High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[HSTEd]

Falkirk already has a 15-minute frequency Glasgow and Edinburgh service. Glasgow-Edinburgh in general is very well served with 11 trains per hour across 4 different routes. There is also the possibility of a further 2 Glasgow-Edinburgh trains on the current infrastructure with a journey time of 37 minutes, but that was recently kicked into the long grass. If any HS line between Glasgow and Edinburgh has an intermediate stop, it is not going to be much faster than the committed 2016 time of 40 minutes.

No, they could manage 19 minutes without the intermediate stop and 24 minutes with, this is the sort of Performance that Shinkansen trainsets put in every day of the year in Japan.

75+% axles motored can achieve incredible aceleration

 

[vtiman]

With more paths identified on the WCML the need for HS2 is dimminishing rapidly and the ECML can cope when extra lines adjacent to it are wired,(TP)I think that this government will want to spend money on new roads ,airports ,houses etc not a white eliphant rail link.Just listen to the ministers and you will see the way things are going.

you dont really believe this do you ? the west coast line is expected to be AT CAPACITY by the time hs2 opens. there may well be paths left NOW but i dont know how anyone can say that FIRST being announced as new franchise holder can possibly mean that hs2 is not needed. it proves the opposite as they are expecting passenger numbers to increase 10.4% versus virgins 8.5%. and the numbers the dft used to calculate the need for hs2 ??? 5.8% ! so first groups numbers are nearly DOUBLE the numbers used by dft to support the need for hs2

and why do you believe that we need more runways because the airports are nearly full yet say that a new rail line isnt needed even though the existing lines are nearly full ? it isnt logical. if anything an extra runway at heathrow would provide more passengers for hs2 which with a direct heathrow link can replace domestic interlining with interrailing.

 

[trainplan1]

With more paths identified on the WCML

Really? I'd love to know where they are...

the ECML can cope when extra lines adjacent to it are wired

Again where and what lines? If anything the ECML right now is more of an issue than the WCML in terms of current capacity. Putting a few wires up is an ideal rather than a long term solution.

 

[CalumCookable]

I wonder where the user "aylesbury" lives...

The government has specifically ruled out any more large-scale road building.
EDIT: I see you were referring to the Scottish Government, which does indeed have a number of road projects. They are also investing in new railway lines, stations, and electrification. Scottish Governments/Executives of all political parties have been very pro-rail.

 

[brianthegiant]

I think that this government will want to spend money on new roads ,airports ,houses etc not a white eliphant rail link.Just listen to the ministers and you will see the way things are going.

Really? Given there is cross party support for HS2, unlike for airport expansion?
If HS2 wont be built why did Cameron drop Cheryl Gillan from the cabinet before she could make her threatened protest resignation?

Oh well, let the Aylesbury Vale can carry on with wishful thinking (and mis-spelling elephant), meanwhile the rest of us can get on with building a decent transport infrastructure for the rest of the UK

 

[Nym]

Do you mean the Watford DCs? I heard that these would either revert to Bakerloo only, or be coverted to OHLE and tunnelled under Euston to who-knows-where for Crossrail 3 (possibly Waterloo).

Oh right, it's the semi-fasts to Milton Keynes. Would be a great way to soak up some of Crossrail's wasted capacity and release space for HS2. An "Oakden" interchange? Exciting!

I know it's old, but to clarify, I'm on about any service that terminates at or south of Tring from Euston.

I'd see the remaining services looking something like:

xx:04 Tring over to Crossrail
xx:17 Watford DC over to Crossrail
xx:34 Tring over to Crossrail
xx:37 Watford DC over to Crossrail
xx:57 Watford DC over to Crossrail

xx:13 Birmingham New Street
xx:24 Milton Keynes Central
xx:46 Crewe
xx:54 Birmingham New Street

With an additional 2tph to Watford Junction on the Slow AC lines, slotting in at roughly xx:19 (Forward calc) and xx:49 (Forward Calc) either being held on approach to Willesden to slot in behind the Birmingham and Crewe services, or running infront of them and getting out the way in time at Watford Junction, alternatively, the aforementioned services can run on the fasts, space permitting.
The DC Lines would move up to a 4tph service pattern between Wembley Central (Assuming joining the DC lines by extension of the old "F" sidings at Wembley) and Watford Junction. Giving the WCML 8tph feeding onto Crossrail via Willesden, with the calling pattern of the Bakerloo line adjusted to make space, most services extending to Wembley up to 12tph, with the loss of DC services between Willseden and Euston being accounted for by a new service via Primrose Hill from Willsesden Junction to Stratford / East London Line.

