On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Angus Bryant wrote:

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Likely to be cheaper than a new tunnel, though!

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

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

The east-west study says of the proposed tunnel:

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

Rather, they suggest that:

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

These guys really need to learn to use commas.

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

tom

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

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Dave Arquati wrote:


Aidan Stanger wrote:

Dave Arquati wrote:


Aidan Stanger wrote:


Tom Anderson wrote:


On Thu, 25 Nov 2004, Dave Arquati wrote:


then following the North London Line route to Stratford.

Clearly, the only sensible solution is up the West Anglia from
Hackney.

I couldn't disagree more. Firstly, although Stratford's links with
much of Central London are good, there is no direct line to Kings
Cross.


It's always Stratford, Stratford, Stratford! What's so great about
Stratford anyway? Bah!


Secondly, Hackney's links with Stratford are currently inadequate -
the trains are infrequent, short and overcrowded. Thirdly, a well
designed Hackney station would incorporate Hackney Downs station, so
you would still get the benefits while the trains continue to serve
the popular destination of Liverpool Street.

Stratford will have a link to Farringdon with CR1; it's only a short
hop from there to King's Cross. And an upgrade of the NLL would go
towards improving links between Hackney and Stratford. I would say
that giving the West Anglia lines (particularly the Lea Valley) a
direct link to the West End would give greater regeneration benefits
than going to Stratford, which will already have some impressive new
links.

But if the West Anglia lines gained a direct service to the West End,
it would be at the expense of their direct service to the City, so
they'd be worse off.

Fair enough, they'd be worse off if CR2 replaced their direct services
to the City.


It wouldn't have to replace it - there could be two routes south from
Hackney. I'm not sure if this would be a good idea from an operational
point of view, though - shades of the Bakerloo. On the other hand, if this
was going to be CR2 rather than CH, ie a NR-style moderate-frequency
timetabled service, rather than a LU-style high-frequency random service,
it might work alright.

Crossrail 1 will be a very high frequency (24tph) LU-style service in
the centre, with pretty high frequency on the eastern branches (12 + 12
tph, plus extras on the Gt Eastern). I imagine Crossrail 2 would be the
same on the central core - it's too expensive to pass a cost-benefit
analysis otherwise. The frequency at Hackney would depend on whether any
branches (like Finchley) diverged before it. Even if a Finchley branch
diverged, Hackney would still probably receive 12tph which need to
continue somewhere (e.g. up the Lea Valley).

However, extra capacity and better connections will be urgently needed
further up the Lea Valley and near to Stansted will be needed if
government plans for significant house-building in this area are given
the go-ahead.

A CR1 branch up the Lea Valley Line would do this, though. I refuse to
believe CR1 can't support three interfaces at each end. Or, if it's stuck
at two, maybe this route will be added when the Docklands branch is
eventually cut back to non-existence!

If 12tph are needed for the Great Eastern and 12tph are needed for
Canary Wharf, how are you going to fit more trains through the central
tunnel! Anyway, I believe this discussion has been done at length in the
past :-)

The Victoria line will also be in urgent need of congestion relief.

Taking over the Central Line from Stratford serves neither objective,

And that's the rub - even if CH did take over the NLL route to Stratford,
where would it go afterwards? The Central Line is daft, the GE's
Crossrailed already, which basically only leaves the Lea Valley Line - and
KX - Hackney - Stratford - Tottenham Hale is, if you'll excuse the pun,
completely loopy! Unless you're proposing to take over the DLR?

The original Crossrail 2 proposal serving Stratford envisaged taking
over the Central line to Epping (leaving Central line services to the
Hainault Loop) and the North London Line to North Woolwich! The arrival
of Crossrail 1 in the Royal Docks and of the DLR extensions obviates the
need for that branch. I also think substituting the NLL between Dalston
and Stratford would be a very bad idea; a significant customer base for
orbital journeys has developed along the NLL. I've used the NLL
occasionally in the off-peaks, and the trains are always fully seated or
overcrowded.

I believe you're right; those Crossrail 2 trains should be routed up the
Lea Valley line. Not all 12tph have to run beyond Hackney; perhaps
8tph could fit into the Lea Valley services, retaining a direct service
to Liverpool Street, but allowing passengers to be distributed to other
nodes like Dalston Junction, Essex Road and Angel where they can pick up
services to different parts of the City if more convenient.

