|
Woolwich station for Crossrail
Something which had escaped my attention and which not much fuss seems
to have been made of - the Crossrail Select Committee made a statement on its preliminary findings having considered petitions related to the Crossrail Bill, and the main issue is that they are requiring CLRL to add a station at Woolwich to the Bill. From http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/060725.pdf : The major issue arising from Petitions in the Greenwich area was the need for a station at Woolwich. We will refer to this issue in detail in our report. At this time we wish to state that we have carefully examined all the evidence put before us and we are clearly convinced of the essential need for a Crossrail station in Woolwich, an area which includes some of the poorest wards in the United Kingdom. We noted that the Promoter’s calculations of cost of this station showed that it would provide exceptional value for money and we require the Promoters to bring forward the necessary additional provision to add this to the Bill. We would also ask the Promoters to work with the local Council to ensure that the Crossrail station is fully integrated into the local transport infrastructure. A point to note is that a Woolwich Crossrail station would not be underneath Woolwich Arsenal station; the tunnel places it under the Royal Arsenal site to the north, making integration more complicated (probably easy enough for Greenwich Waterfront Transit, but not so for the DLR). -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Woolwich station for Crossrail
Dave Arquati wrote:
Something which had escaped my attention and which not much fuss seems to have been made of - the Crossrail Select Committee made a statement on its preliminary findings having considered petitions related to the Crossrail Bill, and the main issue is that they are requiring CLRL to add a station at Woolwich to the Bill. That sounds like a really good idea IMO, thanks for spotting that Dave. I dare say there hasn't been any chat about it here as utl doesn't have any contributors from down Woolwich way. From http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/060725.pdf : The major issue arising from Petitions in the Greenwich area was the need for a station at Woolwich. We will refer to this issue in detail in our report. At this time we wish to state that we have carefully examined all the evidence put before us and we are clearly convinced of the essential need for a Crossrail station in Woolwich, an area which includes some of the poorest wards in the United Kingdom. We noted that the Promoter's calculations of cost of this station showed that it would provide exceptional value for money and we require the Promoters to bring forward the necessary additional provision to add this to the Bill. We would also ask the Promoters to work with the local Council to ensure that the Crossrail station is fully integrated into the local transport infrastructure. All of which sounds like a strong and well reasoned argument for including a Crossrail station in Woolwich. As stated it does have some very poor areas, and whilst transport connections don't solve such issues, they can help a lot. A point to note is that a Woolwich Crossrail station would not be underneath Woolwich Arsenal station; the tunnel places it under the Royal Arsenal site to the north, making integration more complicated (probably easy enough for Greenwich Waterfront Transit, but not so for the DLR). The committee's comments on ensuring "the Crossrail station is fully integrated into the local transport infrastructure" would initially appear to suggest some kind of full interchange with south eastern NR lines and DLR - as you point out Dave this isn't realilistically achievable. However integration with the "local transport infrastructure" can mean a good modern bus interchange (ala North Greenwich or Canada Water) with a good selection of feeder bus routes, along with the proposed Waterfront Transit. And just because it wouldn't be a super-interchange doesn't mean it wouldn't be worthwhile. I hope this will be seriously considered by the Crossrail team and Crossrail's stakeholders. The proposal strengthens the regeneration angle of Crossrail, and whilst it'd increase the cost I'd say it could also boost the political support that Crossrail requires to get the green light. |
Woolwich station for Crossrail
Mizter T wrote: Dave Arquati wrote: Something which had escaped my attention and which not much fuss seems to have been made of - the Crossrail Select Committee made a statement on its preliminary findings having considered petitions related to the Crossrail Bill, and the main issue is that they are requiring CLRL to add a station at Woolwich to the Bill. That sounds like a really good idea IMO, thanks for spotting that Dave. I dare say there hasn't been any chat about it here as utl doesn't have any contributors from down Woolwich way. There was an article about this in the South London Press the other day: http://tinyurl.com/ofgac If a station is built at Woolwich, what will happen to the proposed Abbey Wood station? Would it remain, or would the two stations be considered too close together? Patrick |
Woolwich station for Crossrail
On 31 Jul 2006 15:38:23 -0700, Mizter T wrote:
The committee's comments on ensuring "the Crossrail station is fully integrated into the local transport infrastructure" would initially appear to suggest some kind of full interchange with south eastern NR lines and DLR - as you point out Dave this isn't realilistically achievable. Or worthwhile, really. The only useful interchange it would create would be eastbound SET to westbound Crossrail, and even that's not a very useful one. |
Woolwich station for Crossrail
Dave Arquati wrote: Something which had escaped my attention and which not much fuss seems to have been made of - the Crossrail Select Committee made a statement on its preliminary findings having considered petitions related to the Crossrail Bill, and the main issue is that they are requiring CLRL to add a station at Woolwich to the Bill. Overall common sense appears to be breaking out about Crossrail with the decision to use Old Oak Common as opposed to Romford , the redeployment of North Pole, the avoidance of the Hanbury Street shafts and now the Woolwich decision. Chunky bits still be sorted out include freight traffic both to the west and east of London, decisions to stop short at both Abbeywood and Maidenhead as opposed to Ebbsfleet and Reading. The Commons committee appear realise that integrating into the wider network is an issue that the promoters preoccupied with getting the "big dig" built have tended to ignore.There is still the proposal to turn round of half the trains at Paddington which seems a wasted opportunity - taking over the Hammersmith end of the H&C removes a busy junction on the Circle Line with knock on effects for that lines reliability would seem a low cost no brainer. |
Woolwich station for Crossrail
asdf wrote:
On 31 Jul 2006 15:38:23 -0700, Mizter T wrote: The committee's comments on ensuring "the Crossrail station is fully integrated into the local transport infrastructure" would initially appear to suggest some kind of full interchange with south eastern NR lines and DLR - as you point out Dave this isn't realilistically achievable. Or worthwhile, really. The only useful interchange it would create would be eastbound SET to westbound Crossrail, and even that's not a very useful one. It would serve the area though. From the little I've read thus far I feel very favourable to the idea. As I said in my first post, it doesn't have to be a super-interchange to be worthwhile. |
Woolwich station for Crossrail
Bob wrote: Overall common sense appears to be breaking out about Crossrail with the decision to use Old Oak Common as opposed to Romford , the redeployment of North Pole, the avoidance of the Hanbury Street shafts and now the Woolwich decision. Chunky bits still be sorted out include freight traffic both to the west and east of London, decisions to stop short at both Abbeywood and Maidenhead as opposed to Ebbsfleet and Reading. Given that, AIUI, Ebbsfleet is to be rebranded as "Dartford International" and get a Eurostar service in the very near future, it seems crazy not to extend Crossrail to end there, rather than at Abbey Wood. Patrick |
Woolwich station for Crossrail
Michael Hopkins wrote:
Overall common sense appears to be breaking out about Crossrail with the decision to use Old Oak Common as opposed to Romford , the redeployment of North Pole, the avoidance of the Hanbury Street shafts and now the Woolwich decision. Chunky bits still be sorted out include freight traffic both to the west and east of London, decisions to stop short at both Abbeywood and Maidenhead as opposed to Ebbsfleet and Reading. The Commons committee appear realise that integrating into the wider network is an issue that the promoters preoccupied with getting the "big dig" built have tended to ignore. As a former resident of the Maidenhead/Reading area, I can see abaolutely no reason at all for terminating at Maidenhead rather than Reading. I thought that this was to ensure that NR didn't dump the costs of the impending (in roughly the same sense and timeframe as Crossrail is impending) resignalling and remodelling of the tracks into and east of Reading Station onto CLRL's budget. Therefore, everyone has to pretend that Crossrail won't go to Reading until the Reading project has been approved in its own right, at which point the necessary slight timetable amendments will be made and the additional few miles of knitting will be procured. Ebbsfleet is similar-ish. To avoid conflicting moves with North Kent Line trains that would seriously delay the whole Crossrail service, proper infrastructure investment would be needed between Abbey Wood and Ebbsfleet. Again, the theory is that this will be easier to raise on the basis of "all we need to extend this groovy new Crossrail service that's already being built to Ebbsfleet is this infrastructure spend", rather than adding even more cost to the original project. Cynics might describe some or all of this as 'smoke and mirrors'. I couldn't possibly comment... -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Woolwich station for Crossrail
On 1 Aug 2006 03:06:21 -0700, Mizter T wrote:
The committee's comments on ensuring "the Crossrail station is fully integrated into the local transport infrastructure" would initially appear to suggest some kind of full interchange with south eastern NR lines and DLR - as you point out Dave this isn't realilistically achievable. Or worthwhile, really. The only useful interchange it would create would be eastbound SET to westbound Crossrail, and even that's not a very useful one. It would serve the area though. From the little I've read thus far I feel very favourable to the idea. As I said in my first post, it doesn't have to be a super-interchange to be worthwhile. Indeed - I was trying to say that there's not much point making it an interchange with SET/DLR if it would mean a large increase in cost. |
Woolwich station for Crossrail
asdf wrote:
On 1 Aug 2006 03:06:21 -0700, Mizter T wrote: The committee's comments on ensuring "the Crossrail station is fully integrated into the local transport infrastructure" would initially appear to suggest some kind of full interchange with south eastern NR lines and DLR - as you point out Dave this isn't realilistically achievable. Or worthwhile, really. The only useful interchange it would create would be eastbound SET to westbound Crossrail, and even that's not a very useful one. It would serve the area though. From the little I've read thus far I feel very favourable to the idea. As I said in my first post, it doesn't have to be a super-interchange to be worthwhile. Indeed - I was trying to say that there's not much point making it an interchange with SET/DLR if it would mean a large increase in cost. OK I misunderstood you. Yes I agree with that - from the little knowledge I have of Crossrail I understand the route of the tunnel in Woolwich has been decided. I'm sure an argument along the lines of "well the tunnel hasn't been built yet so the route can obviously be changed" will come up, which is of course true, but I presume it'd make it much more expensive, as a central Woolwich interchange isn't on the right alignment. Anyway interchange with the SET lines could be made at Abbey Wood, and interchange with the DLR would be possible at Custom House - or if people wanted the City Airport branch they could walk between the Crossrail and Woolwich Arsenal stations. I don't know exactly where the Crossrail station would be but it seems it wouldn't be far away - a mile at the very most, probably more like half a mile. |
Woolwich station for Crossrail
asdf wrote:
On 31 Jul 2006 15:38:23 -0700, Mizter T wrote: The committee's comments on ensuring "the Crossrail station is fully integrated into the local transport infrastructure" would initially appear to suggest some kind of full interchange with south eastern NR lines and DLR - as you point out Dave this isn't realilistically achievable. Or worthwhile, really. The only useful interchange it would create would be eastbound SET to westbound Crossrail, and even that's not a very useful one. If it were feasible, a DLR interchange could be useful for people travelling from the west to London City Airport - but not necessary, as there will be direct (albeit slower) alternatives via either Stratford or Isle of Dogs - Poplar. A Greenwich Waterfront stop will be the most useful interchange, as it will feed in passengers well from both east and west. A bus station would be better, but I don't know whether that would fit into the surrounding development. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Woolwich station for Crossrail
