|
Crossrail 3 proposal (long)
Crossrail 3
Hi all, As an alternative to the Chelsea-Hackney Line, Mayor Ken Livingstone talked about a Crossrail 3 between Euston and Waterloo and said this may go ahead if it has a stronger case than Crossrail 2. Here is a proposal for a Crossrail 3. Feel free to comment on it. The Line The Central tunnel would run from Waterloo, stopping at Temple (at the western end of the station) and Tottenham Court Road (with an additional exit near Covent Garden / Leicester Square) before dividing into two branches: one branch would go to Euston, the other branch to King's Cross. From Euston the line would surface near a new Camden Lock station (either on Parkway (the street) or near Chalk Farm Safeway) and would continue along the 'DC' lines to Watford Junction. The Bakerloo Line would be cut back to Queen's Park. As at most 12 trains per hour (tph) would run on this line, the Bakerloo Line would still be able to use Stonebridge Park Depot. From King's Cross the line would continue to Dalston Junction station and Hackney Central station. The line would then surface near Clapton, or if this is not possible an underground station at Clapton. Some trains would then continue to Chingford, others to Stansted Airport. From Waterloo the line would surface between Vauxhall and Waterloo. Crossrail 3 would then takeover the Wimbledon slow lines and serve Vauxhall, Battersea (new platforms), Clapham Junction and on to Hampton Court (4 tph), Chessington South (4tph), Shepperton (4tph) and Espom (4tph). The rest of the service would have to terminate in an as yet undecided location (possibly Clapham Junction - build some reversing sidings there?). Connections between the fast lines and slow lines would be retained in the event of an emergency (e.g. if SWT and Crossrail 3 had to squeeze onto the slow lines). In the North, the 4tph to Chessington South would go up to Watford Junction, as would the unspecified 8tph (that terminates somewhere along the line - Clapham Junction?). The remaining 12tph goes to Stansted / Chingford (2tph to Stansted, 10tph to Chingford). Advantages: Relief for the Victoria Line, Northern Line, Waterloo & City Line, the South West Trains network, the Bakerloo Line and the District Line from Wimbledon. South West services that Crossrail 3 takes over are not diverted away from Waterloo so commuter journeys not affected. North East services are diverted away from Liverpool Street, but as a result the Enfield Town / Southbury services will operate at an increased frequency. Passengers will be able to change at Hackney for Liverpool Street. South West branches get a better service than now, service cannot be improved due to lack of platforms at Waterloo. Relief to Euston, Liverpool Street and Waterloo - delays reduced on other services into the termini. Regeneration of Battersea, Vauxhall, Hackney, Clapton, Wembley, Harlesden, Stonebridge Park, Willesden Junction, Chingford, Walthamstow, Clapham Junction and Carpenders Park. Increased rail capacity to Camden on Sundays, with new journey opportunities. Less line in tunnel (if the Chelsea-Hackney line is going underground at Clapham Junction). No stations will have to close. A direct rail link between Waterloo and King's Cross. Reduction in amount of interchange at Victoria. Avoids the problem of building a mainline station at Piccadilly Circus Note: If platform lengthening is too costly 8 car trains could be run instead of 12 cars. Some empty trains will be starting at, say, Clapham Junction, so these will cater for commuters further along the line. |
Crossrail 3 proposal (long)
"Nitro" wrote in message om... Crossrail 3 Hi all, As an alternative to the Chelsea-Hackney Line, Mayor Ken Livingstone talked about a Crossrail 3 between Euston and Waterloo and said this may go ahead if it has a stronger case than Crossrail 2. Here is a proposal for a Crossrail 3. Feel free to comment on it. Having waited 40 years for crossrail 1 not to happen, whatever the merits of this line it has no chance of funding tim The Line The Central tunnel would run from Waterloo, stopping at Temple (at the western end of the station) and Tottenham Court Road (with an additional exit near Covent Garden / Leicester Square) before dividing into two branches: one branch would go to Euston, the other branch to King's Cross. From Euston the line would surface near a new Camden Lock station (either on Parkway (the street) or near Chalk Farm Safeway) and would continue along the 'DC' lines to Watford Junction. The Bakerloo Line would be cut back to Queen's Park. As at most 12 trains per hour (tph) would run on this line, the Bakerloo Line would still be able to use Stonebridge Park Depot. From King's Cross the line would continue to Dalston Junction station and Hackney Central station. The line would then surface near Clapton, or if this is not possible an underground station at Clapton. Some trains would then continue to Chingford, others to Stansted Airport. From Waterloo the line would surface between Vauxhall and Waterloo. Crossrail 3 would then takeover the Wimbledon slow lines and serve Vauxhall, Battersea (new platforms), Clapham Junction and on to Hampton Court (4 tph), Chessington South (4tph), Shepperton (4tph) and Espom (4tph). The rest of the service would have to terminate in an as yet undecided location (possibly Clapham Junction - build some reversing sidings there?). Connections between the fast lines and slow lines would be retained in the event of an emergency (e.g. if SWT and Crossrail 3 had to squeeze onto the slow lines). In the North, the 4tph to Chessington South would go up to Watford Junction, as would the unspecified 8tph (that terminates somewhere along the line - Clapham Junction?). The remaining 12tph goes to Stansted / Chingford (2tph to Stansted, 10tph to Chingford). Advantages: Relief for the Victoria Line, Northern Line, Waterloo & City Line, the South West Trains network, the Bakerloo Line and the District Line from Wimbledon. South West services that Crossrail 3 takes over are not diverted away from Waterloo so commuter journeys not affected. North East services are diverted away from Liverpool Street, but as a result the Enfield Town / Southbury services will operate at an increased frequency. Passengers will be able to change at Hackney for Liverpool Street. South West branches get a better service than now, service cannot be improved due to lack of platforms at Waterloo. Relief to Euston, Liverpool Street and Waterloo - delays reduced on other services into the termini. Regeneration of Battersea, Vauxhall, Hackney, Clapton, Wembley, Harlesden, Stonebridge Park, Willesden Junction, Chingford, Walthamstow, Clapham Junction and Carpenders Park. Increased rail capacity to Camden on Sundays, with new journey opportunities. Less line in tunnel (if the Chelsea-Hackney line is going underground at Clapham Junction). No stations will have to close. A direct rail link between Waterloo and King's Cross. Reduction in amount of interchange at Victoria. Avoids the problem of building a mainline station at Piccadilly Circus Note: If platform lengthening is too costly 8 car trains could be run instead of 12 cars. Some empty trains will be starting at, say, Clapham Junction, so these will cater for commuters further along the line. |
Crossrail 3 proposal (long)
Nitro wrote:
