Crossrail Question?

[atomicdanny]

I'm not sure if this has been answered before, but I've noticed that a lot of the Sub-urban / Local rail traffic would go through on the crossrail route (that is when it is finished or if it is finished!) instead of going to Paddington or Liverpool Street), would this mean that less trains would use those two stations (the main platforms).

With less trains going into the main platforms of Paddington and Liverpool Street would this mean that there is a chance that parts of the stations would become not used (and potentially knocked down?) or used for something else? (more intercity type routes?)

 

[A60K]

In rough terms two platforms will be released at each of Paddington and Liverpool Street.

At Liverpool Street there wouldn't be any useful way of using the platforms, and they would be better retained for flexibility for other services.

At Paddington I think the best use of spare capacity would be to take out the highest numbered NR platform. Then realign the H&C/Circle lines westbound services onto that platform, to separate the eastbound and westbound passengers. You would then have a central platform line available for reversing H&C trains from either direction in times of disruption.

 

[LE Greys]

In rough terms two platforms will be released at each of Paddington and Liverpool Street.

At Liverpool Street there wouldn't be any useful way of using the platforms, and they would be better retained for flexibility for other services.

At Paddington I think the best use of spare capacity would be to take out the highest numbered NR platform. Then realign the H&C/Circle lines westbound services onto that platform, to separate the eastbound and westbound passengers. You would then have a central platform line available for reversing H&C trains from either direction in times of disruption.

IIRC, that platform and the one next to it used to have connections down into the tunnels, mostly used by the Smithfield meat trains.

 

[deltic]

If the Lea Valley line upgrade goes ahead the Liverpool St platforms would provide the required capacity

 

[A60K]

IIRC, that platform and the one next to it used to have connections down into the tunnels, mostly used by the Smithfield meat trains.

That's right - all of platforms 13-16 at Paddington used to be electrified and connected to both the LT and WR lines. It was only in the late 60s that the connections between the networks were removed, leaving 13/14 as WR terminating platforms and 15/16 as the LT platforms. I guess the Smithfield trains would have ceased just before that?

The H&C and Met were of course originally built with involvement of the GWR, although there were disagreements between the companies at times.



--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If the Lea Valley line upgrade goes ahead the Liverpool St platforms would provide the required capacity

Yes to a certain extent - shift the GEML services across a bit to the higher numbered platforms in the East Side and that would allow for more West Anglia services to use the West Side. However, I think 16-18 are restricted in length to 8 cars (and impossible to extend) so it might be a bit tricky to fit everything in.

I can't remember exactly which platforms connect to which approach lines, but I think it might be that 1-4 only have access to the Cambridge lines, 5-10 have access to Cambridge or Main, 11-14 have access to Main and Electric and 15-18 to Electric only. OL Leigh or someone might be able to confirm.

Very long term, passive provision is being made in the new developments at the station throat to allow for eight approach tracks instead of six. With the other redevelopments planned around the former Bishopsgate station site the chance is there to allocate space for extra tracks along much of the approach leaving just a few awkward locations to deal with.

This would be a huge operating advantage if it could be extended out to Bethnal Green junction. Not sure if the new ELL bridge has space for eight tracks underneath though. At Bethnal Green itself you would need to realign the Electric and Main lines to the south using the former Bishopsgate approach ramp, or close the station.

 

[O L Leigh]

However, I think 16-18 are restricted in length to 8 cars (and impossible to extend) so it might be a bit tricky to fit everything in.

Correct. Getting shot of the Shenfield Metros would only free up those three additional platforms.

I can't remember exactly which platforms connect to which approach lines, but I think it might be that 1-4 only have access to the Cambridge lines, 5-10 have access to Cambridge or Main, 11-14 have access to Main and Electric and 15-18 to Electric only. OL Leigh or someone might be able to confirm.

At the station throat 1-4 are Suburban only, 5-10 are Suburban and Main, 11-14 are Main and Electric and 15-18 are Electric only. However, it is possible to get right across from 1 to the Electric or 18 to the Suburban before you reach Bethnal Green. But even so, Bethnal Green Junction is a 6 into 4 formation for the diverging West Anglia routes with the Suburban lines going through Bethnal Green platforms and the Fast lines diverging from the Main line at the back of the 'Up' platform. Therefore access to platforms isn't too much of an issue, but it would introduce a few more conflicting moves.

Very long term, passive provision is being made in the new developments at the station throat to allow for eight approach tracks instead of six. With the other redevelopments planned around the former Bishopsgate station site the chance is there to allocate space for extra tracks along much of the approach leaving just a few awkward locations to deal with.

This would be a huge operating advantage if it could be extended out to Bethnal Green junction. Not sure if the new ELL bridge has space for eight tracks underneath though. At Bethnal Green itself you would need to realign the Electric and Main lines to the south using the former Bishopsgate approach ramp, or close the station.

Can't see how that would happen. There just isn't space unless you took down not just the old Bishopsgate Low Level station but much of the former goods station as well, and even then it could be quite a squeeze.

But if Crossrail is going to take a certain number of services away from Liv St it would immediately free up capacity without the need for major works. Admittedly it all depends on exactly where the Crossrail route will diverge from the GEML but, if it could be done somewhere between Stratford station and Bow Junction, the existing layout could be used with a requirement only to remodel Bow Junction itself. The Main lines could be skewed across and join up with the existing Electric lines alignment and the Temple Mills lines could take the existing Main lines alignment. This would give easier access for West Anglia services via Stratford and remove the conflicting moves off the Temple Mills and onto the Main that currently restricts such services.

O L Leigh

 

[LE Greys]

What about options for connecting the Temple Mills line to Crossrail? That provides the possibility of linking StanstEx end-on with HEx, thus speeding up the central London connections from both airports.

 

[A60K]

I agree the chances of eight tracks to Bethnal Green are very slim - I forgot that the arches immediately above the Suburban lines at Bishopsgate are those that were listed and delayed the ELL extension.

The Crossrail portal will be at Pudding Mill Lane, with the existing DLR station demolished and the line realigned to the south, so there should be space for a rearrangement of the tracks described.

Making a link from the Temple Mills lines to Crossrail later on would be tricky though - what with the lines being on an embankment, the River Lea passing beneath, the Blackwall Tunnel approach road also passing below and the Central line running under the whole alignment it would require considerable extra tunnelling and constructing an underground flying junction with the initial Crossrail tunnels in rather dodgy ground.

 

[swt_passenger]

...Admittedly it all depends on exactly where the Crossrail route will diverge from the GEML but, if it could be done somewhere between Stratford station and Bow Junction, the existing layout could be used with a requirement only to remodel Bow Junction itself. The Main lines could be skewed across and join up with the existing Electric lines alignment and the Temple Mills lines could take the existing Main lines alignment. This would give easier access for West Anglia services via Stratford and remove the conflicting moves off the Temple Mills and onto the Main that currently restricts such services.

O L Leigh

The Crossrail portal approach incline goes through the current site of the DLR station at Pudding Mill Lane. The DLR line and the up electric get slewed south onto a new viaduct to make room for Crossrail's pair, but they are back on their existing alignments well before Bow Junction.

 

[O L Leigh]

What about options for connecting the Temple Mills line to Crossrail? That provides the possibility of linking StanstEx end-on with HEx, thus speeding up the central London connections from both airports.

Not a lot of point. There will already be interchange at both Stratford and Liv St.

The Crossrail portal approach incline goes through the current site of the DLR station at Pudding Mill Lane. The DLR line and the up electric get slewed south onto a new viaduct to make room for Crossrail's pair, but they are back on their existing alignments well before Bow Junction.

That wasn't quite what I was imagining. What I'd envisaged is that the Electric lines would effectively become almost totally dedicated Crossrail lines. As it is now, the vast majority of services on the Electric lines are Shenfield Metro services. I see no reason why this would change with the advent of Crossrail.

Even if the Electric lines are slewed back across by Bow Junction they're going to be largely empty. Hence my thoughts about the Electrics disappearing off down the hole and then slewing the Mains across to where the Electrics currently are and the Temple Mills lines to take the place of the Mains.

O L Leigh

 

[swt_passenger]

Not a lot of point. There will already be interchange at both Stratford and Liv St.



That wasn't quite what I was imagining. What I'd envisaged is that the Electric lines would effectively become almost totally dedicated Crossrail lines. As it is now, the vast majority of services on the Electric lines are Shenfield Metro services. I see no reason why this would change with the advent of Crossrail.

Even if the Electric lines are slewed back across by Bow Junction they're going to be largely empty. Hence my thoughts about the Electrics disappearing off down the hole and then slewing the Mains across to where the Electrics currently are and the Temple Mills lines to take the place of the Mains.

O L Leigh

I don't think the two proposals are contradictory - the Crossrail flying junction allows for stuff like ECS moves, two track working on Sundays for engineering access to the main lines, for the c2c diversions into Liverpool St ??? - and even diversions off Crossrail if it has problems.

The Anglia RUS already considers platfom reallocation at Liverpool St post Crossrail, and moving the mains across - even mentions another flyover to take Lea Valley services over onto the E lines...

 

[LE Greys]

The point of connecting Stansted and HEX via Crossrail is to avoid people having to change twice or thrice in London, and to cut down the times between the City and Heathrow. StanstEx would connect directly to Thameslink (thus Charing Cross, London Bridge and King's Cross), the Northern Line (thus Euston and Waterloo), the Jubilee (twice), the Bakerloo (thus Marylebone) and all lines from Paddington as well as the current Circle, Met, Ham & City and Central. The current Bank-Heathrow time is 48 minutes for 19 miles (Bank-Gatwick is 42 minutes for 30 miles - curious) and involves two changes. One change or a walk to Farringdon could cut it down to less than 30 minutes if HEX went all the way through. The same time savings apply for Stansted, and a reduction in the number of changes (three from Woking to Stansted) would be useful as well. It's not all that different from the loss of connections for Kent trains by going into St Pancras instead of Charing Cross/Waterloo East. It helps if you are going to the West End or beyond London, but not if you're a City commuter or going to (say) Woking. The Law of Unintended Consequences means that City commuters have to wedge onto the Central Line at Stratford, while those using Waterloo would stick to the old line. Direct connections through London, RER-style, would be very useful.

 

[O L Leigh]

But the vast majority of tickets sold at Stansted are for Tottenham Hale or London Terminals. While there are indeed folk travelling across London, these are actually few and far between. Nor are the many passengers necessarily travelling to or from Bank and "the City".

The point of Crossrail is that it is a Metro service. As soon as you start mixing in faster trains you need to build-in headway. This reduces the available frequency and, hence, capacity. Additionally, running StanEx and HEx together just increases the scope for imported delays a vastly magnifies the impact they have. Therefore a fatality at, say, Broxbourne would not just affect West Anglia and StanEx services, but HEx and Crossrail as well. Experience also shows that station dwell times would at least double due to passengers with luggage and those unfamiliar with the route (PIS doesn't even help much with this).

As for connecting the City and Heathrow, Crossrail already proposes this, presumably by absorbing the existing Heathrow Connect service. This might not necessarily be as fast or as glamourous as the HEx, but I would imagine that it would still be faster to stay on the train from, say, Liv St all the way out to Heathrow than to change for the Express at Paddington.

I can see why such connections might be considered desirable, but these have to be operationally realistic. StanEx connects directly with Crossrail at Liv St allowing for a single change for anyone going on to Heathrow (though in practice, cross London airport-to-airport transfers are rare) without all the operational downsides.

While the desire to "do an RER" on London is commendable, it is operationally questionable. The RER is essentially a suburban commuter service not unlike the Tube, which is why it works so well. Taken together, Crossrail and Thameslink would provide the basis for such a system in London and a future diversification of routes is not out of the question. However, whatever else happens these services must all necessarily be suburban in nature and operate over relatively short distances, otherwise you end up with an overly large and flabby network with a vulnerable core subject to massive delays.

O L Leigh

 

[Minstral25]

While the desire to "do an RER" on London is commendable, it is operationally questionable. The RER is essentially a suburban commuter service not unlike the Tube, which is why it works so well. Taken together, Crossrail and Thameslink would provide the basis for such a system in London and a future diversification of routes is not out of the question. However, whatever else happens these services must all necessarily be suburban in nature and operate over relatively short distances, otherwise you end up with an overly large and flabby network with a vulnerable core subject to massive delays.

O L Leigh

Absolutely right - I do not understand why they are trying to make Thameslink this huge network rather than a simple suburban service that creates connections for the longer services.

How many people will travel from Peterborough to Brighton daily, very few but a huge number want Peterborough to London Terminals and from London Terminals to Brighton. It does not have to be the same train, if it is delays are inevitable...

 

[tripleseis]

Perhaps things will be better for Thameslink if you operated say just a core of:

Luton/Welwyn - Gatwick
Hertford - Sutton & Wimbeldon

Or vice-versa?

 

[tbtc]

To me, the main attraction with Thameslink is that:

1. (by diverting the Cambridge/ Peterborough/ Kent services through the tunnel) it frees up space at "Overground" termini, meaning potentially easier operation for long distance trains at Kings Cross etc

2. It turns the line through the centre of London into an Underground-frequency (the old eight an hour isn't as encouraging when passengers are used to only waiting a couple of minutes for the Northern Line), so should encourage passengers

It'd be nice to have an RER equivalent in London-, but there'd need to be some strict limits on it to maintain efficiency - some of the plans are a bit extreme.

In an ideal world I'd have:

North - South (Thameslink)
East West (Crossrail)
North West - South East (Bakerloo line extended to run Watford to the Dartford SE lines)
North East - South West (the "Great Northern" services using the Moorgate branch extended via the Waterloo & City line to cover SWT suburban services round Richmond/ Kingston/ Brentford)

Complete pie in the sky, and completely impractical, I know, but...

 

[LE Greys]

In an ideal world I'd have:

North - South (Thameslink)
East West (Crossrail)
North West - South East (Bakerloo line extended to run Watford to the Dartford SE lines)
North East - South West (the "Great Northern" services using the Moorgate branch extended via the Waterloo & City line to cover SWT suburban services round Richmond/ Kingston/ Brentford)

Complete pie in the sky, and completely impractical, I know, but...

There was once a plan to extend the Bakerloo to Camberwell (back when it did run from Watford). I could see it going onwards to Peckham, New Cross and Lewisham after that.
I doubt you'd be able to enlarge the tunnels on the Drain to fit 313s through, but it might be possible to extend the Docklands Bank service through to Waterloo, perhaps with an extra station at Blackfriars (where the Drain goes under the river). However, going beyond Waterloo might be tricky without doing something about the lift shaft (BTW, an M7 fell down that once).

The one I'd really want to see would be the HS1 domestic services reversing at St Pancras and running through onto the WCML, taking over the Northampton fasts perhaps. Then, when and if the HS2 Heathrow spur gets built, they could take over that, and perhaps an Aylesbury-Brackley-etc HS2 domestic service. The other would be a new Thameslink tunnel, as proposed in an old issue of Rail I saw once, that would run from St Pancras to Blackfriars via Grays Inn Road and Chancery Lane, thus opening up the Moorgate route for an extension of the Euston d.c. lines and City Thameslink as a major terminus for South East suburbans. Of course, this would negate all the work done already, but might be easier in the long-run.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But the vast majority of tickets sold at Stansted are for Tottenham Hale or London Terminals. While there are indeed folk travelling across London, these are actually few and far between. Nor are the many passengers necessarily travelling to or from Bank and "the City".

That could be because passengers from overseas (the majority who buy at Stansted) don't know that you can buy through tickets to anywhere else. I couldn't tell you without a survey, of course.

The vast majority of business passengers will be going for meetings/conferences in London, which usually means the City or Docklands. Those going to hotels using HEx (including tourists) tend to take taxi or tube connections from Paddington. There, you would have to buy a separate ticket anyway. Once again, you would need to do a survey.

It's outgoing passengers I'm considering, the ones who buy tickets at their local stations. That's one of the quirks of airport travel, people flying out tend to buy through tickets, which means that airport owners going on their own figures may not consider this - the same mistake the Beeching survey made about branch lines. Without access to the database, I couldn't possibly know what the figures are, but there must be a vast discrepancy. Does anyone know any more?

 

[tripleseis]

In an ideal world I'd have:
North West - South East (Bakerloo line extended to run Watford to the Dartford SE lines)

I think the plans/rumours are for the Bakerloo to run to Lewisham and then take over the Southeastern branch to Hayes and like you said extend north to Watford Junction again taking over the DC lines and hopefully interchanging with the Met if the Croxley link ever gets built.

North East - South West (the "Great Northern" services using the Moorgate branch extended via the Waterloo & City line to cover SWT suburban services round Richmond/ Kingston/ Brentford)

There's certainly a need for there to be another cross city surburban line. TfL have plans for the "Chelney" line running from Wimbledon over the existing District branch before diverging off into a new tube tunnel through the West End and City before coming out at Leytonstone and taking over the Epping branch of the Central Line. Also, I reckon a new mainline suburban tunnel could run between Euston and Waterloo with a station at TCR for Crossrail and one at Charing Cross, easing the Northern line's central section and allowing more through services to run from Watford Junction to the south/south west.

 

[LE Greys]

There's certainly a need for there to be another cross city surburban line. TfL have plans for the "Chelney" line running from Wimbledon over the existing District branch before diverging off into a new tube tunnel through the West End and City before coming out at Leytonstone and taking over the Epping branch of the Central Line. Also, I reckon a new mainline suburban tunnel could run between Euston and Waterloo with a station at TCR for Crossrail and one at Charing Cross, easing the Northern line's central section and allowing more through services to run from Watford Junction to the south/south west.

I take it you mean this.

While this sounds like a good idea in some ways, I wonder why they haven't considered sending it up-river from Chelsea towards Fulham, Barnes, Chiswick and the Brentford goods branch (unless it's still in use) to Southall. Possibly another branch could run via Isleworth to Heathrow. There doesn't seem to be any benefit by removing District services from Wimbledon, since they would still have to run to Parson's Green, although it might improve the service frequency a bit.

What would be good down there would be a shuttle from Wimbledon to Southfields to Waterloo during the tennis. I remember waiting at Southfields after a match and seeing a 4-VEP come zooming through. Not sure what was going on.

 

[swt_passenger]

It'd be nice to have an RER equivalent in London-, but there'd need to be some strict limits on it to maintain efficiency - some of the plans are a bit extreme.

In an ideal world I'd have:

North - South (Thameslink)
East West (Crossrail)

They could have come up with a totally different grouping of routes, and marketed Thameslink as the name for all north/south through travel, eg:

SN's WLL Milton Keynes - East Croydon (Sth Croydon 23rd May) as Thameslink West
Current Thameslink as Thameslink Central
ELL as Thameslink East

Isn't it odd how so many of those services go to Croydon though - maybe Croydon Rail would be better...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I remember waiting at Southfields after a match and seeing a 4-VEP come zooming through. Not sure what was going on.

Regular diagrammed moves. If you were there for a full day nowadays you'd see about a dozen SWT units pass through in one direction or the other, of which most would be ECS, but three would be in passenger service. The latter are very early and very late, but some ECS moves take place between the peaks...

 

[tbtc]

They could have come up with a totally different grouping of routes, and marketed Thameslink as the name for all north/south through travel, eg:

SN's WLL Milton Keynes - East Croydon (Sth Croydon 23rd May) as Thameslink West
Current Thameslink as Thameslink Central
ELL as Thameslink East

Isn't it odd how so many of those services go to Croydon though - maybe Croydon Rail would be better...

Maybe Crossrail will end up in Croydon too

 

[HITMAN]

Does anyone else think that prehaps routing a large amount of trains from a large amount of destinations through a double track tunnel in central london isn't the best recipe for a reliable service. I mean sure its a good idea but I can't help feeling that it would have been much better for them to quadruple the central thameslink section, which in turn would have allowed more trains to use it. Secondly, how are they managing to make it so expensive? As far as I can see they are basically lengthening a lot of platforms, rebuilding some stations, buying new rolling stock, building a flyover south of London bridge station and building a new viaduct. How therefore, does a goverment managed to spent the same amount as it did building the channel tunnel rail link?

 

[jopsuk]

A lot of the expense I'd have thought was involved in the St Pancras Thameslink station? Also, things such as "rebuilding some stations" and "buying new rolling stock" really are rather expensive

 

[LE Greys]

I think quadrupling is out, it's a bit difficult to find room horizontally without veering from the old alignment, so it would have to be directly underneath the existing tunnel. Perhaps better to divert away from the route altogether. Would it have been cheaper to cut a new tunnel or rebuild the old one? Either divert everything through the new tunnel or run the GN services through one and the MML services through the other.

 

[swt_passenger]

I think quadrupling is out, it's a bit difficult to find room horizontally without veering from the old alignment, so it would have to be directly underneath the existing tunnel. Perhaps better to divert away from the route altogether. Would it have been cheaper to cut a new tunnel or rebuild the old one? Either divert everything through the new tunnel or run the GN services through one and the MML services through the other.

Building a second cross river tunnel to completely avoid the Borough Market area was one of the proposals the objectors made during the original Thameslink 2000 enquiry, and it was found to be far more expensive.

The report is possibly online somewhere, but a quick google didn't find it.

 

[HITMAN]

A lot of the expense I'd have thought was involved in the St Pancras Thameslink station? Also, things such as "rebuilding some stations" and "buying new rolling stock" really are rather expensive

I agree, but this is costing the same price as the channel tunnel rail link, which involved far more. I suppose it would be possible to make a deep level tunnel from say St Pancras to somewhere near london bridge and then have fast and stopping services running between the two.

 

[Edvid]

I suspect the London Bridge rebuild alone will cost in excess of £1bn, given that the Blackfriars rebuild is currently priced at £350m.

The total TLP infrastructure budget is £3.55bn, the other £2bn is of course allocated to new rolling stock etc. Oh, and the StP TL station was paid for out of the CTRL pot I think, the fit-out cost about £70m.