Calling patterns would be something like:

Bakerloo, as is, possible adjustment for 4tph Crossrail.
Slows: 4tph Tring All stations AC Slow: to include Watford Junction, Bushey, Harrow and Weldstone, Wembley Central, Willsden/Old Oak Common, Crossrail.
DCs: All stations Watford Junction to Wembley, leaving the DCs between Wembley and Stonbridge Park via the old F Sidings, with a new bridge, where the services from the AC Slows would meet by use of the Freight underpass, proceeding onto the dedicated platforms on the South of Willesden Junction / North of Old Oak Common, between the current Willesden and the new Old Oak Common, before joining the Crossrail lines East of Old Oak Common.

If possible, provide extensive reversing sidings at Wembley on the DC and/or AC lines, to allow additional crossrail, Euston and possibly Paddington services to run to Wembley for events.

 

[D365]

Ah, from what I have read previously is that Milton Keynes semi-fasts would run through to Crossrail. With 16tph to spare as is planned (terminating at Paddington low-level, with 4tph replacing stoppers to Maidenhead and 4tph replacing HC), a Crossrail link would be a great idea to release capacity in Euston. What could be done with the surplus 378s though?

 

[Nym]

What could be done with the surplus 378s though?

Sod all, the route is operated by 350s and the odd 321...

Personally, i think that MKC is too far out to sit within Crossrail's remit, the furthest limit IMO would be Tring and High Wycolme...

The 378s on the DC line though would proberbly be found elsewhere strengthening services.

 

[DXMachina]

It'll only be a matter of time before someone suggests the Croxley Rail Link for Crossrail to circle back to Paddington via the Met and GCML link, on the grounds that Hemel Hempstead has no bay platforms and few locations past it justify the route.

Is there any genuine - IE linkable to - planning for future absorptions of suburban rail into the Crossrail scope? or is it all speculation?

 

[Nym]

I don't think the croxley link will see anything like that, the best I'd hope for would be either some shorter S Stock or some other form of SSR stock in shorter formation (4 car) or an order of additional 4th rail compatable Class 378s to run between Ammersham and Watford Junction using the Watford North Curve, since nothing will be able to run direct via the South curve onto the Croxley Link as this is not being re-instated on any of the plans I have looked at in the panning concent.

 

[DXMachina]

No, nor do I think it will - my point was that all sorts of speculation about vaguely-possible-but-unlikely routes is coming up....

I'd lean towards some intermediate WCML services going down there too but which? no idea and not sure anyone does.

 

[Nym]

All I can think of coming are more services running up the top end of the DC lines and 2tph each to WFJ and Ammersham, if we end up with Crossrail running onto the DC lines as I have discribed previously, it could see some skip stop running on one or more of the services to run through trains via the DC lines and onto Ammersham with the curve installed, but I can't see it happening before CP6, or if the CRL Project works wonders and we have masses of popularity on the route, triggering further TfL and HCC investment.

 

[The Ham]

If GB is too small for a high speed rail route; what about Denmark:

http://railfuture.org.uk/article1299

 

[dviner]

... Hemel Hempstead has no bay platforms ...

Actually, it does have the remains of a bay, but I doubt that it's long enough. Of course, you could redevelop the station, turning platform 4 into an island platform, and put in a full-length 12-car bay platform (on stilts where necessary).

 

[DXMachina]

<-- born in Hemel Hempstead, lived there 26 years

That bay platform was designed for a steam railmotor and used for a single parcels van on occasion. Its not big enough by far, and its in the wrong place....

 

[Philip Elliott]

If GB is too small for a high speed rail route; what about Denmark:

http://railfuture.org.uk/article1299

From the article:

A symbolic start was made today (6 September 2012) on building a new rail line in Denmark capable of taking trains up to 155 mph.

The 40-mile new line will also provide a high speed route to the Femarn Link and allow 110 mph inter-city trains to avoid the old line, where they are often held up by dense traffic.

It is hardly a high speed line more of Intercity 'bypass'. The Chiltern line could be looked on in the same fashion - it was much quicker and relieved the main line to Birmingham via Oxford.

 

[The Ham]

It is hardly a high speed line more of Intercity 'bypass'. The Chiltern line could be looked on in the same fashion - it was much quicker and relieved the main line to Birmingham via Oxford.

Aren't all high speed line Intercity bypasses?

Designed to do the same as a road bypass seperate local traffic for an area from long distance traffic passing through so neither are frustrated by the other.

 

[WatcherZero]

From the article:





It is hardly a high speed line more of Intercity 'bypass'. The Chiltern line could be looked on in the same fashion - it was much quicker and relieved the main line to Birmingham via Oxford.

Your mising the word 'Also'

 

[dviner]

<-- born in Hemel Hempstead, lived there 26 years

That bay platform was designed for a steam railmotor and used for a single parcels van on occasion. Its not big enough by far, and its in the wrong place....

I did mention that I didn't think it was big enough!

However, throw enough civil engineering at it and you could just squeeze in a Platform 5 on stilts above the existing booking hall.

Besides, what's wrong with having the bay off the up slow (apart from having to move the down slow/up slow s&c further towards Apsley, the enormous amount of concrete involved in slapping in the extended bays, doing something about the portals, carving chunks out of the car park, demolishing buildings and probably doing some stuff to an over bridge or two...)

 

[tbtc]

Is there any genuine - IE linkable to - planning for future absorptions of suburban rail into the Crossrail scope? or is it all speculation?

Mainly froth, at the moment.

Crossrail is a simple all-stations service with few seats on board (compared to the length of the train) and no toilets.

It really wouldn't suit most of the excitable ideas that I've seen for it (through trains from Oxford to Cambridge etc).

If it expands then the logical places are further along the Thames Valley, further into Kent, further into Essex, beyond Heathrow rather than whole new spurs.

 

[Greenback]

Mainly froth, at the moment.

Crossrail is a simple all-stations service with few seats on board (compared to the length of the train) and no toilets.

Would it be fair to say that Crossrail is more RER than Inter City?

 

[tbtc]

Would it be fair to say that Crossrail is more RER than Inter City?

Very fair.

I think the expansion of Thameslink has encouraged people to see Crossrail as something longer distance, when the reality is that it's more of a second Central Line.

 

[DXMachina]

Mainly froth, at the moment.

Crossrail is a simple all-stations service with few seats on board (compared to the length of the train) and no toilets.

It really wouldn't suit most of the excitable ideas that I've seen for it (through trains from Oxford to Cambridge etc).

If it expands then the logical places are further along the Thames Valley, further into Kent, further into Essex, beyond Heathrow rather than whole new spurs.

Thanks, I did wonder...

Talk of the Watford DC's going down there baffled me as it's previously been stated that these will be 3rd-rail only for the foreseeable future due to clearance issues in the LNWR tunnels they use near Euston meaning no possibility of 25kv.. and CR stock will beAC only....

 

[Nym]

Thanks, I did wonder...

Talk of the Watford DC's going down there baffled me as it's previously been stated that these will be 3rd-rail only for the foreseeable future due to clearance issues in the LNWR tunnels they use near Euston meaning no possibility of 25kv.. and CR stock will beAC only....

Theres a big bit of hint there, "Near Euston" if XR extends onto the DC lines then it will be joining at Willesden on the actual route, and the route I have done a quick look around wouldn't have it actually joining the route until Wembley Central, having run via southernmost lines from Willesden to Wembley depots, with services to the DC lines using a newly extended F Siding to join after the DC lines dive under the rest of the lines, and the others using the diveunder around the depots before the F sidings to join the slow lines.

EDIT: Attached a basic (and quick) route diagram to show kindof what I'm on about.

So Euston wouldn't come into any part of (my design of) plans for extending crossrail onto the lines to/through Watford Junction.

Changes to the service pattern on the Bakerloo would proberbly result, as would a new service shuttling from either Queens Park or Willesden Junction to Euston or Camden Road via Primrose Hill, the latter likely extending via Dalston Junction to the West London Line or onwards to Stratford from Camden Road.

 

[Batman]

Theres a big bit of hint there, "Near Euston" if XR extends onto the DC lines then it will be joining at Willesden on the actual route, and the route I have done a quick look around wouldn't have it actually joining the route until Wembley Central, having run via southernmost lines from Willesden to Wembley depots, with services to the DC lines using a newly extended F Siding to join after the DC lines dive under the rest of the lines, and the others using the diveunder around the depots before the F sidings to join the slow lines.