Crossrail 3 Hi all, As an alternative to the Chelsea-Hackney Line, Mayor Ken Livingstone talked about a Crossrail 3 between Euston and Waterloo and said this may go ahead if it has a stronger case than Crossrail 2. When did he say that? Here is a proposal for a Crossrail 3. Feel free to comment on it. The Line The Central tunnel would run from Waterloo, stopping at Temple (at the western end of the station) and Tottenham Court Road (with an additional exit near Covent Garden / Leicester Square) before dividing into two branches: one branch would go to Euston, the other branch to King's Cross. That's rather zigzaggy! Why not go via Holborn? From Euston the line would surface near a new Camden Lock station (either on Parkway (the street) or near Chalk Farm Safeway) and would continue along the 'DC' lines to Watford Junction. The Bakerloo Line would be cut back to Queen's Park. As at most 12 trains per hour (tph) would run on this line, the Bakerloo Line would still be able to use Stonebridge Park Depot. I think a lot of commuters would be upset about losing their direct Paddington service. From King's Cross the line would continue to Dalston Junction station and Hackney Central station. Do you mean Hackney Downs? The line would then surface near Clapton, or if this is not possible an underground station at Clapton. Some trains would then continue to Chingford, Although you're not the first to suggest a Crossrail line take over the Chingford branch, it doesn't seem such a good idea to me. The loss of a direct service to the City would be very unpopular with many people who moved to the area because of its good links to the City. others to Stansted Airport. With what stopping pattern? From Waterloo the line would surface between Vauxhall and Waterloo. Did you have a surfacing location in mind? Crossrail 3 would then takeover the Wimbledon slow lines and serve Vauxhall, Battersea (new platforms), What's wrong with the old ones? Or are you saying that there should be new platforms on the Victoria to Brixton line? Clapham Junction and on to Hampton Court (4 tph), Chessington South (4tph), Shepperton (4tph) and Espom (4tph). Why stop at 4tph? And don't they already get that? The rest of the service would have to terminate in an as yet undecided location (possibly Clapham Junction - build some reversing sidings there?). Why? Connections between the fast lines and slow lines would be retained in the event of an emergency (e.g. if SWT and Crossrail 3 had to squeeze onto the slow lines). In the North, the 4tph to Chessington South would go up to Watford Junction, as would the unspecified 8tph (that terminates somewhere along the line - Clapham Junction?). The remaining 12tph goes to Stansted / Chingford (2tph to Stansted, 10tph to Chingford). That would leave Chingford with an extremely irregular service! And why only 2tph to Stansted? At that frequency you'd get all the disbenefits of slower boardings (due to passengers' luggage) without the ridership benefits that a frequent service to the airport would bring. Advantages: Relief for the Victoria Line, Some, but not as much as Crossrail 2. Northern Line, True. However, this branch of the Northern Line isn't as busy as the City branch, and the planned Cross River Tram will make it even less crowded. Waterloo & City Line, Hardly! A few W&C passengers might go via Temple instead, but the vast majority would find the existing route more convenient. If you want to relieve the W&C, a Waterloo to Liverpool Street link would be far more effective (even though it would probably require the demolition of a few buildings). the South West Trains network, the Bakerloo Line and the District Line from Wimbledon. Why would it have any effect whatsoever on the District Line from Wimbledon? I'm curious - what was that meant to be? South West services that Crossrail 3 takes over are not diverted away from Waterloo so commuter journeys not affected. North East services are diverted away from Liverpool Street, but as a result the Enfield Town / Southbury services will operate at an increased frequency. Passengers will be able to change at Hackney for Liverpool Street. Quite an awkward interchange! South West branches get a better service than now, service cannot be improved due to lack of platforms at Waterloo. With so many trains to an undecided destination, you seem rather reluctant to give them a better service! Relief to Euston, Liverpool Street and Waterloo - delays reduced on other services into the termini. As is the case for almost any Crossrail service. However, Crossrail 1 (if done correctly) should remove (or at least greatly postpone) the need for further relief to Euston and Liverpool Street. In the long term a Crossrail line will probably be needed to handle the capacity at Waterloo, but Eurostar's planned abandonment of its current terminal removes a lot of the urgency. Regeneration of Battersea, Vauxhall, Hackney, Clapton, Wembley, Harlesden, Stonebridge Park, Willesden Junction, Chingford, Walthamstow, Clapham Junction and Carpenders Park. There might be regeneration in some of those places, but by no means all of them. Walthamstow in particular would suffer from the loss of its direct link to the City. Increased rail capacity to Camden on Sundays, with new journey opportunities. But London Underground will have provided sufficient capacity long before then anyway. Less line in tunnel (if the Chelsea-Hackney line is going underground at Clapham Junction). But going underground at Clapham Junction enables line 2 to bring rail services to parts of Battersea and Chelsea that have not previously had them. There is nothing comparable in your proposal. Also, Line 2 could surface at Dalston Junction. No stations will have to close. A direct rail link between Waterloo and King's Cross. There's a much cheaper (light rail) one on the drawing board! Reduction in amount of interchange at Victoria. Avoids the problem of building a mainline station at Piccadilly Circus Just what exactly is the problem there? Note: If platform lengthening is too costly 8 car trains could be run instead of 12 cars. Some empty trains will be starting at, say, Clapham Junction, so these will cater for commuters further along the line. You're proposing a multibillion pound railway and you're worried that lengthening suburban platforms would be too expensive??? |
Crossrail 3 proposal (long)
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Aidan Stanger wrote:
Nitro wrote: From King's Cross the line would continue to Dalston Junction station and Hackney Central station. Do you mean Hackney Downs? Comes to much the same thing - they're only a paving-slab's-toss apart. The line would then surface near Clapton, or if this is not possible an underground station at Clapton. Some trains would then continue to Chingford, Although you're not the first to suggest a Crossrail line take over the Chingford branch, it doesn't seem such a good idea to me. The loss of a direct service to the City would be very unpopular with many people who moved to the area because of its good links to the City. Okay, Crossrail Three And A Half: Take over the Chingford branch, or even the entire suburban West Anglia; get as far as the current Bethnal Green station (which should be closed with extreme prejudice, and replaced with one over the road from, and joined by a tunnel to, the Central Line station of the same name - hey look, now you can get from northeast London to the Central Line without interchanging at Liverpool Street!), then dive and go underground to Liverpool Street (where cross-platform interchange with the Central line would be lovely, but almost certainly entirely impossible), possibly with a new stop somewhere around Shoreditch, then carry on to Moorgate (probably, nay hopefully, demolishing some - frankly very ugly - office buildings on the way) and take over the Widened Lines (which by now have been given up by Thameslink due to the platform lengthening at Farringdon); just before Farringdon, veer off into a new bit of tunnel to King's Cross (yes, that makes a grand total of three parallel tracks between Farringdon and King's Cross), and thence follow whatever route Nitro proposed, or just go crazy and tunnel to Cork or something. Note that i know **** all about the technical aspects of railways, and have thought of this off the top of my head, so sorry if it's a bit silly. tom -- .... to build a space elevator, that's got to be hundreds of thousands of pounds ... -- Mike Froggatt |
Crossrail 3 proposal (long)
"Aidan Stanger" wrote in message
