|
The BBC on Crossrail
Crossrail was mentioned in a speech by some nice old lady today,
apparently, so the Beeb have an article on it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/b...ts/4036327.stm They say: "It would allow trains serving the current Chiltern lines to run straight into London and through to Essex." That's wrong, right? They also say: "The second route would link Herts and Beds with Clapham Junction." I take it they're referring to Crossrail 2; firstly, is that going to be in the Crossrail bill, and secondly, is it going anywhere near Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire? The last i heard was that it was going to take over a bit of the Central Line, which i thought was in Essex. Or is it all still up in the air? Is anyone even thinking about it seriously? tom -- REMOVE AND DESTROY |
The BBC on Crossrail
Tom Anderson wrote:
Crossrail was mentioned in a speech by some nice old lady today, apparently, so the Beeb have an article on it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/b...ts/4036327.stm They say: "It would allow trains serving the current Chiltern lines to run straight into London and through to Essex." That's wrong, right? Definitely wrong. The scheme used to "go" to Aylesbury but that branch was dropped pretty soon after CLRL took the project on board a few years ago. They also say: "The second route would link Herts and Beds with Clapham Junction." I take it they're referring to Crossrail 2; firstly, is that going to be in the Crossrail bill, and secondly, is it going anywhere near Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire? The last i heard was that it was going to take over a bit of the Central Line, which i thought was in Essex. Or is it all still up in the air? Is anyone even thinking about it seriously? 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. Clapham Junction would almost definitely get Crossrail 2. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
The BBC on Crossrail
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Dave Arquati wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote: "It would allow trains serving the current Chiltern lines to run straight into London and through to Essex." Definitely wrong. The scheme used to "go" to Aylesbury but that branch was dropped pretty soon after CLRL took the project on board a few years ago. That's what i thought. That's really quite a while for the BBC to have caught up! "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. Clapham Junction would almost definitely get Crossrail 2. Almost? If it doesn't, someone's getting their legs broken. Also, are they still going with this stupid tube gauge idea, or have they seen sense? tom -- Optical illusions are terrorism of the mind. |
The BBC on Crossrail
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Dave Arquati wrote: Tom Anderson wrote: "It would allow trains serving the current Chiltern lines to run straight into London and through to Essex." Definitely wrong. The scheme used to "go" to Aylesbury but that branch was dropped pretty soon after CLRL took the project on board a few years ago. That's what i thought. That's really quite a while for the BBC to have caught up! Well, it took them a *long* time to change the Southern stock photo (although they did get to it in the end). "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. This is, of course, all entirely hypothetical. A route to Barnet and Finchley via the closed Crouch End branch line from Finsbury Park has even been proposed. They're just mulling over all the possible options at the moment. Clapham Junction would almost definitely get Crossrail 2. Almost? If it doesn't, someone's getting their legs broken. Quite. I only said "almost" because with these things (and with politicians), you never know with 100% certainty that something is definite until, for example, you see passengers get on a Crossrail 2 train at Clapham Junction and get successfully delivered to King's Cross... Also, are they still going with this stupid tube gauge idea, or have they seen sense? Not sure about that. AIUI, the tube gauge route could include a useful station at Piccadilly Circus which a mainline gauge route could not. Then again, I don't think anyone's seriously proposing tube-gauge trains to Stansted. It depends what branches they settle on and whether they think Piccadilly Circus is a goal worth having for the sacrifice. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
The BBC on Crossrail
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. This is, of course, all entirely hypothetical. A route to Barnet and Finchley via the closed Crouch End branch line from Finsbury Park has even been proposed. Yes, because Finchley has such a shortage of rail links! And people in Finsbury Park probably think trains are only a legend! You know what really makes me want to cry? In Clapton, just up from where i used to live, on the Upper Clapton Road, just before the corner shop that's just down from the petrol station, there's a mural, presumably done by local primary school children. It's charming, a really nice bit of twee lefty local art/civicism stuff; it's virtually a regeneration area in its own right. It's basically a painting of local life - tower blocks, streets, parks, smiling, diverse Hackneyites, all that jazz. And you know what's in the middle of it? A tube train. How they even knew what one looked like escapes me. Clapham Junction would almost definitely get Crossrail 2. Almost? If it doesn't, someone's getting their legs broken. Quite. I