Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2009 14:37:45 GMT
One of the most controversial aspects of the Crossrail plan is the number of trains terminating at Paddington - this is due to there being greater demand/capacity at the East of the route than at the West.
Several proposals have been made during the life of the project - these include Twickenham/Teddington via Richmond, The Hounslow loop via South Acton and Aylesbury or High Wycombe.
With such pressure on rail terminus capacity in London it seems hard to believe there isn't a better plan - do you have one? Or are the powers that be correct to reject all other options and terminate something like 14tph at Paddington?
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,377
Member is Online
|
Post by Chris M on Jan 11, 2009 15:50:27 GMT
Why not send some of them to Hammersmith?
|
|
|
|
Post by cetacean on Jan 11, 2009 16:05:10 GMT
Lack of OHLE, lack of platform length, need to close/relocate Hammersmith depot, flat junction where the trains would leave/join etc.
The trains can't continue any further west due to lack of capacity, not demand (although fortunately it is also expected to be low). Freight joins the line at Acton Yard and from the NLL/WLL at Acton East/West junctions and shares the Relief Lines to Maidenhead, so you can't run any more Crossrail trains west of this point anyway.
And if it weren't for Heathrow, all trains would probably terminate at Paddington. I don't see any problem with it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2009 17:51:50 GMT
And if it weren't for Heathrow, all trains would probably terminate at Paddington. I don't see any problem with it. 24x 10 car trains per hour pulling into Paddington... I didn't realise that many people lived or worked there! Surely Crossrail is supposed to have exclusive use of the relief lines - weren't the freight operators all in a twist over it? And if so, 8tph is hardly using all the capacity is it? What about Hammersmith as Chris M says, or even run them up the Piccadilly line branch to Uxbridge? |
|
|
|
Post by cetacean on Jan 11, 2009 19:02:00 GMT
Yes, because everyone using the JLE lives in Stratford  . Freight, Crossrail and diesel stopping services to west of Maidenhead will share the GWML relief lines, which obviously means freight paths are limited, hence the upset freight operators. The main lines will be dedicated to 125 mph first stop Reading services plus Heathrow Express. (At the Great Eastern end freight already runs on the fast lines, and Crossrail has more-or-less exclusive use of the slow lines) |
|
|
|
Post by DrOne on Jan 12, 2009 8:18:25 GMT
Lack of OHLE, lack of platform length, need to close/relocate Hammersmith depot, flat junction where the trains would leave/join etc. But aren't a lot of the works are aimed at overcoming exactly these issues on the GWML relief lines? They aren't insurmountable. Given the number of terminators at the Paddington end and all the problems with Praed St Jn and raising the the H&C to 12tph (discussed extensively here) I'd say branching Crossrail to Hammersmith is really worth considering, as stage 2 perhaps? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2009 13:59:38 GMT
The most obvious and first thing it should do is take over the Heathrow Express services, thus running 8 trains per hour to Heathrow.
If it gets extended to Reading that'd be a few more services it can take over, I believe.
+ The Hammersmith and City line which would be an extra 8 trains per hour.
That's 4+2 for Reading + 8 for H&C makes 14!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2009 2:38:21 GMT
Make the first stop of all the current diesel stoppers Maidenhead and give their paths on the slow lines to Crossrail. Passengers on the Oxford and Bedwyn lines get a faster journey in and if they do have to change it is to a more frequent stopping service.
Was High Wycombe via Greenford, Ruislip and Denham ever looked at? There would be space for a parkway station at Denham.
|
|
|
|
Post by DrOne on Jan 13, 2009 20:20:34 GMT
High Wycombe would have been another good destination, and a relatively easy way to route some 4tph (re-doubling the link from the GWML to Northolt). Apparently it was rejected in the early stages. If the junction is kept intact, it might be do-able in the future, maybe if Marylebone needs relieving.
As an aside, apparently there used to be a separate Maidenhead-High Wycombe line via the still-existent line to Marlow.
|
|
|
|
Post by amershamsi on Jan 13, 2009 21:38:55 GMT
The High Wycombe plan that was rejected was via the tunnel/Dudding Hill link to Neasden. I don't think the other route was investigated. An easyish one would be Watford via the DC lines (though wouldn't take many trains). Hounslow wouldn't be too hard either and was rejected simply for being proposed too late. And if it weren't for Heathrow, all trains would probably terminate at Paddington. I don't see any problem with it. If it weren't for Heathrow, we'd be looking at a SW-E route, which had a better business case than W-E, but make it harder to serve Heathrow. One would guess it would be more like Hampton Court, Epsom, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by DrOne on Jan 13, 2009 21:57:35 GMT
Cetacean said earlier that trains can't continue further west because of capacity issues rather than demand. However, I can't imagine Crossrail going to any other part of London and trains being allowed to stop so far short, as they will at the western end.
|
|
|
|
Post by cetacean on Jan 14, 2009 0:08:43 GMT
Yes, but they are expensive, and with the elevated stations on the Hammersmith branch, very much so. I can't imagine the figures adding up vs demand. The turn off to Northolt is actually just before where the freight joins, so conceivably High Wycombe etc is doable. But the Crossrail people say: |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2009 9:48:38 GMT
Personally I think that given the fact the around 50% of Crossrail services will be reversed at Paddington, then Crossrail (in it's current guise) is not exactly the most crucial line required for London!
As I've mentioned many times before there is a much more pressing need for Crossrail Line 2/Chelney.
Parts of Crossrail's routes that are required can be built using cheaper alternatives - such as a certain mode of transport that TfL refuse to evaluate.
|
|
|
|
Post by amershamsi on Jan 14, 2009 11:22:14 GMT
is that mode the one that goes in small tunnels and was very popular for new construction 100 odd years ago?
Crossrail is only really getting built because it got the momentum and political will, not least because it's main purpose is helping those big businesses get people to and from Heathrow easily.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2009 19:10:41 GMT
Crossrail (in it's current guise) is not exactly the most crucial line required for London! May be not for the West London, but it is definitely needed for the East and Central London! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2009 11:02:00 GMT
is that mode the one that goes in small tunnels and was very popular for new construction 100 odd years ago? Good guess, the Japanese have gone back to smaller profile metro lines. However I was actually referring to a certain suspended monorail system that TfL apparently refuse to evaluate. Crossrail (in it's current guise) is not exactly the most crucial line required for London! May be not for the West London, but it is definitely needed for the East and Central London! The East London overcrowding issues could be solved by alternative and cheaper methods than Crossrail. Chelney being one (as long as it connects with the Central around Leytonstone). Improved signalling on the Shenfield Line being another. Capacity enhancements to Jubilee and DLR will keep the lines serving Canary Wharf going for a bit. |
|
|
|
Post by thirstquensher on Jan 15, 2009 16:07:34 GMT
Maybe a certain scene in the recent (US-made) Thunderbirds movie put them off for good?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2009 21:00:43 GMT
Chelney being one (as long as it connects with the Central around Leytonstone). Improved signalling on the Shenfield Line being another. Capacity enhancements to Jubilee and DLR will keep the lines serving Canary Wharf going for a bit. I doubt improvements to Shenfield line will make any positive difference to amount of people switching to Central line. And while improvements on Jubilee and DLR are most welcome, they will hardly cover any potential population increase - in fact they will be barely enough even to fix current rush hour crush. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2009 7:38:34 GMT
Chelney being one (as long as it connects with the Central around Leytonstone). Improved signalling on the Shenfield Line being another. Capacity enhancements to Jubilee and DLR will keep the lines serving Canary Wharf going for a bit. I doubt improvements to Shenfield line will make any positive difference to amount of people switching to Central line. If Chelney takes passengers from the Central, then there will be more space for passengers transferring to the Central Line at Stratford or Liverpool St. Improving the frequency will i reduce overcrowding on the Shenfield Line. However it won't increase the overall number of passengers using the Shenfield line other than normal growth. Yes the DLR is overcrowded, but it's not exactly near Victoria Line standards where you may have to wait 3 trains to board (at Victoria NB am peak)! The DLR will soon have a 50% capacity increase. Likewise the Jubilee (around Canary Wharf) is crowded, not overcrowded. Again it will soon be getting a 20% capacity increase. I wouldn't be surprised if the economic slowdown and recent job losses in the financial sector has reduced the expected growth of the Canary Wharf area. When extra capacity is eventually required there are cheaper options than building a large profile underground railway such as Crossrail. |
|
|
|
Post by cetacean on Jan 16, 2009 9:40:37 GMT
Crossrail is a long term solution - it won't even open until 2017, which is probably around the time any capacity expansion on the DLR and Jubilee is exhausted. Scrapping it because of short term job losses would be bonkers - there's still a huge amount of new buildings planned in the area.
|
|
|
|
Post by DrOne on Feb 2, 2009 14:01:31 GMT
Yes the DLR is overcrowded, but it's not exactly near Victoria Line standards where you may have to wait 3 trains to board (at Victoria NB am peak)! The DLR will soon have a 50% capacity increase. Likewise the Jubilee (around Canary Wharf) is crowded, not overcrowded. Again it will soon be getting a 20% capacity increase. Although this has already been answered, it's worth noting the heavy usage on the Woolwich Aresenal branch since the new station opened. The increasing popularity of the WA and Beckton branches has knock-on effects, as they are heavy feeders for the Jubilee at Canning Town. Not forgetting the soon-to-open ELL, from which a sizeable number of people will be connecting with the Jubilee at Canada Water. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2009 0:43:41 GMT
IMO the only way that Crossrail will run to High Wycombe is if Chiltern becomes so disinterested in the inner portions of their route that they begin stopping fewer trains between South Ruislip and Beaconsfield, inclusive, so as to allow them to serve their longer-distance stations more readily.
The only other way that Crossrail could go to High Wycombe would be if demand on the inner portion of the Chiltern route skyrocketed so high that they could not handle the demand themselves from their 165/168/172 fleet. In that scenario, I suspect that you would see a partnership between the Crossrail authorities and Chiltern for portions of the latter's Evergreen 3 proposals to be built on the lower end of the route.
There is also the effects on the Central Line to consider as well - the Ruislip branch is not that heavily patronised as it is, and with a new high speed route to central London running alongside, you may very well see people doubling back via the Ruislips, or via Greenford if the GW station is restored.
All in all, I see Crossrail taking over Greenford via Ealing as more likely than Crossrail to High Wycombe...
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,399
|
Post by metman on Feb 3, 2009 10:06:15 GMT
Chiltern were expected to introduce a Chiltern Metro service between West Ruislip/Wycombe and Marylebone running at 4tph.
|
|
|
|
Post by DrOne on Feb 3, 2009 19:59:24 GMT
TOK: True enough.
There is also another possiblity IF services outgrow the section between Neasden junction-Marylebone and the platforms there: Chiltern might ask to use the connection to the vacated Paddington platforms, perhaps for Birmingham and W&S services.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2009 22:13:52 GMT
TOK: True enough. There is also another possiblity IF services outgrow the section between Neasden junction-Marylebone and the platforms there: Chiltern might ask to use the connection to the vacated Paddington platforms, perhaps for Birmingham and W&S services. Unlikely, IMO - any platform capacity released by Crossrail will undoubtedly be absorbed by an increase in rail services to the further-flung portions of the GWML. Any significant rail traffic on the New North Main Line between Old Oak Common and Northolt Junction will, IMO, be caused entirely by Crossrail. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2009 22:20:56 GMT
Yes, because everyone using the JLE lives in Stratford . This is a complete misnomer; Stratford is an interchange with a high proportion of through services, and sensibly the JLE feeds 3-4 different directions. Paddington, under Crossrail, will largely be a back-to-back interchange: riding a Crossrail train to Paddington is not going to make much sense for changing to the Bakerloo line, the Circle or the District; there's a marginal benefit for people heading to stations Royal Oak-Goldhawk Road, but aside from them and the people living/working in the area everyone else is going to be alighting from Crossrail, climbing to surface level, and clambering onto another train going in one direction - towards Reading, or at least Airport Junction. Additional to this we have a comfortable and expensive Heathrow Express service dropping people in the largely useless location of Paddington from the other direction - so they can get a tube or taxi to complete their journey into central London! This all seems to have arisen because of a certain 'tunnel vision' - the sacred cow that an urban rail service must serve every stop along the route with every train - something that doesn't preoccupy the transport planners of Paris or Tokyo. Here's my suggestion - (1) Crossrail can take over the Heathrow Express - 4 nice comfy trains per hour from Abbey Wood to T5 with no stops (and premium fares) between Paddington and Heathrow isn't going to hurt. The Narita Express does something similar in Tokyo and Paris has the fast RERs from CDG. (2) Extend the wires so that Crossrail reaches at least Staines, thus creating a through service that relieves overcrowded Waterloo. Not just another back-to-back interchange at T5. (3) Extend the wires so Crossrail can run limited stop services on the fasts to Reading. replacing all non-IC departures from Paddington. Bedwyn and Oxford services will need to terminate at Reading unless/until electrification is extended further. BUT passengers will benefit from a simpler change at Reading than they do now at Paddington, with a through service to a range of suitable destinations, or shorter tube connections. The clear benefit to the network is a reduction in demand for capacity at Paddington, and thus more scope for IC or even Chiltern services. Terminal capacity is in demand, and a far trickier constraint than line capacity: Crossrail's current plan at Paddington, IMO, squanders it for the sake of false idols - universal stopping and exclusive use of tracks. |
|
.