Nitro wrote: As an alternative to the Chelsea-Hackney Line, Mayor Ken Livingstone talked about a Crossrail 3 between Euston and Waterloo and said this may go ahead if it has a stronger case than Crossrail 2. When did he say that? March 2002. The Central tunnel would run from Waterloo, stopping at Temple (at the western end of the station) and Tottenham Court Road (with an additional exit near Covent Garden / Leicester Square) That's rather zigzaggy! Why not go via Holborn? 1) To serve the West End, 2) to interchange with Crossrail line one. From Euston the line would surface near a new Camden Lock station (either on Parkway (the street) or near Chalk Farm Safeway) and would continue along the 'DC' lines to Watford Junction. The Bakerloo Line would be cut back to Queen's Park. As at most 12 trains per hour (tph) would run on this line, the Bakerloo Line would still be able to use Stonebridge Park Depot. I think a lot of commuters would be upset about losing their direct Paddington service. OK, see what you mean. From King's Cross the line would continue to Dalston Junction station and Hackney Central station. Do you mean Hackney Downs? No an underground stop at / near the two, as in Crossrail 2 proposals The line would then surface near Clapton, or if this is not possible an underground station at Clapton. Some trains would then continue to Chingford, Although you're not the first to suggest a Crossrail line take over the Chingford branch, it doesn't seem such a good idea to me. The loss of a direct service to the City would be very unpopular with many people who moved to the area because of its good links to the City. Is one change really that bad? OK, where do you think my Crossrail, or even Crossrail 2, should go from Dalstion Junction? others to Stansted Airport. With what stopping pattern? Tottenham Hale, Bishops Stortford, Stansted Airport From Waterloo the line would surface between Vauxhall and Waterloo. Did you have a surfacing location in mind? No. Crossrail 3 would then takeover the Wimbledon slow lines and serve Vauxhall, Battersea (new platforms), What's wrong with the old ones? Or are you saying that there should be new platforms on the Victoria to Brixton line? Are there platforms on the Wimbledon slow lines? Clapham Junction and on to Hampton Court (4 tph), Chessington South (4tph), Shepperton (4tph) and Espom (4tph). Why stop at 4tph? And don't they already get that? I think they get 2tph at present. The rest of the service would have to terminate in an as yet undecided location (possibly Clapham Junction - build some reversing sidings there?). Why? So people can get on trains at somewhere like Vauxhall. In the North, the 4tph to Chessington South would go up to Watford Junction, as would the unspecified 8tph (that terminates somewhere along the line - Clapham Junction?). The remaining 12tph goes to Stansted / Chingford (2tph to Stansted, 10tph to Chingford). That would leave Chingford with an extremely irregular service! And why only 2tph to Stansted? At that frequency you'd get all the disbenefits of slower boardings (due to passengers' luggage) without the ridership benefits that a frequent service to the airport would bring. Unless you four track the Lee Valley line, you have to squeeze the Stratford - Stansted / Hertford East services (to be added soon), Cambridge / Hertford East- Liverpool Street and Stansted - Liverpool Street. Advantages: · Relief for the Victoria Line, Some, but not as much as Crossrail 2. Maybe, but it reduces interchange at the busiest station on the line, Victoria. Northern Line, True. However, this branch of the Northern Line isn't as busy as the City branch, and the planned Cross River Tram will make it even less crowded. Fair enough. Waterloo & City Line, Hardly! A few W&C passengers might go via Temple instead, but the vast majority would find the existing route more convenient. If you want to relieve the W&C, a Waterloo to Liverpool Street link would be far more effective (even though it would probably require the demolition of a few buildings). They also have the option of changing at Tottenham Court Road for Crossrail 1. the South West Trains network, the Bakerloo Line and the District Line from Wimbledon. Why would it have any effect whatsoever on the District Line from Wimbledon? As the line would be on the tube map, it may entice people onto the line (!). OK maybe you're right. · I'm curious - what was that meant to be? Bullet Point North East services are diverted away from Liverpool Street, but as a result the Enfield Town / Southbury services will operate at an increased frequency. Passengers will be able to change at Hackney for Liverpool Street. Quite an awkward interchange! Could be made less akward, if the Crossrail 3 Hackney stop is well built. · South West branches get a better service than now, service cannot be improved due to lack of platforms at Waterloo. With so many trains to an undecided destination, you seem rather reluctant to give them a better service! See how they cope with 4tph, and if trains are overcrowded then increase the number of trains. · Relief to Euston, Liverpool Street and Waterloo As is the case for almost any Crossrail service. However, Crossrail 1 (if done correctly) should remove (or at least greatly postpone) the need for further relief to Euston and Liverpool Street. Why Euston? In the long term a Crossrail line will probably be needed to handle the capacity at Waterloo, but Eurostar's planned abandonment of its current terminal removes a lot of the urgency. I read somewhere that when Waterloo international is abandoned they would extend platforms to take 12 cars and some platforms at Waterloo would disappear. · Regeneration of Battersea, Vauxhall, Hackney, Clapton, Wembley, Harlesden, Stonebridge Park, Willesden Junction, Chingford, Walthamstow, Clapham Junction and Carpenders Park. There might be regeneration in some of those places, but by no means all of them. Walthamstow in particular would suffer from the loss of its direct link to the City. Walthamstow may lose its link to the city, but there are places that have regenerated that do not have a direct link to the city. What about Wandsworth? · Increased rail capacity to Camden on Sundays But London Underground will have provided sufficient capacity long before then anyway. · Less line in tunnel (if the Chelsea-Hackney line is going underground at Clapham Junction). But going underground at Clapham Junction enables line 2 to bring rail services to parts of Battersea and Chelsea that have not previously had them. There is nothing comparable in your proposal. Battersea or Chelsea. Looking at the London Plan it seems Ken would rather the line go through Battersea. Even if Crossrail 2 goes ahead, the part of Battersea it serves will only be a few minutes walk from Battersea Park station. Also, Line 2 could surface at Dalston Junction. And go where? Do you mean Dalston Kingsland? · A direct rail link between Waterloo and King's Cross. There's a much cheaper (light rail) one on the drawing board! Yes, but this may be cheaper / better than Crossrail 2 and CRT put together. · Avoids the problem of building a mainline station at Piccadilly Circus Just what exactly is the problem there? Not enough space underground for a mainline station · If platform lengthening is too costly 8 car trains could be run instead of 12 cars. You're proposing a multibillion pound railway and you're worried that lengthening suburban platforms would be too expensive??? Some platforms (e.g. South Hampstead) might be a problem. Thanks for your comments. Jeff. |
Crossrail 3 proposal (long)
As an alternative to the Chelsea-Hackney Line, Mayor Ken Livingstone
talked about a Crossrail 3 between Euston and Waterloo and said this may go ahead if it has a stronger case than Crossrail 2. When did he say that? Sounds suspiciously like a hoax to me, but it is nonetheless a nice idea. The Central tunnel would run from Waterloo, stopping at Temple (at the western end of the station) and Tottenham Court Road (with an additional exit near Covent Garden / Leicester Square) before dividing into two branches: one branch would go to Euston, the other branch to King's Cross. That's rather zigzaggy! Why not go via Holborn? Because the hoaxster couldn't read a tube map? From Euston the line would surface near a new Camden Lock station (either on Parkway (the street) or near Chalk Farm Safeway) and would continue along the 'DC' lines to Watford Junction. The Bakerloo Line would be cut back to Queen's Park. As at most 12 trains per hour (tph) would run on this line, the Bakerloo Line would still be able to use Stonebridge Park Depot. I think a lot of commuters would be upset about losing their direct Paddington service. I doubt it. The Euston trains are the preferred choice on the shared section. Changing for the next train from the same platform isn't exactly a huge hardship anyway, especially with a hike in frequency like that. With what stopping pattern? From Waterloo the line would surface between Vauxhall and Waterloo. Did you have a surfacing location in mind? Sounds distinctly fishy to me: a portal onto a viaduct, whilst the remaining 6 tracks on that viaduct are left in situ. Crossrail 3 