Elizabeth Line - future routes

[William3000]

The Elizabeth Line currently runs from Reading and Heathrow Airport in the west and Sheffield and Abbey Wood in the east. Is this the optimal scenario for flows and resilience or could there be some changes in the future? Presumably the fewer the routes the greater the resilience - Elizabeth Line is far more reliable than Thameslink which covers much greater distances and many more destinations.

But are there any changes that would make it more resilient and is there capacity for any future destinations. Personally I can’t really think of any but could there be any advantage of running trains beyond Abbey Road to somewhere like Dartford or Gravesend?

 

[SynthD]

It is officially set to extend to Dartford, at an undetermined time with undetermined funding, probably from home building

Other than that, it makes the most of two suburban routes, with minimal running of trains over both in the same journey. Extend the Heathrow branch to Staines, ideally on dedicated track with OHLE, funded by Heathrow.

 

[JonathanH]

It is officially set to extend to Dartford, at an undetermined time with undetermined funding, probably from home building

I think even that is an optimistic view. The option is admittedly safeguarded, but there are plenty of barriers to it happening.

This was the response to a mayoral question in 2024.

https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-ar...-an-answer/elizabeth-line-extension-ebbsfleet

Question

Elizabeth Line Extension to Ebbsfleet
What work has TfL done on the extension of the Elizabeth line to Ebbsfleet via Erith?

Answer

Date: Wednesday 29 May 2024

Recognising the Thames Gateway regeneration priorities, an extension from Abbey Wood to Gravesend and Hoo Junction, including a station at Erith, was safeguarded as part of the Crossrail Act 2008.

Local authorities in London and north Kent conducted a Government funded study to explore options to improve transport connectivity between Abbey Wood and Ebbsfleet/Gravesend to support new housing and employment growth. Transport for London (TfL) provided technical support to the study, with options consulted on including potential future extensions of Elizabeth line services from Abbey Wood to Northfleet/Ebbsfleet and Gravesend or from Abbey Wood to Dartford. In 2021, the C2E Partnership submitted the consultation information to Government as part of their Strategic Outline Business Case submission.

There are currently no plans by TfL to extend the railway beyond Abbey Wood. Should sufficient growth in north Bexley and north Kent be promoted by Government and sufficient funding be made available, an extension to Ebbsfleet could deliver benefits by supporting this growth. However, many technical, operational and financial challenges would need to be resolved, including the need to demonstrate that such an extension would not impact on the operability of the Elizabeth line.

But are there any changes that would make it more resilient

It would be hard to see how any extension could make it more resilient. If the operation has more points of failure then it becomes less resilient.

 

[The Pelican]

More resiliance could have been added by building four platforms at Whitechapel, so that either one of the two eastern branches could be operated seperately with a cross platform interchange to the remaining branch. This is a feature of the Northern Line junction at Kennington, although it would be hard to terminate Bank branch trains there and run Charing Cross line trains through because of the layout. Presumably it wasn't built like that because it would have cost a lot more.

 

[Cach17]

Fairly easy option: Divert some services east of Forest Gate to Barking via Woodgrange Park, providing a regular service between there and Stratford (there'd have to be platform extensions though).

Expensive option: Build a tunnel from Heathrow to Staines as an extension of the Lizzie (as SynthD suggests).

Fantastical/totally impractical option: Branch lines to Greenford, Marlow and Henley incorporated into the Lizzie (one can dream!).

 

[VT 390]

Fairly easy option: Divert some services east of Forest Gate to Barking via Woodgrange Park, providing a regular service between there and Stratford (there'd have to be platform extensions though).

Without adding these Barking services as extra services through the Crossrail core it would result in fewer services between Forest Gate and Shenfield with gaps of up to 16 minutes when the services at least as far as Romford are very well used so reducing the service is not ideal.

 

[Backroom_boy]

Expensive option: Build a tunnel from Heathrow to Staines as an extension of the Lizzie (as SynthD suggests)

I thought there was an abandoned track formation that could be used for some of it but looking at google maps it looks pretty much obliterated. Of all the pie in the sky proposals though, this seems one of the more achievable. (Not totally convinced Staines would be a massive traffic generator though, and its off the main swr route to Woking)

 

[Cach17]

I thought there was an abandoned track formation that could be used for some of it but looking at google maps it looks pretty much obliterated. Of all the pie in the sky proposals though, this seems one of the more achievable. (Not totally convinced Staines would be a massive traffic generator though, and its off the main swr route to Woking)

You're absolutely right about achievability (assuming financial considerations could be overcome).

