No, the main issue is finding a couple of billion quid.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
How much "new" capacity has the Elizabeth line actually gained?
- Thread starter mrmartin
- Start date
- Status
No, the main issue is finding a couple of billion quid.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
No the main barrier is the high cost of the infrastructure works especially through Slade Green and Dartford. (over £2bn for this)
The 345s are third rail ready so the modifications will be the cheap bit.
There would also need to be lots of extra 345s. (circa 12 as central estimate, depending on service levels or patterns)
Extension to "Ebbsfleet" doesn't actually mean Ebbsfleet (not so international) station but Gravesend terminus with Northfleet / Swanscombe / Greenhithe (for
306024
Established Member
The M25 has nothing to do with it. Gidea Park drivers depot exists as there are 9 trains stabled there. It has always been an important depot for the GE side. Shenfield depot could have more drivers based there instead but is constrained by the accommodation available.
Regarding extension to Ebbsfleet, are TfL one of those widely backing the proposal? I may have missed it but can’t recall any enthusiasm from them for going to Ebbsfleet.
No enthusiasm for Ebbsfleet (which causes much confusion) but rather Gravesend (4tph Crossrail terminating) and Northfleet (12tph Crossrail with 8tph terminating) which has long since been safeguarded as part of the Crossrail Act. TfL are happy if the funding is addressed by the Ebbsfleet consortium* as the vast majority of the benefits (and cost) would fall outside TfL boundaries (effectively Slade Green).
it has to be branded as "Ebbsfleet" for political & funding reasons due to the powers available to Ebbsfleet Development Corporation and is heavily promoted by TfSE.
*Ebbsfleet consortium:
- London Borough of Bexley
- Dartford Borough Council
- Gravesham Borough Council
- Ebbsfleet Development Corporation
- Kent County Council
- The Greater London Authority
- Greater North Kent Partnership
LickeyIncliner
Member
Going back to the original question and to the point about increasing rail capacity into London, the answer is "yes but..." The original arguments for Crossrail were to do with increasing the capacity for commuters to get to Central London jobs, but with the constraints being identified as the Underground network within the Central Area and the interchanges from mainline rail to the Central Area Underground. So it wasn't about getting into London from "outside", it was about getting around Central London once you arrived.
This was originally argued in the 1989 Central London Rail Study, which was very much about that issue of Central Area capacity (capacity for getting to Canary Wharf become important later). "The 2003 [Crossrail] Business Case reported on the jobs created in Central London as a consequence of removing a constraint on commuting and provided an estimate that these jobs might add between £8 and £9bn in present value terms to UK GDP" - which significanly enhanced the ratio of benefits to costs.
In terms of that aspect of the original case, the Elizabeth Line clearly does what it was intended to do, by increasing capacity in the centre, largely removing the need to interchange at two mainline terminals and creating a new interchange (Abbey Wood) on another line. Whether the benefits will be as great as expected, post-2008 and post-Covid, is another question!
(Info partly from personal knowledge, quote from a valuable report by Tom Worsley on the evolution of Crossrail and the parallel evolution of economic analysis - see https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/trans...-s-economic-appraisal-methods_5kg0prk600jk-en )
Due to serious safety errors, a lack of regulation and training, over 20 years ago. You are just introducing straw man arguments here.
Chris M
Member
The actual relevant issue (as much as there is one) is whether standing passengers fare worse in derailments than seated passengers. I don't recall ever seeing any analysis of this (but I've not looked at all recently)
At the end, it's likely be deverloper contribution heavy extension given that DfT nor TfL would have the funding be available.
The most tricky and expensive bit would be the flyover just south of Slade Green to bypass the conflict with Bexleyheath Line, and also the four tracking of Crayford Junction - Dartford to allow segregated operation of EZL.
Of course, that can also be achieved by terminating Bexleyheath Line at a new bay platform at Slade Green but that would likely cause outrage.
I haven't looked at it recently but from memory for starters:
- reducing the distance standing passengers travel on impact is key e.g. use glass dividers and hand rails
- higher density of standing passengers tends to be better e.g. 1000 is better than 500!
- luggage particularly at high speed is very bad for head injuries (lead to changes with more higher back seats)
- older GFRP seat bodies (BR and early post privatisation) had a nasty habit of degrading over time which lead to a lot of the seat replacement 10-15 years ago
AlastairFraser
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 4,194
Apart from the money, third rail is an issue to some extent because you'll have to bring them all out of service gradually to do the mods.
The extra trains is something I hadn't considered, at least the Aventura is still under production as a line.
Ebbsfleet is what it is marketed as and it will get pretty close.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Fair enough - Shenfield or Ilford seems a more logical place to put a drivers depot, but I suppose space matters.
Last edited:
Using it daily westbound from Farringdon in the morning peak it, only two weeks after services to Heathrow commenced, is already becoming obvious that Heathrow services are getting very congested. Also that platforms are getting cluttered up by people with mountains of luggage waiting up to half an hour on the platform for a T5 (or T4) train.
I don't think the current situation where most crossrail services terminate at Paddington and four trains an hour shuttle from Paddington High level to heathrow is sustainable.
The sooner this is ended with eight crossrail services to Heathrow an hour the better. If at all feasible all eight should go to T5 with a shuttle from T2&3 to T4 until T4 is closed if and when T2&3 are rebuilt into the new T2.
I suspect there are contractual issues with BAA impeding such a move though.
I don't think the current situation where most crossrail services terminate at Paddington and four trains an hour shuttle from Paddington High level to heathrow is sustainable.
The sooner this is ended with eight crossrail services to Heathrow an hour the better. If at all feasible all eight should go to T5 with a shuttle from T2&3 to T4 until T4 is closed if and when T2&3 are rebuilt into the new T2.
I suspect there are contractual issues with BAA impeding such a move though.
Doesn't it go to six from May?
Yes but only half hourly to T5, the other four will go to T4
matt_world2004
Established Member
- Joined
- 5 Nov 2014
- Messages
- 4,581
But you can change at Heathrow Central for an HEX to terminal 5 free of charge
Indeed, but your average tourist heading back to Heathrow on Crossrail dosent know that and neither will they want to hoof their luggage off and on trains at T123 so they hang around on the platform with all their luggage for up to half an hour, which given that only at Moorgate/Liverpool street is there a continous walkway tunnel between the platforms is far from ideal in the peaks and then squeeze onto the packed half hourly T5 service.
T4 is the Heathrow equivalent of Aldwych. Only 32 weekday aircraft arrivals all day. Once the crossrail service goes up to four an hour there will be twice as many crossrail trains arriving as aircraft.
Meanwhile four half empty trains an hour shuttle from T5 to Paddington High level taking four fast line paths and obstructing two inter city length platforms. Its crackers.
TT-ONR-NRN
Veteran Member
They're not empty. Almost all seats were taken when I used the Express last month, and you couldn't do anything with the paths anyway.
I dont see the point.
The main issue I have with Abbey Wood is that the design is appalling. Two separate island platforms with footbridge needing to be used in both directions to change.
Given Crossrail burrows into a tunnel a mile or so west of the station it is inexcusable. It should have emerged between the Southern lines like the Jubilee emerges between the Met lines at Finchley Road so the two island platforms have cross platform interchange. Then a turnback siding for crossrail between the Southern lines beyond the station.
If and when Crossrail is ever extended to Dartford, there will be conflicting movements between up Crossrail and Down Southeastern services restricting capacity, which would not have happened if a Finchley Road arrangement had been designed.
As to extension I'm not convinced that intermingling the same train with both the SE lines through Dartford and the GWML is desirable.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Other than use them for GW intercities and generally taking pressure off the fast lines.
That’s putting it mildly!
TT-ONR-NRN
Veteran Member
Millions and millions of speculative discussions on this topic have determined that GWR Intercity services on Heathrow Express paths will catch up the train ahead at Slough.
Yes I suspect it would need an act of parliament to and BAAs owners would be very cross.
But the bullet will have to be bitten, if not now, when Old Oak Common HS2 interchange opens and hordes of Northerners with mountains of luggage also pile on to Heathrow crossrail services too.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Not if it dosent stop there. Slough stops cause enough intercity hold ups of trains behind now, negating much of the benefits of the Reading rebuild. Now that Crossrail serves Slough, ditch them during peak times just as Woking and Clapham stops are ditched on peak hour fasts to Waterloo.
St Albans used to get Midland Main Line intercities calling, but that was ditched when Thameslink came along with increased services and the world didn't end.
Last edited:
it doesn’t need an Act of Parliament. Just wait for the end of the contract…
grandgarrande
Member
Re GWML: the GWML is pretty much at capacity with 16-18 slots on the Mains till Airport Jn and 16 slots on the Reliefs by May 2023. GWML is not the most reliable rail corridor especially after this weeks track faults wire faults. Also Slough is rather busy so it does need 8 tph at peak times.
Re HEx: You might get cheaper fares but I doubt Crossrail is going to go cross to the Mains at Portobello.
Re HEx: You might get cheaper fares but I doubt Crossrail is going to go cross to the Mains at Portobello.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Would they? I was under the impression that the (unfunded and therefore admittedly vague) plans for extending the EL to 'Ebbsfleet' involved 4-tracking the line from Abbey Wood to Dartford, so EL trains would be on separate tracks from SouthEastern, and no conflicting moves at Abbey Wood would occur?
I think that is certainly one of the options. Probably the only feasible one (and would presumably mean no extension to Gravesend)
That was the original plan, the latest proposals are the cheaper version reusing existing Abbey Wood to Gravesend tracks altering several junctions to uplift capacity and turnback existing Southeastern services earlier. It still costs around £3bn and as such doesn't seem that likely to happen.
Class 170101
On Moderation
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 8,664
This is the problem below
No chance of crossing on the flat and no flyover exists to get to the Mains from the Crossrail tunnels.
In terms of capacity 10% uplift isn't a lot but remember Crossrail has been in the planning for decades, I read a book about it in 1991 and it goes back further than that, so the %uplift would have been greater than the 10% uplift on opening as capacity use was way lower even with the covid affected loadings of today.
No that plan addresses the capacity constraints at Dartford and NW of Dartford, the potential capacity issues east of Dartford can be addressed with these planned service tweaks:
Thameslink Rainham services would get culled.
The residual SE loop services would be all run to the enlarged Dartford station and terminate there. (The Dartford station issues at the moment mean they can't.)
The SE services east of Dartford would be limited to a small number of longer distance semi-fast Medway services that wouldn't stop at the station between Dartford and Gravesend.
cactustwirly
Established Member
The Slough calls won't be Intercity from May, they are semi fast 387 commuter services, much like the MML Thameslink services which are first stop St Albans
There is no capacity to do anything meaningful with the HEx paths.
There's nowhere to stick the trains when they get to Reading anyway
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Thanks. Would be interested to see more details of what the latest proposals are, if you know of any links (even though I appreciate they are unlikely to happen).
Apart from Basingstoke if they electrifed it, Bedyn/Westbury if they reversed the imposition of a Newbury/Bedwyn shuttle and fast to Bristol via Bristol Parkway as originally planned, making the semifast Exeter/Paigntons hourly etc.
- Status