would then takeover the Wimbledon slow lines and serve Vauxhall, Battersea (new platforms), What's wrong with the old ones? Or are you saying that there should be new platforms on the Victoria to Brixton line? The problem with Queenstown Road Battersea is that it's only on the Windsor Lines. The proposal is basically a SW (Main) Slow Lines takeover. Clapham Junction and on to Hampton Court (4 tph), Chessington South (4tph), Shepperton (4tph) and Espom (4tph). Aside from the great spelling in that section (at least it isn't the variant which thinks the Derby is sponsored by a printer company), there doesn't seem to be much information as to what would happen to the other services on the Slow Lines (viz. the Kingston Loop, Guildford via Cobham and possibly the Dorking Semi-Fasts if by Epsom he means the trains which used to be 19s, but now have been extended as 16s). Why stop at 4tph? And don't they already get that? Epsom gets 4tph if you include the Dorking Semi-Fasts. Chessington, Shepperton and Hampton all get 2tph off-peak. Peak frequencies are (based on arrivals at Waterloo between 0800 and 0859): 16 Guildford via Epsom - 2tph 17 Dorking via Epsom - 3tph 18 Chessington South - 2tph 19 Epsom - 1tph 24 Shepperton - 2tph (capacity constraints mean that the other 2tph run as 47 Shepperton via Richmond) 30 Hampton Court - 2tph 32 Kingston Loop - 4tph 42 Guildford via Cobham - 2tph (a further 2tph runs Fast) The real problem is this is 18tph in the peaks on the Slow Lines (even TL2k is only designed for 24, so there's not much leeway left), with the added pressure of people piling off the 2tph Sutton Loop onto already packed trains at Wimbledon. The only way I see of solving this problem is by separating the route, at least as far as Wimbledon, so that St Helier, Chessington and Epsom trains descend into a new tunnel whilst the old line remains in place for Cobham, Shepperton, Kingston etc. The rest of the service would have to terminate in an as yet undecided location (possibly Clapham Junction - build some reversing sidings there?). Why? Quite - the pressure for more trains seems much more acute on the SW Main Line than on the rather lackadaisical LNW DC Lines. In the North, the 4tph to Chessington South would go up to Watford Junction, as would the unspecified 8tph (that terminates somewhere along the line - Clapham Junction?). The remaining 12tph goes to Stansted / Chingford (2tph to Stansted, 10tph to Chingford). Oh that's just brilliant - give the least used branch the best onward connection. Get real - the Epsom locals should go to Watford. That would leave Chingford with an extremely irregular service! And why only 2tph to Stansted? At that frequency you'd get all the disbenefits of slower boardings (due to passengers' luggage) without the ridership benefits that a frequent service to the airport would bring. Is this silly enough yet? Although one seat rides from Epsom to Stansted would be nice for impromptu holidays... perhaps whilst we're on stupidity, the Victoria Line could trackshare to Chingford to give them 20tph or so more than they need... Northern Line, True. However, this branch of the Northern Line isn't as busy as the City branch, and the planned Cross River Tram will make it even less crowded. I really don't see anyone getting off the train at Waterloo to pile onto a bus-on-rails to KXSP. I'm sorry, but the cross-platform interchange at Oxford Circus is the best thing until there's some sort of "Crossrail 3". I wouldn't use surface transit across Central London unless somehow every single line in and out of Waterloo Underground was closed - even then I'd try backtracking to Vauxhall. Waterloo & City Line, Hardly! A few W&C passengers might go via Temple instead, but the vast majority would find the existing route more convenient. If you want to relieve the W&C, a Waterloo to Liverpool Street link would be far more effective (even though it would probably require the demolition of a few buildings). Hmmmm... that would be nice - combinations like waiting for ages for the Circle Line only to end up on South Central are far from being one of my favourite things. the South West Trains network, the Bakerloo Line and the District Line from Wimbledon. Why would it have any effect whatsoever on the District Line from Wimbledon? God knows. I only ever use that branch to get to Pad, which I presume is what most other people coming from the South Western do. I'm curious - what was that meant to be? My guess: a bullet point. My opinion: bullet points should be taken out and shot. South West branches get a better service than now, service cannot be improved due to lack of platforms at Waterloo. With so many trains to an undecided destination, you seem rather reluctant to give them a better service! I'm sorry, but there's plenty of capacity off-peak anyway. In the peaks the bottleneck starts at Raynes Park. In the long term a Crossrail line will probably be needed to handle the capacity at Waterloo, but Eurostar's planned abandonment of its current terminal removes a lot of the urgency. And indeed frees up the supposedly scarce platform space. The train now standing at Platform 24 calls at all stations to Windsor. Less line in tunnel (if the Chelsea-Hackney line is going underground at Clapham Junction). But going underground at Clapham Junction enables line 2 to bring rail services to parts of Battersea and Chelsea that have not previously had them. There is nothing comparable in your proposal. Not to mention it being a far easier place to locate a portal. I'd still go for Wimbledon though. A direct rail link between Waterloo and King's Cross. There's a much cheaper (light rail) one on the drawing board! There's a much simpler one already in existence - it's called the Victoria Line. The only thing this might tempt me to do is stop using my silly Epsom - Leicester without stairs route (Epsom - Sutton - Farringdon (change to Fast train) - either Luton station - Leicester). It would also tempt me away from Epsom to Birmingham changing at Clapham and Watford. Avoids the problem of building a mainline station at Piccadilly Circus Just what exactly is the problem there? Not wanting to build an underground foot passageway of approximately 100yds to link two ticket halls. Note: If platform lengthening is too costly 8 car trains could be run instead of 12 cars. Some empty trains will be starting at, say, Clapham Junction, so these will cater for commuters further along the line. You're proposing a multibillion pound railway and you're worried that lengthening suburban platforms would be too expensive??? Actually at some stations it would be a real headache. Ewell West only manages 8 cars by some extremely narrow platform extensions under the Chessington Road bridge. |
Crossrail 3 proposal (long)
|
Crossrail 3 proposal (long)
|
Crossrail 3 proposal (long)
You're proposing a multibillion pound railway and you're worried that
lengthening suburban platforms would be too expensive??? I agree with James. The plan is hopelessly unrealistic and it's probably a hoax. |
Crossrail 3 proposal (long)
Nitro -
The version of Crossrail I favour is as follows: Line 1: Tunnels from GlobeTown to Royal Oak and Old Oak Common to Willesden Junction. At the eastern end, Crossrail would then take over most of the services to Essex. At the western end it would run an all stations to Heathrow service, and take over the slow lines on the WCML to Milton Keynes (and possibly Northampton, but as Northampton's so much further away it might be better to terminate Crossrail services at Wolverton and give Northampton to Virgin). Canary Wharf would not be part of the scheme. It would get its own line eventually, but meanwhile it would be served by boats. A Richmond and Kingston branch could be added later. Alternatively that could also become part of Line 3. London Underground would take over the Euston to Watford Junction service using Tube stock (so the platform height could be optimized). Initially this would run into the main Euston station, but eventually it could form the basis of a new Tube line to South London, taking over the Aldwych branch. Line 2: Tunnel from Clapham Junction (somewhere between Latchmere Road and Cranleigh Avenue) to Dalston Junction (via Battersea West, Chelsea, Victoria, Piccadilly Circus, TCR, Kings Cross St.Pancras, Angel, and Essex Rd. It would then take