Aidan Stanger wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote:

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004, Dave Arquati wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Dave Arquati wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Dave Arquati wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:


"The second route would link Herts and Beds with Clapham Junction."

Beds is probably wrong, although it's very much up in the air. Herts
could get Crossrail 2 services; it depends if they decide to run any up
the Lea Valley line.

I hadn't heard about this idea (until i looked at your site,
obviously). It's pretty obvious - Stratford, Lea Valley Line (more or
less unused for passengers at the moment), Tottenham Hale, some set of
stations to the north (hopefully Stansted). Is it being seriously
considered? For some value of 'seriously' appropriate to the entirely
hypothetical Crossrail 2, of course.

It would seem sensible for Crossrail 2 to take over the "one" services

from Stratford to Stansted and Hertford East starting next year, and

enhance them - especially given the desire to regenerate the Lea Valley.
A direct service from Stansted to the rest of Central London would also
be a bonus, if Stansted is to be expanded.

Strongly agreed.

Of course, it would be yet another transport project which *just*
misses Hackney - after the ELL, stepping over the border into Dalston
and then fleeing to Islington, and the eternally promised but never
delivered prospect of Chelsea-Hackney.

Crossrail 2 *is* really Chelsea-Hackney

Yes, i know - i just like the old name a lot more! The description
"eternally promised but never delivered" is as true under this name as any
previous.


'Tis Chelsea that's more likely to be bypassed.

RB Kensington & Chelsea are still clinging on to the hope that CR2 will
serve somewhere in Chelsea. They're not entirely off their rockers -
they consider a route from Victoria to Clapham Junction via Sloane
Square, King's Road (presumably somewhere near the Town Hall) and
Imperial Wharf to be desirable, and it would serve a larger population
that a simple direct tunnel to the Junction. The other main option is
via Battersea Park, and that would be popular with the Power Station
developers.

Interestingly, the CLRL map for CR2 shows an additional possible branch
from Victoria which does *not* go to Clapham Junction. That would
suggest a Chelsea & Putney route (which was in the original, safeguarded
plans).

- just evolved.

Hmph.


In fact, it is generally proposed to serve Hackney (Central). The
oft-proposed route is from King's Cross to Dalston (either via Highbury
& Islington or via Angel and Essex Road),

I hadn't heard of the Highbury & Islington option; is the idea to use the
NLL as some sort of cost-saving measure? Ah, ignore me, you answer this
below.


Hadn't that idea already been abandoned?


then following the North London Line route to Stratford. If this route
were chosen, then it would seem to be a long way round to serve the Lea
Valley line from Stratford, and instead a branch might leave at Hackney
to head for Stansted.

KX - Dalston i like, but going to Stratford is madness. People in
Stratford and beyond already have good ways into town, and no desire to go
to Hackney. 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.
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.

The problem with using the NLL route between Highbury and Stratford is
that it would be difficult to replicate it in a tunnel thanks to the
CTRL, and sharing tracks with the NLL itself would be a performance
liability - especially given the heavy freight use, the 6tph proposed
for the NLL and the further 4tph from the ELLX. Running Crossrail 2 this
way could mean NLL services being cut back.

Indeed. Seems to be an ineffective way of doing something undesirable.


But sharing between Dalston and Stratford would not be a problem, as NLL
trains could be diverted to Bishopsgate and the ELL.

Removing a direct orbital link between Stratford and northwest/west
London would be a bad idea, IMHO. Interchange at Dalston would certainly
not be easy, as the ELL station is at Dalston Junction. Perhaps a CR2
route from Essex Road to Haggerston station and then Hackney would be
better - it could all be tunnelled (avoiding the CTRL tunnels, unlike
the NLL route), and would mean a less awkward curve at Hackney if it
took a West Anglia route.

I'd give Hackney a good chance of being included in Crossrail 2, should
it ever be built. After all, the GN will have Thameslink 2000 and the GE
will have Crossrail 1 - there's really nowhere else for CR2 to go!

Crossrail 3!


I can think of a lot of possible routes for more Crossrail lines.
Unfortunately the routes aren't safeguarded, so constructing them would
probably require a lot of buildings to be demolished.

We have east-west and a possible SW-NE. The other obvious connection is
NW-SE, to give Watford DC services a direct link to the City, and adding
extra capacity into London Bridge. The only problem there is that
apparently there is already extensive overprovision of services between
Queen's Park and Harrow.