Bob wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote: Something which had escaped my attention and which not much fuss seems to have been made of - the Crossrail Select Committee made a statement on its preliminary findings having considered petitions related to the Crossrail Bill, and the main issue is that they are requiring CLRL to add a station at Woolwich to the Bill. Overall common sense appears to be breaking out about Crossrail with the decision to use Old Oak Common as opposed to Romford , the redeployment of North Pole, the avoidance of the Hanbury Street shafts and now the Woolwich decision. Chunky bits still be sorted out include freight traffic both to the west and east of London, decisions to stop short at both Abbeywood and Maidenhead as opposed to Ebbsfleet and Reading. The Commons committee appear realise that integrating into the wider network is an issue that the promoters preoccupied with getting the "big dig" built have tended to ignore.There is still the proposal to turn round of half the trains at Paddington which seems a wasted opportunity - taking over the Hammersmith end of the H&C removes a busy junction on the Circle Line with knock on effects for that lines reliability would seem a low cost no brainer. I agree, but I think ensuring the central tunnel gets built is most important - adding on too many extra bits here and there could kill the whole project. Hammersmith could come later... Oh, and add crowding relief for the Piccadilly (and potentially District) to the benefits for taking over the H&C. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Woolwich station for Crossrail
Dave Arquati wrote:
asdf wrote: On 31 Jul 2006 15:38:23 -0700, Mizter T wrote: The committee's comments on ensuring "the Crossrail station is fully integrated into the local transport infrastructure" would initially appear to suggest some kind of full interchange with south eastern NR lines and DLR - as you point out Dave this isn't realilistically achievable. Or worthwhile, really. The only useful interchange it would create would be eastbound SET to westbound Crossrail, and even that's not a very useful one. If it were feasible, a DLR interchange could be useful for people travelling from the west to London City Airport - but not necessary, as there will be direct (albeit slower) alternatives via either Stratford or Isle of Dogs - Poplar. Or a bus route could be altered or created to include a section from Custom House over the Connaught Bridge to City Airport. |
Woolwich station for Crossrail
Dave Arquati wrote:
Something which had escaped my attention and which not much fuss seems to have been made of - the Crossrail Select Committee made a statement on its preliminary findings having considered petitions related to the Crossrail Bill, and the main issue is that they are requiring CLRL to add a station at Woolwich to the Bill. LB Greenwich seems to be at the forefront of this campaign. See... http://www.greenwich.gov.uk/Greenwic...el/TravelNews/ This appears to be a portal page and it currently displays some interesting and informed supportive comments regarding the proposal from local MPs. "Woolwich Crossrail campaign pulls in to Parliament" (2 May briefing on preparations for Crossrail Select Committee hearings - useful as it concisely sets out the case for a Woolwich Crossrail station) http://www.greenwich.gov.uk/Greenwic...Parliament.htm "Massive boost for Woolwich Crossrail campaign" (25 July briefing on the Crossrail Select Committee interim decision) http://www.greenwich.gov.uk/Greenwic...ilCampaign.htm Royal Arsenal developers website - page concerning future transport links (see the bottom of the page) http://www.royal-arsenal.co.uk/index.cfm?articleID=29 |
Woolwich station for Crossrail
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Dave Arquati wrote:
Bob wrote: to turn round of half the trains at Paddington which seems a wasted opportunity - taking over the Hammersmith end of the H&C removes a busy junction on the Circle Line with knock on effects for that lines reliability would seem a low cost no brainer. I agree, but I think ensuring the central tunnel gets built is most important - adding on too many extra bits here and there could kill the whole project. Hammersmith could come later... Except Hammersmith involves noodling about quite near the Paddington portal (if you want to have a station at Royal Oak, or if you want to use the existing H&C fly-under, at any rate), so if you don't at least build in the possibility at the start, you might not be able to do it later. tom -- Understanding the universe is the final purpose, as far as I'm concerned. -- Ian York |
Woolwich station for Crossrail
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Dave Arquati wrote: Bob wrote: to turn round of half the trains at Paddington which seems a wasted opportunity - taking over the Hammersmith end of the H&C removes a busy junction on the Circle Line with knock on effects for that lines reliability would seem a low cost no brainer. I agree, but I think ensuring the central tunnel gets built is most important - adding on too many extra bits here and there could kill the whole project. Hammersmith could come later... Except Hammersmith involves noodling about quite near the Paddington portal (if you want to have a station at Royal Oak, or if you want to use the existing H&C fly-under, at any rate), so if you don't at least build in the possibility at the start, you might not be able to do it later. I'm not sure it would be worth keeping Royal Oak in this scenario (gasp). Its catchment area overlaps a lot with Bayswater, Warwick Avenue and Paddington H&C; a western entrance for Paddington Crossrail would also be close by. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Woolwich station for Crossrail
Dave Arquati wrote: Tom Anderson wrote: On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Dave Arquati wrote: Bob wrote: to turn round of half the trains at Paddington which seems a wasted opportunity - taking over the Hammersmith end of the H&C removes a busy junction on the Circle Line with knock on effects for that lines reliability would seem a low cost no brainer. I agree, but I think ensuring the central tunnel gets built is most important - adding on too many extra bits here and there could kill the whole project. Hammersmith could come later... Except Hammersmith involves noodling about quite near the Paddington portal (if you want to have a station at Royal Oak, or if you want to use the existing H&C fly-under, at any rate), so if you don't at least build in the possibility at the start, you might not be able to do it later. I'm not sure it would be worth keeping Royal Oak in this scenario (gasp). Its catchment area overlaps a lot with Bayswater, Warwick Avenue and Paddington H&C; a western entrance for Paddington Crossrail would also be close by. -- If CrossRail takes over the Hammersmith Branch, and I think there is a case for it, then there should be considerable rationalization of stations. Adrian. |
Woolwich station for Crossrail