over the NLL and run to Woolwich Arsenal via a new tunnel from Silvertown (N Woolwich would close). The NLL stations would require rebuilding to take the longer trains, so the opportunity could be used to improve the interchange at Hackney (so that passengers could walk between Hackney Central and Hackney Downs without leaving the station). The opportunity should also be taken to upgrade that section of line to 3 tracks, creating a dedicated freight route from Stratford to Willesden. A Northern Heights branch via Finsbury Park is also a possibility. As with your proposal, the trains don't have to terminate at Clapham*Junction. They could take over some of the services that currently run to Waterloo. (The numbering of the following lines may not indicate the best order to build them in) Line 3: Tunnel mostly below the Circle Line from Paddington to Liverpool St then via Whitechapel to Poplar. Surface and run to Custom House. Take over the Woolwich branch from Crossrail 2. Also build another branch alongside the DLR to Cyprus and on to Dagenham, from where it would take over the Tilbury line. The Cyprus to Dagenham section could be part of the DLR until the rest of Line 3 is built. Line 4: Tunnel from Waterloo (or more likely, somewhere beyond Vauxhall) to Bethnal Green via Blackfriars, St.Pauls and Liverpool Street. This would almost certainly require the demolishion of a few buildings, including the new one at 1 London Wall. Line 5: Tunnel from Moorgate (or Old Street) to South London via London*Bridge. Yet more lines may eventually be needed, depending on future development. As for the rest of the points you mentioned: As an alternative to the Chelsea-Hackney Line, Mayor Ken Livingstone talked about a Crossrail 3 between Euston and Waterloo and said this may go ahead if it has a stronger case than Crossrail 2. When did he say that? March 2002. He seems to have gone cold on the idea since. The Central tunnel would run from Waterloo, stopping at Temple (at the western end of the station) and Tottenham Court Road (with an additional exit near Covent Garden / Leicester Square) That's rather zigzaggy! Why not go via Holborn? 1) To serve the West End, But in doing so, you'd be effectively duplicating an existing link (the Northern Line). 'Tis better to provide new opportunities, especially when a TCR detour would probably require a few buildings to be demolished. 2) to interchange with Crossrail line one. I think a line 1 station at Holborn would be a better way of doing that. Unfortunately nobody else seems to agree with me. From King's Cross the line would continue to Dalston Junction station and Hackney Central station. Do you mean Hackney Downs? No an underground stop at / near the two, as in Crossrail 2 proposals So the forced change of trains would be even more inconvenient! The line would then surface near Clapton, or if this is not possible an underground station at Clapton. Some trains would then continue to Chingford, Although you're not the first to suggest a Crossrail line take over the Chingford branch, it doesn't seem such a good idea to me. The loss of a direct service to the City would be very unpopular with many people who moved to the area because of its good links to the City. Is one change really that bad? Yes, if it's not cross platform. others to Stansted Airport. With what stopping pattern? Tottenham Hale, Bishops Stortford, Stansted Airport Duplicating the Stansted Express. Why? From Waterloo the line would surface between Vauxhall and Waterloo. Did you have a surfacing location in mind? No. There's no obvious location that side of Vauxhall. Crossrail 3 would then takeover the Wimbledon slow lines and serve Vauxhall, Battersea (new platforms), What's wrong with the old ones? Or are you saying that there should be new platforms on the Victoria to Brixton line? Are there platforms on the Wimbledon slow lines? I thought there were, but checking the England Photographic Atlas I find you're right - there aren't. The rest of the service would have to terminate in an as yet undecided location (possibly Clapham Junction - build some reversing sidings there?). Why? So people can get on trains at somewhere like Vauxhall. Why wouldn't they be able to do that if the trains went further? In the North, the 4tph to Chessington South would go up to Watford Junction, as would the unspecified 8tph (that terminates somewhere along the line - Clapham Junction?). The remaining 12tph goes to Stansted / Chingford (2tph to Stansted, 10tph to Chingford). That would leave Chingford with an extremely irregular service! And why only 2tph to Stansted? At that frequency you'd get all the disbenefits of slower boardings (due to passengers' luggage) without the ridership benefits that a frequent service to the airport would bring. Unless you four track the Lee Valley line, you have to squeeze the Stratford - Stansted / Hertford East services (to be added soon), Cambridge / Hertford East- Liverpool Street and Stansted - Liverpool Street. The Lea Valley Line is by far the easiest line in London to four track. Advantages: · Relief for the Victoria Line, Some, but not as much as Crossrail 2. Maybe, but it reduces interchange at the busiest station on the line, Victoria. As would Crossrail 2. (snip) I read somewhere that when Waterloo international is abandoned they would extend platforms to take 12 cars and some platforms at Waterloo would disappear. I consider a reduction in the total number of platforms very unlikely. · Regeneration of Battersea, Vauxhall, Hackney, Clapton, Wembley, Harlesden, Stonebridge Park, Willesden Junction, Chingford, Walthamstow, Clapham Junction and Carpenders Park. There might be regeneration in some of those places, but by no means all of them. Walthamstow in particular would suffer from the loss of its direct link to the City. Walthamstow may lose its link to the city, but there are places that have regenerated that do not have a direct link to the city. What about Wandsworth? Yes, there's regeneration in much of Inner London. However, I know of nowhere where worsening the transport links has resulted in regeneration. But going underground at Clapham Junction enables line 2 to bring rail services to parts of Battersea and Chelsea that have not previously had them. There is nothing comparable in your proposal. Battersea or Chelsea. Looking at the London Plan it seems Ken would rather the line go through Battersea. Even if Crossrail 2 goes ahead, the part of Battersea it serves will only be a few minutes walk from Battersea Park station. If Crossrail goes via Chelsea, it could have a station constructed on the other (W) side of Battersea Park. Also, Line 2 could surface at Dalston Junction. And go where? Do you mean Dalston Kingsland? No, there's no room to surface at Dalston Kingsland. · A direct rail link between Waterloo and King's Cross. There's a much cheaper (light rail) one on the drawing board! Yes, but this may be cheaper / better than Crossrail 2 and CRT put together. 'Tis not even as good as Crossrail 2 on its own! · Avoids the problem of building a mainline station at Piccadilly Circus Just what exactly is the problem there? Not enough space underground for a mainline station I've heard that claim before, but am not convinced. Where exactly is there not enough space? |
Crossrail 3 proposal (long)
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Aidan Stanger wrote: Nitro wrote: From King's Cross the line would continue to Dalston Junction station and Hackney Central station. Do you mean Hackney Downs? Comes to much the same thing - they're only a paving-slab's-toss apart. On the map, but have you ever tried walking from one to the other? The line would then surface near Clapton, or if this is not possible an underground station at Clapton. Some trains would then continue to Chingford, Although you're not the first to suggest a Crossrail line take over the Chingford branch, it doesn't seem such a good idea to me. The loss of a direct service to the City would be very unpopular with many people who moved to the area because of its good links to the City. Okay, Crossrail Three And A Half: Take over the Chingford branch, or even the entire suburban West Anglia; get as far as the current Bethnal Green station (which should be closed with extreme prejudice, What have you got against Bethnal Green station? Would it be any different if it and the station on the Central Line had different names? and replaced with one over the road from, and joined by a tunnel to, the Central Line station of the same name - hey look, now you can get from northeast London to the Central Line without interchanging at Liverpool Street!), You could do that better if there were more trains to Stratford from the North. then dive and go underground to Liverpool Street (where cross-platform interchange with the Central line would be lovely, but almost certainly entirely impossible), possibly with a new stop somewhere around Shoreditch, then carry on to Moorgate (probably, nay hopefully, demolishing some - frankly very ugly - office buildings on the way) and take over the Widened Lines (which by now have been given up by Thameslink due to the platform lengthening at Farringdon); just before Farringdon, veer off into a new bit of tunnel to King's Cross (yes, that makes a grand total of three parallel tracks between Farringdon and King's Cross), and thence follow whatever route Nitro proposed, or just go crazy and tunnel to Cork or something. More direct routes are usually better. Note that i know **** all about the technical aspects of railways, and have thought of this off the top of my head, so sorry if it's a bit silly. It is, but silly ideas can be developed into sensible ones. Sensible ideas can also be developed into silly ones, as can be seen at http://www.crossrail.co.uk. -- ... to build a space elevator, that's got to be hundreds of thousands of pounds ... -- Mike Froggatt Who's Mike Froggatt? |
Crossrail 3 proposal (long)
You're proposing a multibillion pound railway and you're worried that
lengthening suburban platforms would be too expensive??? I agree with James. The plan is hopelessly unrealistic and it's probably a hoax. Having said that, hopelessly unrealistic plans can be quite fun. I have my own unrealistic (but hopefully not hopeless) crossrail line plan: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/james.dowden/xrail.htm |
Crossrail 3 proposal (long)
|
Crossrail 3 proposal (long)
James wrote:
You're proposing a multibillion pound railway and you're worried that lengthening suburban platforms would be too expensive??? I agree with James. The plan is hopelessly unrealistic and it's probably a hoax. How could it be a hoax? He never claimed the plan was anything other than his own, and ISTR Ken was making those sorts of comments around that time. Having said that, hopelessly unrealistic plans can be quite fun. I have my own unrealistic (but hopefully not hopeless) crossrail line plan: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/james.dowden/xrail.htm Well I for one am glad it is hopeless. Why would passengers from Dartford and the Sidcup Line or Orpington want to go to Lewisham then back to Blackheath then loop round the docklands? |
Crossrail 3 proposal (long)
|
Crossrail 3 proposal (long)
I've had a better idea - keep Crossrail 2 but make the Watford DC Line
a branch of it! The central tunnel from Clapham Junction (or wherever) through Battersea, Victoria, Piccadilly Circus, Tottenham Court Road and Kings Cross would remain unchanged. After Kings Cross one branch would continue to Dalston Junction, Hackney Central and onto wherever this branch is going. Another branch would go to Camden Town, and then takeover the Euston -Watford DC Line (which would no longer go to Euston - passengers can change at Camden Town). The Bakerloo Line would be cut back to Queen's Park. Euston already has good connections to Victoria and Waterloo, and so does not need better links to Clapham Junction. Going via King's Cross allows more places to be connected to the CTRL. Euston - Watford DC Line passengers for the Northern Line can change at Camden Town, while Victoria Line passengers can change at King's Cross. * Improved service on this line. * Most northern options involve diverting lines away from the City (and with the Epping branch away from Stratford for Canary Wharf), generating a huge amount of interchange. With the Euston - Watford DC Line no such diversion is needed. * Direct link from CTRL to Willesden Junction (and Park Royal area), improving regeneration potential of the land there. * Improved links to the National Football Stadium at Wembley, including a more frequent link to the West Coast Main Line at Watford Junction. It also makes land at Wembley more attractive for redevelopment. * More rail capacity at Camden Town, with new journey opportunities. * No stations would have to close (with Crossrail 1 South Hampstead and Kilburn High Road may have closed if this line was part of that scheme). * Relief to London Euston. * Relief to the Bakerloo Line. * Relief to the Metropolitan Line. * Relief to Crossrail Line one between Paddington and Tottenham Court Road. * Relief to the North London Line between Willesden Junction and Camden Road. * Possible relief to the North London Line between Camden and Dalston (tickets are cheaper on Crossrail 2 with Oyster prepay, line is more frequent, fewer stops - although one cross platform interchange) If not relief then mopping up of overspill passengers. * If Crossrail 2 is to be a tube line, the Euston - Watford line is fairly segregated, making it easier to incorporate the line into the scheme. * Some people may be upset at the loss of the Bakerloo line, however as there would be less stops between Queen's Park and Tottenham Court Road via Camden Town than via Bakerloo line and Crossrail 1, Crossrail 2 offers a quicker journey for most people. People can still change at Queen's Park for the Bakerloo Line. * Allows Class 313 trains that currently operate on this line to be reallocated, strengthening services on other lines. |
Crossrail 3 proposal (long)
"Nitro" wrote in message om... Crossrail 3 Hi all, As an alternative to the Chelsea-Hackney Line, Mayor Ken Livingstone talked about a Crossrail 3 between Euston and Waterloo and said this may go ahead if it has a stronger case than Crossrail 2. Here is a proposal for a Crossrail 3. Feel free to comment on it. The Line The Central tunnel would run from Waterloo, stopping at Temple (at the western end of the station) and Tottenham Court Road (with an additional exit near Covent Garden / Leicester Square) before dividing into two branches: one branch would go to Euston, the other branch to King's Cross. From Euston the line would surface near a new Camden Lock station (either on Parkway (the street) or near Chalk Farm Safeway) and would continue along the 'DC' lines to Watford Junction. The Bakerloo Line would be cut back to Queen's Park. As at most 12 trains per hour (tph) would run on this line, the Bakerloo Line would still be able to use Stonebridge Park Depot. From King's Cross the line would continue to Dalston Junction station and Hackney Central station. The line would then surface near Clapton, or if this is not possible an underground station at Clapton. Some trains would then continue to Chingford, others to Stansted Airport. From Waterloo the line would surface between Vauxhall and Waterloo. Crossrail 3 would then takeover the Wimbledon slow lines and serve Vauxhall, Battersea (new platforms), Clapham Junction and on to Hampton Court (4 tph), Chessington South (4tph), Shepperton (4tph) and Espom (4tph). The rest of the service would have to terminate in an as yet undecided location (possibly Clapham Junction - build some reversing sidings there?). Connections between the fast lines and slow lines would be retained in the event of an emergency (e.g. if SWT and Crossrail 3 had to squeeze onto the slow lines). In the North, the 4tph to Chessington South would go up to Watford Junction, as would the unspecified 8tph (that terminates somewhere along the line - Clapham Junction?). The remaining 12tph goes to Stansted / Chingford (2tph to Stansted, 10tph to Chingford). (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. |
Crossrail 3 proposal (long)
"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 |
Crossrail 3 proposal (long)