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

Dave Arquati wrote:
Aidan Stanger wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004, Dave Arquati wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote:
(snip)
Of course, it would be yet another transport project which *just*
misses Hackney - after the ELL, stepping over the border into Dalston
and then fleeing to Islington, and the eternally promised but never
delivered prospect of Chelsea-Hackney.

Crossrail 2 *is* really Chelsea-Hackney

Yes, i know - i just like the old name a lot more! The description
"eternally promised but never delivered" is as true under this name as any
previous.


'Tis Chelsea that's more likely to be bypassed.

RB Kensington & Chelsea are still clinging on to the hope that CR2 will
serve somewhere in Chelsea. They're not entirely off their rockers -
they consider a route from Victoria to Clapham Junction via Sloane
Square, King's Road (presumably somewhere near the Town Hall) and
Imperial Wharf to be desirable, and it would serve a larger population
that a simple direct tunnel to the Junction. The other main option is
via Battersea Park, and that would be popular with the Power Station
developers.

The best route IMO would be via Kings Road and West Battersea (the other
side of Battersea Park from the Power Station).

Interestingly, the CLRL map for CR2 shows an additional possible branch
from Victoria which does *not* go to Clapham Junction. That would
suggest a Chelsea & Putney route (which was in the original, safeguarded
plans).

- just evolved.

Hmph.


In fact, it is generally proposed to serve Hackney (Central). The
oft-proposed route is from King's Cross to Dalston (either via Highbury
& Islington or via Angel and Essex Road),

I hadn't heard of the Highbury & Islington option; is the idea to use the
NLL as some sort of cost-saving measure? Ah, ignore me, you answer this
below.


Hadn't that idea already been abandoned?


then following the North London Line route to Stratford. If this route
were chosen, then it would seem to be a long way round to serve the Lea
Valley line from Stratford, and instead a branch might leave at Hackney
to head for Stansted.

KX - Dalston i like, but going to Stratford is madness. People in
Stratford and beyond already have good ways into town, and no desire to go
to Hackney. 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.
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. Considering they already have the Victoria Line to the
West End, and will also gain an interchange with Crossrail 2, I can't
see how it would be worth it.

The problem with using the NLL route between Highbury and Stratford is
that it would be difficult to replicate it in a tunnel thanks to the
CTRL, and sharing tracks with the NLL itself would be a performance
liability - especially given the heavy freight use, the 6tph proposed
for the NLL and the further 4tph from the ELLX. Running Crossrail 2 this
way could mean NLL services being cut back.

Indeed. Seems to be an ineffective way of doing something undesirable.


But sharing between Dalston and Stratford would not be a problem, as NLL
trains could be diverted to Bishopsgate and the ELL.

Removing a direct orbital link between Stratford and northwest/west
London would be a bad idea, IMHO. Interchange at Dalston would certainly
not be easy, as the ELL station is at Dalston Junction. Perhaps a CR2
route from Essex Road to Haggerston station and then Hackney would be
better - it could all be tunnelled (avoiding the CTRL tunnels, unlike
the NLL route), and would mean a less awkward curve at Hackney if it
took a West Anglia route.

Why do you assume the CR2 station would not also be at Dalston Junction?
There's plenty of room for it to surface there, and the curve linking it
to the eastern section of the NLL wouldn't be too difficult to
reinstate.

Such a route would require less tunnelling and therfore be cheaper.
Dalston Kingsland station would close, but Dalston Junction is so close
that this would not matter much, especially considering the much better
service it would get.

I'd give Hackney a good chance of being included in Crossrail 2, should
it ever be built. After all, the GN will have Thameslink 2000 and the GE
will have Crossrail 1 - there's really nowhere else for CR2 to go!

Crossrail 3!


I can think of a lot of possible routes for more Crossrail lines.
Unfortunately the routes aren't safeguarded, so constructing them would
probably require a lot of buildings to be demolished.

We have east-west and a possible SW-NE. The other obvious connection is
NW-SE, to give Watford DC services a direct link to the City, and adding
extra capacity into London Bridge. The only problem there is that
apparently there is already extensive overprovision of services between
Queen's Park and Harrow.

The best solution, as I've said previously, would be to let Crossrail 1
take over the slow lines (NOT the DC lines) on the WCML, with cross
platform interchange at Willesden Junction, and run trains to Wolverton
(Milton Keynes) and possibly Northampton. LU would then take over the DC
lines and run its trains to Euston, and a freight route would be created
from Willesden to the NLL.

