Is the 9bn Lower Thames Road crossing approval bad news for rail?

[Uncle Buck]

I often wonder what the Motorway network West of London should have been.
It would have been better to have South M25 going further North West linking onto the M40 and
a North M25 linking South East to the M3 (certainly the M4).
In other words a cross rather than a circle.
To me that is effectively what is happening to the East of London with the Lower Thames Crossing.

If I understand this properly then there was indeed such a plan, the M31 which would have linked the M3 and M4. Likewise the existing A41 between Watford and Aylesbury, which is mainly dual-carriageway, was at one time partly a motorway. And the M10 was a distributor for the M1 until it was done away with in 2009.

More generally, a network of rolling bypasses and upgrades has been developed to create a de facto London bypass- the A34, the A43, the A421, the A428, etc.

 

[quantinghome]

I don’t dispute that, yes I do with regards to the sources.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/dec/01/do-electric-cars-have-problem-mining-for-minerals
(Whilst largely supportive, see bottom of article for bits surrounding human rights abuses)

https://theconversation.com/why-sur...ehicles-raises-environmental-red-flags-214808
That goes into their material and energy requirements, not just from manufacture.

https://theconversation.com/eco-fri...why-its-vital-to-cut-energy-demand-now-183567

Whilst the orders of magnitude of benefit can be massive, in theory, the size of the EVs are getting larger and eroding the road surface moreso. This will require more tarmac and bitumen for the surfaces (or something quasi-sustainable) to cope with our wants, not needs.

Human rights abuses - Chile salt lakes most prominent, water and wildlife.

I am not against EVs (rural areas could do with them), I am against their use as a blanket ‘solution’ to all our problems regarding transport.

Of course EVs aren't the solution to all our problems regarding transport. Who says they are? How could they be?

They're not a solution to road congestion.
They're not a solution to car bloat (something that's been going on for decades regardless of type of drivetrain).
They're not a solution to human rights abuses in mining and other extractive industries.

What they ARE a solution to is the problem of fossil fuel emissions from vehicles.

And you know what, that's fine. They don't have to solve everything, nor should they. It's a mistake to think that every proposed new thing has to solve everything. This 'everythingism' is why we end up with HS2 spending £100 million on bat tunnels.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Of course EVs aren't the solution to all our problems regarding transport. Who says they are? How could they be?

They're not a solution to road congestion.
They're not a solution to car bloat (something that's been going on for decades regardless of type of drivetrain).
They're not a solution to human rights abuses in mining and other extractive industries.

What they ARE a solution to is the problem of fossil fuel emissions from vehicles.

And you know what, that's fine. They don't have to solve everything, nor should they. It's a mistake to think that every proposed new thing has to solve everything. This 'everythingism' is why we end up with HS2 spending £100 million on bat tunnels.

This is an important point. Do we want to wait an age for gold plated alternatives that we can hardly afford.

Meanwhile.
As someone who used to live in Medway the future Lower Thames Crossing would certainly open up shorter driving routes to the Midlands and North. It would certainly be more attractive than going North via the Dartford Crossing. But if I was going by train it would change nothing. As it is I now use the coach a lot so rail missed out on my business that way anyway.

Where it might affect public transport is if routes along/parralell to the A2 into London from Medway become more attractive. I used to alternate between driving Strood to Beckenham and using the train from Sole Street to Beckenham Junction. Driving might be easier than it used t be. But maybe not from the M25 inwards.

 

[I'm here now]

Of course EVs aren't the solution to all our problems regarding transport. Who says they are? How could they be?

They're not a solution to road congestion.
They're not a solution to car bloat (something that's been going on for decades regardless of type of drivetrain).
They're not a solution to human rights abuses in mining and other extractive industries.

What they ARE a solution to is the problem of fossil fuel emissions from vehicles.

And you know what, that's fine. They don't have to solve everything, nor should they. It's a mistake to think that every proposed new thing has to solve everything. This 'everythingism' is why we end up with HS2 spending £100 million on bat tunnels.

Treasury with their funding decisions.
The ‘everythingism’ solves multiple problems and considers factors in totality critically rather than fixing specific problems in a single rut.

 

[quantinghome]

Treasury with their funding decisions.

What funding decisions?

Supporting EVs? Funding to support EV roll-out has been dramatically curtailed. Direct grants are stopped. VED is now due on EVs. Salary sacrifice is pretty much the only thing that remains.

Is the Treasury funding roads rather than public transport? No:

The ‘everythingism’ solves multiple problems and considers factors in totality critically rather than fixing specific problems in a single rut.

No, it solves nothing, because you end up using the wrong tools for the job, and often bloat the scope of infrastructure projects which then don't get built because their budget is blown.

Taking one of your examples, you sort out human rights abuses in the mining industry by international agreements and strengthening trade unions, not by applying restrictions to certain categories of road vehicle.

 

[yorksrob]

What funding decisions?

Supporting EVs? Funding to support EV roll-out has been dramatically curtailed. Direct grants are stopped. VED is now due on EVs. Salary sacrifice is pretty much the only thing that remains.

Is the Treasury funding roads rather than public transport? No:

View attachment 177671


No, it solves nothing, because you end up using the wrong tools for the job, and often bloat the scope of infrastructure projects which then don't get built because their budget is blown.

Taking one of your examples, you sort out human rights abuses in the mining industry by international agreements and strengthening trade unions, not by applying restrictions to certain categories of road vehicle.

An interesting graph, however given the massive capital projects included (HS2, Crossrail etc) it probably gives a skewed impression of the service the average Joe passenger receives.

 

[HSTEd]

An interesting graph, however given the massive capital projects included (HS2, Crossrail etc) it probably gives a skewed impression of the service the average Joe passenger receives.

Given that one sixth of all rail journeys on the National Rail system are now on Crossrail, I'd argue removing it will give a more skewed impression of the service actual passengers receive.

 

[I'm here now]

What funding decisions?

Supporting EVs? Funding to support EV roll-out has been dramatically curtailed. Direct grants are stopped. VED is now due on EVs. Salary sacrifice is pretty much the only thing that remains.

Is the Treasury funding roads rather than public transport? No:

View attachment 177671


No, it solves nothing, because you end up using the wrong tools for the job, and often bloat the scope of infrastructure projects which then don't get built because their budget is blown.

Taking one of your examples, you sort out human rights abuses in the mining industry by international agreements and strengthening trade unions, not by applying restrictions to certain categories of road vehicle.

Very hopeful in a world of dictators - doing something tangible on our own soil would be much more feasible.

 

[quantinghome]

Very hopeful in a world of dictators - doing something tangible on our own soil would be much more feasible.

What tangible action do you propose?

 

[yorksrob]

Given that one sixth of all rail journeys on the National Rail system are now on Crossrail, I'd argue removing it will give a more skewed impression of the service actual passengers receive.

I guess that's a fair point !

 

[DynamicSpirit]

In recent years there have been 2 DLR crossings, the Jubilee Line extension (twice) and HS1 all crossing the Thames east of Tower Bridge, so it's not as if public transport has been ignored.

Actually 3 crossings from the Jubilee line extension. And also the Elizabeth line. But none of them are of any significant use for someone who wants to get from Kent to Essex. At best, you could use the Elizabeth line with two changes of train (changing at Abbey Wood and Whitechapel) but ONLY if you're travelling from somewhere between Abbey Wood and Rainham to somewhere between Stratford and Shenfield).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Apr 2025 ==

The problem is that there's no obvious route for a railway to go. The population is fairly diffused as shown below. What services would you run? I guess you'd connect up the lines north and south and extend the trains that currently terminate at Grays and Gravesend as shown below. But those would both be only half-hourly services unless you beef up capacity elsewhere. Hardly worth the investment to end up with 4 trains per hour through each tunnel bore

I agree you'd need more than a half hourly service to make any tunnel attractive.

My suggestion would be to extend the Abbey Wood Elizabeth line branch, via the planned massive new housing developments in Belvedere to tunnel under the Thames to Grays. That in itself will provide a single change way to get from part of Kent to a small part of Essex. Then in a 2nd phase tunnel back under the Thames to Ebbsfleet then Gravesend. That would be a lot of infrastructure to build but would provide a useful way to make local journeys across the Thames. And it ties in with that there are aspirations to extend the Elizabeth line to Ebbsfleet anyway, albeit via Dartford, and will help enable more house-building at Ebbsfleet.

Add to that some grade separation at Upminster so you could use the same tunnels to also run trains Romford-Upminster-Grays-Ebbsfleet-Gravesend-Rainham, and you've basically opened up a huge range of Kent-Essex journeys with a single change at either Grays, Upminster, or Romford.

 

[I'm here now]

What tangible action do you propose?

Not funding road projects like LTC, etc which shall exacerbate inequalities and instead funding public transport projects across the UK (turn up and go frequencies, capacity - i.e. HS2, cheaper tickets for encouraging people to use public transport) which decreases inequalities, carbon emissions and air pollution in the long run (unlike LTC which shall only increase them) and provide worthwhile jobs. I know the money ‘doesn’t’ exist but it shouldn’t exist for these worthless road projects.

 

[stuu]

. I know the money ‘doesn’t’ exist but it shouldn’t exist for these worthless road projects.

About 35-40% of the country's exports go via the Channel tunnel/ferries, and the vast majority is carried by lorry. A huge proportion of that will go via Dartford which is currently a big bottleneck.

Worthless?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

About 35-40% of the country's exports go via the Channel tunnel/ferries, and the vast majority is carried by lorry. A huge proportion of that will go via Dartford which is currently a big bottleneck.

Worthless?

The problem here with the logic of the new crossing is that Dartford being such a bottleneck almost certainly suppresses demand for journeys across the Thames there. The suspicion has to be that main impact of the new crossing will be to un-suppress that demand and massively increase the numbers of journeys that people choose to make across the Thames using the two crossings. That could take us back to square one within a few years, with bottlenecks on both crossings, as well as greater bottlenecks on their feeder roads - particularly the M25 around NE and SE London. So you may end up with journeys being just as badly hit, but now with more pollution.

 

[Kingston Dan]

The problem here with the logic of the new crossing is that Dartford being such a bottleneck almost certainly suppresses demand for journeys across the Thames there. The suspicion has to be that main impact of the new crossing will be to un-suppress that demand and massively increase the numbers of journeys that people choose to make across the Thames using the two crossings. That could take us back to square one within a few years, with bottlenecks on both crossings, as well as greater bottlenecks on their feeder roads - particularly the M25 around NE and SE London. So you may end up with journeys being just as badly hit, but now with more pollution.

Quite.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Not funding road projects like LTC, etc which shall exacerbate inequalities and instead funding public transport projects across the UK (turn up and go frequencies, capacity - i.e. HS2, cheaper tickets for encouraging people to use public transport) which decreases inequalities, carbon emissions and air pollution in the long run (unlike LTC which shall only increase them) and provide worthwhile jobs. I know the money ‘doesn’t’ exist but it shouldn’t exist for these worthless road projects.

But sadly the money does exist for projects that can pay back a loan which is why it will be a toll road.

The problem here with the logic of the new crossing is that Dartford being such a bottleneck almost certainly suppresses demand for journeys across the Thames there. The suspicion has to be that main impact of the new crossing will be to un-suppress that demand and massively increase the numbers of journeys that people choose to make across the Thames using the two crossings. That could take us back to square one within a few years, with bottlenecks on both crossings, as well as greater bottlenecks on their feeder roads - particularly the M25 around NE and SE London. So you may end up with journeys being just as badly hit, but now with more pollution.

There will be those that argue that the suppressed demand it crippling the UK economy. So we need the LTN to help growth. An economy that is not growing is apparently stagnant.

Problem is might we will keep growing perhaps stopping before people start falling of the white cliffs of Dover !.

 

[The Ham]

But sadly the money does exist for projects that can pay back a loan which is why it will be a toll road.

As I've said before, the issues isn't necessary the cost of the LTC but rather the impact of building it on other roads which will then get overloaded and need further spending to fix.

There will be those that argue that the suppressed demand it crippling the UK economy. So we need the LTN to help growth. An economy that is not growing is apparently stagnant.

The issue isn't necessary the need for a growing economy, but rather having an economy of a size which can support the spending requirements of the population.

If we need a larger NHS budget as the population is getting less healthy than ours been in the past, we need a larger economy or to pay more taxes.

If we have an increasing number of people getting handouts from the government and not planning on working again, we need a larger economy or to pay more taxes.

(By the way, both of those are directly linked to an aging population, in that with a greater percentage of people over 65 than the past three population is getting generally less healthy, likewise you'd notice that anyone who gets the state pension fits within the category of "getting handouts from the government and not planning on working again" - and no paying NI isn't the government saving that amount for a pension payout, as general taxes paid for the things when they are paid)

Problem is might we will keep growing perhaps stopping before people start falling of the white cliffs of Dover !.

The entire UK population could sit down for a picnic on a strip of land the width of a trio of 2 lane motorways which runs from north to south of this island, so I don't think we're at risk of that happening.

We're more likely to be at risk of running out of land by building yet more space for our inefficient little metal transport boxes. As to park the current number of cars owned in the UK you'd need 7 times the amount of space at 21 motorways with two lanes (assuming a standard car park layout within each carriageway and whilst that would leave enough space for two way traffic, the picnic also allows enough land allowance for people to come and go).

That's even though there's about half the number of cars as there are people (34 million cars vs 68 million people when rounded to the nearest million).

 

[I'm here now]

About 35-40% of the country's exports go via the Channel tunnel/ferries, and the vast majority is carried by lorry. A huge proportion of that will go via Dartford which is currently a big bottleneck.

Worthless?

In comparison to a rail link that’ll take the vast proportion by lorry many times over w/o so much congestion and pollution to local people whilst those who shall only significantly benefit are big corporations.

 

[stuu]

In comparison to a rail link that’ll take the vast proportion by lorry many times over w/o so much congestion and pollution to local people whilst those who shall only significantly benefit are big corporations.

What rail link? From where to where?

 

[Zomboid]

I don't see what the relevance is to rail. Stuff that comes and goes by ferry (or freight shuttle) isn't going to be traveling by train, and normal freight through the tunnel is not exactly booming.

I suppose if we had infinite money then an extension of the freight (and maybe car, but the extended journey times on the trains would probably mean that asking people to sit in their cars is no longer viable) shuttle to the north of the Thames might contribute something useful, but that's just pie in the sky.

 

[SynthD]

What rail link? From where to where?

Even if there were a link from under the river at this crossing, to permit a Daventry-Dollands Moor service, it wouldn't pay for itself in fees. Is there a rational way to consider the benefit in increased off-road and low carbon freight transport to abroad?

 

[Mikey C]

I don't see what the relevance is to rail. Stuff that comes and goes by ferry (or freight shuttle) isn't going to be traveling by train, and normal freight through the tunnel is not exactly booming.

I suppose if we had infinite money then an extension of the freight (and maybe car, but the extended journey times on the trains would probably mean that asking people to sit in their cars is no longer viable) shuttle to the north of the Thames might contribute something useful, but that's just pie in the sky.

And at some point you'd need to remove the freight from the train and put it onto lorries to go to the final destination, requiring the mother of all freight transfer depots!

 

[quantinghome]

And at some point you'd need to remove the freight from the train and put it onto lorries to go to the final destination, requiring the mother of all freight transfer depots!

This is how intermodal freight works. Above a certain distance it becomes cheaper overall to carry freight by train and swap onto lorries at each end than go all the way by road.

When it comes to cross-channel freight, the questions are:

- how much of it would be viable to deliver by intermodal (can a lorry full of tomatoes going from Italy to the UK be replaced by a container?)
- what are the bottlenecks? Are they mostly infrastructure issues or political (small 'p' - e.g. friction between different countries' freight operations etc.)

UPDATE - just seen this thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/why-did-channel-tunnel-freignt-never-take-off.203941/ which gives several reasons why cross-channel rail freight hasn't been successful. Seems there are wider issues that a new rail tunnel under the Thames would not fix.

 

[HSTEd]

I think the only way to get significant railfreight over this segment would be a new, very large loading gauge line from the Tunnel entrance to a terminal north of the thames, probably near the M11/M25 junction.

How many tens of billions would that cost? Even if the alignment could be relaxed by the comparatively low speed of Chunnel shuttles.

The chunnel shuttle demonstrates you need high intensity to be attractive, probably four trains an hour to each destination on the UK side of the channel.
If such a route magically appeared you could probably make a decent go of operating it without large subsidies.

But such a route will not magically appear.

Therefore I can't see this new road tunnel doing much of all to the railfreight business.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

And at some point you'd need to remove the freight from the train and put it onto lorries to go to the final destination, requiring the mother of all freight transfer depots!

It does though seem incredibly inefficient (in energy, manpower and road space) that you have so much freight travelling from Dover, all in individual lorries despite that most of them are likely to be going the same way, at least as far as the M25. It feels to me like what's really needed is some road equivalent of freightliner, where the goods can be stored in containers for the ferry crossing, then containers put on trains at Dover that will take them at least to a couple of distribution hubs in locations, probably around the M25, where they can then be put on lorries to take them to their various destinations across the UK. I could imagine that would vastly reduce the numbers of lorries travelling across the Thames at Dartford (and more generally, between Dartford and Kent). Unfortunately the infrastructure investment required to move to that kind of system would be absolutely huge (and would require similar investment in Europe too)

 

[Trainman40083]

It does though seem incredibly inefficient (in energy, manpower and road space) that you have so much freight travelling from Dover, all in individual lorries despite that most of them are likely to be going the same way, at least as far as the M25. It feels to me like what's really needed is some road equivalent of freightliner, where the goods can be stored in containers for the ferry crossing, then containers put on trains at Dover that will take them at least to a couple of distribution hubs in locations, probably around the M25, where they can then be put on lorries to take them to their various destinations across the UK. I could imagine that would vastly reduce the numbers of lorries travelling across the Thames at Dartford (and more generally, between Dartford and Kent). Unfortunately the infrastructure investment required to move to that kind of system would be absolutely huge (and would require similar investment in Europe too)

I understood the issue for container traffic in Kent was down to loading gauge. Containers from all over Europe can get to Dollands Moor, but can't use existing lines through Kent to Wembley. A few companies paid a premium rate for freight to use HS1 to Barking... So, if gauge enhancement was done in Kent W12?(think Maidstone was one area), the container trains could run from say Italy to Daventry/Manchester/Glasgow. The ferries would probably be a lot quieter. You'd have thought circa £100m on gauge enhancement was well worth it.

 

[quantinghome]

I understood the issue for container traffic in Kent was down to loading gauge. Containers from all over Europe can get to Dollands Moor, but can't use existing lines through Kent to Wembley. A few companies paid a premium rate for freight to use HS1 to Barking... So, if gauge enhancement was done in Kent W12?(think Maidstone was one area), the container trains could run from say Italy to Daventry/Manchester/Glasgow. The ferries would probably be a lot quieter. You'd have thought circa £100m on gauge enhancement was well worth it.

Was about to post the same thing. 1/3 of the cost of the LTC planning application...

But even if this was a success I don't think it would make the ferries much quieter. 16,000 lorries per day equates to around 320 trains per day. You would need several freight trains per hour to make a significant dent in the lorry numbers, and the existing mixed traffic routes to the tunnel wouldn't have that kind of spare capacity even if they widened them to W12 gauge.

 

[HSTEd]

I understood the issue for container traffic in Kent was down to loading gauge. Containers from all over Europe can get to Dollands Moor, but can't use existing lines through Kent to Wembley. A few companies paid a premium rate for freight to use HS1 to Barking... So, if gauge enhancement was done in Kent W12?(think Maidstone was one area), the container trains could run from say Italy to Daventry/Manchester/Glasgow. The ferries would probably be a lot quieter. You'd have thought circa £100m on gauge enhancement was well worth it.

Would £100m gauge enhancement get you north of the Thames?

And even if it would, which passenger trains are you going to axe to provide paths to freight operators for low performance container trains?

 

[Trainman40083]

Was about to post the same thing. 1/3 of the cost of the LTC planning application...

But even if this was a success I don't think it would make the ferries much quieter. 16,000 lorries per day equates to around 320 trains per day. You would need several freight trains per hour to make a significant dent in the lorry numbers, and the existing mixed traffic routes to the tunnel wouldn't have that kind of spare capacity even if they widened them to W12 gauge.

Is that 16,000 lorries per day on the ferry or using Eurotunnel as well?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Apr 2025 ==

Would £100m gauge enhancement get you north of the Thames?

And even if it would, which passenger trains are you going to axe to provide paths to freight operators for low performance container trains?

Would you need to axe passenger trains? A 75mph freight would keep up with most of the passenger trains down there. I guess the West London line.could get cosy

 

[quantinghome]

Is that 16,000 lorries per day on the ferry or using Eurotunnel as well?

Both. I assume counting both directions.