On Sat, 24 Apr 2004, Aidan Stanger wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote: On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Aidan Stanger wrote: Nitro wrote: From King's Cross the line would continue to Dalston Junction station and Hackney Central station. Do you mean Hackney Downs? Comes to much the same thing - they're only a paving-slab's-toss apart. On the map, but have you ever tried walking from one to the other? Yes, i've done it many times; whenever i get a train to fo shopping in Hackney, in fact, since the high street (well, Mare Street, and in particular Tesco, M&S and Woolworth's) is where Hackney Central is, and my train comes in to Hackney Downs. It's a short walk. The line would then surface near Clapton, or if this is not possible an underground station at Clapton. Some trains would then continue to Chingford, Although you're not the first to suggest a Crossrail line take over the Chingford branch, it doesn't seem such a good idea to me. The loss of a direct service to the City would be very unpopular with many people who moved to the area because of its good links to the City. Okay, Crossrail Three And A Half: Take over the Chingford branch, or even the entire suburban West Anglia; get as far as the current Bethnal Green station (which should be closed with extreme prejudice, What have you got against Bethnal Green station? In all the times i've been through it, i've not seen more than ten people total get on or off the train; i therefore conclude that it isn't much use. I think this is because it's not really in central Bethnal Green (unlike the tube station), but i don't know the area well enough to say for sure. Would it be any different if it and the station on the Central Line had different names? Might be - i do get annoyed when there's a name shared by two stations. and replaced with one over the road from, and joined by a tunnel to, the Central Line station of the same name - hey look, now you can get from northeast London to the Central Line without interchanging at Liverpool Street!), You could do that better if there were more trains to Stratford from the North. No i couldn't, because that would involve going via zone 3, which would mean buying a more expensive ticket. Also, i suspect it would take rather longer. then dive and go underground to Liverpool Street (where cross-platform interchange with the Central line would be lovely, but almost certainly entirely impossible), possibly with a new stop somewhere around Shoreditch, then carry on to Moorgate (probably, nay hopefully, demolishing some - frankly very ugly - office buildings on the way) and take over the Widened Lines (which by now have been given up by Thameslink due to the platform lengthening at Farringdon); just before Farringdon, veer off into a new bit of tunnel to King's Cross (yes, that makes a grand total of three parallel tracks between Farringdon and King's Cross), and thence follow whatever route Nitro proposed, or just go crazy and tunnel to Cork or something. More direct routes are usually better. More direct routes between where and where? Not that i'm trying to defend my plan here - beyond Liverpool Street, it's pretty random. Note that i know **** all about the technical aspects of railways, and have thought of this off the top of my head, so sorry if it's a bit silly. It is, but silly ideas can be developed into sensible ones. Sensible ideas can also be developed into silly ones, as can be seen at http://www.crossrail.co.uk. ! -- ... to build a space elevator, that's got to be hundreds of thousands of pounds ... -- Mike Froggatt Who's Mike Froggatt? A friend of mine. Historian. Didn't have a clear idea of how much a space elevator would cost. tom -- If you had a chance to do any experiment you pleased, unconstrained by any considerations of humanity or decency, what would you choose? |
Crossrail 3 proposal (long)
On 24 Apr 2004, James wrote:
You're proposing a multibillion pound railway and you're worried that lengthening suburban platforms would be too expensive??? I agree with James. The plan is hopelessly unrealistic and it's probably a hoax. Having said that, hopelessly unrealistic plans can be quite fun. I have my own unrealistic (but hopefully not hopeless) crossrail line plan: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/james.dowden/xrail.htm I really think we should start a gallery of crossrail proposals, since everyone seems to have one. We could have awards - Best Relief of Congestion, Best Relief Of Central London Interchange, Best Provision of Access to Regenerating Areas, Most Entertainingly Unrealistic, etc. tom -- If you had a chance to do any experiment you pleased, unconstrained by any considerations of humanity or decency, what would you choose? |
Crossrail 3 proposal (long)
"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. |
Crossrail 3 proposal (long)
"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 |
Crossrail 3 proposal (long)
I really think we should start a gallery of crossrail proposals, since
everyone seems to have one. We could have awards - Best Relief of Congestion, Best Relief Of Central London Interchange, Best Provision of Access to Regenerating Areas, Most Entertainingly Unrealistic, etc. If anyone has such proposals, e-mail them to me, and I will gladly set up such a gallery. |
Crossrail 3 proposal (long)
James wrote:
(Aidan Stanger) wrote... James wrote: You're proposing a multibillion pound railway and you're worried that lengthening suburban platforms would be too expensive??? I agree with James. The plan is hopelessly unrealistic and it's probably a hoax. How could it be a hoax? He never claimed the plan was anything other than his own, and ISTR Ken was making those sorts of comments around that time. Having said that, hopelessly unrealistic plans can be quite fun. I have my own unrealistic (but hopefully not hopeless) crossrail line plan: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/james.dowden/xrail.htm Well I for one am glad it is hopeless. Why would passengers from Dartford and the Sidcup Line or Orpington want to go to Lewisham then back to Blackheath then loop round the docklands? You're thinking of where these places are on the NSE Map. Actually I was thinking of their position on the ground, having lived within walking distance of Albany Park station for over four years. It's not as crazy a route on a normal map. 'Tis crazier! Blackheath is N of Lee and E of Lewisham (which is NW of Lee). In fact, they might even want to go to Docklands... In which case they can catch the DLR A Jubilee branch to Eltham would be a better way of providing SE London with a fast link to Docklands. |
Crossrail 3 proposal (long)
This isn't Crossrail, as such, but we have often wondered why there is
no direct rail link between Brixton and Streatham, but one has to change at Herne Hill. Physically, it would be possible for one train to do that journey - why don't they? -- Annabel Smyth http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 8 March 2004 |
No Direct Link (was Crossrail 3 proposal (long))
"Annabel Smyth" wrote in message ... This isn't Crossrail, as such, but we have often wondered why there is no direct rail link between Brixton and Streatham, but one has to change at Herne Hill. Physically, it would be possible for one train to do that journey - why don't they? -- Annabel Smyth http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 8 March 2004 Because those two stations are on different routes. The rail network is made up of routes, most of which go to and from terminals such as Victoria, London Bridge, Blackfriars etc. It's already a complex network, and the more routes there are the less frequently they can run. You cannot expect a direct route from every station to every other station. |
No Direct Link (was Crossrail 3 proposal (long))
"David Fairthorne" wrote in message
et.cable.rogers.com... "Annabel Smyth" wrote in message ... This isn't Crossrail, as such, but we have often wondered why there is no direct rail link between Brixton and Streatham, but one has to change at Herne Hill. Physically, it would be possible for one train to do that journey - why don't they? Because those two stations are on different routes. The rail network is made up of routes, most of which go to and from terminals such as Victoria, London Bridge, Blackfriars etc. It's already a complex network, and the more routes there are the less frequently they can run. You cannot expect a direct route from every station to every other station. That's also a very well served bus corridor, isn't it? Jonn |
No Direct Link (was Crossrail 3 proposal (long))
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 at 23:05:51, David Fairthorne
