Could there be 16 coach services into London in the future?

[telstarbox]

Cannon St and Charing cross could perhaps be extended across the river as in the case of Blackfriars?

Well - if you were in the 16th carriage you'd be nearer to London Bridge and Waterloo East respectively than the gateline at the terminus

 

[mr_jrt]

Of all the termini, Fenchurch Street would probably be easiest to extend. All the others, I don't see it as doable, not without massive closures. Charing Cross is impossible, Cannon Street probably also, Victoria potentially doable but rather hard. King's Cross impossible, Waterloo probably impossible, Liverpool Street impossible, St Pancras completely irrelevant, Paddington isn't utilised to 12 car currently.

"Impossible" - you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Charing Cross/Cannon Street. Hugely expensive, but widen the bridges and extend across the river. Probably more cost effective to demolish them and build new subterranean stations on new Crossrail lines though.

Kings Cross - Open out the canal tunnels and build road bridges and an aqueduct for the canal. This lets you move the throat further north.

Waterloo - widening the east-side viaducts and the works already planned for the international platforms would give more throat space.

Liverpool St - Massive demolition, so unlikely, but not impossible, if the will was there. Any demolition would have air rights above the new throat that would mitigate things somewhat.

I think the word you were after is "unlikely", or perhaps "expensive". Maybe "uneconomical".

 

[AM9]

Another option is, I suppose, to increase capacity by reducing the number of stopping patterns and thus allowing more trains to run. Wouldn't be popular with everyone, though.

WCML all over again.

 

[Bletchleyite]

WCML all over again.

Not sure I follow. I'm not so much thinking about removing slow trains, rather slowing everything down.

If you, for instance, operated Euston to Northampton on the slow lines with all trains calling at all stations Tube-style, you could operate something like 15-20tph 12-car. That would be a huge amount of capacity compared with the present fast-slow mix, but would not be popular with those further north.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Not sure I follow. I'm not so much thinking about removing slow trains, rather slowing everything down.

If you, for instance, operated Euston to Northampton on the slow lines with all trains calling at all stations Tube-style, you could operate something like 15-20tph 12-car. That would be a huge amount of capacity compared with the present fast-slow mix, but would not be popular with those further north.

You'll always find somewhere to allow fast and slow trains to pass each other without having to slow everything down. Flyovers and underpasses combined with ETCS Level 3 (the moving block system) in theory will allow trains to get within braking distance of each other coming up to the sections where a fast train can overtake a slow train.

There's a lot of other things to finish doing first too, before longer trains - level crossings eat into a lot of capacity, bridge strikes are a problem, general reliability of stock and of the network and so forth.

 

[mr_jrt]

You'll always find somewhere to allow fast and slow trains to pass each other without having to slow everything down. Flyovers and underpasses combined with ETCS Level 3 (the moving block system) in theory will allow trains to get within braking distance of each other coming up to the sections where a fast train can overtake a slow train.

There's a lot of other things to finish doing first too, before longer trains - level crossings eat into a lot of capacity, bridge strikes are a problem, general reliability of stock and of the network and so forth.

Random musing...

Hanslope Junction provides a natural point for rearranging the lines. Grade separate there, and switch to paired by direction down to Euston. It removes the choke point of Ledburn Junction as crossovers could then be installed wherever was convenient as they would not impact capacity with conflicting movements. All the stations have platforms on all lines anyway, and the only junctions requiring grade separation are the link to the EWR/Varsity line, the link to the WLL at Willesden...and the link at Camden to the NLL. The first two are already grade separated - if you went for the centre-fasts arrangement, you just need to restore the chord at Bletchley (formerly EWR to down fast), build a new chord at Wembley, and dig a short new tunnel at Camden. Obviously you'd want to reconfigure things that sort services around before the throat, but should all be doable. Main issue comes from the requirement for new grade separation for turnbacks at Watford, Tring and MK.

Alternatively, go with centre slow lines, but then you've got some complex work ahead of you if you want EWR services to MK (but not if you are content with interchange at Bletchley), the WLL connection would require major surgery to bring it up between the centre lines at Wembley, but Camden would probably require about the same amount of work regardless...but you then have the benefit of the slow services already being in the middle of the station...though given the plans for the potential rebuilds perhaps that's not as much use as it may seem.

 

[Radedamer]

More random musing. The word 'capacity' is being used in this thread to talk about a combination of train size, train frequency and train speed. Perhaps it might be measured in something like 'passenger seat equivalents per hour', I don't know. I take it this is what the word capacity means in the railway industry generally and I can see it's a pretty useful measure. However, in the context of longer or shorter trains particularly, I don't think it's the way an average passenger would understand the word. They would think in terms of the number of seats on their train and particularly in terms of the free seats!

 

[telstarbox]

In terms of commuting to and from London in the peaks, capacity is more about whether you can get on the train at all. Seats don't really come into it.

 

[Class 170101]

You could increase capacity in existing trains by removing the seats and making people stand however don't tell the commuters that. They won't like it.

 

[Kite159]

You could increase capacity in existing trains by removing the seats and making people stand however don't tell the commuters that. They won't like it.

Indeed, or make it longitudinal seating with 1st class being regular transverse seating for those who want to pay extra