CTRL to benefit Kent: What services?
 

"Jonn Elledge" wrote in message ...
More useful, is it possible to send CrossRail through the CTRL link
from Stratford to Ebbsfleet?


Why? The point of the Ebbsfleet branch is surely not to link Ebbsfleet to
Crossrail, but to connect the Isle of Dogs, Royal Docks and other more
populated parts of North Kent.

Thinking about this, I now agree - forget running CrossRail trains
through the CTRL. But what domestic services should be run through the
CTRL from 2007? After all, operators should start to order rolling
stock about now.

CTRL capacity is 16 tph. CTRL say there'll be capacity for 8 Eurostar
tph, but at present they can't fill three, so I reckon there could be
8 to 12 domestic trains per hour running each way from St Pancras to
Ebbsfleet. These could in theory be 16 cars long. Where should they
go?

Here's my thoughts. Assuming dual voltage trains that can run off
overhead or third rail:

1. 4 tph from Ebbsfleet to Chatham via Strood, where the train would
divide, with half going to Dover Priory and the other half to
Ramsgate. This would require a link to Dartford - Chatham line at
Ebbsfleet, and I suspect a lengthening of platforms at Chatham.
Without the link, I'd run the regional services as far as Dartford,
and accept (a) lots of changing at Swanscombe / Ebbsfleet, and (b)
running lots of half empty trains to Ashford.

2. 4 tph using the CTRL phase 1 to Ashford. There the train would
divide into three, with sections going to Hastins via Rye; to Margate
via Dover Priory; to Ramsgate via Rye.

3. 2 tph going to Tonbridge via Strood, Maidstone West and Paddock
Wood. (Tonbridge to London would still be faster via Sevenoaks)

4. A few Intercity Services, such as Ashford, Ebbsfleet, Stratford,
Watford Junction, Milton Keynes and beyond.

This would provide faster, more comfortable and reliable services into
London for most of East Kent. Once CrossRail comes on stream, many
commuters would change to CrossRail at Ebbsfleet or Stratford. Until
then, this would put extra strain on Stratford to London services
(overground and underground) - though perhaps improved bus links from
Stratford could help.

Services from East Kent (beyond Ashford and Chatham) to London Bridge
would be curtailed (there would still be stopping services from
Ashford and Ebbsfleet), and the capacity freed up would be improve the
Hastings via Tunbridge Wells service, as well as local SE London
services.

Any thoughts?

CTRL to benefit Kent: What services?
 

After posting the message I found this:

http://www.medway.gov.uk/oco20030128r-7.pdf

It dates from Jan 2003, and broadly agrees with me, and calls for more
research. I suspect that nothing has been done, in line with the usual
British policy on infrastructures, e.g.

- Build the channel tunnel. When finished, start planning CTRL.
- Build Heathrow Terminal 5. When finished, start planning rail links
(Airtrack).
- Build CTRL. When finished, start planning links to Kent rail and
perhaps ordering rolling stock.

The main issue identified in the report is the fact that the Dover to
Folkstone tunnel can't take modern trains. This would therefore need
to be maintained by a local service, say Folkstone to Ramsgate.
(Currently a 48 minute journey for some reason)

CTRL to benefit Kent: What services?
 

CTRL to benefit Kent: What services?
 

Alex Terrell wrote:
(Aidan Stanger) wrote...
Alex Terrell wrote:


Thinking about this, I now agree - forget running CrossRail trains
through the CTRL. But what domestic services should be run through the
CTRL from 2007? After all, operators should start to order rolling
stock about now.

There was a consultation about this last year. The SRA had identified
the core service destinations as Gravesend, Canterbury West and
Folkestone Central, and were seeking views on extending it to Rainham,
Faversham, Ramsgate (either way) or Maidstone West. Service frequency
was to be 8tph peak, 4tph offpeak.

Does that mean 8 tph to Gravesend, then 4 tph to Canterbury West and 4
to Folkstone Central? That would mean a lot of people travelling to
these stations to get to London.

No, it means 8tph London to Ebbsfleet, then 4tph to Gravesend and 4tph
to Ashford, 2 of which would then continue to Folkestone Central and 2
would continue to Canterbury West. There are various options for running
the trains further than that, though none involve Hastings via Rye (the
population is too low to justify electrification, let alone high speed
trains).

There aren't expected to be as many paths available as you think.

I suppose they didn't look at splitting trains? They can even do that
with TGVs.

They did look at splitting trains at Ashford in the offpeak times.

I suggested:

Peak:
4tph Rochester via Gravesend
2tph Dover via Folkestone
2tph Ramsgate via Canterbury

Offpeak:
2tph Ramsgate via Gravesend
2tph Dover and Ramsgate (splitting at Ashford)

I pointed out that the Amtrak Metroliners had proved decades ago that
front doors weren't incompatible with high speeds, and they passed that
info on to the train manufacturers.

I also put a case for converting the Maidstone West line to light rail,
and (after A2 capacity is freed up by the opening of the Lower Thames
Crossing) taking over 2 lanes of the A2 to extend it to Ebbsfleet.

Not sure I follow. The Lower Thames Crossing was only proposed, not
planned. (It might be needed as more people try and drive to
Ebbsfleet.)

'Tis generally accepted that it will be needed eventually, and ITYF it
is planned, though not in great detail. How long it will be before it
gets built depends on several other factors, including whether the
Thames Gateway Bridge gets built as planned, as both it and the Lower
Thames Crossing would be partly paid for with the revenue from Dartford
tolls.

Why can't the existing line go from Ebbsfleet to
Gravesend, through the Strood tunnel, and on to Maidstone West,
Paddock Wood, and Tonbridge.

It can, though it wouldn't be much faster than the existing services to
Maidstone. By the time it reached Tonbridge, it would be substantially
slower than the existing route to London. That's quite an inefficient
use of these trains, which are more expensive than normal trains.

The other problem is that quite a lot of people commute between
Maidstone and the Chatham area, and rail has a very low market share
because it finishes up on the wrong side of the Medway. A light rail
proposal was developed to solve this problem, but stalled due to lack of
funding. If a lot of money's going to be spent on that line, serving
Chatham's a better objective than high speed services.

Do you know whether any action is being taken? On the CTRL website I
see no mention of a connection with the North Kent line.

There will be one. The core service is as certain as UK rail plans can
be, although how far the trains will be extended remains to be seen.

CTRL to benefit Kent: What services?
 

CTRL to benefit Kent: What services?
 

"Alex Terrell" wrote

- Build the channel tunnel. When finished, start planning CTRL.
- Build Heathrow Terminal 5. When finished, start planning rail links
(Airtrack).
- Build CTRL. When finished, start planning links to Kent rail and
perhaps ordering rolling stock.


As against the other side of the Channel where the high speed link south
from the tunnel was completed and lying dormant for quite some time before
tunnel was completed.

CTRL to benefit Kent: What services?
 

"Alex Terrell" a écrit dans le message de
om...
"Jonn Elledge" wrote in message
...
More useful, is it possible to send CrossRail through the CTRL link
from Stratford to Ebbsfleet?


Why? The point of the Ebbsfleet branch is surely not to link Ebbsfleet
to
Crossrail, but to connect the Isle of Dogs, Royal Docks and other more
populated parts of North Kent.

Thinking about this, I now agree - forget running CrossRail trains
through the CTRL. But what domestic services should be run through the
CTRL from 2007? After all, operators should start to order rolling
stock about now.

CTRL capacity is 16 tph. CTRL say there'll be capacity for 8 Eurostar
tph, but at present they can't fill three, so I reckon there could be
8 to 12 domestic trains per hour running each way from St Pancras to
Ebbsfleet. These could in theory be 16 cars long. Where should they
go?

Here's my thoughts. Assuming dual voltage trains that can run off
overhead or third rail:

SNIP

Any thoughts?

Your assumptions about the operation of Eurostars might not be valid,
because as others have already pointed out, the present constraints, which
are not very sensible, are liable to change. In particular, the reduction in
journey times and improved timekeeping resulting from the completion of
CTRL2 should boost demand substantially.

But other potential changes could have a far greater impact, eg the
introduction of measures to reduce congestion at London's airports by
reducing the number of slots allocated for flights on routes where the
overall journey time is typically longer than that by rail.

The basic problem is that there is no obvious way to recover the enormous
investment required to build the CRTL or Crossrail directly from fees paid
its users (especially commuters); as in similar cases (eg the Jubilee Line
and ELL extensions), the lion's share of the economic benefit goes to local
landowners, who enjoy signficant consequential increases in property values.
Only when you have solved it can we start meaningful discussions of train
services.

Regards,

- Alan (in Brussels - mind the spamtrap)

CTRL to benefit Kent: What services?
 

Alex Terrell wrote:
(Aidan Stanger) wrote...
Alex Terrell wrote:
(Aidan Stanger) wrote...
Alex Terrell wrote:


Thinking about this, I now agree - forget running CrossRail trains
through the CTRL. But what domestic services should be run through the
CTRL from 2007? After all, operators should start to order rolling
stock about now.

There was a consultation about this last year. The SRA had identified
the core service destinations as Gravesend, Canterbury West and
Folkestone Central, and were seeking views on extending it to Rainham,
Faversham, Ramsgate (either way) or Maidstone West. Service frequency
was to be 8tph peak, 4tph offpeak.

Does that mean 8 tph to Gravesend, then 4 tph to Canterbury West and 4
to Folkstone Central? That would mean a lot of people travelling to
these stations to get to London.

No, it means 8tph London to Ebbsfleet, then 4tph to Gravesend and 4tph
to Ashford, 2 of which would then continue to Folkestone Central and 2
would continue to Canterbury West. There are various options for running
the trains further than that, though none involve Hastings via Rye (the
population is too low to justify electrification, let alone high speed
trains).

So 8 tph limited commuter services. That means with 4 Eurostar
services, the CTRL Phase 2 will only be taking 12 tph. They should at
least be extending the Gravesend services to Chatham, and some beyond
to Ramsgate.

They talk about 8 eurostar tph, but can't even fill 3 at the moment,
and for some bizarre reason they want to keep Waterloo International
just to operate a few Eurostar per day.

Really? Last I heard they were planning to close Waterloo International.
Diverting some trains to Waterloo would increase the number of available
paths on the CTRL.

There aren't expected to be as many paths available as you think.

But there would if they replace 8 car paths to London Bridge with 12
or 16 Car paths to Stratford and St Pancras.

No, the shortage of paths is on the CTRL, as a lot more people are
expected to start using Eurostars once they run at high speeds all the
way.

(snip)
I also put a case for converting the Maidstone West line to light rail,
and (after A2 capacity is freed up by the opening of the Lower Thames
Crossing) taking over 2 lanes of the A2 to extend it to Ebbsfleet.

Not sure I follow. The Lower Thames Crossing was only proposed, not
planned. (It might be needed as more people try and drive to
Ebbsfleet.)

'Tis generally accepted that it will be needed eventually, and ITYF it
is planned, though not in great detail. How long it will be before it
gets built depends on several other factors, including whether the
Thames Gateway Bridge gets built as planned, as both it and the Lower
Thames Crossing would be partly paid for with the revenue from Dartford
tolls.

Lower Thames Crossing is needed now. If London Gateway port goes
ahead, even more so.

So do you still object to my plan to use freed up A2 capacity for a
light rail line from Ebbsfleet to Cuxton, where it would join the
Maidstone line (which would also be converted to light rail).

Why can't the existing line go from Ebbsfleet to
Gravesend, through the Strood tunnel, and on to Maidstone West,
Paddock Wood, and Tonbridge.

It can, though it wouldn't be much faster than the existing services to
Maidstone. By the time it reached Tonbridge, it would be substantially
slower than the existing route to London. That's quite an inefficient
use of these trains, which are more expensive than normal trains.

I estimate 1 hour from Tonbridge to St Pancras, compared with about 40
minutes to Waterloo East.

The Maidstone - St.Pancras time is officially estimated to be 46
minutes. The Medway Valley Line is unsuitable for high speed running.

People might use it if they wanted to go from Tunbridge Wells or Tunbridge
to Stratford, or St Pancras if Thameslink 2000 doesn't happen.

'Tis still quicker by Tube.

From Maidstone, it will be quickest to
take the CTRL. The alternative for many will be to drive to Ebbsfleet.
It will also help people commuting into Maidstone.

....Which is a less important destination than Rochester/Chatham UIVMM.

The other problem is that quite a lot of people commute between
Maidstone and the Chatham area, and rail has a very low market share
because it finishes up on the wrong side of the Medway. A light rail
proposal was developed to solve this problem, but stalled due to lack of
funding. If a lot of money's going to be spent on that line, serving
Chatham's a better objective than high speed services.

But a high frquency of services from Dartford to Sittingbourne, as
well as frequent buses from Strood, would partially solve that issue.
People could get from Tonbridge and Maidstone to Rochester via Strood.

But they'd have great difficulty providing a convenient service when
it's not a one seat ride.

If the CTRL trains ran to Maidstone then they'd have no connection with
the trains to Victoria. However, if they ran via Rochester then they'd
connect with both the Maidstone and East Kent services.

Buses from Strood are not the answer, as the Medway Bridge is crowded
enough already. Those passengers who want to take the bus can do so from
Maidstone.

Also, improving the existing service would be possible by constructing a
short connection near the M26 so that the express trains can run via
Orpington instead of taking the longer route via Swanley.

Do you know whether any action is being taken? On the CTRL website I
see no mention of a connection with the North Kent line.

There will be one. The core service is as certain as UK rail plans can
be, although how far the trains will be extended remains to be seen.

Better than nothing. It'll run for a year, then there'll be a study
for 2 years, then they'll decide there's an urgent need to extend
services. Then they'll order rolling stock, and services will be
extended about 2013.

Why do you assume they'll only start with the "core service" option?
After all, this consultation provoked several suggestions on how to
operate the service more efficiently.

CTRL to benefit Kent: What services?
 

CTRL to benefit Kent: What services?
 

"Alex Terrell" wrote in message
om...
(Aidan Stanger) wrote in message
...
I've never been able to figure out how
to get from Tunbridge Wells to Maidstone by train.

T.Wells to Tonbridge
Tonbridge to Paddock Wood
P.Wood to Maidstone West

55 minutes, 20 of which are hanging around waiting for your connections.

Neil