only said "almost" because with these things (and with politicians), you never know with 100% certainty that something is definite until, for example, you see passengers get on a Crossrail 2 train at Clapham Junction and get successfully delivered to King's Cross... ! Also, are they still going with this stupid tube gauge idea, or have they seen sense? Not sure about that. AIUI, the tube gauge route could include a useful station at Piccadilly Circus which a mainline gauge route could not. Then again, I don't think anyone's seriously proposing tube-gauge trains to Stansted. Oh, i don't know - if they take the Finsbury Park route down, they can make it a spur on the Piccadilly, so people can go direct from Stansted to Heathrow. That'll teach those air-travelling *******s a lesson! It depends what branches they settle on and whether they think Piccadilly Circus is a goal worth having for the sacrifice. Is that a problem with mainline gauge per se, or with long platforms? It seems hard to believe there isn't room for a mainline gauge station anywhere in the area. tom -- Understand the world we're living in |
The BBC on Crossrail
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 - just evolved. 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), 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. Still all hypothetical of course - although the route from King's Cross to Dalston, Hackney and then Stratford seems to be a recurring theme. 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. This is, of course, all entirely hypothetical. A route to Barnet and Finchley via the closed Crouch End branch line from Finsbury Park has even been proposed. Yes, because Finchley has such a shortage of rail links! And people in Finsbury Park probably think trains are only a legend! The conversion of the Parkland Walk back into a railway is likely to raise some eyebrows. You know what really makes me want to cry? In Clapton, just up from where i used to live, on the Upper Clapton Road, just before the corner shop that's just down from the petrol station, there's a mural, presumably done by local primary school children. It's charming, a really nice bit of twee lefty local art/civicism stuff; it's virtually a regeneration area in its own right. It's basically a painting of local life - tower blocks, streets, parks, smiling, diverse Hackneyites, all that jazz. And you know what's in the middle of it? A tube train. How they even knew what one looked like escapes me. 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! (snip) It depends what branches they settle on and whether they think Piccadilly Circus is a goal worth having for the sacrifice. Is that a problem with mainline gauge per se, or with long platforms? It seems hard to believe there isn't room for a mainline gauge station anywhere in the area. I'm not sure. All I know is that for some reason, fitting platforms like Crossrail 1's into the space at Picc Circ is a big issue. It would be a shame if they couldn't come up with an alternative engineering solution, as I believe a station at Picc Circ would offer significant congestion relief to the Piccadilly Line (all those tourists coming off CTRL and heading for the West End!). -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
The BBC on Crossrail
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. - 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. 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. 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. 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! tom -- 24-Hour Monkey-Vision! |
The BBC on Crossrail
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. - 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. 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. 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. |
The BBC on Crossrail
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 |
The BBC on Crossrail
"Aidan Stanger" wrote in message
... 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. CTRL. Secondly, Hackney's links with Stratford are currently inadequate - the trains are infrequent, short and overcrowded. Oh come on. Are you seriously suggesting that the solution to that is to build a tube line which duplicates an existing overground line? The cheapest way to solve that problem is to lengthen the platforms and/or increase frequency. Alternatively, build a line on a nearby unserved route - that will significantly shorten journey times on that corridor, while demand on this one will be reduced but not decimated. 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 I have been told (not by a reliable source) that most or all of the alignment is wide enough for 4 tracks. The only reason the CTRL was underground was the extreme noise of fast trains. -- John Rowland - Spamtrapped Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001 http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood. That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line - It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes |
The BBC on Crossrail
John Rowland wrote to uk.transport.london on Sun, 28 Nov 2004:
"Aidan Stanger" wrote in message . .. 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. CTRL. Will ordinary trains run on that line, though? -- "Mrs Redboots" http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/ Website updated 28 November 2004 |
The BBC on Crossrail
