles III (2028) or the 50th birthday of
William V (2032)

Maybe it's just because I'm a republican (not in the US sense), but I don't
really believe that transport should be planned around royal birthdays... At
any rate, I don't think we'll be seeing any new 'tube lines' in London. I
think Crossrail type takeovers of suburban routes is the best we'll get.

Jonn

Michael Bell wrote:

Both stations could demolished and a new station built at
the crossover, but it might be cheaper and better to link
the existing stations, for example with a rope-hanging cable
car. Tricky but cheap!


A rope-hanging cable-car!?! LOL!!!

Um... this *is* a spoof, right? Right...?

In article , Arthur Figgis
URL:mailto
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 17:13:18 +0930, (Aidan Stanger)
wrote:

Michael Bell wrote:

Guns or butter? Crossrail or cross-connections?

In the run-up to the first world war, Germans were asked to choose
between "Guns or butter", that is, between war and home comforts. They were
asked to choose guns, but at least they were told that they had a choice.
The people of London are now being asked to choose "guns" in the form of the
Crossrail project, without being told that "butter" is also a choice.

A very interesting analogy, but a very inaccurate one! Crossrail is
nothing like "guns" which only brought misery. If small improvements to
London's transport network are butter, Crossrail is pastry!

missing the point

In January 1936 Goebbels said [something in German to the effect of]
"We can do without butter, but, despite all our love of peace, not
without arms. One cannot shoot with butter, but with guns." Later the
same year Goering said "Preparedness makes us powerful. Butter merely
makes us fat".

So it is WWII, not WWI (unless anyone has an earlier cite?). And the
people in charge of 1930s Germany weren't renowned for offering people
much of a choice...

This WAS said in the run-up to WW1. I see nothing unlikely in later
politicians repeating or quoting the slogans of an earlier era.

My point in making this quotation is to make people see that Crossrail is
promoted (at least in the newspapers that we provincials read) as bringing
more business and people to London (and that is unquestionably a good thing?)
when London is already overstuffed with activity and people and if the money
were to be spent on the comfort of the current inhabitants, it might be
much better spent on cross-connections of the type I describe - these are
just the ones that have narked me as I tried to make journeys in London and
I am sure there are many more failures to connect.

Michael Bell

--

"Aidan Stanger" wrote in message
...

Whom would you get to design and develop the scheme
instead of them?

The leading contender would be London Regional Metro Co.

I've been looking at their site, and two words come to mind: "performance
pollution". It'd be wonderful if Crossrail could act as a decent suburban
railway, and also serve longer distance routes; but it'd be an operational
nightmare if a tube frequency service in Ilford or Gidea Park could be
disrupted by a slight delay in Reading or Colchester.

Jonn

Gary Jenkins wrote:

As an alternative to a Bakerloo extension is it feasible to hope for a
Jubilee line branch from North Greenwich in a south-easterly direction
towards Charlton. Eltham and Sidcup?

The problem is the alignment of North Greenwich station means that any
tunnel from there would have to go under the river. However, such a
tunnel could be constructed from W of the station, though the lack of a
step plate junction makes it more difficult.

This would be great for Eltham, as an elongated station (with
travelators instead of escalators) could serve both the station and the
High Street. I'm less sure about Sidcup - the residential density is
lower there, and there are already four bus routes linking it to Eltham.

Alternatively this could be a
completely new line going on northwards to Canary Wharf, Mile End and
Hackney and finishing off at Finsbury Park or Tottenham Hale.

I don't think a line that misses Central London would be worth all that
expensive tunnelling!