How could Crossrail (Elizabeth Line) services be improved/extended?

[PGAT]

From my observations you can't 4 track the whole Abbey Wood - Dartford section. As much as we would like to see it, ThamesLink aren't leaving so here's whats most likely:

Elizabeth Line: (off-peak)
4tph Heathrow T4 - Dartford
2tph Maidenhead - Dartford
2tph Reading - Abbey Wood

Elizabeth Line: (peak)
4tph Heathrow T4 - Dartford
2tph Maidenhead - Dartford
2tph Reading - Dartford (semi-fast)
2tph Reading - Abbey Wood
2tph Paddington/Old Oak Common - Abbey Wood

Thameslink and SouthEastern: (off-peak)
2tph Luton - Rainham (TL via Abbey Wood)
2tph Victoria - Dartford (SE via Bexleyheath)
2tph Cannon Street - Gravesend (SE via Lewisham and Abbey Wood)
2tph Charing Cross - Crayford (SE via Sidcup, returning to Charing Cross via Bexleyheath)
2tph Charing Cross - Gravesend (SE via Sidcup)
2tph Cannon Street - Slade Green (SE via Greenwich, returning to Cannon Street via Bexleyheath)

Thameslink and SouthEastern: (peak)
2tph Luton - Rainham (TL via Abbey Wood)
2tph Victoria - Dartford (SE via Bexleyheath)
2tph Cannon Street - Gravesend (SE via Lewisham and Abbey Wood)
2tph Charing Cross - Crayford (SE via Sidcup, returning to Charing Cross via Bexleyheath)
2tph Charing Cross - Gravesend (SE via Sidcup)
2tph Cannon Street - Slade Green (SE via Greenwich, returning to Cannon Street via Sidcup)
2tph Cannon Street - Slade Green (SE via Greenwich, returning to Cannon Street via Bexleyheath)

Belvedere and Erith would be served by the Cannon Street - Gravesend service (as it is currently) and the 4tph to Heathrow T4 off-peak and the Cannon Steet - Slade Green trains in the peak, which is a massive improvement compared to today. If 10tph isn't enough capacity at Dartford, trains could possibly turnaround at Slade Green depot or at a new turnback siding to the east of Abbey Wood

 

[mr_jrt]

The reason the Hayes line is the preferred option is that it’ll release capacity on the SEML.

As would removing services via Blackheath, and also removing those via Deptford frees up capacity at Cannon Street, too.

 

[mangyiscute]

The point is reliability and having the service in the Crossrail core as self contained as possible. At the moment, it is as if we were running the Victoria Line to Cheshunt with half the service leaving the main route at Seven Sisters and running via Northumberland Park, which no one would consider a good idea

But how is curtailing it at Maidenhead going to improve that? When there are issue on the line, either all lines are blocked causing mass delays to all or some of the lines are shut, meaning that the fast gwr and elizabeth line services would have to share some lines so it would still get disrupted. Currently, the GWR relief services are very rarely disrupted, and if they are they are often curtailed at Reading and don't run into London. The only thing curtailing at Maidenhead could improve is if there's an issue between Maidenhead and Reading, but if we're gonna take that attitude why do we run any services further than absolutely necessary?
Unless you are suggesting running GWR and Elizabeth line services completely separately so that if theres disruption to the fast lines, just don't run any gwr services because then the elizabeth line will get disrupted?
Ultimately, if you want to keep them separated, you'd have to terminate everything at paddington, otherwise they will always be integrated.

 

[Benjwri]

But how is curtailing it at Maidenhead going to improve that? When there are issue on the line, either all lines are blocked causing mass delays to all or some of the lines are shut, meaning that the fast gwr and elizabeth line services would have to share some lines so it would still get disrupted. Currently, the GWR relief services are very rarely disrupted, and if they are they are often curtailed at Reading and don't run into London. The only thing curtailing at Maidenhead could improve is if there's an issue between Maidenhead and Reading, but if we're gonna take that attitude why do we run any services further than absolutely necessary?
Unless you are suggesting running GWR and Elizabeth line services completely separately so that if theres disruption to the fast lines, just don't run any gwr services because then the elizabeth line will get disrupted?
Ultimately, if you want to keep them separated, you'd have to terminate everything at paddington, otherwise they will always be integrated.

Not to mention of the issues that have happened in the last few months I can’t remember one been between Maidenhead and Reading, they are mostly at the London end. The slow running freight trains mentioned also still run, the trains will still get stuck behind them.

 

[Horizon22]

Not to mention of the issues that have happened in the last few months I can’t remember one been between Maidenhead and Reading, they are mostly at the London end. The slow running freight trains mentioned also still run, the trains will still get stuck behind them.

There have been several around Slough which is effectively the same thing - in fact anything west of West Drayton is.

 

[mangyiscute]

There have been several around Slough which is effectively the same thing - in fact anything west of West Drayton is.

And if you curtailed services at Maidenhead, that issue would still have affected the lizzie line just as much. Hence why that is a dumb argument. Either you accept that it'll be on the GWML and you take the reliability issues that gives you, or you curtail it at Paddington.

 

[Horizon22]

And if you curtailed services at Maidenhead, that issue would still have affected the lizzie line just as much. Hence why that is a dumb argument. Either you accept that it'll be on the GWML and you take the reliability issues that gives you, or you curtail it at Paddington.

Several contingency plans have trains curtailed at Paddington - the Maidenhead terminators for one.

 

[JonathanH]

And if you curtailed services at Maidenhead, that issue would still have affected the lizzie line just as much. Hence why that is a dumb argument. Either you accept that it'll be on the GWML and you take the reliability issues that gives you, or you curtail it at Paddington.

As this is a speculative thread, I was thinking more of curtailing Elizabeth Line services at West Drayton, and having GWR run fast line services from Paddington which cross fast to slow at Stockley Junction, first stop West Drayton, then all stations to Maidenhead, dovetailing with further GWR services crossing at Dolphin Junction dealing with Slough, Maidenhead and Twyford. Then services further west can be whatever capacity is left over.

Elizabeth Line could then run 10tph to Heathrow and 4tph to West Drayton, GWR would have four crossing moves fast to slow each hour but in different places so hopefully parallel with regard to down services crossing up ones, Heathrow Express could be binned, Elizabeth Line would have more free stock to run to Old Oak Common in due course, and greater reliability in the core. Moreover, Elizabeth Line could then serve all stations in West London with no skip stopping.

Obviously the fast line timetable would need to be written around the crossing moves to maximise capacity.

 

[PGAT]

Having such a fragile system of crossovers is probably just as bad (if not worse) than longer Elizabeth Line services for reliability

 

[Horizon22]

As this is a speculative thread, I was thinking more of curtailing Elizabeth Line services at West Drayton, and having GWR run fast line services from Paddington which cross fast to slow at Stockley Junction, first stop West Drayton, then all stations to Maidenhead, dovetailing with further GWR services crossing at Dolphin Junction dealing with Slough, Maidenhead and Twyford. Then services further west can be whatever capacity is left over.

Elizabeth Line could then run 10tph to Heathrow and 4tph to West Drayton, GWR would have four crossing moves fast to slow each hour but in different places so hopefully parallel with regard to down services crossing up ones, Heathrow Express could be binned, Elizabeth Line would have more free stock to run to Old Oak Common in due course, and greater reliability in the core. Moreover, Elizabeth Line could then serve all stations in West London with no skip stopping.

Obviously the fast line timetable would need to be written around the crossing moves to maximise capacity.

14tph to Hayes on the Relief lines isn't really feasible, in addition to freight.

Interworking on different lines also isn't ideal either.

 

[JonathanH]

14tph to Hayes on the Relief lines isn't really feasible, in addition to freight.

More the peak time limit really. If most of the trains turn off at Airport Junction, and the other four terminate at West Drayton, then the freight is only impeded for ten miles.

Interworking on different lines also isn't ideal either.