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message ... Crossrail was mentioned in a speech by some nice old lady today, apparently, so the Beeb have an article on it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/b...ts/4036327.stm They say: "It would allow trains serving the current Chiltern lines to run straight into London and through to Essex." That's wrong, right? They also say: "The second route would link Herts and Beds with Clapham Junction." I take it they're referring to Crossrail 2; firstly, is that going to be in the Crossrail bill, and secondly, is it going anywhere near Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire? The last i heard was that it was going to take over a bit of the Central Line, which i thought was in Essex. Or is it all still up in the air? Is anyone even thinking about it seriously? tom Just the BBC being as up-to-date and accurate as ever. Te same as they are still insisting London has *two*area codes - "0207" or "0208" - instead of the one 020 code for the whole city again. Next year numbers in the range (020) - 3xxx xxxx will start being issued so we can expect a panicky item or three from BBC London because suddenly London's codes are changing again! We will hear "New code 0203 for London......massive upheaval of London's phone numbers again".......... *NOT* !! (just new numbers within the 020 single code). Never accept anything you hear on the BBC as being the gospel, their presenters and staff are ignorant and inaccurate. Andy |
The BBC on Crossrail
John Rowland wrote:
"Aidan Stanger" wrote... 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. CTRL. But there won't be a frequent service on that. It would still be good if they'd done it right, but they put their Stratford station in an inconvenient place as well. Do you think many passengers getting off the train at Stratford will take the CTRL to Kings Cross? Secondly, Hackney's links with Stratford are currently inadequate - the trains are infrequent, short and overcrowded. Oh come on. Are you seriously suggesting that the solution to that is to build a tube line which duplicates an existing overground line? No, I'm seriously suggesting that the best solution is to convert the existing overground line into a Crossrail line. The cheapest way to solve that problem is to lengthen the platforms and/or increase frequency. Alternatively, build a line on a nearby unserved route I don't see the point of building a new underground line on a route that avoids the major traffic generators. - that will significantly shorten journey times on that corridor, while demand on this one will be reduced but not decimated. It is already planned to truncate the NLL at Stratford. It is also planned to link the ELL and NLL at Dalston. Therefore, why not let Crossrail take over Dalston to Stratford and have all NLL trains use the new link? 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 I have been told (not by a reliable source) that most or all of the alignment is wide enough for 4 tracks. The only reason the CTRL was underground was the extreme noise of fast trains. The alignment W of Dalston is wide enough for 4 tracks. The alignment E of Dalston is only wide enough for 2, but could be widened without having to demolish any buildings (with the possible exception of one industrial building near Stratford). If they convert that section of NLL to a Crossrail line, they should take the opportunity to put in one or two extra tracks to take the freight trains. |
The BBC on Crossrail
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. |
The BBC on Crossrail
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 |
The BBC on Crossrail
"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 |
The BBC on Crossrail
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 |
The BBC on Crossrail
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 |
The BBC on Crossrail
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 |
The BBC on Crossrail
"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 |
The BBC on Crossrail
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! |
The BBC on Crossrail
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 |
The BBC on Crossrail
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). |
The BBC on Crossrail
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. |
The BBC on Crossrail
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 |
The BBC on Crossrail
"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 |
The BBC on Crossrail
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. |
The BBC on Crossrail
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 |
The BBC on Crossrail
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 |
The BBC on Crossrail
"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 |
The BBC on Crossrail
--- Angus Bryant said... "Tom Anderson" wrote 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)? Two tracks used out of a four track alignment. There should be enough space to reinstate the missing two tracks. In fact, they should never have been removed in the first place! |
The BBC on Crossrail
"Solar Penguin" wrote in message
... "Tom Anderson" wrote 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)? Two tracks used out of a four track alignment. There should be enough space to reinstate the missing two tracks. In fact, they should never have been removed in the first place! Ah, thanks. I just had a look at multimap (with the aerial photo superimposed at 1:5000) - it clearly shows the northern pair to be green, i.e. overgrown. Angus |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:26 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk