|
|
Post by george1manning on May 27, 2009 16:37:35 GMT
Surely Crossrail would be much more useful if it went to Dartford or even Gravesend as Abbey Wood is not exactly a major passenger objective. The only problem that I can see it track capacity through Dartford at peak times.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Ben on May 27, 2009 18:08:25 GMT
A large part of why it stops there is to avoid performance pollution. Also with the size of the bill and supporting documents, it was probably easier to limit the scope initially and build later.
It struck me the other day that it could in future take the old jubilees route to Thamesmead; that could do with a rail link still.
|
|
|
|
Post by flippyff on May 27, 2009 18:15:39 GMT
Wasn't there a recent Network Rail RUS that suggested an extension of Crossrail to Gravesend would be a good idea? I think it said that due to the complexities of installing OHLE beyond Abbey Wood that the Crossrail stock would need to be dual voltage.
I've not read it yet but doesn't the (new) Sussex RUS mention a tunnel from Clapham Junction possibly linking into Crossrail?
Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by Sean B on May 27, 2009 19:50:56 GMT
I've not read it yet but doesn't the (new) Sussex RUS mention a tunnel from Clapham Junction possibly linking into Crossrail? Simon I contributed to an earlier thread on a similar matter, though the proposal for Clapham Junction there was a southern projection of the old Moorgate City line. As I said in there, surely bringing an underground or sub-surface railway to surface at one of the UK's busiest, if not the UK's busiest, rail junction would be quite a challenge, if not impossible? |
|
|
|
Post by cityboy on May 27, 2009 22:12:47 GMT
I've not read it yet but doesn't the (new) Sussex RUS mention a tunnel from Clapham Junction possibly linking into Crossrail? Simon I contributed to an earlier thread on a similar matter, though the proposal for Clapham Junction there was a southern projection of the old Moorgate City line. As I said in there, surely bringing an underground or sub-surface railway to surface at one of the UK's busiest, if not the UK's busiest, rail junction would be quite a challenge, if not impossible? Actually the draft Sussex RUS proposes a tunnel which would begin south of Croydon, somewhere near the M25 and travelling all the way to Victoria and then onward to a more northerly destination, probably linking to another of London's termini. The point being that fast line trains from the Brighton Main Line can avoid bottlenecks at Windwill Junction (north of E. Croydon) Clapham Junction, limitations of Termini and also provide additional cross London capacity. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest on May 27, 2009 22:45:07 GMT
I've not read it yet but doesn't the (new) Sussex RUS mention a tunnel from Clapham Junction possibly linking into Crossrail? I don't think it could link into Crossrail (though you probably could divert the Paddington terminators SW from TCR - after all, if they can justify two branches in the east, and a 12-12 split at TCR would probably be less bad as the 12-12 split at Whitechapel in under-supplying the branches). However, upon finding it in the RUS (para 10.5.6 I presume) its a Crossrail-type solution. The paragraph then continues to say that capacity south of Clapham Junction would rule it out, and also doesn't deal with the capacity of London Bridge-BML services - both will be at capacity, despite 12-car trains. It suggests some kind of tunnel from near the M25 to Central London, but also says that that will cost a fortune. Reopening rail lines isn't really an option, as they are relief for the southern section, which, while needing some support, doesn't deal with the main problem and will exacerbate it. I contributed to an earlier thread on a similar matter, though the proposal for Clapham Junction there was a southern projection of the old Moorgate City line. As I said in there, surely bringing an underground or sub-surface railway to surface at one of the UK's busiest, if not the UK's busiest, rail junction would be quite a challenge, if not impossible? I'm guessing the GN&C was a fantasy proposal there, also the problem is not bringing an underground railway up - there would be low level platforms at CJ, and the junction and bottleneck in that area is entirely north of there. The problem is the lack of capacity at the junction north of Croydon, and the line south of there. It struck me the other day that it could in future take the old jubilees route to Thamesmead; that could do with a rail link still. Other than the Crossrail portal being right where the branch would divert, thus making it rather difficult to add the Thamesmead branch - after all, The JLE would have emerged before Plumstead, but Crossrail uses (like some JLE options) Abbey Wood as 'Thamesmead' - in Crossrail's case to go on to Gravesend one day. For any extension beyond Abbey Wood, major track works in the Dartford area, and possibly some others in the Gravesend area. Crossrail, like the Reading station reconstruction, didn't want a massive cost increase. |
|
|
|
Post by paul on May 27, 2009 22:50:31 GMT
The point being that fast line trains from the Brighton Main Line can avoid bottlenecks at Windwill Junction (north of E. Croydon) Clapham Junction, limitations of Termini and also provide additional cross London capacity. And of course, lets not forget that building a subterranean railway becomes significantly cheaper when you use it for a fast line without stations - compare the per-mile costs of HS1 phase 2 vs Crossrail, for example. IMO the route should be built for 300km/h and extend at least to Gatwick; this would revolutionise travel from the South Coast and free up much capacity for frequent metro services in south London. |
|
|
|
Post by stephenk on May 28, 2009 10:26:03 GMT
Surely Crossrail would be much more useful if it went to Dartford or even Gravesend as Abbey Wood is not exactly a major passenger objective. I'm sure it's a major objective for people who live in Abbey Wood. There is also a major problem with knock on effects of late running. If Crossrail terminates at Abbey Wood then it will be more self contained, and thus more reliable. |
|
|
|
Post by cityboy on May 28, 2009 15:05:37 GMT
And of course, lets not forget that building a subterranean railway becomes significantly cheaper when you use it for a fast line without stations - compare the per-mile costs of HS1 phase 2 vs Crossrail, for example. Agreed. In addition, CTRL tunnel is quite a bit wider than that of Crossrail. So presuming this tunnel would be built to the same spec as Crossrail, it would be cheaper still per Km than CTRL. As to Abbey Wood, yes it would be useful to have Crossrail extended further east. But as the DLR extension to Woolwich Arsenal proves, commuters are quite willing to change lines to avoid the bottleknecks at London Bridge. If the funding became available to put an extension of the line back in a tunnel, towards Dartford or to have a completely segregated line above ground, then that could be explored. It's just at the moment, this capital clearly isn't available. |
|
|
|
Post by biolizard on May 28, 2009 15:54:38 GMT
It struck me the other day that it could in future take the old jubilees route to Thamesmead; that could do with a rail link still. If you look on Google Maps or similar there's a nice corridor branching off after Plumstead up to Thamesmead that would perfect for a branch with two or three stations. Serve it with TfL's requirement of 4 tph and Crossrail could soak up this capacity down towards Dartford and Gravesend. The problem of performance pollution is still there though. |
|
slugabed
Zu lang am schnuller.
Posts: 1,366
|
Post by slugabed on May 28, 2009 20:25:13 GMT
If you look on Google Maps or similar there's a nice corridor branching off after Plumstead up to Thamesmead that would perfect for a branch with two or three stations. I'm fairly sure you mean the Southern Outfall Sewer embankment,and some older maps show is being paralleled for at least some of its length by a siding from Plumstead. The sewer,of course,ends up at Crossness sewage works,home to the famous engines. www.crossness.org.uk/ |
|
|
|
Post by mikebuzz on Jun 6, 2009 13:46:45 GMT
Capacity on the eastern branches - which would be an issue whether extended or not - could be enhanced by a new curve east of Stepney Green allowing trians to travel between Stratford/Shenfield and Canary Wharf/Abbey Wood. Stratford-CW would be express (no intervening stations) and phase two of the project could spur off under Stratford International (with a station linking the two Statfords) to the Lea Valley route providing an eastern north-south crossrail to Tottenham Hale (eventually to Stansted).
A mile of new tunnel with no stations for phase 1. Under £100m?
Half a mile to a mile of tunnel with 1 station and new signalling etc to Tottenham Hale for phase 2. £300m?
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Jun 17, 2009 20:26:17 GMT
Extending Crossrail eastwards from Abbeywood using the north kent lines was lobbied for heavily by LB Bexley at the planning enquiry stage. CLRL even acknowledged the strength of their economic case at the time. The proposal was however rejected arguing that the extension would delay construction... the route has been safeguarded I think, your guess is as good as mine whether this ever happens though!
|
|
|
|
Post by Buster on Jun 17, 2009 21:29:23 GMT
Extension of Crossrail beyond Abbey Wood is 'unlikely to be funded' until 2019, but is being examined nonetheless. The South London RUS also mentions a 'safeguarded track alignment' for extension to alleviate constraints in the Dartford Area with extra tracks, and by taking much of North Kent Line Demand away from the London Bridge, helping things there also, being quoted as 'post-2015'.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Jun 23, 2009 3:39:01 GMT
Extension of Crossrail beyond Abbey Wood is 'unlikely to be funded' until 2019, but is being examined nonetheless. The South London RUS also mentions a 'safeguarded track alignment' for extension to alleviate constraints in the Dartford Area with extra tracks, and by taking much of North Kent Line Demand away from the London Bridge, helping things there also, being quoted as 'post-2015'. The safeguarded route specifically mentions Hoo Junction as the eastern limit. To me, this suggests a tunnel is being considered for the Gravesend section. Gravesend station is right in the town centre, built in a cutting, with equally constrained approaches, so the options are limited. (The council also have their own plans for the station's surroundings.) Re-siting Dartford a little to the west might also be sensible as the present 4-platform station is struggling to cope with the three routes that converge on it today. Crossrail would add a fourth. |
|