Solario wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote: Tom Anderson wrote: On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Dave Arquati wrote: Bob wrote: to turn round of half the trains at Paddington which seems a wasted opportunity - taking over the Hammersmith end of the H&C removes a busy junction on the Circle Line with knock on effects for that lines reliability would seem a low cost no brainer. I agree, but I think ensuring the central tunnel gets built is most important - adding on too many extra bits here and there could kill the whole project. Hammersmith could come later... Except Hammersmith involves noodling about quite near the Paddington portal (if you want to have a station at Royal Oak, or if you want to use the existing H&C fly-under, at any rate), so if you don't at least build in the possibility at the start, you might not be able to do it later. I'm not sure it would be worth keeping Royal Oak in this scenario (gasp). Its catchment area overlaps a lot with Bayswater, Warwick Avenue and Paddington H&C; a western entrance for Paddington Crossrail would also be close by. If CrossRail takes over the Hammersmith Branch, and I think there is a case for it, then there should be considerable rationalization of stations. It might be necessary, given the length of the trains (up to 245m). Westbourne Park should stay if Royal Oak were to go; Ladbroke Grove is an important station, and could be moved so that there were two entrances; one on Ladbroke Grove itself and the other on Portobello Road. A similar arrangement could see a long White City station replace both White City and Latimer Road; it could have a western entrance on Freston Road and an eastern one on Wood Lane (the platform would not be quite as long; it would not need to straddle the WLL & West Cross Route, but a pedestrian bridge could do so). Finally, a Shepherd's Bush station would be just the right length to run the length of the market between Uxbridge Road and Goldhawk Road with entrances at each. However, I'm not sure what impact this would have on the market itself. If it were too bad, then instead the arrangement might have to be to get rid of Goldhawk Road station altogether, extend Shepherd's Bush up towards Wood Lane for White City, ditch Latimer Road and have Ladbroke Grove run westwards with an entrance north of the sports centre. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Woolwich station for Crossrail
wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote: It might be necessary, given the length of the trains (up to 245m). Westbourne Park should stay if Royal Oak were to go; Ladbroke Grove is an important station, and could be moved so that there were two entrances; one on Ladbroke Grove itself and the other on Portobello Road. A similar arrangement could see a long White City station replace both White City and Latimer Road; it could have a western entrance on Freston Road and an eastern one on Wood Lane (the platform would not be quite as long; it would not need to straddle the WLL & West Cross Route, but a pedestrian bridge could do so). Finally, a Shepherd's Bush station would be just the right length to run the length of the market between Uxbridge Road and Goldhawk Road with entrances at each. However, I'm not sure what impact this would have on the market itself. If it were too bad, then instead the arrangement might have to be to get rid of Goldhawk Road station altogether, extend Shepherd's Bush up towards Wood Lane for White City, ditch Latimer Road and have Ladbroke Grove run westwards with an entrance north of the sports centre. -- This is precisely the sort of thing I had in mind. If an interchange can be provided with the Central Line at White City, I think that would be an added advantage. Don't forget that an interchange (well, an H&C station on Wood Lane) is already being built at White City, and will have been in operation for a number of years before Crossrail ever appears in the area. The other issues would be what to do with Hammersmith Depot and where Circle Line trains should be stabled. The stock requirement of the Circle (or whatever succeeded it) operations would go down somewhat. The remaining stabling arrangements could be to retain a stub towards Royal Oak along which trains could be stabled; similarly, perhaps use could be made of the defunct Moorgate Thameslink branch for expansion of the Farringdon sidings. The new common S-stock should allow greater flexibility in where to stable trains, so any more sidings needed could be distributed around some other depots wherever a small expansion could occur. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Woolwich station for Crossrail
Dave Arquati wrote: Don't forget that an interchange (well, an H&C station on Wood Lane) is already being built at White City, and will have been in operation for a number of years before Crossrail ever appears in the area. The other issues would be what to do with Hammersmith Depot and where Circle Line trains should be stabled. The stock requirement of the Circle (or whatever succeeded it) operations would go down somewhat. The remaining stabling arrangements could be to retain a stub towards Royal Oak along which trains could be stabled; similarly, perhaps use could be made of the defunct Moorgate Thameslink branch for expansion of the Farringdon sidings. The new common S-stock should allow greater flexibility in where to stable trains, so any more sidings needed could be distributed around some other depots wherever a small expansion could occur. -- The S-stock is something, the merrits of which, I have yet to be convinced. Time will tell if the concept is acceptable. If one dreams a little further with regard to CrossRail and the Hammersmith branch: Imagine, if you, will a rebuilt connecting viaduct at Hammersmith allowing CrossRail to reach Ealing Broadway and Richmond. The problem here is the purchase and demolition of all that has been built in the intervening years. There is also the issue of the many differing platform lengths en route to the two termini. However, if there District Line was reduced to an Upminster to Wimbledon service plus an Edgware Road to Kensington Olympia shuttle, Circle Line operation would become simplicity itself! Adrian. |
Woolwich station for Crossrail
wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote: Don't forget that an interchange (well, an H&C station on Wood Lane) is already being built at White City, and will have been in operation for a number of years before Crossrail ever appears in the area. The other issues would be what to do with Hammersmith Depot and where Circle Line trains should be stabled. The stock requirement of the Circle (or whatever succeeded it) operations would go down somewhat. The remaining stabling arrangements could be to retain a stub towards Royal Oak along which trains could be stabled; similarly, perhaps use could be made of the defunct Moorgate Thameslink branch for expansion of the Farringdon sidings. The new common S-stock should allow greater flexibility in where to stable trains, so any more sidings needed could be distributed around some other depots wherever a small expansion could occur. -- The S-stock is something, the merrits of which, I have yet to be convinced. Time will tell if the concept is acceptable. I'm not yet convinced by the internal layouts, but the idea of a stock that can go "anywhere" seems sensible when the future of the SSL network is hazy. If one dreams a little further with regard to CrossRail and the Hammersmith branch: Imagine, if you, will a rebuilt connecting viaduct at Hammersmith allowing CrossRail to reach Ealing Broadway and Richmond. I don't think I'd bother going that far. Taking over as far as Hammersmith is probably OK because Crossrail serves several of the H&C's most important destinations. However, it goes nowhere near Victoria and is a bit of a walk from places like Monument in the City. We know that Richmonders don't want Crossrail to replace their District service, and Ealing Broadway will already have Crossrail. Shared running would also be a very poor idea as the trains would be so different and there would be the inevitable performance pollution. The problem here is the purchase and demolition of all that has been built in the intervening years. There is also the issue of the many differing platform lengths en route to the two termini. However, if there District Line was reduced to an Upminster to Wimbledon service plus an Edgware Road to Kensington Olympia shuttle, Circle Line operation would become simplicity itself! Crossrail operation would be a lot more complicated, though! -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Woolwich station for Crossrail
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Dave Arquati wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote: On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Dave Arquati wrote: Bob wrote: to turn round of half the trains at Paddington which seems a wasted opportunity - taking over the Hammersmith end of the H&C removes a busy junction on the Circle Line with knock on effects for that lines reliability would seem a low cost no brainer. I agree, but I think ensuring the central tunnel gets built is most important - adding on too many extra bits here and there could kill the whole project. Hammersmith could come later... Except Hammersmith involves noodling about quite near the Paddington portal (if you want to have a station at Royal Oak, or if you want to use the existing H&C fly-under, at any rate), so if you don't at least build in the possibility at the start, you might not be able to do it later. I'm not sure it would be worth keeping Royal Oak in this scenario (gasp). Its catchment area overlaps a lot with Bayswater, Warwick Avenue and Paddington H&C; a western entrance for Paddington Crossrail would also be close by. Sort of. You're right, of course, about other stations being close by, but neither Bayswater nor Warwick Avenue are stations which offer good routes to the eastern end of central London (ie the City). Paddington H&C would of course cease to exist if the H&C was transferred to Crossrail - unless you're envisaging a very exotic configuration of the subsurface lines! People could go to Paddington to catch Crossrail, but that involves pushing local commuters through a busy mainline station. This western entrance could make that fairly painless, though; i'm afraid i don't know the details of that. Nonetheless, there's still the fly-under to think about: it gets to ground level ~50 m west of Lord Hill's Bridge, which is pretty much level with the planned Crossrail portal, so there wouldn't be room for a straightforward junction here; you'd need some sort of weird junction on a slope thing. Realistically, if you want to use it, you either have to move the portal east, or you have to leave room for a junction inside the box, so the branch can run for a hundred metres or so at a bit below ground level to link up with the fly-under. Or something - IANACivilEngineer. An alternative would be to ditch it, and add a new fly-under/over around Westbourne Park, rebuilding the station a little to the east; this would have the advantage that the station would be upwards of the junction, and so would be served by more trains. It might also enable some creative use of the H&C platforms and tracks from Paddington to Westbourne Park by mainline trains; suggestions on a postcard, please. Or i suppose you could run the box into the fly-under, run all Crossrail trains along the existing H&C track on the south side of the formation, and do something at Westbourne Park to allow them to carry on west - build a new pair on the south side beyond the junction if possible, or else on the north side, as is planned, then either provide a fly-under/over to get there, or put in crossovers to shuffle all the pairs north one position. Hang on, i'll try some ascii art: Key: --- track + joining of track X crossing of track direction of train ### Westbourne Park platform .... line heading off to Hammersmith nU line label; mainlines 1-3 and Crossrail X, plus Up/Down Now: 1U ------------------------------ 1U 1D ------------------------------ 1D 2U ------------------------------ 2U 2D ------------------------------ 2D 3U ------------------------------ 3U 3D ------------------------------ 3D /--------------------- XU ### //--------------------- XD XU ...------// XD ...------/ ### New pair to the south: 1U ------------------------------ 1U 1D ------------------------------ 1D 2U ------------------------------ 2U 2D ------------------------------ 2D 3U ------------------------------ 3U 3D ------------------------------ 3D XU -----------+------------------ XU XD ----------X+---\ ### /-------- XD XU ...------// \---/ XD ...------/ New pair to the north, with fly-under (flying tracks not shown): XU -----) XD ----) 1U ------------------------------ 1U 1D ------------------------------ 1D 2U ------------------------------ 2U 2D ------------------------------ 2D 3U ------------------------------ 3U 3D ------------------------------ 3D (-+------------- XU (-X+---\ ### /--- XD XU ...----------// \---/ XD ...----------/ New pair to the north, with shuffle: 1U -------------\ 1D -------------\\ 2U ----------+---X+-------------- 1U 2D ----------+X---+-------------- 1D 3U -------+---X+----------------- 2U 3D -------+X---+----------------- 2D XU ----+---X+-------------------- 3U XD ----+X---+-------------------- 3D \\---------+------------- XU \--------X+---\ ### /--- XD XU ...----------// \---/ XD ...----------/ I expect that's made things crystal clear to all! Adding a new pair to the south is clearly best, but probably not possible; the shuffle would then probably be the easiest, but might leave the lines in the wrong place for things further down. The fly-under/over would get everything right, but involves either a big bridge or three small ones - and does mean that the Crossrail line would cross the formation three times between Paddington and Heathrow, which is frankly silly. tom -- Demolish serious culture! |
Woolwich station for Crossrail