EDIT: Attached a basic (and quick) route diagram to show kindof what I'm on about.

So Euston wouldn't come into any part of (my design of) plans for extending crossrail onto the lines to/through Watford Junction.

Changes to the service pattern on the Bakerloo would proberbly result, as would a new service shuttling from either Queens Park or Willesden Junction to Euston or Camden Road via Primrose Hill, the latter likely extending via Dalston Junction to the West London Line or onwards to Stratford from Camden Road.

So let me get this straight. Are these tunnels designed to find an alternative destination for the cross rail trains that are due to terminate at Paddington? And will that in tern help reduce the number of passengers using Euston so that the station won't be overwhelmed once HS2 arrives?

 

[DXMachina]

As far as I can see the only solid proposal has been that London Midland MK-Euston services should be transferred to Crossrail and that the DC lines service should be withdrawn south of Queens' Park

 

[Nym]

So let me get this straight. Are these tunnels designed to find an alternative destination for the cross rail trains that are due to terminate at Paddington? And will that in tern help reduce the number of passengers using Euston so that the station won't be overwhelmed once HS2 arrives?

Then plan I came up with does the following:

Services on crossrail currently looking at terminating at Paddington or Old Oak Common will be extended to run onto the West Coast Mainline.

These services will take the form of two Tring terminators and two new services to Watford Junction per hour, also taking the DC line services over from the line North of Wembley Central.

Services affected:

xx:04 Euston to Tring:
Service will be diverted in and out of London Euston to run via Crossrail and into Paddinton, south of Watford Junction would call at Bushey, Harrow and Weldstone, Wembley Central, Old Oak Common Compex, Onwards through Crossrail.

xx:13 Euston to Birmingham New Street via Northampton:
Service will remain as is, potentially inseting a stop at Watford Junction but this will not affect my XR proposal.

xx:24 Euston to Milton Keynes Central:
Service remains unaffected, will be running behind a service (equivilant of xx:19 off Euston ex. Crossrail that will call at the usual stations, and terminate at Watford Junction)

xx:34 Euston to Tring:
Service will be diverted in and out of London Euston to run via Crossrail and into Paddinton, south of Watford Junction would call at Bushey, Harrow and Weldstone, Wembley Central, Old Oak Common Compex, Onwards through Crossrail.

xx:46 Euston to Crewe and Birmingham New Street:
Remains unaffected by this proposal, would potentially be re-timed to xx:43 to prevent clashing with the assitional service running at the xx:49 to Watford Junction terminator.

xx:54 Euston to Northampton:
Service will be unaffected by these service changes, as will all services running beyond Tring.

Services remaining to run from Euston:
xx:13 to Birmingham New Street
xx:24 to Milton Keynes Central
xx:46 to Birmingham New Street and Crewe
xx:54 to Northampton

To run in the oppersite 15min gaps to the current Tring terminators, either two addtional Tring services would run (and result in the removal of stops from LM services, all would now only call at Watford Junction, Tring, Cheddington, Leighton Buzzard, Bletchley (etc.)) or these additional services terminate at Watford Junction with stops remaining on LM services that run North of Tring.

This would releive Euston to 2tph from the AC slows, doesn't sound like much but does present a significant amount of passengers, if the Crossrail services are to be run as I see them happening, then going any further out that Tring with the specified design would not be appropriate.

What I'd come up with for the DC lines is slightly more complex, and would require more services to move around, but would speed up journies from stations north of Wembley on the DC lines.

4tph would run from Crossrail onto the DC lines, these would join and leave the DC line service pattern at Wembley Central, having joined the line by extention of the F Sidings with an additional bridge over the North Circular, with a reversing siding being provided North of Wembley Central on the AC Slows and DC Lines, the former for crossrail services not running North of Wembley (Rather than terminating at Paddington, or during events at Wembley) and on the DC lines for the terminating of some Bakerloo services.

Rather than explaining the change in more detail, I'll just summarise the DC line service pattern after I have made (my proposed) changes as a result of Crossrail Intergration.

4tph Crossrail: Paddington - Old Oak Common - (Join the current DC Lines via the extended F sidings) - Wembley Central - All Stations - Watford Junction.

Some tph: Willesden or Queens Park to Euston or Camden Road via Primrose Hill, the latter would see services continuing to Stratford or East London Line destinations.

