On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Mr Thant wrote:

On 25 Mar, 23:49, Tom Anderson wrote:

The Jubilee?

To Docklands. AIUI the Jubilee between London Bridge and North
Greenwich is already one of the most congested bits of the network.

Right. And how is Crossrail going to relieve that? By letting people on
the North Kent line from east of Abbey Wood change there? That's not
exactly a huge fraction of the Jubilee's passengers, is it? And don't they
already have the option to do Greenwich - Docklands by DLR? Not that
that's exactly a high-capacity route itself.

True. All of which could be done without the tunnel, for a fraction of the
price.

And without increasing any capacity from the termini to where people
work/shop/go out/etc, which is the whole point of the current iteration
of the project.

Entirely agreed. But the point i was making in the text that's been
snipped is that the Crossrail project doesn't deliver significant
increases in capacity outside central London, and none that couldn't be
provided much more cheaply.

Again, could be done without the tunnel.

And where do you plan to build the extra platforms at Paddington and
Liverpool Street?

Liverpool Street isn't limited by platform capacity, it's limited by
capacity through the station throat. Rebuilding that is entirely possible,
although of course not trivial. I don't know about Paddington, i have to
confess. But since all we're talking about is lengthening trains, why do
we need more platforms?

Do we know how much of the budget is for this? My understanding was that
Oxford Circus wasn't going to be rebuilt; the Crossrail station would be
essentialy separate. It thus has a slightly marginal effect on
overcrowding - the people relieved onto Crossrail will no longer be
clogging the place up, but plenty of other people will. No idea about TCR.

Slightly marginal? The two Crossrail stations adjacent to Oxford Circus
will have enormous entrances at the ends nearest to it, exactly to
attract the crowds away without overcrowding the actual Oxford Circus
area. In theory at least they're hoping to attract away a lot more
passengers.

If you're going into Oxford Circus to get on the Victoria line, this isn't
going to make any difference whatsoever. The new bit being added, however
enormous, will only decongest the existing station to the extent that they
can abstract passengers away from the Central line.

tom

--
GOLDIE LOOKIN' CHAIN [...] will ultimately make all other forms of music
both redundant and unnecessary -- NTK

On Mar 26, 6:53*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Mr Thant wrote:
On 25 Mar, 23:49, Tom Anderson wrote:

The Jubilee?

To Docklands. AIUI the Jubilee between London Bridge and North
Greenwich is already one of the most congested bits of the network.

Right. And how is Crossrail going to relieve that? By letting people on
the North Kent line from east of Abbey Wood change there? That's not
exactly a huge fraction of the Jubilee's passengers, is it? And don't they
already have the option to do Greenwich - Docklands by DLR? Not that
that's exactly a high-capacity route itself.


There will also be the East London Line extension feeding passengers
in at Whitechapel. These passengers who would currently goto London
Bridge for the Jubilee line.

True. All of which could be done without the tunnel, for a fraction of the
price.

And without increasing any capacity from the termini to where people
work/shop/go out/etc, which is the whole point of the current iteration
of the project.

Entirely agreed. But the point i was making in the text that's been
snipped is that the Crossrail project doesn't deliver significant
increases in capacity outside central London, and none that couldn't be
provided much more cheaply.


But it is the central London section that needs the capacity, as the
Underground can not distribute passengers arriving from the mainline.
How much cheaper would it be to provide the extra capacity across
London without the joining the lines to the west and east? Passengers
taken off, for example, the Central line at Liverpool Street /
Stratford will give more capacity for passengers from the West Anglia
lines.

Again, could be done without the tunnel.

And where do you plan to build the extra platforms at Paddington and
Liverpool Street?

Liverpool Street isn't limited by platform capacity, it's limited by
capacity through the station throat. Rebuilding that is entirely possible,
although of course not trivial. I don't know about Paddington, i have to
confess. But since all we're talking about is lengthening trains, why do
we need more platforms?