Aidan Stanger wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote:

Aidan Stanger wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004, Dave Arquati wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

(snip)

Of course, it would be yet another transport project which *just*
misses Hackney - after the ELL, stepping over the border into Dalston
and then fleeing to Islington, and the eternally promised but never
delivered prospect of Chelsea-Hackney.

Crossrail 2 *is* really Chelsea-Hackney

Yes, i know - i just like the old name a lot more! The description
"eternally promised but never delivered" is as true under this name as any
previous.


'Tis Chelsea that's more likely to be bypassed.

RB Kensington & Chelsea are still clinging on to the hope that CR2 will
serve somewhere in Chelsea. They're not entirely off their rockers -
they consider a route from Victoria to Clapham Junction via Sloane
Square, King's Road (presumably somewhere near the Town Hall) and
Imperial Wharf to be desirable, and it would serve a larger population
that a simple direct tunnel to the Junction. The other main option is
via Battersea Park, and that would be popular with the Power Station
developers.

The best route IMO would be via Kings Road and West Battersea (the other
side of Battersea Park from the Power Station).

Serving West Battersea is a good objective, but so is southwest Chelsea
(i.e. Sands End). Stations at Worlds End (Chelsea) and Battersea High St
(possibly with additional platforms on the WLL) would serve both traffic
objectives.

In the short term, a footbridge adjacent to the rail bridge at Sands End
would give people in West Battersea a relatively short link to the new
station at Imperial Wharf.

(snip)
then following the North London Line route to Stratford. If this route
were chosen, then it would seem to be a long way round to serve the Lea
Valley line from Stratford, and instead a branch might leave at Hackney
to head for Stansted.

KX - Dalston i like, but going to Stratford is madness. People in
Stratford and beyond already have good ways into town, and no desire to go
to Hackney. 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.
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. Considering they already have the Victoria Line to the
West End, and will also gain an interchange with Crossrail 2, I can't
see how it would be worth it.

Fair enough, they'd be worse off if CR2 replaced their direct services
to the City. 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. The Victoria line will also be in urgent need of
congestion relief.

Taking over the Central Line from Stratford serves neither objective,
especially as Central Line services will see significantly reduced
crowding thanks to Crossrail 1 (and that includes points beyond
Stratford, as higher frequencies and quicker journey times will attract
some travellers who currently have a choice of Central Line or Great
Eastern - especially once East London Transit is in place to feed
Crossrail Great Eastern stations).

The problem with using the NLL route between Highbury and Stratford is
that it would be difficult to replicate it in a tunnel thanks to the
CTRL, and sharing tracks with the NLL itself would be a performance
liability - especially given the heavy freight use, the 6tph proposed
for the NLL and the further 4tph from the ELLX. Running Crossrail 2 this
way could mean NLL services being cut back.

Indeed. Seems to be an ineffective way of doing something undesirable.


But sharing between Dalston and Stratford would not be a problem, as NLL
trains could be diverted to Bishopsgate and the ELL.

Removing a direct orbital link between Stratford and northwest/west
London would be a bad idea, IMHO. Interchange at Dalston would certainly
not be easy, as the ELL station is at Dalston Junction. Perhaps a CR2
route from Essex Road to Haggerston station and then Hackney would be
better - it could all be tunnelled (avoiding the CTRL tunnels, unlike
the NLL route), and would mean a less awkward curve at Hackney if it
took a West Anglia route.


Why do you assume the CR2 station would not also be at Dalston Junction?
There's plenty of room for it to surface there, and the curve linking it
to the eastern section of the NLL wouldn't be too difficult to
reinstate.

I was thinking if the CR2 route ran from Highbury rather than Essex Road
(I didn't make that clear!).

Such a route would require less tunnelling and therfore be cheaper.
Dalston Kingsland station would close, but Dalston Junction is so close
that this would not matter much, especially considering the much better
service it would get.

If the NLL were rerouted at Dalston, interchange for passengers on
existing NLL flows from Hampstead, Camden and Islington to Stratford and
vice versa would add inconvenience to those journeys, unless
cross-platform or top-to-bottom (e.g. Canning Town) interchange could be
achieved. This is one of the reasons many Richmond residents were
unhappy about their branch of Crossrail 1.

I'd give Hackney a good chance of being included in Crossrail 2, should
it ever be built. After all, the GN will have Thameslink 2000 and the GE
will have Crossrail 1 - there's really nowhere else for CR2 to go!

Crossrail 3!


I can think of a lot of possible routes for more Crossrail lines.
Unfortunately the routes aren't safeguarded, so constructing them would
probably require a lot of buildings to be demolished.

We have east-west and a possible SW-NE. The other obvious connection is
NW-SE, to give Watford DC services a direct link to the City, and adding
extra capacity into London Bridge. The only problem there is that
apparently there is already extensive overprovision of services between
Queen's Park and Harrow.

The best solution, as I've said previously, would be to let Crossrail 1
take over the slow lines (NOT the DC lines) on the WCML, with cross
platform interchange at Willesden Junction, and run trains to Wolverton
(Milton Keynes) and possibly Northampton. LU would then take over the DC
lines and run its trains to Euston, and a freight route would be created
from Willesden to the NLL.

If the Felixstowe-Nuneaton gauge enhancement project were completed
properly, then the amount of freight traffic on the NLL could be reduced
significantly. The freight route you mention wouldn't be any different
than before, as it would still have to share the same tracks with the
same services.

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

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...

The best solution, as I've said previously, would be to let Crossrail 1
take over the slow lines (NOT the DC lines) on the WCML, with cross
platform interchange at Willesden Junction, and run trains to Wolverton
(Milton Keynes) and possibly Northampton. LU would then take over the DC
lines and run its trains to Euston, and a freight route would be created
from Willesden to the NLL.

If the Felixstowe-Nuneaton gauge enhancement project were completed
properly, then the amount of freight traffic on the NLL could be reduced
significantly. The freight route you mention wouldn't be any different
than before, as it would still have to share the same tracks with the
same services.

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?

Cheers
Angus

Angus Bryant wrote:
"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...

The best solution, as I've said previously, would be to let Crossrail 1
take over the slow lines (NOT the DC lines) on the WCML, with cross
platform interchange at Willesden Junction, and run trains to Wolverton
(Milton Keynes) and possibly Northampton. LU would then take over the DC
lines and run its trains to Euston, and a freight route would be created
from Willesden to the NLL.

If the Felixstowe-Nuneaton gauge enhancement project were completed
properly, then the amount of freight traffic on the NLL could be reduced
significantly. The freight route you mention wouldn't be any different
than before, as it would still have to share the same tracks with the
same services.


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?

I remember the plan too but I haven't heard anything since.


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

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Angus Bryant wrote:

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...

The best solution, as I've said previously, would be to let
Crossrail 1 take over the slow lines (NOT the DC lines) on the WCML,
with cross platform interchange at Willesden Junction, and run
trains to Wolverton (Milton Keynes) and possibly Northampton. LU
would then take over the DC lines and run its trains to Euston, and
a freight route would be created from Willesden to the NLL.

If the Felixstowe-Nuneaton gauge enhancement project were completed
properly, then the amount of freight traffic on the NLL could be
reduced significantly.

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?

TfL recently did a report called "Freight on rail in London":

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/rail/downloads/pdf/freight.pdf

They don't say too much about it - their emphasis being on the Felixtowe -
Nuneaton bypass - but they do say that the proposed port development at
Shellhaven, "cannot be supported without [...] upgrades to the Tottenham
and Hampstead Line and the Hampstead section of the North London Line at
some point.". 'Tottenham and Hampstead Line' is code (or even the
traditional name) for Goblin.

The East-West study you mention has the more involved idea of a 'freight
focused route':

http://www.sra.gov.uk/publications/g...03eastwest.pdf

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.

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.

Incidentally, that report puts the cost of a Wimbledon to Hackney route
(ie Chelsea-Hackney, aka Crossrail 2) at 5.3 bn, as opposed to 2.8 bn for
Crossrail 1 (although i think that's without the tunnel going as far as
Stratford, and without the entire Kent - oops, sorry, Docklands - branch).

tom

--
A is for Absinthe, for which I now thirst

"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?

TfL recently did a report called "Freight on rail in London":

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/rail/downloads/pdf/freight.pdf

They don't say too much about it - their emphasis being on the Felixtowe -
Nuneaton bypass - but they do say that the proposed port development at
Shellhaven, "cannot be supported without [...] upgrades to the Tottenham
and Hampstead Line and the Hampstead section of the North London Line at
some point.". 'Tottenham and Hampstead Line' is code (or even the
traditional name) for Goblin.

Interesting. Thanks for the link.

The East-West study you mention has the more involved idea of a 'freight
focused route':


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

That's the one I was thinking of, yep.

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

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).

Angus

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!

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.

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,

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?

tom

--
A is for Absinthe, for which I now thirst

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