Bakerloo Line: Additional services (with the implementation of NGDL Tube Stock) will continue to Harrow & Weldstone and/or Wembley Central to connect with the improved Crossrail services, and help maintain local services lost by the crossrail diversion of DC line services, the only loosers would be those travelling from stations North of H&W to stations South of Wembley Central, catered for by changing at Wembley.

All in all, it removes some services from Euston, if all services extend to Tring, there is the potential to drop the longer distance to all 12 car operation with more splitting at Milton Keynes Central, Northampton or Rugby. Such as a core of 2tph to Birmingham New Street with a standardised calling pattern south of Milton Keynes, North of Milton Keynes services will split for their alternate destinations, intermediate stops could be picked up by new local services, or a service split.

 

[Batman]

Then plan I came up with does the following:

Services on crossrail currently looking at terminating at Paddington or Old Oak Common will be extended to run onto the West Coast Mainline.

These services will take the form of two Tring terminators and two new services to Watford Junction per hour, also taking the DC line services over from the line North of Wembley Central.

Services affected:

xx:04 Euston to Tring:
Service will be diverted in and out of London Euston to run via Crossrail and into Paddinton, south of Watford Junction would call at Bushey, Harrow and Weldstone, Wembley Central, Old Oak Common Compex, Onwards through Crossrail.

xx:13 Euston to Birmingham New Street via Northampton:
Service will remain as is, potentially inseting a stop at Watford Junction but this will not affect my XR proposal.

xx:24 Euston to Milton Keynes Central:
Service remains unaffected, will be running behind a service (equivilant of xx:19 off Euston ex. Crossrail that will call at the usual stations, and terminate at Watford Junction)

xx:34 Euston to Tring:
Service will be diverted in and out of London Euston to run via Crossrail and into Paddinton, south of Watford Junction would call at Bushey, Harrow and Weldstone, Wembley Central, Old Oak Common Compex, Onwards through Crossrail.

xx:46 Euston to Crewe and Birmingham New Street:
Remains unaffected by this proposal, would potentially be re-timed to xx:43 to prevent clashing with the assitional service running at the xx:49 to Watford Junction terminator.

xx:54 Euston to Northampton:
Service will be unaffected by these service changes, as will all services running beyond Tring.

Services remaining to run from Euston:
xx:13 to Birmingham New Street
xx:24 to Milton Keynes Central
xx:46 to Birmingham New Street and Crewe
xx:54 to Northampton

To run in the oppersite 15min gaps to the current Tring terminators, either two addtional Tring services would run (and result in the removal of stops from LM services, all would now only call at Watford Junction, Tring, Cheddington, Leighton Buzzard, Bletchley (etc.)) or these additional services terminate at Watford Junction with stops remaining on LM services that run North of Tring.

This would releive Euston to 2tph from the AC slows, doesn't sound like much but does present a significant amount of passengers, if the Crossrail services are to be run as I see them happening, then going any further out that Tring with the specified design would not be appropriate.

What I'd come up with for the DC lines is slightly more complex, and would require more services to move around, but would speed up journies from stations north of Wembley on the DC lines.

4tph would run from Crossrail onto the DC lines, these would join and leave the DC line service pattern at Wembley Central, having joined the line by extention of the F Sidings with an additional bridge over the North Circular, with a reversing siding being provided North of Wembley Central on the AC Slows and DC Lines, the former for crossrail services not running North of Wembley (Rather than terminating at Paddington, or during events at Wembley) and on the DC lines for the terminating of some Bakerloo services.

Rather than explaining the change in more detail, I'll just summarise the DC line service pattern after I have made (my proposed) changes as a result of Crossrail Intergration.

4tph Crossrail: Paddington - Old Oak Common - (Join the current DC Lines via the extended F sidings) - Wembley Central - All Stations - Watford Junction.

Some tph: Willesden or Queens Park to Euston or Camden Road via Primrose Hill, the latter would see services continuing to Stratford or East London Line destinations.

Bakerloo Line: Additional services (with the implementation of NGDL Tube Stock) will continue to Harrow & Weldstone and/or Wembley Central to connect with the improved Crossrail services, and help maintain local services lost by the crossrail diversion of DC line services, the only loosers would be those travelling from stations North of H&W to stations South of Wembley Central, catered for by changing at Wembley.

