"Angus Bryant" wrote in message
...
"David Fairthorne" wrote in message
.rogers.com...

(snip)

Any mention of Crossrail 2 (or even 1) makes me wonder where the funds
are
coming from, but why not "save" money by building a single Crossrail
designed to combine the most important benefits of Crossrails 1 and 2.

You could combine the east part of Crossrail 1 with the southwest part
of
your line, by means of a core connection between Liverpool Street and
Waterloo. That would relieve the most crowded (eastern) part of Central
line, the main Liverpool Street suburban line, and the main Waterloo
suburban line.

Core stations (most double ended) would be at Waterloo, Temple, Holborn,
Farringdon and Liverpool Street.

There would be interchanges with all existing underground lines except
East
London and Docklands.

You could run full-sized dual-powered trains, as on Thameslink.

This was one of the route options in the East-West study for Crossrail.
The
central route would be Clapham Jn - Victoria - TCR - Farringdon - Liv St.


http://www.sra.gov.uk/publications/g...other2001_05_0
3eastwest.pdf

p.14 gives the discussion between the three Crossrail options
(Paddington -
Liv St, Wimbledon - Liv St, Wimbledon - Hackney) and why they chose the
first and last of those three (see below). p. 29 gives the maps of the
routes.

The Paddington to Liverpool Street options:
. have the highest proportion of travellers that will
benefit from fewer interchanges;
. are likely to generate the least short term disruption
to established passenger travel patterns;
. the Regional Metro is best at supporting
regeneration given its penetration of West London;
. can be brought into operation more quickly and
with least risk.

The Wimbledon to Liverpool Street options:
. do most to reduce Central London interchange;
. have the greatest impact on road traffic congestion
relief;
. offer a better balance of impacts on passengers once
construction is complete;
. would not provide full relief of congestion;
. would prevent the subsequent construction
of either of the other two routes.

The Wimbledon to Hackney options:
. are best at reducing overcrowding on the network;
. would generate a significant volume of interchange
at Tottenham Court Road, principally onto the
Central line. This would require the capacity of
both the Central line and the station to be
examined to ensure they could cope both safely and
with adequate passenger comfort.

In the light of the assessment it is our
recommendation that the Paddington to Liverpool
Street Regional Metro should progress to the project
definition stage and should form the backbone of the
20 year programme. The reasons for selecting this
option are as follows:
. provides significant relief to overcrowding in
Central London and on the Great Western and
Great Eastern Main lines;
. provides direct access from the West to the West
End and the City;
. provides direct access from the East to the West
End;
. assists the regeneration of West London eg Park
Royal, Wembley and Paddington Basin and the
Thames Gateway. It also seems likely to do more to
reduce social exclusion on both sides of Central
London;
. the infrastructure uses a similar alignment to a
safeguarded route that should provide a lower level
of risk than the other options;
. causes the least disruption to existing travellers;
. supports the creation of Hubs at Ealing Broadway
and Stratford;
. allows the subsequent construction of a South West
- North East scheme such as options 5 and 6;
. the likely programme to the opening of the scheme
will be shorter than the other options given the
preparatory work that has already been undertaken
by London Underground.

Angus



Thanks for the information and the link, Angus. That's very interesting.

It's amazing how much costs have inflated during the past three years. I
wonder if benefits have inflated in proportion to costs. Perhaps it's time
they reworked the calculations leading to "the strategic choice".

So Wimbledon - Liverpool Street offered the greatest benefits of the three
routes, including the best impact on rail passengers, but they chose
Paddington - Liverpool Street instead because it was cheaper.

If only one route were to be built, there would have been a good case for
Wimbledon - Liverpool Street. It had the highest net present value (NPV), as
opposed to the highest benefit/cost ratio.

From Wimbledon to Liverpool Street, the route via Victoria does have
advantages over the route via Waterloo.
1. It goes via Bond Street, Tottenham Court Road and Farringdon, right
through the centre. [p.11]
2. It relieves the Victoria line in addition to the Central line and the SW
and NE suburban lines.
3. It avoids the problem of the portal to a viaduct, although it's longer,
having a portal at Raynes Park.
It doesn't go to Waterloo, but most passengers only go through Waterloo on
their way to other places.

I don't know why they had to go so far as Raynes Park for the SW portal.

"David Fairthorne" wrote in message
ogers.com...

It's amazing how much costs have inflated during the past three years. I
wonder if benefits have inflated in proportion to costs. Perhaps it's time
they reworked the calculations leading to "the strategic choice".

So Wimbledon - Liverpool Street offered the greatest benefits of the three
routes, including the best impact on rail passengers, but they chose
Paddington - Liverpool Street instead because it was cheaper.

Yes, but also because it left the option open to build the Wimbledon -
Hackney route at a later date, which the Wimbledon - Liv St route buggered
up. And also because I get the feeling there's the political importance of
getting Heathrow connected to the City. I can understand why they chose the
original Crossrail route as the one to go for first. Having said that, the
speed at which that's progressing makes the case for Wimbledon - Liv St that
bit more tempting.

If only one route were to be built, there would have been a good case for
Wimbledon - Liverpool Street. It had the highest net present value (NPV),
as
opposed to the highest benefit/cost ratio.

From Wimbledon to Liverpool Street, the route via Victoria does have
advantages over the route via Waterloo.
1. It goes via Bond Street, Tottenham Court Road and Farringdon, right
through the centre. [p.11]
2. It relieves the Victoria line in addition to the Central line and the
SW
and NE suburban lines.
3. It avoids the problem of the portal to a viaduct, although it's longer,
having a portal at Raynes Park.
It doesn't go to Waterloo, but most passengers only go through Waterloo on
their way to other places.

I don't know why they had to go so far as Raynes Park for the SW portal.

Was it simply because it added extra capacity to the SWML in the most
congested bit...?

Angus

I'm getting feelings of deja vu - isn't this a rehash of North-South
CrossRail from the 1989 Central London Rail Study?


Rob.
--
rob at robertwoolley dot co dot uk

"Robert Woolley" wrote in message
...
I'm getting feelings of deja vu - isn't this a rehash of North-South
CrossRail from the 1989 Central London Rail Study?


Rob.
--
rob at robertwoolley dot co dot uk

I didn't know about that study, but I feel sure that the good ideas have
been thought of before. What I was looking for was a single Crossrail that
would serve the most important purposes of Crossrails One and Two. But in
view of the high cost of the longer line, I would happily settle for almost
any Crossrail, provided it's affordable. The LRM proposal is cheaper than
the CLRL one, but it's more limited in scope.

David.