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

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Dave Arquati wrote:
Aidan Stanger wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote:
Aidan Stanger wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004, Dave Arquati wrote:

then following the North London Line route to Stratford.

Clearly, the only sensible solution is up the West Anglia from
Hackney.

I couldn't disagree more. Firstly, although Stratford's links with
much of Central London are good, there is no direct line to Kings
Cross.

It's always Stratford, Stratford, Stratford! What's so great about
Stratford anyway? Bah!

Biggest interchange in NE London. Major shopping centre. Highrise
development planned.

Secondly, Hackney's links with Stratford are currently inadequate -
the trains are infrequent, short and overcrowded. Thirdly, a well
designed Hackney station would incorporate Hackney Downs station, so
you would still get the benefits while the trains continue to serve
the popular destination of Liverpool Street.

Stratford will have a link to Farringdon with CR1; it's only a short
hop from there to King's Cross. And an upgrade of the NLL would go
towards improving links between Hackney and Stratford. I would say
that giving the West Anglia lines (particularly the Lea Valley) a
direct link to the West End would give greater regeneration benefits
than going to Stratford, which will already have some impressive new
links.

But if the West Anglia lines gained a direct service to the West End,
it would be at the expense of their direct service to the City, so
they'd be worse off.

Fair enough, they'd be worse off if CR2 replaced their direct services
to the City.

It wouldn't have to replace it - there could be two routes south from
Hackney. I'm not sure if this would be a good idea from an operational
point of view, though - shades of the Bakerloo. On the other hand, if this
was going to be CR2 rather than CH, ie a NR-style moderate-frequency
timetabled service, rather than a LU-style high-frequency random service,
it might work alright.

However, extra capacity and better connections will be urgently needed
further up the Lea Valley and near to Stansted will be needed if
government plans for significant house-building in this area are given
the go-ahead.

A CR1 branch up the Lea Valley Line would do this, though. I refuse to
believe CR1 can't support three interfaces at each end. Or, if it's stuck
at two, maybe this route will be added when the Docklands branch is
eventually cut back to non-existence!

The Victoria line will also be in urgent need of congestion relief.

Taking over the Central Line from Stratford serves neither objective,

An interchange at Hackney does.

And that's the rub - even if CH did take over the NLL route to Stratford,
where would it go afterwards? The Central Line is daft,

Agreed.

the GE's Crossrailed already,

It could take over the slow service to Romford, with CR1 losing all
intermediate stations except Ilford. But this would probably require
more tracks, which may make it too expensive.

which basically only leaves the Lea Valley Line - and KX - Hackney -
Stratford - Tottenham Hale is, if you'll excuse the pun, completely loopy!

True. I think this would make an excellent Jubilee extension, but I
haven't found anyone else who does.

Unless you're proposing to take over the DLR?

There is one other option that's not DLR (yet): The Woolwich Branch. If
it doesn't become part of CR1, it could become part of CR2 until a new
direct line is constructed (which could take decades).

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Angus Bryant wrote:
"Tom Anderson" wrote...

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

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

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

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

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

Have you got their contact details?

I've spoken to people in the LRM consortium about it, but obviously
that's not enough.

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

2 flyovers? I was envisaging one N of Kings Cross - where would the
other be needed?

Likely to be cheaper than a new tunnel, though!

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

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

The east-west study says of the proposed tunnel:

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

Rather, they suggest that:

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

These guys really need to learn to use commas.

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

The shadow strategic rail authority is what the SRA was when it had no
power at all.

Aidan Stanger wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote:

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Dave Arquati wrote:

Aidan Stanger wrote:

Dave Arquati wrote:

Aidan Stanger wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004, Dave Arquati wrote:


then following the North London Line route to Stratford.

Clearly, the only sensible solution is up the West Anglia from
Hackney.

I couldn't disagree more. Firstly, although Stratford's links with
much of Central London are good, there is no direct line to Kings
Cross.

It's always Stratford, Stratford, Stratford! What's so great about
Stratford anyway? Bah!

Biggest interchange in NE London. Major shopping centre. Highrise
development planned.

Secondly, Hackney's links with Stratford are currently inadequate -
the trains are infrequent, short and overcrowded. Thirdly, a well
designed Hackney station would incorporate Hackney Downs station, so
you would still get the benefits while the trains continue to serve
the popular destination of Liverpool Street.