All in all, it removes some services from Euston, if all services extend to Tring, there is the potential to drop the longer distance to all 12 car operation with more splitting at Milton Keynes Central, Northampton or Rugby. Such as a core of 2tph to Birmingham New Street with a standardised calling pattern south of Milton Keynes, North of Milton Keynes services will split for their alternate destinations, intermediate stops could be picked up by new local services, or a service split.

Sounds like good stuff. But could it have the effect of overloading cross rail with passenger, especially at peak time if all services are extended beyond Paddington?

And are you suggesting this as a cheaper alternative to the more radical Crossrail 2 & 3 proposals for dealing with passenger dispersal at Euston post HS2?

And just to confirm, this is all high in the sky fantasy world stuff, and is not being seriously considered by NR, DfT, TfL etc...?

 

[Nym]

Sounds like good stuff. But could it have the effect of overloading cross rail with passenger, especially at peak time if all services are extended beyond Paddington?

And are you suggesting this as a cheaper alternative to the more radical Crossrail 2 & 3 proposals for dealing with passenger dispersal at Euston post HS2?

And just to confirm, this is all high in the sky fantasy world stuff, and is not being seriously considered by NR, DfT, TfL etc...?

At the moment it's all my fantasy, but is has good foundation in proposals mentioned by the DfT and Network Rail, "Sending WCML services" down through Crossrail.

From what I have read of the likes of Crossrail 2, this would be running from Clapham Junction onto the Lee Valley Lines out of Liverpool Street, and won't be touching Ex. Euston services.
In addition to this, the pressure is needing to be taken off Euston ASAP, and the Crossrail 1 lines at Old Oak Common can easilly be linked for something under the £100m mark into the WCML via Willesden Junction, using the southernmost set of lines, making use of the current underpass at Wembley, with the extension of the F Sidings and an additional bridge to access the DC lines I'm estimating at under £50m, the expensive part of linking in the DC lines would be all the platform extensions required.

Regarding 'overloading' the number of passengers being taken away from Euston directly is not THAT significant, but the problem can come from loadings in central London stations in the evening peak, as they may be waiting on platform for up to 15mins for a service, with differing services running out of the Western end of Crossrail.

Now, this will be a problem whatever happens, the Eastern end shouldn't have too many problems with only two destinations and standard calling patterns, but the Western End will have groups of 4tph service groups. Such as 4tph to Heathrow, 4tph to Maidenhead, 4tph to Slough etc. One would hope this would give a standard set of Calling Branches, each running at 4tph, shown on the crossrail map.

The same deal with Thameslink, I can see massive problems with platform crowding, but with regards to on train crowding, I can't see this happening as much as platforms, but the timetables need to run properly.

Say for example, we have this kind of core 4tph patterns, with each 'route' running at a minimum of 4tph.

So on the Western End, we'd have: (Assuming a Reading extension, and West Drayton being dropped, or enhanced)

4tph Heathrow Airport (All with the same calling pattern)
4tph Maidenhead (All with the same calling pattern)
4tph Reading (All with the same calling pattern)

Giving 12tph.

Then over to the WCML

4tph to Tring, possibly terminating 2tph at Watford Junction.

Overall now having 16tph, still with 8tph to assign from the core 24tph.

So we could use West Drayton for another 4tph, send services via Northolt and electrify the Chiltern to High Wycome for 4tph, or use the DC lines for 4tph.

Basically, we need platforms big enough to store 6 trains worth of passengers that will be travelling beyond Old Oak Common, or if only 4 groups will do this and 2 groups will terminate at Paddington or OOC, then 4 trains worth of pax travelling beyond OOC. With an assumed capacity of each train being 1000 pax, but only approximately half of these (pure estimate) travelling beyond Paddington, we'd need platform space to store some 2000 passengers and enable flow of all core station passengers that don't care what train they're getting on.

Now, one could reduce the 'standing passengers' by having more services, running onto the outer core routes, for example:

8tph will run to Airport Junction and 8tph to Watford Junction, with the majority of commuting passengers jumping ship before the end of these outer core sections, meaning that the core station platforms will only need to hold two or three units worth of passengers, with the only people needing to wait for more than 7.5mins being those travelling beyond the outer core stations on each branch.

Either way, I fear I've lost most people here and any further discussion will be by prompt.

And finally, I'm not worried about Central London capacity any more so than that of the Thameslink Network...

 

[tbtc]

if XR extends onto the DC lines then it will be joining at Willesden on the actual route

But it won't. Not any time soon.