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Dave Arquati wrote: Tom Anderson wrote: On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Dave Arquati wrote: Bob wrote: to turn round of half the trains at Paddington which seems a wasted opportunity - taking over the Hammersmith end of the H&C removes a busy junction on the Circle Line with knock on effects for that lines reliability would seem a low cost no brainer. I agree, but I think ensuring the central tunnel gets built is most important - adding on too many extra bits here and there could kill the whole project. Hammersmith could come later... Except Hammersmith involves noodling about quite near the Paddington portal (if you want to have a station at Royal Oak, or if you want to use the existing H&C fly-under, at any rate), so if you don't at least build in the possibility at the start, you might not be able to do it later. I'm not sure it would be worth keeping Royal Oak in this scenario (gasp). Its catchment area overlaps a lot with Bayswater, Warwick Avenue and Paddington H&C; a western entrance for Paddington Crossrail would also be close by. Sort of. You're right, of course, about other stations being close by, but neither Bayswater nor Warwick Avenue are stations which offer good routes to the eastern end of central London (ie the City). Paddington H&C would of course cease to exist if the H&C was transferred to Crossrail - unless you're envisaging a very exotic configuration of the subsurface lines! People could go to Paddington to catch Crossrail, but that involves pushing local commuters through a busy mainline station. This western entrance could make that fairly painless, though; i'm afraid i don't know the details of that. I don't think there are currently any plans for a western entrance; it was my suggestion to mitigate a closure of Royal Oak. such an entrance would be at the junction of Eastbourne Terrace and Bishops Bridge Road. This would totally separate local travellers from mainline users, and it wouldn't have to be a grand entrance - Royal Oak isn't particularly busy, and its passengers would be distributed amongst other stations. What's wrong with Bayswater for the City? The Circle line has the same frequency as the H&C, and if Wimblewares were extended eastwards to compensate for the loss of the H&C, it would see a doubling of frequency. (The configuration I'm imagining is as now but with no H&C and with Wimblewares extended from Edgware Road to Whitechapel/Barking... call it the Wimblebark if you will!) Paddington H&C could either become extra platforms for mainline trains, or stabling sidings for the Circle line or Wimbleware(bark). Nonetheless, there's still the fly-under to think about: it gets to ground level ~50 m west of Lord Hill's Bridge, which is pretty much level with the planned Crossrail portal, so there wouldn't be room for a straightforward junction here; you'd need some sort of weird junction on a slope thing. Realistically, if you want to use it, you either have to move the portal east, or you have to leave room for a junction inside the box, so the branch can run for a hundred metres or so at a bit below ground level to link up with the fly-under. Or something - IANACivilEngineer. An alternative would be to ditch it, and add a new fly-under/over around Westbourne Park, rebuilding the station a little to the east; this would have the advantage that the station would be upwards of the junction, and so would be served by more trains. It might also enable some creative use of the H&C platforms and tracks from Paddington to Westbourne Park by mainline trains; suggestions on a postcard, please. This seems like the best solution, involving the least reconfiguration of Crossrail. The only problem is whether there's room for grade separation or not - maybe that could be found through careful redevelopment of the bus garage. I'm not sure whether stopping Heathrow/Maidenhead trains at Westbourne Park would be that useful or not; Ealing Broadway could already be used for people travelling from the west to Shepherd's Bush or Hammersmith, and an extra stop on those services might be irritating for travellers from further out. (snip pretty ascii art which was useful but needs no comment!) -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Inner Circle was Woolwich station for Crossrail
Dave Arquati wrote: What's wrong with Bayswater for the City? The Circle line has the same frequency as the H&C, and if Wimblewares were extended eastwards to compensate for the loss of the H&C, it would see a doubling of frequency. (The configuration I'm imagining is as now but with no H&C and with Wimblewares extended from Edgware Road to Whitechapel/Barking... call it the Wimblebark if you will!) Building on from the H&C Circle line tea cup ideas - how about two interposed reverse loops. How about existing H&C trains (to and) from Barking continuing from Edware Road via Bayswater and Victoria to rejoin the original route at Aldgate East - whilst Wimbleware continues to and from Liverpool Street, Aldgate and Victoria to join its original route at Earls Court. |
Woolwich station for Crossrail
Dave Arquati wrote: I don't think I'd bother going that far. Taking over as far as Hammersmith is probably OK because Crossrail serves several of the H&C's most important destinations. However, it goes nowhere near Victoria and is a bit of a walk from places like Monument in the City. We know that Richmonders don't want Crossrail to replace their District service, and Ealing Broadway will already have Crossrail. Good points, against which I have no argument. Shared running would also be a very poor idea as the trains would be so different and there would be the inevitable performance pollution. Shared running would only start east of Turnham Green. Interlining with the North London Line should not be very difficult. It only has about 3 to 4 trains per hour. The Piccadilly Line is a real problem. Perhaps the solution to that would be to have CrossRail also take over the Rayners Lane service. This would double Piccadilly Line service to Heathrow. The problem here is the purchase and demolition of all that has been built in the intervening years. There is also the issue of the many differing platform lengths en route to the two termini. However, if there District Line was reduced to an Upminster to Wimbledon service plus an Edgware Road to Kensington Olympia shuttle, Circle Line operation would become simplicity itself! Crossrail operation would be a lot more complicated, though! Not really given the minimal amount of shared track, i.e. the NLL. I don't think this idea is do-able, but it beats turning 24 tph back at Paddington. Adrian. |
Woolwich station for Crossrail
wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote: I don't think I'd bother going that far. Taking over as far as Hammersmith is probably OK because Crossrail serves several of the H&C's most important destinations. However, it goes nowhere near Victoria and is a bit of a walk from places like Monument in the City. We know that Richmonders don't want Crossrail to replace their District service, and Ealing Broadway will already have Crossrail. Good points, against which I have no argument. Shared running would also be a very poor idea as the trains would be so different and there would be the inevitable performance pollution. Shared running would only start east of Turnham Green. Interlining with the North London Line should not be very difficult. It only has about 3 to 4 trains per hour. The Piccadilly Line is a real problem. Perhaps the solution to that would be to have CrossRail also take over the Rayners Lane service. This would double Piccadilly Line service to Heathrow. Not sure exactly what you're suggesting here. Is it: - Crossrail via Ladbroke Grove & Shepherd's Bush to Rayners Lane via Ealing Common and to Richmond via Gunnersbury - District continues to run to Ealing Broadway...? That results in four western Crossrail branches with shared use between Gunnersbury and Richmond, between Hammersmith and Turnham Green and between Acton Town and Ealing Common! One of the issues raised by the Montague report was that too many branches at each end would mean poorer reliability, as it's more difficult to ensure that trains arrive at the core section on time for their path - making achievement of the 24tph core service difficult. Having so much shared use to the west would be a recipe for disaster. The beauty of taking over as far as Hammersmith is that it is self-contained *and* reduces the number of services trying to interleave on the northern Circle. The problem here is the purchase and demolition of all that has been built in the intervening years. There is also the issue of the many differing platform lengths en route to the two termini. However, if there District Line was reduced to an Upminster to Wimbledon service plus an Edgware Road to Kensington Olympia shuttle, Circle Line operation would become simplicity itself! Crossrail operation would be a lot more complicated, though! Not really given the minimal amount of shared track, i.e. the NLL. I don't think this idea is do-able, but it beats turning 24 tph back at Paddington. I'd say four branches is complicated! Making good use of the 14tph (24tph really would be a waste!!) seems eminently sensible - but I'd rather have Crossrail built with those 14tph wasted to begin with, but scope for future expansion, than see a bloated single-phase project sink. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Woolwich station for Crossrail
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Dave Arquati wrote:
wrote: Dave Arquati wrote: Shared running would only start east of Turnham Green. Interlining with the North London Line should not be very difficult. It only has about 3 to 4 trains per hour. The Piccadilly Line is a real problem. Perhaps the solution to that would be to have CrossRail also take over the Rayners Lane service. This would double Piccadilly Line service to Heathrow. Not sure exactly what you're suggesting here. Is it: - Crossrail via Ladbroke Grove & Shepherd's Bush to Rayners Lane via Ealing Common and to Richmond via Gunnersbury - District continues to run to Ealing Broadway...? That results in four western Crossrail branches with shared use between Gunnersbury and Richmond, between Hammersmith and Turnham Green and between Acton Town and Ealing Common! One of the issues raised by the Montague report was that too many branches at each end would mean poorer reliability, as it's more difficult to ensure that trains arrive at the core section on time for their path - making achievement of the 24tph core service difficult. This is all very true, and i'd agree that the suggested massive takeover in the west would be a bad idea. However, i really can't believe that Crossrail can only support *two* branches at each end - three should be doable, even if not four. In particular, if there was room for one inward train to wait on each branch, it should be trivial - divide the hour into 30 2-minute slots, group these into four, and allocate them one to each branch, plus a spare (so trains go Shenfield, Dartford, Broxbourne, no train). Set up the schedule so that each branch delivers a train at the appropriate time. If a train is delayed, and misses its slot, it sits and waits until the next empty slot comes round - which could be a spare slot, or a slot missed by a delayed train on another branch. The worst-case wait would be four minutes, if a train just missed its slot and had to wait for trains from both other branches to go through. A slightly better arrangement might be to group the slots into six five-slot bundles, with four trains and a spare, so that the position of the spare slot with respect to each branch changes; otherwise, you get worse delay behaviour on one branch. In principle, this would work for more branches, but as you increase the number of branches, the worst-case wait gets worse. Although, if you have several branches missing slots, the average case might not ... tom -- Sapere aude! |
Western CrossRail Branches, was Woolwich station for Crossrail
Dave Arquati wrote: wrote: Dave Arquati wrote: I don't think I'd bother going that far. Taking over as far as Hammersmith is probably OK because Crossrail serves several of the H&C's most important destinations. However, it goes nowhere near Victoria and is a bit of a walk from places like Monument in the City. We know that Richmonders don't want Crossrail to replace their District service, and Ealing Broadway will already have Crossrail. Good points, against which I have no argument. Shared running would also be a very poor idea as the trains would be so different and there would be the inevitable performance pollution. Shared running would only start east of Turnham Green. Interlining with the North London Line should not be very difficult. It only has about 3 to 4 trains per hour. The Piccadilly Line is a real problem. Perhaps the solution to that would be to have CrossRail also take over the Rayners Lane service. This would double Piccadilly Line service to Heathrow. Not sure exactly what you're suggesting here. Is it: - Crossrail via Ladbroke Grove & Shepherd's Bush to Rayners Lane via Ealing Common and to Richmond via Gunnersbury - District continues to run to Ealing Broadway...? No, the Piccadilly would retain the 'fast pair' and continue to serve Heathrow. Richmond, Ealing Broadway and Rayners Lane would be served by CrossRail by way of Ladbroke Grove and a re-instated link at Hammersmith. The District Line would become an Upminster to Wimbledon and Edgware Road to Kensington Olympia Service. That results in four western Crossrail branches with shared use between Gunnersbury and Richmond, between Hammersmith and Turnham Green and between Acton Town and Ealing Common! The only shared use would be between Gunnersbury and Richmond. CrossRail would utilize the trackes currently occupied by the District Line. One of the issues raised by the Montague report was that too many branches at each end would mean poorer reliability, as it's more difficult to ensure that trains arrive at the core section on time for their path - making achievement of the 24tph core service difficult. Having so much shared use to the west would be a recipe for disaster. The beauty of taking over as far as Hammersmith is that it is self-contained *and* reduces the number of services trying to interleave on the northern Circle. And I think that is a fair point. Whilst I think this conversation is interesting, I don't see the idea I have outlined as a practical option. The link at Hammersmith pretty much rules it out. But, under this idea, Circle Line working becomes much simpler. The H&C goes away and the District is less complex. The problem here is the purchase and demolition of all that has been built in the intervening years. There is also the issue of the many differing platform lengths en route to the two termini. However, if there District Line was reduced to an Upminster to Wimbledon service plus an Edgware Road to Kensington Olympia shuttle, Circle Line operation would become simplicity itself! Crossrail operation would be a lot more complicated, though! Not really given the minimal amount of shared track, i.e. the NLL. I don't think this idea is do-able, but it beats turning 24 tph back at Paddington. I'd say four branches is complicated! Making good use of the 14tph (24tph really would be a waste!!) seems eminently sensible - but I'd rather have Crossrail built with those 14tph wasted to begin with, but scope for future expansion, than see a bloated single-phase project sink. Thank you for correcting my 24 tph! That is what 9 hours COBOL progamming does to the brain! :-). And I agree, let's see CrossRail built. We can campaign for more, and better, branches later. Adrian. |
Inner Circle was Woolwich station for Crossrail
Bob wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote: What's wrong with Bayswater for the City? The Circle line has the same frequency as the H&C, and if Wimblewares were extended eastwards to compensate for the loss of the H&C, it would see a doubling of frequency. (The configuration I'm imagining is as now but with no H&C and with Wimblewares extended from Edgware Road to Whitechapel/Barking... call it the Wimblebark if you will!) Building on from the H&C Circle line tea cup ideas - how about two interposed reverse loops. How about existing H&C trains (to and) from Barking continuing from Edware Road via Bayswater and Victoria to rejoin the original route at Aldgate East - whilst Wimbleware continues to and from Liverpool Street, Aldgate and Victoria to join its original route at Earls Court. Nice idea, but I think you have too many trains on the Barking and Wimbledon arms, as well as the southern Circle. For example, you'd have 16tph between Gloucester Road and Tower Hill before you even added any Districts from Ealing / Richmond. I imagine you could eliminate all other Wimbledon services, leaving 16tph on the loop service (8tph via Paddington, 8tph via Victoria) -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Western CrossRail Branches, was Woolwich station for Crossrail
Adrian Auer-Hudson, MIMIS wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote: wrote: Dave Arquati wrote: I don't think I'd bother going that far. Taking over as far as Hammersmith is probably OK because Crossrail serves several of the H&C's most important destinations. However, it goes nowhere near Victoria and is a bit of a walk from places like Monument in the City. We know that Richmonders don't want Crossrail to replace their District service, and Ealing Broadway will already have Crossrail. Good points, against which I have no argument. Shared running would also be a very poor idea as the trains would be so different and there would be the inevitable performance pollution. Shared running would only start east of Turnham Green. Interlining with the North London Line should not be very difficult. It only has about 3 to 4 trains per hour. The Piccadilly Line is a real problem. Perhaps the solution to that would be to have CrossRail also take over the Rayners Lane service. This would double Piccadilly Line service to Heathrow. Not sure exactly what you're suggesting here. Is it: - Crossrail via Ladbroke Grove & Shepherd's Bush to Rayners Lane via Ealing Common and to Richmond via Gunnersbury - District continues to run to Ealing Broadway...? No, the Piccadilly would retain the 'fast pair' and continue to serve Heathrow. Richmond, Ealing Broadway and Rayners Lane would be served by CrossRail by way of Ladbroke Grove and a re-instated link at Hammersmith. The District Line would become an Upminster to Wimbledon and Edgware Road to Kensington Olympia Service. Hmm... with so many branches, you divide the train frequency unacceptably; you could only achieve something like 6tph to Rayners Lane, 4tph to Ealing and 4tph to Richmond. I'm also unsure whether Olympia can handle the 8tph to Edgware Road. Another irritation for passengers would be the need to change trains on journeys from Hammersmith to Victoria etc, and an awkward change at that (Earl's Court or South Kensington). That results in four western Crossrail branches with shared use between Gunnersbury and Richmond, between Hammersmith and Turnham Green and between Acton Town and Ealing Common! The only shared use would be between Gunnersbury and Richmond. CrossRail would utilize the trackes currently occupied by the District Line. There would also be a small amount of shared use at Rayners Lane, where Crossrail trains would have to unload in the westbound platform and reverse in the sidings as Piccadilly services do now (unless Crossrail works went beyond mere platform-lengthening and siding extension to full isolation by creating a single line from the junction into the station). One of the issues raised by the Montague report was that too many branches at each end would mean poorer reliability, as it's more difficult to ensure that trains arrive at the core section on time for their path - making achievement of the 24tph core service difficult. Having so much shared use to the west would be a recipe for disaster. The beauty of taking over as far as Hammersmith is that it is self-contained *and* reduces the number of services trying to interleave on the northern Circle. And I think that is a fair point. Whilst I think this conversation is interesting, I don't see the idea I have outlined as a practical option. The link at Hammersmith pretty much rules it out. But, under this idea, Circle Line working becomes much simpler. The H&C goes away and the District is less complex. You could still simplify SSL operation just by taking over to Hammersmith, I think. The easy option would be to simply extend Wimblewares to Whitechapel/Barking; I also quite like Bob's idea of two interposed loops (Wimbledon - Victoria - Aldgate - Edgware Road - Wimbledon and Whitechapel - Victoria - Edgware Road - Whitechapel) if the frequencies could be sorted out. The problem here is the purchase and demolition of all that has been built in the intervening years. There is also the issue of the many differing platform lengths en route to the two termini. However, if there District Line was reduced to an Upminster to Wimbledon service plus an Edgware Road to Kensington Olympia shuttle, Circle Line operation would become simplicity itself! Crossrail operation would be a lot more complicated, though! Not really given the minimal amount of shared track, i.e. the NLL. I don't think this idea is do-able, but it beats turning 24 tph back at Paddington. I'd say four branches is complicated! Making good use of the 14tph (24tph really would be a waste!!) seems eminently sensible - but I'd rather have Crossrail built with those 14tph wasted to begin with, but scope for future expansion, than see a bloated single-phase project sink. Thank you for correcting my 24 tph! That is what 9 hours COBOL progamming does to the brain! :-). And I agree, let's see CrossRail built. We can campaign for more, and better, branches later. Adrian. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:03 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk