Crossrail - Any benefit extending eastwards?

[NLC1072]

Seeing as extending crossrail to Reading on the west end of the line is on the cards, would there be any benefit extending crossrail or either southend or chelmsford? The new beaulieu park station proposed in chelmsford could entertain a bay platform for such an occurrence?

It's just a hypothetical question really for discussion

Many thanks.

 

[jopsuk]

Extending Crossrail to Reading isn't so much "on the cards" as "called for by people who would subsequently complain about doing a journey that long on metro-style stock"

 

[Nym]

Running beyond Shenfeild removes all the advantage of basically having exclusive use of the GE slows, removing any external performance risk; there's also 'not enough' services on Shenfeild Metro on it's own as there is an indicative 4tph into Liverpool St in the peaks.

Beyond Abbey Wood on the other hand would work better, as you have a conflict free way to start from Abbey Wood to keep the core going if required.

 

[NLC1072]

Running beyond Shenfeild removes all the advantage of basically having exclusive use of the GE slows, removing any external performance risk.

From Shenfield to the Southend line isn't there a bi-di chord that goes under the mainline?

For example you could have half the trains terminating at Shenfield and half continuing to Southend? This would maintain the current frequencies and eliminate the need to remodel Shenfield station (which has met a lot of opposition). And remove the GA services from the Southend branch.

 

[jopsuk]

if you were to extend the Abbey Wood branch to even close to as far from central London as Shenfield or Maidenhead, you'd have the terminus at Gravesend. Which wouldn't be a terrible idea, but you;d need to have either Dual voltage Crossrail stock or dual voltage North Kent stock.

On a possible WCML branch, for a Shenfield/Maidenhead equivalent terminus you'd be at Hemel Hempsted.

Note that this si similar in distance to Chesham and Amersham on the Metropolitan line.

People seem to keep thinking of Crossrail as a mainline-type system. it's an overgrown tube system.

But ideally (and this isn't happening on the GWML) a system like Crossrail should have its own tracks.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

if you were to extend the Abbey Wood branch to even close to as far from central London as Shenfield or Maidenhead, you'd have the terminus at Gravesend. Which wouldn't be a terrible idea, but you;d need to have either Dual voltage Crossrail stock or dual voltage North Kent stock.

On a possible WCML branch, for a Shenfield/Maidenhead equivalent terminus you'd be at Hemel Hempsted.

Will Crossrail stock be dual voltage though? On the WCML would Tring not make a better terminus with its extra platform for terminating trains? Finally would any extra units be required to run these services?

 

[Class172]

I would have though any Crossrail stock will be ordered as dual-voltage, to me it seems sensible since they'll be running into 3rd rail areas.

 

[NLC1072]

I would have though any Crossrail stock will be ordered as dual-voltage, to me it seems sensible since they'll be running into 3rd rail areas.

But only for a very short distance, perhaps it would be cheaper to install OHLE on the abbey wood branch?

 

[jopsuk]

Um? The branch to Abbey Wood will be self contained and AC.

 

[NLC1072]

Um? The branch to Abbey Wood will be self contained and AC.

I thought I'd heard that somewhere, it needed some realigning of the tracks along that stretch I believe, I should or read up on it first! :roll:

 

[mr_jrt]

Seeing as extending crossrail to Reading on the west end of the line is on the cards, would there be any benefit extending crossrail or either southend or chelmsford? The new beaulieu park station proposed in chelmsford could entertain a bay platform for such an occurrence?

It's just a hypothetical question really for discussion

My personal preferences are that both the GEML and GWML need both metro operations as well as suburban ones, and I feel Crossrail is better suited to suburban operations than metro ones, so to answer your question, then yes, I'd like to see it extended out further, but accordingly running semi-fast within the M25. In order for that to be possible, new tracks are needed though. 6 tracks along the GWML to the M25 is easy (aside from the major issue of West Ealing to Ealing Broadway), but the GEML basically requires an new tunnel from Bishopsgate to the M25, and I suspect if you were to do that, you'd be better off tunnelling the fast lines rather than the suburban or metro lines so you could use the existing surface stations. So by that measure, in the east I'd run Crossrail on the mains and a metro on the slow lines.

In the west you handily have the natural terminal points of Heathrow and Slough/Windsor as the limit of a metro operation. In the east Shenfield is a bit further, so maybe Romford (or on down to Upminster or even Grays) would be a suitable point to end the metro service, with Crossrail taking services to Southend, Southminster and Braintree, and the "mainline" TOC retaining everything beyond there. Adding new track between Shenfield and Witham isn't currently planned (I believe north of Colchester is the current plan), but it should be doable.

With separate metro and suburban operations you can have more suitable stock on both, so the metros can be LO-style sardine cans and the suburbans can be more conventional (i.e. with transverse seating and toilets).

 

[Mojo]

From Shenfield to the Southend line isn't there a bi-di chord that goes under the mainline?

For example you could have half the trains terminating at Shenfield and half continuing to Southend? This would maintain the current frequencies and eliminate the need to remodel Shenfield station (which has met a lot of opposition). And remove the GA services from the Southend branch.

At present most of the Southend Victoria trains are fast from Shenfield to Stratford - with some calling at Romford. I doubt the people of that line would be happy for their relatively speedy service reduced to one stopping at every station - pushing the journey time up quite significantly.

 

[Southend Rider]

The Southend Branch is already full and standing on most services by the time it reaches Shenfield, in the peak hours most of which are 12 coach trains. This would mean half of the Crossrail services would be full before leaving Shenfield (the current metro services are also full and standing by Romford) which means by Romford passengers would be left behind. It would also add a considerable amount of time to the journey to Liverpool St.

 

[swt_passenger]

I thought I'd heard that somewhere, it needed some realigning of the tracks along that stretch I believe, I should or read up on it first! :roll:

You may have remembered some scare stories that were done following the last election. A couple of rail mags did articles about costs being seriously trimmed back, IIRC one of the theories was that the Connaught tunnels would not need rebuilding if DC third rail was used on that leg of the Crossrail route.

The same silly season of reporting also had some rubbish about 'one of the two western legs' not being built to save costs, which I thought rather odd because both the Maidenhead and Heathrow legs already existed...

There has been a change at Abbey Wood station though, originally the portal was going to be between the existing pair of lines, with trains terminating in the middle pair of a four platform station, but the current plan is to have Crossrail as the northern pair. If it were ever to be extended east the intended layout would not be as efficient as a central pair of tracks.

 

[Bald Rick]

There's no spare peak capacity from Shenfield - Chelmsford.

 

[Simon11]

The most important section of the route is the core part and the aim should be to provide the high frequency service that is required.

Extending the route any further will have a huge impact of performance on core section.

I don't see much need to extend the route any further.

 

[Daz28]

If they extended Abbey Wood to Ebbsfleet, that would make a much better interchange. If they could take the opportunity to build a proper interchange with Northfleet, that would open up a range of new journey options.

 

[Eagle]

Is the extension from Abbey Wood to Gravesend still officially safeguarded?

 

[SF-02]

Crossrail past Abbey Wood would likely suffer a lot of performance risk sharing tracks with north Kent line services which are 8 tph off peak on the Abbey Wood line and 9-10 at peaks. That sharing with 12 tph Crossrail would be pushing it a bit? Would be better to have 4 tracks but that would be expensive. A dedicated extra 2 lines to Ebbsfleet would be great.

 

[Eagle]

I doubt that if it is extended that all 12tph would be extended. Perhaps have 6tph terminating at Abbey Wood and 6tph to Gravesend (or have some of those 6 terminate at Dartford or something like that).

 

[SF-02]

I doubt that if it is extended that all 12tph would be extended. Perhaps have 6tph terminating at Abbey Wood and 6tph to Gravesend (or have some of those 6 terminate at Dartford or something like that).

Perhaps they may be forced to speed up extending about 6 tph to Dartford or further if upon opening the the numbers changing from North Kent line trains to Crossrail is too high and there is congestion crossing platforms. Due to the change in plans Crossrail is no longer the two central tracks requiring easy cross platform changes, but now requires passengers going over a bridge.

 

[jopsuk]

If you were to four-track to Ebbsfleet, you'd be as well terminating at Gravesend

 

[hwl]

Is the extension from Abbey Wood to Gravesend still officially safeguarded?

Yes.

The cost of the extension was put at £580m when the Crossrail bill was being approved in Parliament (so now 5+ years out of date?).

From the RUS, the services into the core from Abbey Wood are expected to run at ~60% utilisation in peak hour (assuming trains remain 10 car), so plenty of space for passengers further out if services are extended, with Dartford being the shortest sensible extension and a very cheap way of relieving capacity issues on services into Charing Cross and Cannon Street.

I think they bit the bullet and realised that Crossrail would need to be segregated when deciding to have the Crossrail tracks at Abbey Wood to one side rather than in the middle.

 

[mr_jrt]

Yes.

The cost of the extension was put at £580m when the Crossrail bill was being approved in Parliament (so now 5+ years out of date?).

From the RUS, the services into the core from Abbey Wood are expected to run at ~60% utilisation in peak hour (assuming trains remain 10 car), so plenty of space for passengers further out if services are extended, with Dartford being the shortest sensible extension and a very cheap way of relieving capacity issues on services into Charing Cross and Cannon Street.

I think they bit the bullet and realised that Crossrail would need to be segregated when deciding to have the Crossrail tracks at Abbey Wood to one side rather than in the middle.

I think the plan was always 4 tracks from Abbey Wood to Dartford...just having them in the centre whilst good for the interchanges, creates a lot of complications at junctions. Remaining on the north side of the formation means that the only real complications come from Slade Green depot and the interface with Dartford.

 

[RicP]

There are many options on the cards, the present 'Boundaries' being dictated by where major new works are needed.
Beyond Shenfield, Abbey Wood and Maidenhead, works can be covered ither by T&W Act applications, or if for railway purposes and within the existing curtilage of the railway, then just local applications for the building works are required.
So Service extensions beyond Shenfield towards Southend are possible, say 3 per hour between existing Semi-Fasts which run as now, so improving connectivity between Southend branch stations and the Shenfield services operating as now.
Services beyond Abbey Wood could be extended at least to Dartford, again every 20 minutes or so, Gravesend or Ebbsfleet Interchange are possibilities.
Services beyond Maidenhead to Reading have been designed for in the Reading rebuild, and extending up to 10 tph beyond Old Oak Common to some other destination is inevitable, WCML to Tring and Milton Keynes is logical, but no further, but railway operations around these West London nodes is still in the melting pot.
Food for thought?
Benefits, better in-town penetration and distribution, reducing the need for interchange at the edge of centre nodes forced on us by the Victorian landowners 150+ years ago.

 

[Tobbes]

Sorry, am slow on the uptake, but how is it proposed to get from OOC to Tring?

Tobbes

 

[swt_passenger]

Sorry, am slow on the uptake, but how is it proposed to get from OOC to Tring?

Tobbes

With a short section of new track (probably somewhere near Acton Canal Wharf Jn) connecting the GW slow lines (Crossrail) into the route alongside the WCML that the current Croydon - Milton Keynes uses before it dives under to joins the slow lines in the Willesden area.

It's a London and SE RUS proposal, but they don't go as far as a track layout at this stage...

 

[mikeolsen]

I'd rather see it expanded to South East where the choice of transport for getting into central London is pretty bad. If South Eastern has leafs on the tracks then we're stuffed.

 

[jopsuk]

With the longer extensions, I really don't see there being significant levels of outer branch intermediate journies (above and beyond what will be catered for by existing services).

I can't see people being happy to use overgrown tube trains from Milton Keynes, Reading or Southend.

I can't see "regional" trains working well in the core (Thameslink struggles a bit with this).

So yes, extended to the WCML and North Kent, but terminate at Tring and Gravesend. Do everything possible to minimise interactions with other services.

That's why the "regional" idea for Crossrail 2 is a bit barmy, and why I reckon Thameslink should be pruned- except there's no room at St pancras high level or London Bridge low level for fast "outer" services.

 

[mister-sparky]

The only way "regional" services on Crossrail to places like Southend and Chelmsford would work is if they are not all shacks slows. There would be an uproar from people on the Southend Vic line if their reasonably fast service was replaced by one stopping at every single station. There just isn't the capacity to add extra services into Liverpool St, or Paddington, for regional services to work. Although it is a good idea. They should have built a 4-tracked segregated Crossrail from the beginning. But then the costs would've made it uneconomical.