(image shows map of an imagined rail route between Staines and Heathrow T5 overlaid on Google Maps (dotted section in tunnel))

 

[JonathanH]

You're absolutely right about achievability (assuming financial considerations could be overcome).

The fact that it traverses a Site of Special Scientific Interest also needs to be overcome - https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...beth-line-upgrades.291217/page-2#post-7449324

 

[Harpo]

New routes? Chilterns.

An incredibly expensive cross-London railway has been built with the nonsense of a large chunk of services going no further west than Paddington or Old Oak.

 

[JonathanH]

New routes? Chilterns.

An incredibly expensive cross-London railway has been built with the nonsense of a large chunk of services going no further west than Paddington or Old Oak.

Yes, but it has been built that way to ensure resilience. People only have to look at Thameslink to see what happens when services extend beyond the core.

 

[PeterC]

Yes, but it has been built that way to ensure resilience. People only have to look at Thameslink to see what happens when services extend beyond the core.

Quite right. Just leave the damn thing alone.

 

[D365]

Quite right. Just leave the damn thing alone.

It’s the seeming fascination/contradiction with making things bigger and bigger. See also: the never-ending ideas to extend Thameslink to Corby.

 

[MontyP]

More services to Heathrow would be good. Although I do understand the constraints that prevent this!

 

[Farigiraf]

More services to Heathrow would be good. Although I do understand the constraints that prevent this!

The 10 extra trains being built right now in preparation to Old Oak Common's opening should allow 4tph to Terminal 5 and possibly an increase in services to Terminal 4 as well. Certainly I suspect most (if not all) of the Shenfield-Paddington services will be extended west.

 

[JonathanH]

possibly an increase in services to Terminal 4 as well

What is the reoccupation time required between trains in different directions on the single line between Central and Terminal 4?

Certainly I suspect most (if not all) of the Shenfield-Paddington services will be extended west.

Isn't it a given that they will all reach Old Oak Common (other than at start / end of service) but not go further west?

 

[London Trains]

It’s the seeming fascination/contradiction with making things bigger and bigger. See also: the never-ending ideas to extend Thameslink to Corby.

I don't see what the problem with expanding the Elizabeth Line is, providing any extensions are entirely segregated from the rest of the rail network - anything that puts Elizabeth Line services running alongside other operators is a non-starter, and is exactly what the problem is with Thameslink.

Ignoring financial constraints, suggestions such as a Staines extension, running into a new bay platform and having no interaction with SWR services, or an extension to Dartford which completely takes over the existing line between Abbey Wood and Slade Green and runs on a new line from there to Dartford, thus having no interaction with Southeastern services, are inherently good ideas, but any idea of putting the Elizabeth Line onto the existing lines alongside SWR/Southeastern services in these areas are very poor and should not take place under any circumstances.

 

[A S Leib]

If more of the Great Eastern Main Line was quadruple-track, I'd say extending at least alternating Shenfield trains to Chelmsford.

As things are, flows between Chelmsford and the stations between Shenfield and Stratford (except maybe Romford) are much smaller than, for example, Watford Junction to Harrow, Wembley, and Willesden, the performance risk's too high, and I think Chelmsford's distance makes it too far to be desirable for an all-stations London service unless there's a large market for direct and only direct Ilford services.

 

[Magdalia]

As things are, flows between Chelmsford and the stations between Shenfield and Stratford (except maybe Romford) are much smaller than, for example, Watford Junction to Harrow, Wembley, and Willesden

This isn't a relevant comparison.

From Watford it is 6 miles to Harrow and 10 miles to Wembley.

From Chelmsford it is 17 miles to Romford and 22 miles to Ilford.

If more of the Great Eastern Main Line was quadruple-track, I'd say extending at least alternating Shenfield trains to Chelmsford.

But there won't be 4 tracks into Chelmsford.

 

[JonathanH]

If more of the Great Eastern Main Line was quadruple-track, I'd say extending at least alternating Shenfield trains to Chelmsford.

Even if it were quadruple track (and clearly it doesn't look in any way likely to be), the reality is demand only really justifies alternate services beyond Gidea Park. Running them all to Shenfield is about operational resilience. The further nine miles to Chelmsford doesn't reflect any perceived demand.

 

[Magdalia]

It’s the seeming fascination/contradiction with making things bigger and bigger. See also: the never-ending ideas to extend Thameslink to Corby.

The GE end of the Elizabeth Line definitely needs to be kept just as it is.

Even if it were quadruple track (and clearly it doesn't look in any way likely to be), the reality is demand only really justifies alternate services beyond Gidea Park. Running them all to Shenfield is about operational resilience. The further nine miles to Chelmsford doesn't reflect any perceived demand.

Running all trains to/from Shenfield is good for connections to/from both the GEML and the Southend line.

 

[JonathanH]

Running all trains to/from Shenfield is good for connections to/from both the GEML and the Southend line.

Yes, but if it was every 15 minutes, people would cope. As it is, I agree that running them all to Shenfield (and no further) is good for passengers and operational matters. There is basically always a unit waiting at Shenfield, and so aligning connection times with the other routes don't really matter.

 

[Southend Rider]

The current setup works fine, great connections at Shenfield. If the GA services were replaced by Lizzy line the trains would be full and standing leaving Shenfield. If the GA services are kept what’s the point.

 

[MatthewHutton]

New routes? Chilterns.

An incredibly expensive cross-London railway has been built with the nonsense of a large chunk of services going no further west than Paddington or Old Oak.

The only thing you could do that would add some service risk but might be worth it is running two trains an hour from Old Oak Common calling at Gerrards Cross, Beaconsfield, High Wycombe, Princes Risborough, Monks Risborough (1tph), Little Kimble (1tph), Stoke Mandeville Hospital, Aylesbury, Aylesbury Vale Parkway, Winslow, Bletchley and Milton Keynes and maybe another 2tph calling at Greenford, South Ruislip and West Ruislip.

The challenge with running much more service than that pretty limited amount is how do you avoid clashing with the existing service on the chiltern mainline? And a lot of the other stops have extremely small ridership.

 

[JonathanH]

The only thing you could do that would add some service risk but might be worth it is running two trains an hour from Old Oak Common calling at Gerrards Cross, Beaconsfield, High Wycombe, Princes Risborough, Monks Risborough (1tph), Little Kimble (1tph), Stoke Mandeville Hospital, Aylesbury, Aylesbury Vale Parkway, Winslow, Bletchley and Milton Keynes and maybe another 2tph calling at Greenford, South Ruislip and West Ruislip.

Are you suggesting electrification of the route from Old Oak Common to Milton Keynes via Aylesbury for two trains an hour using 9-car 345s?

 

[MatthewHutton]

Are you suggesting electrification of the route from Old Oak Common to Milton Keynes via Aylesbury for two trains an hour using 9-car 345s?

Yes I guess so. But it’s probably worth doing anyway.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Fairly easy option: Divert some services east of Forest Gate to Barking via Woodgrange Park, providing a regular service between there and Stratford (there'd have to be platform extensions though).

That option is not easy at all, unless you don't mind chaos. The section of route between Woodgrange Park and Barking is already busy with 4 London Overground trains an hour in each direction plus numerous freight trains to/from Tilbury and London Gateway. Forest Gate Junction is not grade separated so sending several trains an hour over it would substantially reduce capacity on the very busy Electric Lines.

 

[JonathanH]

Yes I guess so. But it’s probably worth doing anyway.

There are previous discussions about it being unlikely that the Chiltern Line will ever see full electrification in the battery age. As it is, I think that running Old Oak Common to Milton Keynes would be a four hour round trip, so that is eight 345s needed running through open countryside for the main part. Getting funding for that is unlikely.

Any extension or future route would need to justify the cost of the extra 345s required, on the basis of their use on that extension.

 

[Uncle Buck]

Yes I guess so. But it’s probably worth doing anyway.

With all due respect, it is very much not worth doing it. The volume of delays that may be imported is very high, especially for the limited number of services that would actually be run.

There is no need for the Elizabeth Line to run from everywhere to everywhere via a single tunnel in central London. The repeated delays on Thameslink are testament to that. Milton Keynes is far away from London; it should not be on the London rapid-transit network; it is fairly well-served by regional trains.

 

[MatthewHutton]

With all due respect, it is very much not worth doing it. The volume of delays that may be imported is very high, especially for the limited number of services that would actually be run.

There is no need for the Elizabeth Line to run from everywhere to everywhere via a single tunnel in central London. The repeated delays on Thameslink are testament to that. Milton Keynes is far away from London; it should not be on the London rapid-transit network; it is fairly well-served by regional trains.

In which case it's not worth doing the Chilterns at all!