Crossrail - WCML link

[oversteer]

Couldn't see another crossrail thread, so...

There seems to be talk about linking Crossrail to the WCML around the Old Oak Common area.
I noticed Brent council are supporting such a link ..

A new spur on Crossrail up onto the West Coast Mainline will enhance Wembley’s
accessibility to the national rail network, central London and Heathrow. This link is
important in seeking to attract inward investment to Wembley.

Does it just represent a pipe dream at present or is it actively being considered? Seem to see lots of references in meeting notes but nothing like a firm proposal.

Would it switch suburban traffic from the WCML e.g LO services to Watford - LM to Watford / Tring / even MK?

 

[transmanche]

There seems to be talk about linking Crossrail to the WCML around the Old Oak Common area.
I noticed Brent council are supporting such a link ..

Does it just represent a pipe dream at present or is it actively being considered? Seem to see lots of references in meeting notes but nothing like a firm proposal.

Well, over the years there has been lots of talk about a second western branch to Crossrail; whether to Amersham/Aylesbury or the WCML. All have been rejected.

However, time moves on. HS2 wasn't planned when the Crossrail route was finalised. The current Crossrail plans mean up to 14tph from the east will terminate at Paddington. Building an interchange station with HS2 would make it logical to extend the Crossrail terminators to there - but will require a few extra trains.

IMHO a second branch would be a good idea, to balance out the two eastern branches. Extending Crossrail services up the WCML may be a good idea... after HS2 opens. But only if the interchange station includes easy access to WLL, NLL and DC line services (as suggested here).

I imagine stopping trains to Tring might be a 'better fit' than trains as far as MK. (I think TfL have other plans for the DC lines.) And of course, it would need quite a few extra trains too.

 

[JamesRowden]

Well, over the years there has been lots of talk about a second western branch to Crossrail; whether to Amersham/Aylesbury or the WCML. All have been rejected.

However, time moves on. HS2 wasn't planned when the Crossrail route was finalised. The current Crossrail plans mean up to 14tph from the east will terminate at Paddington. Building an interchange station with HS2 would make it logical to extend the Crossrail terminators to there - but will require a few extra trains.

IMHO a second branch would be a good idea, to balance out the two eastern branches. Extending Crossrail services up the WCML may be a good idea... after HS2 opens. But only if the interchange station includes easy access to WLL, NLL and DC line services (as suggested here).

I imagine stopping trains to Tring might be a 'better fit' than trains as far as MK. (I think TfL have other plans for the DC lines.) And of course, it would need quite a few extra trains too.

The London and South East RUS suggests an eventual western Crossrail peak service of:

• 10tph Heathrow (skip stop pattern)
• 6tph GWML (skip stop pattern)
• 8tph WCML

In this pattern, no Crossrail services terminate at Paddington. The RUS concluded that such a high frequency Crossrail service to Heathrow would mean that the Heathrow express could be withdrawn to provide extra peak capacity for required extra Thames Valley fast services.

 

[tbtc]

My stock answer to this question is that Crossrail is going to have toiletless "metro" trains (with lots of standing room and a relatively small number of seats).

Okay for shortish journeys through/under London (i.e. equivalent to London Underground), but really not suitable for Milton Keynes or anywhere else further afield.

IMHO a second branch would be a good idea, to balance out the two eastern branches

There are going to be two western branches (Heathrow and Maidenhead) though

 

[asylumxl]

My stock answer to this question is that Crossrail is going to have toiletless "metro" trains (with lots of standing room and a relatively small number of seats).



Okay for shortish journeys through/under London (i.e. equivalent to London Underground), but really not suitable for Milton Keynes or anywhere else further afield.

Hence Tring has been mentioned. Euston to Tring is only 50 minutes, so shorter than some journeys SouthEastern operates with 376s.

 

[56077GD]

Another possible route linking to crossrail might be the West Ruislip line out to Beaconsfield, High Wycombe and maybe even to Banbury. This might also relieve pressure on the Central line between central London and West Ruislip. Although come to think of it this would almost certainly require electrification which would be expensive.

 

[mr_jrt]

Another possible route linking to crossrail might be the West Ruislip line out to Beaconsfield, High Wycombe and maybe even to Banbury. This might also relieve pressure on the Central line between central London and West Ruislip. Although come to think of it this would almost certainly require electrification which would be expensive.

I'd argue the money you'd spend on the tunnelled section and the associated changes to the very busy WCML would buy a lot of wiring on the Chiltern line.