wrote: "Annabel Smyth" wrote in message ... This isn't Crossrail, as such, but we have often wondered why there is no direct rail link between Brixton and Streatham, but one has to change at Herne Hill. Physically, it would be possible for one train to do that journey - why don't they? -- Annabel Smyth http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 8 March 2004 Because those two stations are on different routes. The rail network is made up of routes, most of which go to and from terminals such as Victoria, London Bridge, Blackfriars etc. It's already a complex network, and the more routes there are the less frequently they can run. You cannot expect a direct route from every station to every other station. Well, you can - but you wont' get one! I just wish there was a route that went that way, though - or that we had an extension of the Vicky line to Streatham, or even that a bus went down Acre Lane and all the way to Streatham Station... it's such a pain in the neck when it's 10 minutes in the car, and can take up to an hour on public transport (I go there 3 times/week, and only one of those trips is by car!). -- Annabel Smyth http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 8 March 2004 |
Crossrail 3 proposal (long)
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 |
Crossrail 3 proposal (long)
"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. |
Crossrail 3 proposal (long)
Nitro wrote:
(Aidan Stanger) wrote... Nitro - The version of Crossrail I favour is as follows: take over the slow lines on the WCML to Milton Keynes (and possibly Northampton, but as Northampton's so much further away it might be better to terminate Crossrail services at Wolverton and give Northampton to Virgin). Would probably be running with 12 cars, but this may not be enough. Whether it's enough depends on the service frequency. Remember that capacity is limited on the Slow Lines, Then they should unlimit it! and that you may end up attracting Virgin passengers at Milton Keynes. I consider that to be unlikely, as they're likely to consider the extra speed of Virgin worth the hassle of a short tube ride. However it would certainly attract some passengers off Virgin Trains at Watford Junction. This would be a very good thing, as it means that passengers for Euston would then be able to board Virgin Trains at Watford Junction. London Underground would take over the Euston to Watford Junction service using Tube stock (so the platform height could be optimized). Initially this would run into the main Euston station, I read somewhere that lack of platform space at Euston prevented frequency from being increased on the DC Line. And having Crossrail take over all the services on ths Slow Line would solve the problem. Line 2: Tunnel from Clapham Junction (somewhere between Latchmere Road and Cranleigh Avenue) to Dalston Junction (via Battersea West, Chelsea, Victoria, Piccadilly Circus, TCR, Kings Cross St.Pancras, Angel, and Essex Rd. It would then take over the NLL and run to Woolwich Arsenal via a new tunnel from Silvertown (N Woolwich would close). Did you know that the SRA are looking at running NLL trains on Crossrail from Custom House to Abbey Wood? No, but it wouldn't surprise me. As with your proposal, the trains don't have to terminate at Clapham*Junction. They could take over some of the services that currently run to Waterloo. Problem with this is that passengers for Canary Wharf would have to change twice - once onto already packed trains to Waterloo at Clapham Junction, and then onto the Jubilee Line. Your Line 2 has no convenient interchange with a line going to the Wharf. There's Stratford, but I see your point - that would be slower. (The numbering of the following lines may not indicate the best order to build them in) Line 3: Tunnel mostly below the Circle Line from Paddington to Liverpool St then via Whitechapel to Poplar. Surface and run to Custom House. Is there space for another surface line? - will you have to demolish buildings, or build it above the road? (but then where will the supports go?) I don't know. Above the road, with supports in the central revervation in some places and to the side. A few houses just W of Poplar DLR depot may have to be demolished, as would part of the depot itself. I think the elevated section could be done without resorting to knocking down buildings, though I'm not entirely certain. Line 4: Tunnel from Waterloo (or more likely, somewhere beyond Vauxhall) to Bethnal Green via Blackfriars, St.Pauls and Liverpool Street. This would almost certainly require the demolishion of a few buildings, including the new one at 1 London Wall. The surface Bethnal Green, I assume. Correct. Another thing I'd do is change the name of Bethnal Green station on the Central Line to Bethnal Green Central. I'd do similar at Shepherds Bush. Line 5: Tunnel from Moorgate (or Old Street) to South London via London*Bridge. And an underground Cannon Street, if not too expensive. ....and if no better location could be found. The rest of the service would have to terminate in an as yet undecided location (possibly Clapham Junction - build some reversing sidings there?). Why? So people can get on trains at somewhere like Vauxhall. Why wouldn't they be able to do that if the trains went further? The trains may be full. Then make them longer! · Avoids the problem of building a mainline station at Piccadilly Circus Just what exactly is the problem there? Not enough space underground for a mainline station I've heard that claim before, but am not convinced. Where exactly is there not enough space? I don't know, but LUL omitted it from the Express Metro versions of the Chelsea-Hackney Line because of this reason. So they claim, but I'm not convinced they were trying hard enough! |
Crossrail 3 proposal (long)
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
... I really think we should start a gallery of crossrail proposals, since everyone seems to have one. We could have awards - Best Relief of Congestion, Best Relief Of Central London Interchange, Best Provision of Access to Regenerating Areas, Most Entertainingly Unrealistic, etc. There should be a category for "Most contrived way of serving author's local station" There's always my BlackTrack proposal... http://www.geocities.com/pikkulapsi/ellideas.html -- John Rowland - Spamtrapped Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001 http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood. That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line - It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes |
Crossrail 3 proposal (long)
Crossrail 3 would then takeover the Wimbledon slow lines and serve
Vauxhall, Battersea (new platforms), What's wrong with the old ones? Or are you saying that there should be new platforms on the Victoria to Brixton line? The problem with Queenstown Road Battersea is that it's only on the Windsor Lines. The proposal is basically a SW (Main) Slow Lines takeover. Is there room though? There are only two (used) Windsor Line platforms and the faster trains don't call. The faster trains not calling there reflects the level of patronage. As you implied, there is of course a 3rd platform, albeit on the Windsor Reversible Line (ie the relatively useless one). As for putting platforms on the Main Slow Lines, there are two big problems - the constraints imposed by the Atlantic Line viaduct overhead at the Up end and the BML itself being elevated (Queenstown Rd viaduct) at the Down end. |
Crossrail 3 proposal (long)
I really think we should start a gallery of crossrail
proposals, since everyone seems to have one. We could have awards - Best Relief of Congestion, Best Relief Of Central London Interchange, Best Provision of Access to Regenerating Areas, Most Entertainingly Unrealistic, etc. There should be a category for "Most contrived way of serving author's local station" There's always my BlackTrack proposal... http://www.geocities.com/pikkulapsi/ellideas.html Fortunately my local station (20 minutes walk) has IC125s running non-stop from it to London SP, so I can't really complain. It would be cool if they could diverge over the Cricklewood Line, the Kew Spur and the Windsor Fast Lines into Waterloo and save me a cross-London transfer ;-) |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:15 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk