How could Crossrail (Elizabeth Line) services be improved/extended?

[mangyiscute]

The simple thing that needs to be done - extend the Maidenhead terminators to Reading to re-instate the Reading to Hayes/Ealing 4tph that has been a thing for ages - plenty of people use this service and 2tph is not adequate, and changing from the semi-fast means extended journey times and it only works in one direction. There are clear paths and platform space at Reading for such a service (the elizabeth line has pretty much exclusive access to platforms 13 and 14), and would take just 1 extra train in service.

 

[PGAT]

I would argue that the Elizabeth Line IS a fast service, so none of the fancy expensive infrastructure is necessary. Dartford to Canary Wharf would be about 23 minutes (compared to 50 minutes when going via London Bridge) and Dartford to Tottenham Court Road would be about 35 minutes (compared to 60 minutes via Charing Cross)

 

[Benjwri]

I think some people are starting to consider that a mistake, a compromise that only exists because there aren't enough tracks between Westbourne Park and West Drayton to segregate the Elizabeth Line services from other traffic.

How does the extension to Reading have anything to do with that compromise? The Reading extension is the unproblematic part, and came at very very little cost because the infrastructure existed.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I would argue that the Elizabeth Line IS a fast service, so none of the fancy expensive infrastructure is necessary. Dartford to Canary Wharf would be about 23 minutes (compared to 50 minutes when going via London Bridge) and Dartford to Tottenham Court Road would be about 35 minutes (compared to 60 minutes via Charing Cross)

It's not really a fast service: In terms of average mph it's still more akin to a stopping service, albeit a bit faster than something like the SouthEastern lines due to slightly larger gaps between stops plus higher linespeeds. But it's still a stop-everywhere train, other than on the GWR bit. Fast services would be like, Bromley South to Victoria (18 minutes) or Surbiton to Waterloo (20 minutes) - in both cases to travel from the edge of London right into zone 1. Your example of Dartford to Canary Wharf is an example of a journey that isn't going as far as central London, hence why the timings look good.

What gives the Elizabeth line the impression of being faster is that - almost uniquely - it directly serves every major area in central London: The West End and the City, as well as serving Canary Wharf - so far fewer people would need to change to get to their ultimate destination.

Ideally, Dartford would have had a 'proper' fast service, maybe taking something like 20-25 minutes to get to London Bridge with very few stops: But that's obviously not the case because there are no main lines to Dartford and we are therefore where we are. I guess you could kinda give Dartford a semi-fast service by extending the Elizabeth line to Dartford and running it non-stop between Abbey Wood and Dartford, keeping SouthEastern as the stopping service. But - requires a lot infrastructure work and - is the demand there for that many trains? I suspect not.

 

[PGAT]

Your example of Dartford to Canary Wharf is an example of a journey that isn't going as far as central London, hence why the timings look good.

Which is why I also included Tottenham Court Road, which is as central as it gets.

What gives the Elizabeth line the impression of being faster is that - almost uniquely - it directly serves every major area in central London: The West End and the City, as well as serving Canary Wharf - so far fewer people would need to change to get to their ultimate destination.

Exactly. If the Elizabeth Line takes people to nearly anywhere they want to be quickly, then there’s no point in a “proper fast service”

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 May 2023 ==

maybe taking something like 20-25 minutes to get to London Bridge with very few stops: But that's obviously not the case because there are no main lines to Dartford and we are therefore I where we are.

I don’t think this is entirely an alien concept either. Fast services from New Eltham to London Bridge (and skipping Albany Park of course) have existed before and taken a little under 30 minutes.

 

[Mgameing123]

Dartford should be part of Greater London (as should Epsom, Staines, Watford etc.), if it was, it'd probably be a GLA strategic opportunity area for redevelopment and Liz Line would key for it - Dartford is only as far out as Romford/Hornchurch. No politician is brave enough to support the expansion of Gtr. London further, but I digress...

Expensive option:

Dartford should certainly have fast trains and is a victim of not being on a main line. If we were to extend Crossrail to Dartford or Gravesend, I think the 4 tracks should be in place and perhaps controversially, Crossrail should run fast to Dartford, with Thameslink scrapped and all Southeastern Dartford lines back at 4-8tph. Crossrail then extends to Gravesend on the current tracks, shared with 4tph Southeastern (2tph each Bexleyheath & Sidcup).

If it helps SE capacity and punctuality, I would consider scrapping rounders, making Dartford a *Zone 6* interchange hub, and rebuilding Dartford station with enough platforms to do so (have a local regen project as part of it). Then, **real crayonista** extend the Goblin from Barking Riverside to Thamesmead, Abbey Wood and Bexleyheath to silence a lack of SE connectivity concerns.

In the West I would, rather than the large expensive Southern access project that'll happen once millennials are long buried, extend Crossrail from Heathrow 5 to Staines. Wouldn't cost peanuts, but it'd certainly be worthwhile. So if you could get more Liz Line on the GWML, I would send them there.

But considering OOC is coming, Royal Kensington & TfL want a station at Kensal Canalside, and City Airport also wants (should have) a station, how much can we really have without train lengthening and doing what Île-de-France is doing by needing RER E??

This is a brilliant idea! Another thing that could help the Elizabeth Line is maybe using the New North Mainline then a new rail link from West Ruislip to Iver. That can free up capacity on the slow lines in London for Elizabeth Line trains.

 

[SynthD]

This is a brilliant idea! Another thing that could help the Elizabeth Line is maybe using the New North Mainline then a new rail link from West Ruislip to Iver. That can free up capacity on the slow lines in London for Elizabeth Line trains.

Why? To let people in Berkshire have their trains run fast to OOC? That’s what the Maidenhead and Slough GWR services are for.

That is a six mile line in the green belt, plus a mile on the Chiltern Main line.

 

[Basil Jet]

That is a six mile line in the green belt, plus a mile on the Chiltern Main line.

Building transport infrastructure in the green belt has always been allowed, hence Cobham Services etc.

 

[PGAT]

The big issue for capacity is the Hayes - Paddington section, not anything west.

 

[cle]

It's not really a fast service: In terms of average mph it's still more akin to a stopping service, albeit a bit faster than something like the SouthEastern lines due to slightly larger gaps between stops plus higher linespeeds. But it's still a stop-everywhere train, other than on the GWR bit. Fast services would be like, Bromley South to Victoria (18 minutes) or Surbiton to Waterloo (20 minutes) - in both cases to travel from the edge of London right into zone 1. Your example of Dartford to Canary Wharf is an example of a journey that isn't going as far as central London, hence why the timings look good.

What gives the Elizabeth line the impression of being faster is that - almost uniquely - it directly serves every major area in central London: The West End and the City, as well as serving Canary Wharf - so far fewer people would need to change to get to their ultimate destination.

Ideally, Dartford would have had a 'proper' fast service, maybe taking something like 20-25 minutes to get to London Bridge with very few stops: But that's obviously not the case because there are no main lines to Dartford and we are therefore where we are. I guess you could kinda give Dartford a semi-fast service by extending the Elizabeth line to Dartford and running it non-stop between Abbey Wood and Dartford, keeping SouthEastern as the stopping service. But - requires a lot infrastructure work and - is the demand there for that many trains? I suspect not.

Nippy, electric, all-stations trains which get into the city centre are the future. This is best practice now across Europe and Japan - vs fast services which end up at a Victorian-era terminus on the fringe of the city. False economy.

I would say Dartford to Canary Wharf in 25 mins is extremely fast, compared to the previous options (via Lewisham or Greenwich perhaps). The stopping pattern is irrelevant, that's an excellent, rapid service. Without need for a timetable either. And with Liverpool St being 5 mins more, that's superb. Much further into Kent, HS1 becomes a thing, so Dartford and environs (plus Erith etc) is the absolute sweet spot. And also has a ton of home building along the Thames, which EL makes far more appealing and viable.

A 'fast pattern' train from Dartford getting caught behind the stoppers on all three lines, checked all the way to London Bridge - would be far inferior. And wouldn't happen either. The Sidcup line has something relatively fast, I suppose.

Slough has a far superior rail service with the Elizabeth line than Surbiton or Bromley South do. It does has those legacy fasts to Paddington though, too. But one-seat rides beat that, as does frequency - unless you work at a singular spot right by your terminus. Which people historically did - but no longer need to be tied to, opening up much greater opportunities and frankly, freedom.

 

[PGAT]

I would say Dartford to Canary Wharf in 25 mins is extremely fast, compared to the previous options (via Lewisham or Greenwich perhaps).

Zone 9 to the heart of Zone 1 in 25 minutes? That’s extremely fast full stop.

 

[Mgameing123]

Why? To let people in Berkshire have their trains run fast to OOC? That’s what the Maidenhead and Slough GWR services are for.

That is a six mile line in the green belt, plus a mile on the Chiltern Main line.

No to allow more space between West Drayton and OOC which is where the bulk of Lizzie Line traffic will be. Also HS2 is also getting built in the green belt.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

Nippy, electric, all-stations trains which get into the city centre are the future. This is best practice now across Europe and Japan - vs fast services which end up at a Victorian-era terminus on the fringe of the city. False economy.

I would say Dartford to Canary Wharf in 25 mins is extremely fast, compared to the previous options (via Lewisham or Greenwich perhaps). The stopping pattern is irrelevant, that's an excellent, rapid service. Without need for a timetable either. And with Liverpool St being 5 mins more, that's superb. Much further into Kent, HS1 becomes a thing, so Dartford and environs (plus Erith etc) is the absolute sweet spot. And also has a ton of home building along the Thames, which EL makes far more appealing and viable.

A 'fast pattern' train from Dartford getting caught behind the stoppers on all three lines, checked all the way to London Bridge - would be far inferior. And wouldn't happen either. The Sidcup line has something relatively fast, I suppose.

Slough has a far superior rail service with the Elizabeth line than Surbiton or Bromley South do. It does has those legacy fasts to Paddington though, too. But one-seat rides beat that, as does frequency - unless you work at a singular spot right by your terminus. Which people historically did - but no longer need to be tied to, opening up much greater opportunities and frankly, freedom.

I completely disagree with this. I'd take a fast service any day of the week. Also how are places like Kings Cross, Victoria and Waterloo the edge of the city. The Elizabeth Line makes the most sense as Paddington is probably the only major central London station that is sort if the middle of nowhere.

I'd agree with Bromley South but that's only because Slough has a more frequent service. Surbiton has a far better service than Slough.

 

[JonathanH]

How does the extension to Reading have anything to do with that compromise? The Reading extension is the unproblematic part, and came at very very little cost because the infrastructure existed.

I think this story explains exactly why running the Elizabeth Line to Reading compromises services in the central area.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/elizabeth-line-reliability-issues.247624/page-5#post-6239866

Running to Reading is a compromise, and arguably an acceptable one. However, running beyond Abbey Wood towards Dartford would run the risk of disruption on both sides of London, and contagion of delays between the two sides.

Running trains further away from the central core increases the risk of delays, and causes gaps between services in the central area. In an ideal world, there would be separate tracks for the Elizabeth Line, and it wouldn't stretch out so far.

 

[David Goddard]

Controversial but given we are in the “speculative discussion” i write this with in line with forum guidelines that should not result in me getting shot down for it. We all have ideas!

1. Curtail the core Western end service at Slough, build a turn back between the relief tracks west of the station. 2ph services run on to MAI at but thats it.
GWR 387s then go 4ph to improve things at Twyford, Maidenhead and Slough.
2. Get on with Airtrack and bolt this on the the T5 service, which should then be 2 Shenfield and 2 Abbey Wood

 

[Benjwri]

I think this story explains exactly why running the Elizabeth Line to Reading compromises services in the central area.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/elizabeth-line-reliability-issues.247624/page-5#post-6239866

Running to Reading is a compromise, and arguably an acceptable one. However, running beyond Abbey Wood towards Dartford would run the risk of disruption on both sides of London, and contagion of delays between the two sides.

Running trains further away from the central core increases the risk of delays, and causes gaps between services in the central area. In an ideal world, there would be separate tracks for the Elizabeth Line, and it wouldn't stretch out so far.

As much as freight is an issue, it’s not caused by the extension to Reading. Unless you curtail the Elizabeth Line to Acton, which defeats the point of the line, the majority of freight trains will still cause trains to get stuck behind them. The line to Reading is the part least close to capacity, and even if a train catches a freight one on it, a train starting at Maidenhead would have anyways.

As for people suggesting cutting the service back, what are you suggesting replaces it? The services the Elizabeth Line drops have to be picked up by someone, likely GWR, who would then need the paths the Elizabeth Line currently has to Paddington back, and so you’re actually dropping the frequency out west. This is of course unless you’re suggesting something daft like GWR running trains from Reading to wherever you want the Elizabeth Line to start. There is already an argument the Elizabeth Line has disadvantaged those living outside Reading, removing direct trains to place that have existed for likely a century would certainly further that.

 

[JonathanH]

As for people suggesting cutting the service back, what are you suggesting replaces it? The services the Elizabeth Line drops have to be picked up by someone, likely GWR, who would then need the paths the Elizabeth Line currently has to Paddington back, and so you’re actually dropping the frequency out west. This is of course unless you’re suggesting something daft like GWR running trains from Reading to wherever you want the Elizabeth Line to start. There is already an argument the Elizabeth Line has disadvantaged those living outside Reading, removing direct trains to place that have existed for likely a century would certainly further that.

I'm not arguing against the trains running to Reading. I am arguing against those same trains running beyond Abbey Wood, noting that running to Reading is a necessary compromise, but Dartford isn't.

 

[Benjwri]

I'm not arguing against the trains running to Reading. I am arguing against those same trains running beyond Abbey Wood, noting that running to Reading is a necessary compromise, but Dartford isn't.

Ah, that is fairly simple to fix though, depending on how a rebuilt Abbey Wood was handled. For example Reading trains could be terminated at Abbey Wood, while some Paddington Terminators are changed to run through to Dartford, and Heathrow services changed to replace them towards Shenfield.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

As for people suggesting cutting the service back, what are you suggesting replaces it? The services the Elizabeth Line drops have to be picked up by someone, likely GWR, who would then need the paths the Elizabeth Line currently has to Paddington back, and so you’re actually dropping the frequency out west. This is of course unless you’re suggesting something daft like GWR running trains from Reading to wherever you want the Elizabeth Line to start. There is already an argument the Elizabeth Line has disadvantaged those living outside Reading, removing direct trains to place that have existed for likely a century would certainly further that.

Since this is the speculative discussion thread, if there was masses of money for infrastructure, I wonder it would make sense to build a grade separated way to get from the fast to the slow tracks at Slough. Then you could have the Elizabeth Line terminate at Slough, with all trains stopping everywhere, with stations west of Slough served by additional GWR trains that would run non-stop from Paddington to Slough on the fast lines. (Assuming there's space capacity on the fasts for the extra GWR trains, which I thought there was?). Yes, expensive, but would probably provide a more useful service than currently.

 

[Benjwri]

Since this is the speculative discussion thread, if there was masses of money for infrastructure, I wonder it would make sense to build a grade separated way to get from the fast to the slow tracks at Slough. Then you could have the Elizabeth Line terminate at Slough, with all trains stopping everywhere, with stations west of Slough served by additional GWR trains that would run non-stop from Paddington to Slough on the fast lines. (Assuming there's space capacity on the fasts for the extra GWR trains, which I thought there was?). Yes, expensive, but would probably provide a more useful service than currently.

This is already what happens right now, all GWR trains leave the Reliefs after Slough. However this isn’t possible if you reduce the Elizabeth Line frequency, as the fast lines are at capacity too, so any GWR trains replacing Elizabeth Line ones would have to run to Paddington on the relief lines using the Elizabeth Line paths.

 

[cle]

I completely disagree with this. I'd take a fast service any day of the week. Also how are places like Kings Cross, Victoria and Waterloo the edge of the city. The Elizabeth Line makes the most sense as Paddington is probably the only major central London station that is sort if the middle of nowhere.

I'd agree with Bromley South but that's only because Slough has a more frequent service. Surbiton has a far better service than Slough.

If you work/play in Waterloo, sure. But compare to Slough’s now one seat to West End, City and CW - Surbiton has none of those without a change. No comparison. Even if a few more calls on the way.

 

[LLivery]

This is a brilliant idea! Another thing that could help the Elizabeth Line is maybe using the New North Mainline then a new rail link from West Ruislip to Iver. That can free up capacity on the slow lines in London for Elizabeth Line trains.

Well, I wouldn't say brilliant myself haha!

Interested by this idea - where would this route go - through Uxbridge?

If I had the choice, I'd reopen the NNML for longer distance Chiltern services to OOC, allowing suburbans to be increased through Wembley.

It's not really a fast service: In terms of average mph it's still more akin to a stopping service, albeit a bit faster than something like the SouthEastern lines due to slightly larger gaps between stops plus higher linespeeds. But it's still a stop-everywhere train, other than on the GWR bit. Fast services would be like, Bromley South to Victoria (18 minutes) or Surbiton to Waterloo (20 minutes) - in both cases to travel from the edge of London right into zone 1. Your example of Dartford to Canary Wharf is an example of a journey that isn't going as far as central London, hence why the timings look good.

What gives the Elizabeth line the impression of being faster is that - almost uniquely - it directly serves every major area in central London: The West End and the City, as well as serving Canary Wharf - so far fewer people would need to change to get to their ultimate destination.

Ideally, Dartford would have had a 'proper' fast service, maybe taking something like 20-25 minutes to get to London Bridge with very few stops: But that's obviously not the case because there are no main lines to Dartford and we are therefore where we are. I guess you could kinda give Dartford a semi-fast service by extending the Elizabeth line to Dartford and running it non-stop between Abbey Wood and Dartford, keeping SouthEastern as the stopping service. But - requires a lot infrastructure work and - is the demand there for that many trains? I suspect not.

I agree, I wouldn't call the Liz Line a fast service in the East at least. I'd still aim for a fast train to Romford & Shenfield. Out West is a bit different, the skip-stop to Heathrow I would call 'fast'.

If Dartford was at the centre of a major redevelopment then you could probably justify it, but right now? Probably not. Considering its location, however, it ought to be. Also, seeing the theme park in Swanscombe isn't happening, I wonder if the land will go to housing...

 

[mangyiscute]

Since this is the speculative discussion thread, if there was masses of money for infrastructure, I wonder it would make sense to build a grade separated way to get from the fast to the slow tracks at Slough. Then you could have the Elizabeth Line terminate at Slough, with all trains stopping everywhere, with stations west of Slough served by additional GWR trains that would run non-stop from Paddington to Slough on the fast lines. (Assuming there's space capacity on the fasts for the extra GWR trains, which I thought there was?). Yes, expensive, but would probably provide a more useful service than currently.

And I guess those travelling from west of slough to the stations on the GWML in zones 6-2 (including busy stops such as Hayes, Ealing Broadway etc) should just accept that what was once a 4tph service (and should still be, the Maidenhead terminators are stupid, they should all go to Reading) is being reduced to requiring a change?

 

[PGAT]

And I guess those travelling from west of slough to the stations on the GWML in zones 6-2 (including busy stops such as Hayes, Ealing Broadway etc) should just accept that what was once a 4tph service (and should still be, the Maidenhead terminators are stupid, they should all go to Reading) is being reduced to requiring a change?

It’s still 4tph in the peak. I guess it’s been proven that such frequencies aren’t justified off-peak.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

This is already what happens right now, all GWR trains leave the Reliefs after Slough. However this isn’t possible if you reduce the Elizabeth Line frequency, as the fast lines are at capacity too, so any GWR trains replacing Elizabeth Line ones would have to run to Paddington on the relief lines using the Elizabeth Line paths.

I was a bit surprised to hear the fast lines are at capacity, but then I checked the timetables and did a bit of maths. It looks like with a normal timetable Mon-Fri off-peak the fast lines would see:

1tph to Newbury
1.5 tph to Exeter/the West Country
2tph to Bristol
2tph to Cardiff/Swansea
1tph to Cheltenham
1tph to Worcester
1tph to Oxford
2tph to Didcot
4tph Heathrow Express

I make that 15.5 tph - so yes I agree, there's unlikely to be much scope to get more on those tracks even if you could do some resignalling to up capacity a little (although weren't there at one point plans to add another 2tph of fast Bristols into the mix? How would those have fitted?). That of course raises again the thorny question of paths being possibly wasted on the Heathrow Express slots.

 

[mangyiscute]

I make that 15.5 tph - so yes I agree, there's unlikely to be much scope to get more on those tracks even if you could do some resignalling to up capacity a little (although weren't there at one point plans to add another 2tph of fast Bristols into the mix? How would those have fitted?). That of course raises again the thorny question of paths being possibly wasted on the Heathrow Express slots.

The fast bristols were in the paths that have now been taken by the semi fasts that go non stop london to slough, as when the superfasts to bristol were planned, these were still on the relief lines all the way into paddington.
I'd love to see how many passengers the heathrow express service carries, especially with crossrail opening - surely it can't continue to justify 4tph, cause while this is not conclusive evidence, i go through paddington a lot and very rarely see those trains looking anywhere near busy. Although i suppose at those prices they don't need to be busy.

I'd think its a lot more likely, however, that if the HeX service was to be removed, these paths would be used for more fast services which are non-stop to Reading (or perhaps the superfasts could return, or I reckon oxford services could use 4tph since they often leave oxford full and standing as it is currently) rather than semi fast trains, since I don't see how removing elizabeth line trains from the reading to slough section is going to help.

 

[Horizon22]

What gives the Elizabeth line the impression of being faster is that - almost uniquely - it directly serves every major area in central London: The West End and the City, as well as serving Canary Wharf - so far fewer people would need to change to get to their ultimate destination.

A max (and often met) speed of 62mph and ATO certainly helps too. 30 minutes Abbey Wood - Paddington. It takes about the same time to get to London Bridge, or 10 minutes to crawl from Charing Cross to London Bridge in comparison.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 May 2023 ==

I was a bit surprised to hear the fast lines are at capacity, but then I checked the timetables and did a bit of maths. It looks like with a normal timetable Mon-Fri off-peak the fast lines would see:

1tph to Newbury
1.5 tph to Exeter/the West Country
2tph to Bristol
2tph to Cardiff/Swansea
1tph to Cheltenham
1tph to Worcester
1tph to Oxford
2tph to Didcot
4tph Heathrow Express

I make that 15.5 tph - so yes I agree, there's unlikely to be much scope to get more on those tracks even if you could do some resignalling to up capacity a little (although weren't there at one point plans to add another 2tph of fast Bristols into the mix? How would those have fitted?). That of course raises again the thorny question of paths being possibly wasted on the Heathrow Express slots.

The 4tph to Heathrow Express being the most ineffective really.

The Elizabeth line could use those paths but it would have to be via either a) cutting across the entire Paddington throat or b) regular timetabled crossing moves at Acton West junction.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 May 2023 ==

Since this is the speculative discussion thread, if there was masses of money for infrastructure, I wonder it would make sense to build a grade separated way to get from the fast to the slow tracks at Slough. Then you could have the Elizabeth Line terminate at Slough, with all trains stopping everywhere, with stations west of Slough served by additional GWR trains that would run non-stop from Paddington to Slough on the fast lines. (Assuming there's space capacity on the fasts for the extra GWR trains, which I thought there was?). Yes, expensive, but would probably provide a more useful service than currently.

Isn't that effectively what happens now with the Didcot services being first stop Slough? Why terminate at Slough when there's a turnback and a bunch of sidings 10 minutes down the road at Maidenhead?

 

[PGAT]

Isn't that effectively what happens now with the Didcot services being first stop Slough?

Sort of. The implication from Dynamic Spirit's message is that at least 6tph (current peak service from Twyford) will be fast GWR services from Slough, which requires the 40mph crossover at Dolphin Jn, which is virtually impossible

 

[Mikey C]

Dartford used to have a slightly faster semi-fast service, the old Gillingham to Charing X service which after Dartford just stopped at Abbey Wood, Woolwich A, Charlton, Blackheath and Lewisham. This was replaced by the TL service, which stops nearly everywhere.

Just reinstating some of the chopped services on the North Kent Line would be an improvement on the current situation. Yes Crossrail is faster, but if it just took over the lines east of Abbey Wood, then it would be trundling along at the same speed as the current SE trains, especially if it called at all stations.

 

[Horizon22]

Dartford used to have a slightly faster semi-fast service, the old Gillingham to Charing X service which after Dartford just stopped at Abbey Wood, Woolwich A, Charlton, Blackheath and Lewisham. This was replaced by the TL service, which stops nearly everywhere.

Just reinstating some of the chopped services on the North Kent Line would be an improvement on the current situation. Yes Crossrail is faster, but if it just took over the lines east of Abbey Wood, then it would be trundling along at the same speed as the current SE trains, especially if it called at all stations.

Oh yes, the N. Kent Line provision is dire now with a badly timed 4tph.

Nowt to do with Elizabeth line / Crossrail but more dogmatic thinking on cutting SE routes now they are under DfT control.