Paddington has at least three platforms that are of limited length
(12-14, plus 11 which shares the country end track with the entrance
to platform 12). If you lengthen the trains to 8 or 10 coaches, I
don't think that any of these platforms can cope. Liverpool Street
also suffers from some of the same problems, with platforms 16-18
limited to 8 coaches. At both locations, the trains serving these
platforms will be the ones sent down the crossrail tunnels.

Do we know how much of the budget is for this? My understanding was that
Oxford Circus wasn't going to be rebuilt; the Crossrail station would be
essentialy separate. It thus has a slightly marginal effect on
overcrowding - the people relieved onto Crossrail will no longer be
clogging the place up, but plenty of other people will. No idea about TCR.

Slightly marginal? The two Crossrail stations adjacent to Oxford Circus
will have enormous entrances at the ends nearest to it, exactly to
attract the crowds away without overcrowding the actual Oxford Circus
area. In theory at least they're hoping to attract away a lot more
passengers.

If you're going into Oxford Circus to get on the Victoria line, this isn't
going to make any difference whatsoever. The new bit being added, however
enormous, will only decongest the existing station to the extent that they
can abstract passengers away from the Central line.


The difference in getting to the Victoria line is that it will be
easier to enter the station. It will also mean that Oxford Circus
doesn't need to be expensively rebuilt to add capacity for entrance /
exit.

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Andy wrote:

On Mar 26, 6:53*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Mr Thant wrote:
On 25 Mar, 23:49, Tom Anderson wrote:

The Jubilee?

To Docklands. AIUI the Jubilee between London Bridge and North
Greenwich is already one of the most congested bits of the network.

Right. And how is Crossrail going to relieve that? By letting people on
the North Kent line from east of Abbey Wood change there? That's not
exactly a huge fraction of the Jubilee's passengers, is it? And don't they
already have the option to do Greenwich - Docklands by DLR? Not that
that's exactly a high-capacity route itself.

There will also be the East London Line extension feeding passengers in
at Whitechapel. These passengers who would currently goto London Bridge
for the Jubilee line.

Oh, i see. So, Kent - New Cross Gate - Whitechapel - Canary Wharf?
They'll make two changes and a sort of spiral round Docklands?

True. All of which could be done without the tunnel, for a fraction of the
price.

And without increasing any capacity from the termini to where people
work/shop/go out/etc, which is the whole point of the current iteration
of the project.

Entirely agreed. But the point i was making in the text that's been
snipped is that the Crossrail project doesn't deliver significant
increases in capacity outside central London, and none that couldn't be
provided much more cheaply.

But it is the central London section that needs the capacity, as the
Underground can not distribute passengers arriving from the mainline.
How much cheaper would it be to provide the extra capacity across London
without the joining the lines to the west and east? Passengers taken
off, for example, the Central line at Liverpool Street / Stratford will
give more capacity for passengers from the West Anglia lines.

Absolutely. Sorry that i haven't really made myself clear about all this -
i think Crossrail's a good idea (although not as good an idea as some
other options which were dismissed - but that's another story), i just
think it's misleading to say it'll increase capacity on the lines it's
assimilating.

Again, could be done without the tunnel.

And where do you plan to build the extra platforms at Paddington and
Liverpool Street?

Liverpool Street isn't limited by platform capacity, it's limited by
capacity through the station throat. Rebuilding that is entirely
possible, although of course not trivial. I don't know about
Paddington, i have to confess. But since all we're talking about is
lengthening trains, why do we need more platforms?

Paddington has at least three platforms that are of limited length
(12-14, plus 11 which shares the country end track with the entrance to
platform 12). If you lengthen the trains to 8 or 10 coaches, I don't
think that any of these platforms can cope. Liverpool Street also
suffers from some of the same problems, with platforms 16-18 limited to
8 coaches. At both locations, the trains serving these platforms will be
the ones sent down the crossrail tunnels.

Right. Problems which could be solved without recourse to a tunnel.

Do we know how much of the budget is for this? My understanding was that
Oxford Circus wasn't going to be rebuilt; the Crossrail station would be
essentialy separate. It thus has a slightly marginal effect on
overcrowding - the people relieved onto Crossrail will no longer be
clogging the place up, but plenty of other people will. No idea about TCR.

Slightly marginal? The two Crossrail stations adjacent to Oxford Circus
will have enormous entrances at the ends nearest to it, exactly to
attract the crowds away without overcrowding the actual Oxford Circus
area. In theory at least they're hoping to attract away a lot more
passengers.

If you're going into Oxford Circus to get on the Victoria line, this isn't
going to make any difference whatsoever. The new bit being added, however
enormous, will only decongest the existing station to the extent that they
can abstract passengers away from the Central line.

The difference in getting to the Victoria line is that it will be easier
to enter the station.

Yes, yes, but the extent to which it does that is only the extent to which
you take passengers off the Central, that's what i'm saying.

It will also mean that Oxford Circus doesn't need to be expensively
rebuilt to add capacity for entrance / exit.

It might. It probably will still need it!

tom

--
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0 -- AACS Licensing Administrator

On 27 Mar, 23:59, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Andy wrote:

On Mar 26, 6:53 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Mr Thant wrote:

On 25 Mar, 23:49, Tom Anderson wrote:

The Jubilee?

To Docklands. AIUI the Jubilee between London Bridge and North
Greenwich is already one of the most congested bits of the network.

Right. And how is Crossrail going to relieve that? By letting people on
the North Kent line from east of Abbey Wood change there? That's not
exactly a huge fraction of the Jubilee's passengers, is it? And don't they
already have the option to do Greenwich - Docklands by DLR? Not that
that's exactly a high-capacity route itself.

There will also be the East London Line extension feeding passengers in
at Whitechapel. These passengers who would currently goto London Bridge
for the Jubilee line.

Oh, i see. So, Kent - New Cross Gate - Whitechapel - Canary Wharf?
They'll make two changes and a sort of spiral round Docklands?


ITYM New Cross as opposed to New Cross Gate - NX being the potential
interchange point for people coming in from some parts of Kent, though
of course only so many trains actually stop there, others charge
through non-stop en route to London Bridge.

Of course the above route via Whitechapel is a nonsense for those
headed to the Docklands. If they were using the ELLX they'd head to
Canada Water and then pile on the (already crowded) Jubilee line one
stop to Canary Wharf. Given that it's just one stop in a way one could
say that the overcrowding isn't that big an issue for these passengers
- unless of course the Jubilee trains are so crowded that no more
people could actually get on board them.

And of course Crossrail will relieve this by taking passengers
currently using the Jubilee from central London to get to the
Docklands and instead putting them on Crossrail trains to the new Isle
of Dogs station next to Canary Wharf (and indeed beyond to Custom
House).

On Mar 27, 11:59*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Andy wrote:
On Mar 26, 6:53*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Mr Thant wrote:
On 25 Mar, 23:49, Tom Anderson wrote:

The Jubilee?

To Docklands. AIUI the Jubilee between London Bridge and North
Greenwich is already one of the most congested bits of the network.

Right. And how is Crossrail going to relieve that? By letting people on
the North Kent line from east of Abbey Wood change there? That's not
exactly a huge fraction of the Jubilee's passengers, is it? And don't they
already have the option to do Greenwich - Docklands by DLR? Not that
that's exactly a high-capacity route itself.

There will also be the East London Line extension feeding passengers in
at Whitechapel. These passengers who would currently goto London Bridge
for the Jubilee line.

Oh, i see. So, Kent - New Cross Gate - Whitechapel - Canary Wharf?
They'll make two changes and a sort of spiral round Docklands?


No, not Kent, London Bridge is not purely served by South Eastern, but
by Southern as well. The ELLX will run West Croydon and Crystal Palace
to Whitechapel giving passengers one stop on Crossrail to Docklands.
North Kent will be served by changing at Abbey Wood, as others have
suggested. There will also be the possibility of Thameslink passengers
changing at Farringdon from the south.

True. All of which could be done without the tunnel, for a fraction of the
price.

And without increasing any capacity from the termini to where people
work/shop/go out/etc, which is the whole point of the current iteration
of the project.

Entirely agreed. But the point i was making in the text that's been
snipped is that the Crossrail project doesn't deliver significant
increases in capacity outside central London, and none that couldn't be
provided much more cheaply.

But it is the central London section that needs the capacity, as the
Underground can not distribute passengers arriving from the mainline.
How much cheaper would it be to provide the extra capacity across London
without the joining the lines to the west and east? Passengers taken
off, for example, the Central line at Liverpool Street / Stratford will
give more capacity for passengers from the West Anglia lines.

Absolutely. Sorry that i haven't really made myself clear about all this -
i think Crossrail's a good idea (although not as good an idea as some
other options which were dismissed - but that's another story), i just
think it's misleading to say it'll increase capacity on the lines it's
assimilating.


But can we agree that it will provide extra capacity at the terminii
where the current trains will be removed? On top of any possible
increase in the lines that it serves directly.



Again, could be done without the tunnel.

And where do you plan to build the extra platforms at Paddington and
Liverpool Street?

Liverpool Street isn't limited by platform capacity, it's limited by
capacity through the station throat. Rebuilding that is entirely
possible, although of course not trivial. I don't know about
Paddington, i have to confess. But since all we're talking about is
lengthening trains, why do we need more platforms?

Paddington has at least three platforms that are of limited length
(12-14, plus 11 which shares the country end track with the entrance to
platform 12). If you lengthen the trains to 8 or 10 coaches, I don't
think that any of these platforms can cope. Liverpool Street also
suffers from some of the same problems, with platforms 16-18 limited to
8 coaches. At both locations, the trains serving these platforms will be
the ones sent down the crossrail tunnels.

Right. Problems which could be solved without recourse to a tunnel.


But at what proportion of the cost? To add a double track railway
junction at each end of the Crossrail tunnels is considerable easier
than fitting extra platforms / new layouts into the existing sites.
The junctions can be placed where there is room without the expense of
buying the land etc. You only need to look at the costs that seem to
be involved in adding just one platform at King's Cross. The point is
that the extra capacity is needed in central London and this can only
be provided by building a tunnel.



Do we know how much of the budget is for this? My understanding was that
Oxford Circus wasn't going to be rebuilt; the Crossrail station would be
essentialy separate. It thus has a slightly marginal effect on
overcrowding - the people relieved onto Crossrail will no longer be
clogging the place up, but plenty of other people will. No idea about TCR.

Slightly marginal? The two Crossrail stations adjacent to Oxford Circus
will have enormous entrances at the ends nearest to it, exactly to
attract the crowds away without overcrowding the actual Oxford Circus
area. In theory at least they're hoping to attract away a lot more
passengers.

If you're going into Oxford Circus to get on the Victoria line, this isn't
going to make any difference whatsoever. The new bit being added, however
enormous, will only decongest the existing station to the extent that they
can abstract passengers away from the Central line.

The difference in getting to the Victoria line is that it will be easier
to enter the station.

Yes, yes, but the extent to which it does that is only the extent to which
you take passengers off the Central, that's what i'm saying.

It will also mean that Oxford Circus doesn't need to be expensively
rebuilt to add capacity for entrance / exit.

It might. It probably will still need it!


Well, as it is already the busiest underground station, without a
National Rail interchange, I would hope that it will be able to cope
for a few years with a sizeable percentage of Central line passengers
removed.

tom

--
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0 -- AACS Licensing Administrator

On 28 Mar, 01:48, Andy wrote:

On Mar 27, 11:59 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Andy wrote:

On Mar 26, 6:53 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Mr Thant wrote:

On 25 Mar, 23:49, Tom Anderson wrote:

The Jubilee?

To Docklands. AIUI the Jubilee between London Bridge and North
Greenwich is already one of the most congested bits of the network.

Right. And how is Crossrail going to relieve that? By letting people on
the North Kent line from east of Abbey Wood change there? That's not
exactly a huge fraction of the Jubilee's passengers, is it? And don't they
already have the option to do Greenwich - Docklands by DLR? Not that
that's exactly a high-capacity route itself.

There will also be the East London Line extension feeding passengers in
at Whitechapel. These passengers who would currently goto London Bridge
for the Jubilee line.

Oh, i see. So, Kent - New Cross Gate - Whitechapel - Canary Wharf?
They'll make two changes and a sort of spiral round Docklands?

No, not Kent, London Bridge is not purely served by South Eastern, but
by Southern as well. The ELLX will run West Croydon and Crystal Palace
to Whitechapel giving passengers one stop on Crossrail to Docklands.
North Kent will be served by changing at Abbey Wood, as others have
suggested. There will also be the possibility of Thameslink passengers
changing at Farringdon from the south.


(I think Tom was getting somewhat confused between NX and NXG but
anyway...)

Though for those travelling via the ELLX to Canary Wharf from points
south I find it difficult to believe that anyone would do anything
other than change onto the Jubilee at Canada Water - going via
Whitechapel and Crossrail would entail staying on the ELLX for three
extra stops.

Though for those coming from points north on the ELLX then a change at
Whitechapel onto Crossrail will be an attractive choice, and will also
provide some relief to the Jubilee line this way - though to some
degree that may well be relief from the new demands that the completed
ELLX will place on the Jubilee at Canada Water. The via Crossrail at
Whitechapel option will also be good for those using the ELLX from
either points north or south who're heading to Custom House.

On Mar 28, 9:12*am, Mizter T wrote:
On 28 Mar, 01:48, Andy wrote:



On Mar 27, 11:59 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Andy wrote:

On Mar 26, 6:53 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Mr Thant wrote:

On 25 Mar, 23:49, Tom Anderson wrote:

The Jubilee?

To Docklands. AIUI the Jubilee between London Bridge and North
Greenwich is already one of the most congested bits of the network..

Right. And how is Crossrail going to relieve that? By letting people on
the North Kent line from east of Abbey Wood change there? That's not
exactly a huge fraction of the Jubilee's passengers, is it? And don't they
already have the option to do Greenwich - Docklands by DLR? Not that
that's exactly a high-capacity route itself.

There will also be the East London Line extension feeding passengers in
at Whitechapel. These passengers who would currently goto London Bridge
for the Jubilee line.

Oh, i see. So, Kent - New Cross Gate - Whitechapel - Canary Wharf?
They'll make two changes and a sort of spiral round Docklands?

No, not Kent, London Bridge is not purely served by South Eastern, but
by Southern as well. The ELLX will run West Croydon and Crystal Palace
to Whitechapel giving passengers one stop on Crossrail to Docklands.
North Kent will be served by changing at Abbey Wood, as others have
suggested. There will also be the possibility of Thameslink passengers
changing at Farringdon from the south.

(I think Tom was getting somewhat confused between NX and NXG but
anyway...)

Though for those travelling via the ELLX to Canary Wharf from points
south I find it difficult to believe that anyone would do anything
other than change onto the Jubilee at Canada Water - going via
Whitechapel and Crossrail would entail staying on the ELLX for three
extra stops.


I was kind of forgetting Rotherhithe, Wapping and Shadwell on the
ELLX, however, the first two stations are very close together and
close to Canada Water!! The Crossrail station at Isle of Dogs will be
on the other side of Canary Wharf (it will be under West India Dock
between Canary Wharf and West India Quay, to the east of the West
Indix Quay DLR station ) from the Jubilee station and the extra time
spent on the ELLX train would be made up for any passengers heading to
the Northern side of the offices here.

Though for those coming from points north on the ELLX then a change at
Whitechapel onto Crossrail will be an attractive choice, and will also
provide some relief to the Jubilee line this way - though to some
degree that may well be relief from the new demands that the completed
ELLX will place on the Jubilee at Canada Water. The via Crossrail at
Whitechapel option will also be good for those using the ELLX from
either points north or south who're heading to Custom House.

Andy wrote:

On Mar 28, 9:12�am, Mizter T wrote:

On 28 Mar, 01:48, Andy wrote:

On Mar 27, 11:59 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Andy wrote:

(snip)

There will also be the East London Line extension feeding passengers in
at Whitechapel. These passengers who would currently goto London Bridge
for the Jubilee line.

Oh, i see. So, Kent - New Cross Gate - Whitechapel - Canary Wharf?
They'll make two changes and a sort of spiral round Docklands?

No, not Kent, London Bridge is not purely served by South Eastern, but
by Southern as well. The ELLX will run West Croydon and Crystal Palace
to Whitechapel giving passengers one stop on Crossrail to Docklands.
North Kent will be served by changing at Abbey Wood, as others have
suggested. There will also be the possibility of Thameslink passengers
changing at Farringdon from the south.

(I think Tom was getting somewhat confused between NX and NXG but
anyway...)

Though for those travelling via the ELLX to Canary Wharf from points
south I find it difficult to believe that anyone would do anything
other than change onto the Jubilee at Canada Water - going via
Whitechapel and Crossrail would entail staying on the ELLX for three
extra stops.


I was kind of forgetting Rotherhithe, Wapping and Shadwell on the
ELLX, however, the first two stations are very close together and
close to Canada Water!! The Crossrail station at Isle of Dogs will be
on the other side of Canary Wharf (it will be under West India Dock
between Canary Wharf and West India Quay, to the east of the West
Indix Quay DLR station ) from the Jubilee station and the extra time
spent on the ELLX train would be made up for any passengers heading to
the Northern side of the offices here.


Sorry Andy but I just don't buy that. Crossrail may have many benefits
but this is not going to be one of them.

Even if we take a worst case scenario that Rotherhithe and Wapping
might have to close at some point in the more distant future if there
is some plan for longer trains on the ELLX, the extra distance and
journey time from Canada Water to Whitechapel (with at least one stop
at Shadwell) just doesn't compare to a direct trip under the Thames
from Canada Water to Canary Wharf on the Jubilee. Passengers are not
going to choose to introduce this extra dogleg into their journey,
especially given the very easy interchange offered at Canada Water.

I also simply don't agree with your argument that the location of the
Isle of Dogs Crossrail station will be so advantageous that some
passengers will wish to choose it over the Jubilee line station - the
tube station really is hardly any distance away so only the *most*
stupid and lazy would possibly factor in these few saved paces and
decide to build there commute around that.

Of course passengers traveling via the ELLX and the Jubilee will
benefit indirectly from Crossrail as it'll take the strain off the
overcrowded Jubilee line by removing passengers from points west.

I don't think it likely that Thameslink passengers from the south will
pass through London Bridge and go up to Farringdon for Crossrail
rather than changing to the Jubilee from London Bridge, though this
will certainly look like a good move for those coming from the
Wimbledon/Sutton loop (or other similar south London suburban start
points if the Thameslink service gets rejigged). Even if the
interchange at Farringdon is very easy,

Crossrail will be of benefit directly or indirectly (through relief of
overcrowding) for many Docklands commuters no doubt, but I don't think
it's that great an idea to try and shoehorn all potential Docklands-
bound journeys into somehow making use of Crossrail!

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008, Andy wrote:

On Mar 27, 11:59*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Andy wrote:
On Mar 26, 6:53*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Mr Thant wrote:
On 25 Mar, 23:49, Tom Anderson wrote:

True. All of which could be done without the tunnel, for a fraction of the
price.

And without increasing any capacity from the termini to where people
work/shop/go out/etc, which is the whole point of the current iteration
of the project.

Entirely agreed. But the point i was making in the text that's been
snipped is that the Crossrail project doesn't deliver significant
increases in capacity outside central London, and none that couldn't be
provided much more cheaply.

But it is the central London section that needs the capacity, as the
Underground can not distribute passengers arriving from the mainline.
How much cheaper would it be to provide the extra capacity across London
without the joining the lines to the west and east? Passengers taken
off, for example, the Central line at Liverpool Street / Stratford will
give more capacity for passengers from the West Anglia lines.

Absolutely. Sorry that i haven't really made myself clear about all this -
i think Crossrail's a good idea (although not as good an idea as some
other options which were dismissed - but that's another story), i just
think it's misleading to say it'll increase capacity on the lines it's
assimilating.

But can we agree that it will provide extra capacity at the terminii
where the current trains will be removed? On top of any possible
increase in the lines that it serves directly.

Yes.

But i'm still going to maintain that it's capacity that can't be used,
because the bottleneck is not the terminal capacity!

Unless you mean capacity for passengers rather than trains, in which case
you're quite right.

Again, could be done without the tunnel.

And where do you plan to build the extra platforms at Paddington and
Liverpool Street?

Liverpool Street isn't limited by platform capacity, it's limited by
capacity through the station throat. Rebuilding that is entirely
possible, although of course not trivial. I don't know about
Paddington, i have to confess. But since all we're talking about is
lengthening trains, why do we need more platforms?

Paddington has at least three platforms that are of limited length
(12-14, plus 11 which shares the country end track with the entrance to
platform 12). If you lengthen the trains to 8 or 10 coaches, I don't
think that any of these platforms can cope. Liverpool Street also
suffers from some of the same problems, with platforms 16-18 limited to
8 coaches. At both locations, the trains serving these platforms will be
the ones sent down the crossrail tunnels.

Right. Problems which could be solved without recourse to a tunnel.

But at what proportion of the cost?

At what proportion of umpty-billion pounds? A pretty small one.

To add a double track railway junction at each end of the Crossrail
tunnels is considerable easier than fitting extra platforms / new
layouts into the existing sites. The junctions can be placed where there
is room without the expense of buying the land etc. You only need to
look at the costs that seem to be involved in adding just one platform
at King's Cross. The point is that the extra capacity is needed in
central London and this can only be provided by building a tunnel.

The capacity increase is going to come from longer, not more, trains.
Extra platforms or whatever would not be needed; existing ones would need
to be extended. This is not free, but it's also not expensive, at least on
the Crossrail scheme of things.

I would certainly agree that if you are going to build a
cross-central-London tunnel, you should connect it to some routes outside
the centre, though. I'm not arguing for a Paddington-to-Liverpool Street
mini-Crossrail. I'm just saying that the capacity increase outside the
centre of London will be small, and nothing that couldn't be achieved much
more cheaply without Crossrail.

tom

--
Change happens with ball-flattening speed. -- Thomas Edison

On 26 Mar, 18:53, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Mr Thant wrote:

On 25 Mar, 23:49, Tom Anderson wrote:

The Jubilee?

To Docklands. AIUI the Jubilee between London Bridge and North
Greenwich is already one of the most congested bits of the network.

Right. And how is Crossrail going to relieve that? By letting people on
the North Kent line from east of Abbey Wood change there? That's not
exactly a huge fraction of the Jubilee's passengers, is it? And don't they
already have the option to do Greenwich - Docklands by DLR? Not that
that's exactly a high-capacity route itself.


You've a point about North Kent / south east London commuters who are
likely to already be interchanging with the DLR at Greenwich or
Lewisham.

However Lewisham/Greenwich - Canary Wharf DLR trains are rammed during
the rush hour, not least with many passengers who are making such an
interchange.

Interchange to Crossrail at Abbey Wood would be an option for some of
these passengers.

Note that as well as London to Dartford stopping services, Abbey Wood
is also served by Charing X to Gillingham (via Rochester and Chatham)
trains. These do also stop at Lewisham, so interchange is indeed
available with the overcrowded DLR there (note that these trains also
stop at Woolwich Arsenal).

However the South London RUS makes clear that Lewisham station is
badly struggling to reliably handle the number of trains that
currently stop there - if this service could be diverted away from
Lewisham that would definitely be of very significant benefit.
(Passengers would also have the option of changing to the DLR at
Woolwich Arsenal for other Docklands destinations.)

I've absolutely no idea if what I'm about to suggest is remotely
feasible, but if more trains from Kent were to stop at Abbey Wood then
this would provide some relief for the Jubilee line by removing a
number of passengers who arrive at London Bridge then 'double-back' on
the Jubilee to the Docklands.