Stratford will have a link to Farringdon with CR1; it's only a short
hop from there to King's Cross. And an upgrade of the NLL would go
towards improving links between Hackney and Stratford. I would say
that giving the West Anglia lines (particularly the Lea Valley) a
direct link to the West End would give greater regeneration benefits
than going to Stratford, which will already have some impressive new
links.

But if the West Anglia lines gained a direct service to the West End,
it would be at the expense of their direct service to the City, so
they'd be worse off.

Fair enough, they'd be worse off if CR2 replaced their direct services
to the City.

It wouldn't have to replace it - there could be two routes south from
Hackney. I'm not sure if this would be a good idea from an operational
point of view, though - shades of the Bakerloo. On the other hand, if this
was going to be CR2 rather than CH, ie a NR-style moderate-frequency
timetabled service, rather than a LU-style high-frequency random service,
it might work alright.

However, extra capacity and better connections will be urgently needed
further up the Lea Valley and near to Stansted will be needed if
government plans for significant house-building in this area are given
the go-ahead.

A CR1 branch up the Lea Valley Line would do this, though. I refuse to
believe CR1 can't support three interfaces at each end. Or, if it's stuck
at two, maybe this route will be added when the Docklands branch is
eventually cut back to non-existence!

The Victoria line will also be in urgent need of congestion relief.

Taking over the Central Line from Stratford serves neither objective,

An interchange at Hackney does.

Not well. It won't improve capacity northwards to the
London-Stansted-Cambridge corridor which those development agencies keep
yapping about. It could relieve the Victoria of West Anglia interchange
passengers, true - but at the expense of merely extending their journeys
on unimproved WA services to Hackney.

And that's the rub - even if CH did take over the NLL route to Stratford,
where would it go afterwards? The Central Line is daft,

Agreed.


the GE's Crossrailed already,


It could take over the slow service to Romford, with CR1 losing all
intermediate stations except Ilford. But this would probably require
more tracks, which may make it too expensive.

What's the point? Readjustment of services on the Great Eastern with
Crossrail will already provide superb connectivity to central London and
18tph. Spread the benefits out a bit.

which basically only leaves the Lea Valley Line - and KX - Hackney -
Stratford - Tottenham Hale is, if you'll excuse the pun, completely loopy!


True. I think this would make an excellent Jubilee extension, but I
haven't found anyone else who does.

They're already planning to run NLL services up the Lea Valley from
Stratford to somewhere. Anyway, where do you want to extend the Jubilee
to? It won't provide a decent service from the Lea Valley to central
London (too slow)... might do to Canary Wharf though. Given the
passenger numbers involved, surely it's probably more cost-effective to
let them use extended NLL services or new services and change at Stratford?

Unless you're proposing to take over the DLR?

There is one other option that's not DLR (yet): The Woolwich Branch. If
it doesn't become part of CR1, it could become part of CR2 until a new
direct line is constructed (which could take decades).

Westminster & TfL are quite keen on DLR-ising that. Besides, it seems a
bit inefficient to cart the denizens of LB Newham around Hackney before
dropping them off in central London.

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

"Aidan Stanger" wrote in message
...

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

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

I assume the portal would have been part of the complex burrowing
junction/tunnel portals/etc at Primrose Hill - i.e. they'd just join it up
to the slow (not DC) lines.

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

2 flyovers? I was envisaging one N of Kings Cross

Indeed. The NLL/ELL "metro" would run on the southern pair to Canonbury,
fly over the freight pair north of the King's Cross railway lands, and then
run on the northern pair to Camden. This would also allow the CTRL/St
Pancras link to the NLL (destination Primrose Hill) to join the freight
lines from the southern side without having to conflict with the NLL/ELL
metro.

where would the other be needed?

Forest Gate - you still need to cross the GE electric lines (which will be
taken over by Crossrail) at some point to get from the NLL to Barking. And
that's one of the issues of Crossrail I believe - that one of the capacity
constraints along this section was the freight crossing to get to
Barking/Dagenham/Tilbury. I think this was mentioned in the E-W Rail Study.

Likely to be cheaper than a new tunnel, though!

You'd have thought so. I seem to remember hearing that the experience of
the Shortlands flyover meant that flyovers have actually become quite cheap
and disruption-free to build (mentioned I think in one of the Mod Rlys
articles on building a flyover at Stafford).

The east-west study says of the proposed [Thames] tunnel:

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

Rather, they suggest that:

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

I reckon a suitable route would be linking Tilbury and Denton (just east of
Gravesend). Of course that's just looking at a map and not taking anything
else into account... :-)

Angus

Dave Arquati wrote:

Aidan Stanger wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote:

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Dave Arquati wrote:

Aidan Stanger wrote:

Dave Arquati wrote:

Aidan Stanger wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004, Dave Arquati wrote:


then following the North London Line route to Stratford.

Clearly, the only sensible solution is up the West Anglia from
Hackney.

I couldn't disagree more. Firstly, although Stratford's links with
much of Central London are good, there is no direct line to Kings
Cross.

It's always Stratford, Stratford, Stratford! What's so great about
Stratford anyway? Bah!

Biggest interchange in NE London. Major shopping centre. Highrise
development planned.

Secondly, Hackney's links with Stratford are currently inadequate -
the trains are infrequent, short and overcrowded. Thirdly, a well
designed Hackney station would incorporate Hackney Downs station, so
you would still get the benefits while the trains continue to serve
the popular destination of Liverpool Street.

Stratford will have a link to Farringdon with CR1; it's only a short
hop from there to King's Cross. And an upgrade of the NLL would go
towards improving links between Hackney and Stratford. I would say
that giving the West Anglia lines (particularly the Lea Valley) a
direct link to the West End would give greater regeneration benefits
than going to Stratford, which will already have some impressive new
links.

But if the West Anglia lines gained a direct service to the West End,
it would be at the expense of their direct service to the City, so
they'd be worse off.

Fair enough, they'd be worse off if CR2 replaced their direct services
to the City.

It wouldn't have to replace it - there could be two routes south from
Hackney. I'm not sure if this would be a good idea from an operational
point of view, though - shades of the Bakerloo. On the other hand, if this
was going to be CR2 rather than CH, ie a NR-style moderate-frequency
timetabled service, rather than a LU-style high-frequency random service,
it might work alright.

However, extra capacity and better connections will be urgently needed
further up the Lea Valley and near to Stansted will be needed if
government plans for significant house-building in this area are given
the go-ahead.

A CR1 branch up the Lea Valley Line would do this, though. I refuse to
believe CR1 can't support three interfaces at each end. Or, if it's stuck
at two, maybe this route will be added when the Docklands branch is
eventually cut back to non-existence!

The Victoria line will also be in urgent need of congestion relief.

Taking over the Central Line from Stratford serves neither objective,

An interchange at Hackney does.

Not well. It won't improve capacity northwards to the
London-Stansted-Cambridge corridor which those development agencies keep
yapping about. It could relieve the Victoria of West Anglia interchange
passengers, true - but at the expense of merely extending their journeys
on unimproved WA services to Hackney.

And that's the rub - even if CH did take over the NLL route to Stratford,
where would it go afterwards? The Central Line is daft,

Agreed.


the GE's Crossrailed already,


It could take over the slow service to Romford, with CR1 losing all
intermediate stations except Ilford. But this would probably require
more tracks, which may make it too expensive.

What's the point? Readjustment of services on the Great Eastern with
Crossrail will already provide superb connectivity to central London and
18tph. Spread the benefits out a bit.

Spreading them out a bit mo Southampton, Clacton etc...

Why would the other GE services be readjusted? I thought Crossrail would
be using the slow lines and not affecting the other services at all. Is
it to do with the Liverpool Street approach tracks bottleneck?

which basically only leaves the Lea Valley Line - and KX - Hackney -
Stratford - Tottenham Hale is, if you'll excuse the pun, completely loopy!


True. I think this would make an excellent Jubilee extension, but I
haven't found anyone else who does.

They're already planning to run NLL services up the Lea Valley from
Stratford to somewhere.

Only because of the lack of a proper interchange at Hackney, and they're
only planning it because they don't know what else to do with the NLL.
Anyway, as Tom pointed out, that route's completely loopy.

Anyway, where do you want to extend the Jubilee to?

Tottenham Hale. I'd originally thought it Enfield Town might be a good
terminus, but having walked the dismantled section between Edmonton and
Angel Road, I can see that relaying it would be rather too disruptive
(and therefore expensive) to justify it.

It won't provide a decent service from the Lea Valley to central
London (too slow)... might do to Canary Wharf though. Given the
passenger numbers involved, surely it's probably more cost-effective to
let them use extended NLL services or new services and change at Stratford?

The idea was to increase Canary Wharf catchment area at a small fraction
of the cost of a Crossrail branch.

Unless you're proposing to take over the DLR?

There is one other option that's not DLR (yet): The Woolwich Branch. If
it doesn't become part of CR1, it could become part of CR2 until a new
direct line is constructed (which could take decades).

Westminster & TfL are quite keen on DLR-ising that.

I know. Unimaginitive, aren't they????

Besides, it seems a bit inefficient to cart the denizens of LB Newham
around Hackney before dropping them off in central London.

A bit, but not as inefficient as building a Crossrail tunnel all the way
to the Royal Docks.

Aidan Stanger wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote:


Aidan Stanger wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:


On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Dave Arquati wrote:


Aidan Stanger wrote:



(snipped lots of extra discussion)
However, extra capacity and better connections will be urgently needed
further up the Lea Valley and near to Stansted will be needed if
government plans for significant house-building in this area are given
the go-ahead.

A CR1 branch up the Lea Valley Line would do this, though. I refuse to
believe CR1 can't support three interfaces at each end. Or, if it's stuck
at two, maybe this route will be added when the Docklands branch is
eventually cut back to non-existence!


The Victoria line will also be in urgent need of congestion relief.

Taking over the Central Line from Stratford serves neither objective,

An interchange at Hackney does.

Not well. It won't improve capacity northwards to the
London-Stansted-Cambridge corridor which those development agencies keep
yapping about. It could relieve the Victoria of West Anglia interchange
passengers, true - but at the expense of merely extending their journeys
on unimproved WA services to Hackney.

And that's the rub - even if CH did take over the NLL route to Stratford,
where would it go afterwards? The Central Line is daft,

Agreed.

the GE's Crossrailed already,

It could take over the slow service to Romford, with CR1 losing all
intermediate stations except Ilford. But this would probably require
more tracks, which may make it too expensive.

What's the point? Readjustment of services on the Great Eastern with
Crossrail will already provide superb connectivity to central London and
18tph. Spread the benefits out a bit.

Spreading them out a bit mo Southampton, Clacton etc...

London would be paying a lot of money to build the central tunnel for
Crossrail 2. Surely it's better to give the benefits mainly to London
boroughs (i.e. mainly inner suburban services); it's much better to
encourage better development of land closer to people's workplaces,
rather than encouraging them to live miles away and travel long
distances every day. If you work in central London, why live in a
standard housing development in Southampton when you can live in exactly
the same standard housing development in the upper Lea Valley and be at
work in half the time?

Why would the other GE services be readjusted? I thought Crossrail would
be using the slow lines and not affecting the other services at all. Is
it to do with the Liverpool Street approach tracks bottleneck?

I meant that 18tph will be provided once Crossrail arrives, with 12tph
Crossrail through trains, supplemented by 6tph Liverpool Street-only
trains (serving short platforms at Maryland).

which basically only leaves the Lea Valley Line - and KX - Hackney -
Stratford - Tottenham Hale is, if you'll excuse the pun, completely loopy!

True. I think this would make an excellent Jubilee extension, but I
haven't found anyone else who does.

They're already planning to run NLL services up the Lea Valley from
Stratford to somewhere.

Only because of the lack of a proper interchange at Hackney, and they're
only planning it because they don't know what else to do with the NLL.
Anyway, as Tom pointed out, that route's completely loopy.

Yes, if you want to travel from the Lea Valley to Hackney. But it's a
reasonably logical (and cheap) way of beefing up frequencies between the
Lea Valley and Stratford, given that the NLL will be using the Lea
Valley platforms at Stratford.

Anyway, where do you want to extend the Jubilee to?

Tottenham Hale. I'd originally thought it Enfield Town might be a good
terminus, but having walked the dismantled section between Edmonton and
Angel Road, I can see that relaying it would be rather too disruptive
(and therefore expensive) to justify it.

It's not a bad idea. I imagine it would be reasonably expensive to get
the Jubilee from one side of Stratford to the other though.

It won't provide a decent service from the Lea Valley to central
London (too slow)... might do to Canary Wharf though. Given the
passenger numbers involved, surely it's probably more cost-effective to
let them use extended NLL services or new services and change at Stratford?

The idea was to increase Canary Wharf catchment area at a small fraction
of the cost of a Crossrail branch.

Canary Wharf Group are extremely keen on their direct link to Heathrow
and will be helping to fund it - so I'm inclined to leave their branch
alone (Abbey Wood will do fine for now).

Unless you're proposing to take over the DLR?

There is one other option that's not DLR (yet): The Woolwich Branch. If
it doesn't become part of CR1, it could become part of CR2 until a new
direct line is constructed (which could take decades).

Westminster & TfL are quite keen on DLR-ising that.

I know. Unimaginitive, aren't they????

I have to side with them on DLR-isation. Low cost, high benefits to
local residents, improving connections with their local centres rather
than telling them all they have to work in Central London. Oh, and those
benefits probably 20 years before CR2 even breaks ground.

Besides, it seems a bit inefficient to cart the denizens of LB Newham
around Hackney before dropping them off in central London.

A bit, but not as inefficient as building a Crossrail tunnel all the way
to the Royal Docks.

The traffic might not be there yet - but by 2013 there will have been
massive development in the Thames Gateway, with thousands of homes
feeding in to Custom House via the DLR Dagenham branch, and more homes
feeding in to Abbey Wood via Greenwich Waterfront Transit or the North
Kent lines. At least if Crossrail terminates at Abbey Wood (instead of
Ebbsfleet), fast services can easily be provided from Kent Thamesside
developments, stopping for interchange at Abbey Wood. Otherwise they'll
all be cramming into London Bridge or St Pancras (or perhaps the DLR at
Lewisham or Woolwich).

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

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004, Aidan Stanger wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Angus Bryant wrote:
"Tom Anderson" wrote...

make Goblin the primary cross-London freight line

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

One more thing: the four-tracking on the NLL ends at Camden Road east
junction; the Primrose Hill and Hampstead branches diverge to the west, at
what i assume is called Camden Road west junction. Thus, you'd need to
four-track between the two junctions; it's not at all far, but it is in a
heavily built-up area.

You should write to the ministry with that idea.

Have you got their contact details?

Email:



Or write to:

Enquiry Service
Department for Transport
Great Minster House
76 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DR

I've spoken to people in the LRM consortium about it, but obviously
that's not enough.

Other suspects would be the SRA (lame ducks, though) and London Rail.

You could also try your MP, who could send a written question to the
ministry.

I think the current plan, which would put more freight on the GOBLin,
would reduce its passenger service (since this is more or less impossible,
though, it might not); you could therefore try bouncing the idea off
pro-GOBLin people and bodies, such as the Barking - Gospel Oak Line Users
Group (http://www.barking-gospeloak.org.uk/) and these three MPs:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/?pid=10133 Jeremy Corbyn
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/?pid=10224 Neil Gerrard
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/?pid=10281 Margaret Hodge

The three of them talked about it in in 1996:

http://www.publications.parliament.u...t/60627-20.htm

As it happens, Jeremy Corbyn's my MP!

tom

--
Per Dementia ad Astra

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004, Aidan Stanger wrote:

make Goblin the primary cross-London freight line

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

Just thought - I wonder if you could avoid tunnelling from Gospel Oak to
Primrose Hill by double-decking the NLL from Gospel Oak to just west of
Camden Rd west junction, with a north-to-west spur to join the Primrose
Hill line to the WCML? This stretch of the NLL is all on viaduct anyway, so
adding a deck on top may be quite easy.

One more thing: the four-tracking on the NLL ends at Camden Road east
junction; the Primrose Hill and Hampstead branches diverge to the west, at
what i assume is called Camden Road west junction. Thus, you'd need to
four-track between the two junctions; it's not at all far, but it is in a
heavily built-up area.

Is it a genuinely 2-track width, or is there space for another 2 tracks
(i.e. 2 tracks used out of a 4-track-width alignment)?

If you did want to do the 4-track NLL option, double-decking could be a
solution for Camden Rd west to Camden Rd east to avoid any land take through
Camden (if it is genuinely 2-track, rather than 2 used tracks on a
4-track-width alignment); similarly for Hackney to Stratford. I don't know
how you'd deal with Dalston to Hackney though as that bit is in a cutting.

Off-topic I know, but double-decking could also be a solution for relieving
the bottleneck at the through platforms at Manchester Piccadilly....

Angus