 

[gordonthemoron]

Up Chiltern to Aylesbury, then East-West to Milton Keynes/Bedford

 

[snowball]

My stock answer to this question is that Crossrail is going to have toiletless "metro" trains

Your rolling stock answer?

 

[MarkyT]

My stock answer to this question is that Crossrail is going to have toiletless "metro" trains (with lots of standing room and a relatively small number of seats).

Okay for shortish journeys through/under London (i.e. equivalent to London Underground), but really not suitable for Milton Keynes or anywhere else further afield.

There are going to be two western branches (Heathrow and Maidenhead) though

Some would argue that Maidenhead is too far out already, perhaps trains should terminate at Slough or Windsor, though crossing the fast lines would be difficult.

An extra branch to WCML will need an additional tranche of rolling stock. Perhaps that could be specified WITH toilets for longer distance services (Reading and beyond / Milton Keynes) and the toilet-less units concentrated on the shorter hauls.

 

[edwin_m]

8TPH to the WCML suggests a lot more than the Tring terminators would be sent via Crossrail, raising as stated the concens about long journeys in Metro-type trains. Perhaps include the DC lines after all, although a ten-car set would be grossly in excess of current demand.

If the Crossrail connection met the WCML at Wembley then the Bakerloo could terminate there and have exclusive use of the DC lines to Queens Park. Crossrail trains could run non-stop from Paddington to Wembley then serve the DC line stations to Watford, which would get quicker journeys and more choice of London destinations, with some running fast to Tring instead. Trains to Milton Keynes and beyond could also call here for connections.

As usual the fly in the ointment is the Overground service between Queens Park and Euston.

 

[RichmondCommu]

My stock answer to this question is that Crossrail is going to have toiletless "metro" trains (with lots of standing room and a relatively small number of seats).

Okay for shortish journeys through/under London (i.e. equivalent to London Underground), but really not suitable for Milton Keynes or anywhere else further afield.

In other words longer versions of the Class 378!

 

[oversteer]

I saw it mentioned on London Reconnections and hence the post:

Mott McDonald has reported to the DfT on the Crossrail-WCML link. Two options are recommended, both using the central Crossrail turnback tracks. One option is to the Dudding Hill line then Acton Canal Wharf route, the other has a tunnel to connect with the WCML near Stonebridge. The latter is the recommended option thought it costs more, because journey times are quicker.

So if the reaction is positive, when would such a link be formalised in some way?

Didn't think about the toilets issue, but I wasn't assuming trains would run through from WCML onto Crossrail..maybe interchanging somewhere like OOC or Paddington

 

[mr_jrt]

Interesting ideas by a poster (Mark Townend) over at London Reconnections:
http://www.townend.me/files/willesdenjn1.pdf
http://www.townend.me/files/oldoak1.pdf

...just thought I'd share them here.

 

[swt_passenger]

In other words longer versions of the Class 378!

Impossible. The stated spec has 450 seats per ten car train. There has to be a significant proportion of 2+2 to get an average 45 seats per car - 378s have far less seats than that.

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

... but I wasn't assuming trains would run through from WCML onto Crossrail..maybe interchanging somewhere like OOC or Paddington

The London & SE RUS proposal was clearly to run 8 tph through trains off Crossrail to the WCML. After all the whole point is to use the unused capacity caused by the initial 14 tph tipping out t Paddington and running empty to the Westbourne Park reversing sidings.

 

[tbtc]

Hence Tring has been mentioned. Euston to Tring is only 50 minutes, so shorter than some journeys SouthEastern operates with 376s.

It is, but then its only a half hourly service.

Run eight trains an hour up the WCML might work as far as Watford (i.e. replacing the stoppers) but if you go much further you're going to have to replace services to Milton Keynes/ Northampton etc - which the "345" don't seem the ideal units to cater for.

Your rolling stock answer?

Some would argue that Maidenhead is too far out already, perhaps trains should terminate at Slough or Windsor, though crossing the fast lines would be difficult

It's a fair argument - I think that the ambitions of Thameslink (connecting places a hundred miles apart) have encouraged the idea of Crossrail running similarly long distances, but I see it more as an extension of the Underground - and Underground stock isn't going to work all the way to Reading etc.

In other words longer versions of the Class 378!

Impossible. The stated spec has 450 seats per ten car train. There has to be a significant proportion of 2+2 to get an average 45 seats per car - 378s have far less seats than that

I don't know the seating capacity of a 378 coach, but a lot of coaches with 2+2 seating could have around 75 seats even with room required for a toilet.

Presumably we are going to get large vestibules and some longitudal seating on 345s?