Crossrail extension onto WCML

[Altnabreac]

I'm inclined to disagree - Euston has ample platform capacity...Marylebone may run some short trains, but don't forget all the longer Birmingham services, nor the fact they double up short trains on single platforms.

Relief at Euston will be for the Underground, not the platforms.

Euston has ample platform capacity now, but during rebuilding for HS2 there will be much more pressure on platform space. That's the real benefit of this move and the primary reason for it happening.

 

[cle]

The Chiltern Birmingham loco trains are still only 6 coaches - not that long. There is plenty of potential for expansion through train lengths to occur first.

 

[HSTEd]

With this extension then surely Crossrail should go to 11 car trains immediately to swallow up the additional loadings onto the trains (as people who would not have gone near Crossrail originally will now be on it).

 

[NotATrainspott]

With this extension then surely Crossrail should go to 11 car trains immediately to swallow up the additional loadings onto the trains (as people who would not have gone near Crossrail originally will now be on it).

That would require further platform lengthening along the existing surface lines, which could be a problem. I think the assumption is going to have to be that the people from a 12x20m 350 will have to fit on a 9x23m 345. The core stations all have platform caverns large enough for the trains but I don't know if the platform edge doors will be fitted out all the way along.

 

[cle]

Are any current Tring services 12 car? I thought it was more the 'fast to Leighton Buzzard' MK and Northampton ones?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

People are making a big assumption about it just being Tring services . The wording used in option K1 in the London and SE RUS reads as follows:
"The resulting 8tph via Watford Junction to Crossrail would replace most slow line services to London Euston."

I'm not sure.
The announcement specifically mentions only Hertfordshire.
If there was an intention to run beyond Tring, Bucks and Beds would have been mentioned.
Looks to me like a low-ish cost scheme using existing WCML capability.
I'd say David Higgins' views currently trumps an NR RUS...

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I think it's a fairly safe bet that if Crossrail takes over any of the LM services, then the extra convenience of getting to places along the Crossrail route will cause passenger numbers from stations between Watford and Tring into London to increase. Especially because getting to Heathrow Airport by changing at Old Oak Common will presumably become easy - that could pull quite a few people who currently would drive to Heathrow. Depending on how convenient changing at Euston vs changing at Old Oak Common is, you may also see passengers from the Watford area using the new service to get to HS1.

I would guess those extra passengers will mean we'll be looking at more frequent services than LM currently provide (assuming the paths can be fitted in). Though how that balances out with train lengths is probably anyone's guess at the moment.

 

[edwin_m]

With this extension then surely Crossrail should go to 11 car trains immediately to swallow up the additional loadings onto the trains (as people who would not have gone near Crossrail originally will now be on it).

Through central London the Crossrail trains that start/finish at Paddington will have fewer and fewer passengers the closer they are to Paddington itself. Hence if some of these are extended onto the WCML the extra passengers (nearly all likely to be travelling to/from central London) are mostly filling that empty space. So although more trains will be needed for the longer journey, the existing train fleet probably doesn't need to be lengthened.

 

[Tio Terry]

Euston has ample platform capacity now, but during rebuilding for HS2 there will be much more pressure on platform space. That's the real benefit of this move and the primary reason for it happening.

One of the big problems at Euston is the access to the Underground. The current access with one escalator down and two up cannot be changed because LU simply cannot cater for all the people trying to get in to the Underground Network. HS2 will not improve this at all for suburban services. By giving travellers the choice to stay on a Crossrail train to the City Stations where they can either change to LU Services or get to their destination without a need to change you ease the pressure on LU at Euston.

 

[cle]

I think it's a fairly safe bet that if Crossrail takes over any of the LM services, then the extra convenience of getting to places along the Crossrail route will cause passenger numbers from stations between Watford and Tring into London to increase. Especially because getting to Heathrow Airport by changing at Old Oak Common will presumably become easy - that could pull quite a few people who currently would drive to Heathrow. Depending on how convenient changing at Euston vs changing at Old Oak Common is, you may also see passengers from the Watford area using the new service to get to HS1.

I would guess those extra passengers will mean we'll be looking at more frequent services than LM currently provide (assuming the paths can be fitted in). Though how that balances out with train lengths is probably anyone's guess at the moment.

You raise good points. It will also be a good link for passengers from Harrow and upwards to access the GWML to Reading and beyond, once those trains begin to stop at Old Oak too. Long distance travel but also access to Thames Valley employment locations.

Definitely helps it as a hub, adding northerly links - and enables better access to employment. I'd say even Chiswick Business Park and the Brentford/Osterley employers too might become more accessible from Harrow and points north. Richmond and Kew too, more as leisure destinations. Plus plenty more we've not thought of yet.

 

[Busaholic]

You raise good points. It will also be a good link for passengers from Harrow and upwards to access the GWML to Reading and beyond, once those trains begin to stop at Old Oak too. Long distance travel but also access to Thames Valley employment locations.

Definitely helps it as a hub, adding northerly links - and enables better access to employment. I'd say even Chiswick Business Park and the Brentford/Osterley employers too might become more accessible from Harrow and points north. Richmond and Kew too, more as leisure destinations. Plus plenty more we've not thought of yet.

This then becomes quite a significant orbital link, which may not have been factored in by the powers-that-be.

 

[Mikey C]

Depending on where the Crossrail trains stop, I imagine a fair number of people will change from the DC Overground line or even the Bakerloo line to use this service into central London instead?

 

[Ibex]

Are any current Tring services 12 car? I thought it was more the 'fast to Leighton Buzzard' MK and Northampton ones?

Yes, the 08:05, 16:05, 16:34 and 18:12 Euston to Tring are all 12 car trains, plus their return workings.

 

[mr_jrt]

I guess the side benefit of swallowing up the Tring services to Crossrail is that the rolling stock released can then extend all the other services to 12 cars. I'm still not convinced about the pressure on platforms at Euston though - moving the Tring services probably frees up, what, one platform, maybe two at a push? The plans for the rebuild were very well thought out and provided equivalent capacity throughout the rebuild, made possible by the HS2 platforms being constructed first, and thus able to act as a buffer for the Intercity services, leaving most of the the existing platforms available for the suburban services as the reconstruction progresses from west to east.

I can't find the documents now, but IIRC, phase 1 loses platforms 16-18 to the HS2 section, which when complete, provides 10 or so platforms. Sevices then move across to these temporarily. Phase 2 then closes platforms 8-15, with services spread between the new platforms (I'd imagine ICWC services would be concentrated in the new platforms, with long-distance LM services with them, and suburban LM services pushed down into platforms 2-7). Once phase 2 completes, we will have an additional 8 or so platforms (the 400m mixed use WCML platforms, and the 6x16 car platforms). Phase 3 would see LM bumped across to the new WCML platforms, whilst the final set of the old 1-7 are demolished and rebuilt as the 6x12 car platforms. Once complete, LM returns to it's new home of platforms 1-6, Virgin move across to its new home of platforms 7-12, and the mixed-use platforms 13 & 14 are probably used for the sleeper services. HS2 opens and takes up platforms 15-24.

Job's a good'un, no pressure whatsoever.

 

[mr_jrt]

A-ha! Found a copy of the phasing. Apparently somewhat different from what I remembered!

 

[NotATrainspott]

A-ha! Found a copy of the phasing. Apparently somewhat different from what I remembered!

I would warn you that there's been almost four-and-a-half years of project development since that document was published, so the detail included in it can no longer be considered completely accurate. For example, the hybrid platforms are no longer part of the plan. Instead there will be another two TSI-compliant platforms on the HS2 side and two of the 320m WCML platforms are now 400m long.

 

[Olaf]

As per LNW-GW Joint's recent post (above - 1139) DfT have only announced a feasibility study, so details wouldn't really be expected yet.

Yes, I love the way they have used 'Plans', 'feasibility study', and 'proposals' all in regard the same subject. I am thinking this is another of those pre-election transport announcements that the parties are trying to out-do each other with.

 

[mr_jrt]

I would warn you that there's been almost four-and-a-half years of project development since that document was published, so the detail included in it can no longer be considered completely accurate. For example, the hybrid platforms are no longer part of the plan. Instead there will be another two TSI-compliant platforms on the HS2 side and two of the 320m WCML platforms are now 400m long.

Aren't 400m WCML platforms essentially what the hybrid platforms actually are though? ...so in essence what you're saying is two more HS2 platforms and two less 320m (aka. 13x23m/12x26m car) WCML platforms?

I always imagined the hybrid platforms would be for the sleepers - the 400m platforms would be ideal for the sleepers as 16x23m fits nicely (and you could maybe even manage an additional carriage!), and having them as hybrid platforms means if the sleepers were discontinued (in all likelihood, when HS2 to Scotland opens) they could just as easily become part of the HS2 station.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Aren't 400m WCML platforms essentially what the hybrid platforms actually are though? ...so in essence what you're saying is two more HS2 platforms and two less 320m (aka. 13x23m/12x26m car) WCML platforms?

I always imagined the hybrid platforms would be for the sleepers - the 400m platforms would be ideal for the sleepers as 16x23m fits nicely (and you could maybe even manage an additional carriage!), and having them as hybrid platforms means if the sleepers were discontinued (in all likelihood, when HS2 to Scotland opens) they could just as easily become part of the HS2 station.

The hybrid platforms were ones that were connected to both HS2 and the WCML, so that they could be used for either purpose. They would be used for the sleepers in the evenings and mornings and during the day they could be used for either double classic-compatible sets off HS2 or they could be used for any WCML service. This has the advantage of requiring a total of 160m less platform length but it has the disadvantage that it would reduce the number of TSI-compliant platforms, thus making the station less future-proofed. This is important as the HS2 rebuild will basically be the last railway infrastructure rebuild that will be done to the station, ever, as it will be in the absolute most optimum configuration possible with modern construction techniques and land acquisition.

It's unlikely that classic-compatibles will disappear forever but we just don't know what the future holds. Once the CAF stock has become life-expired in 2048, by which time there will be a captive line to Glasgow, Edinburgh and possibly extensions to Aberdeen as well, the sleeper will likely survive as a cruise train for the highlands and beyond, at which point it likely will not need two 400m platforms at Euston.

 

[JGR]

This is important as the HS2 rebuild will basically be the last railway infrastructure rebuild that will be done to the station, ever, as it will be in the absolute most optimum configuration possible with modern construction techniques and land acquisition.

I find this difficult to believe.
What is modern and optimal now may not be considered as such in the future. That is the very nature of the word "modern" after all.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I find this difficult to believe.
What is modern and optimal now may not be considered as such in the future. That is the very nature of the word "modern" after all.

What would need to happen for the new design to no longer be optimal in future?

 

[najaB]

What would need to happen for the new design to no longer be optimal in future?

I think he's just saying that 'ever' is a long, long time. Perhaps the station will have to be rebuilt for the maglev trains...

 

[21C101]

This is important as the HS2 rebuild will basically be the last railway infrastructure rebuild that will be done to the station, ever, as it will be in the absolute most optimum configuration possible with modern construction techniques and land acquisition.

LOL, they thought that when they rebuilt it in the 1960s. In fact just about every high profile building architect or designer probably thought that about their baby.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoGl-ut8970

 

[neodoughnut]

I think that it is interesting that everyone seems to think that there will be shortage of paths if/when this is finally constructed. I imagine that judging that this is just a feasibility report I do not see this open before HS2 and that once HS2 is open there will be a lot more paths on the fast lines and/or trains stopping at stations.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I think that it is interesting that everyone seems to think that there will be shortage of paths if/when this is finally constructed. I imagine that judging that this is just a feasibility report I do not see this open before HS2 and that once HS2 is open there will be a lot more paths on the fast lines and/or trains stopping at stations.

The main justification for this link is to free up capacity at Euston for the rebuild, as the plan has returned to the full rebuild of all tracks that was previously rejected because it would take too long. This is why Network Rail's preferred option is for a cheap and nasty chord up to the Dudding Hill Line, as the main value in the project is getting it done and running as soon as is possible. The points made by the DfT about the connectivity benefits it brings are secondary and are in some way just a smokescreen for the real justification, as tying it to the HS2 project may make it more difficult for it to be done in time for it to make a difference during the peak construction period.

It's entirely feasible that if the benefits it brings are higher than anticipated then a superior connection could be put in place later, as the simple chord costs only a few tens of millions of pounds. This is a drop in the ocean compared to the enormous amount of work that needs done to the Old Oak Common site anyway.