No, but neither are gaps in service in the central area ideal. The question being speculated is whether something could be done that potentially hinders traffic from Paddington, but makes the Elizabeth Linr substantially more reliable and fit for its role as a high capacity metro.

 

[Horizon22]

More the peak time limit really. If most of the trains turn off at Airport Junction, and the other four terminate at West Drayton, then the freight is only impeded for ten miles.


No, but neither are gaps in service in the central area ideal. The question being speculated is whether something could be done that potentially hinders traffic from Paddington, but makes the Elizabeth Linr substantially more reliable and fit for its role as a high capacity metro.

And I sincerely doubt your plan would make it "substantially more reliable".

 

[Mgameing123]

Well, I wouldn't say brilliant myself haha!

Interested by this idea - where would this route go - through Uxbridge?

If I had the choice, I'd reopen the NNML for longer distance Chiltern services to OOC, allowing suburbans to be increased through Wembley.



I agree, I wouldn't call the Liz Line a fast service in the East at least. I'd still aim for a fast train to Romford & Shenfield. Out West is a bit different, the skip-stop to Heathrow I would call 'fast'.

If Dartford was at the centre of a major redevelopment then you could probably justify it, but right now? Probably not. Considering its location, however, it ought to be. Also, seeing the theme park in Swanscombe isn't happening, I wonder if the land will go to housing...

Im thinking it should be just after West Ruislip.

 

[London Trains]

I think it would be much simpler to just swap the Elizabeth Line and Southeaatern between Abbey Wood and Dartford, so all Southeastern services via Charlton would terminate at Abbey Wood (the Thameslink service would be removed) and Elizabeth Line services would continue to Dartford.

It would mean the only section that would need to be 4 tracked and segregated would be Slade Green to Dartford, which is the easiest section to do (and the Elizabeth Line would take over one of the island platforms at Dartford).

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I think it would be much simpler to just swap the Elizabeth Line and Southeaatern between Abbey Wood and Dartford, so all Southeastern services via Charlton would terminate at Abbey Wood (the Thameslink service would be removed) and Elizabeth Line services would continue to Dartford.

It would mean the only section that would need to be 4 tracked and segregated would be Slade Green to Dartford, which is the easiest section to do (and the Elizabeth Line would take over one of the island platforms at Dartford).

That seems a reasonable solution to me too. But I think it would require more infrastructure work than you're suggesting. In particular, with this proposal, you'd have to end the rounders, so Dartford would see 12tph arriving from the West (6 from Bexleyheath and 6 from Bexley), most but not all of which would terminate. I'd be surprised if one island platform could comfortably handle that, so I'd expect you'd need to do some rebuilding/enlarging of Dartford station.

 

[NorthKent1989]

I’m afraid I’m not in favour of curtailing SE or Thameslink’s at Abbey Wood entirely.

I see this idea floating around a lot and pretty sure it’s been ruled out as an option officially, the plan is for SE and/or Thameslink to run alongside The Liz line.

I’d at least keep that Thameslink (or possibly even SE by then) to Medway then reroute the Thameslink to run via Lewisham, then curtail SE Greenwich trains at Abbey Wood but there’s at least one through service.

 

[mangyiscute]

I think it would be much simpler to just swap the Elizabeth Line and Southeaatern between Abbey Wood and Dartford, so all Southeastern services via Charlton would terminate at Abbey Wood (the Thameslink service would be removed) and Elizabeth Line services would continue to Dartford.

It would mean the only section that would need to be 4 tracked and segregated would be Slade Green to Dartford, which is the easiest section to do (and the Elizabeth Line would take over one of the island platforms at Dartford).

I feel like if that happened you'd be unlikely to see a decent level of service heading west out of abbey wood, considering you'd need the via Greenwich and via Lewisham routes.

 

[nw1]

Slough has a far superior rail service with the Elizabeth line than Surbiton or Bromley South do. It does has those legacy fasts to Paddington though, too. But one-seat rides beat that, as does frequency - unless you work at a singular spot right by your terminus. Which people historically did - but no longer need to be tied to, opening up much greater opportunities and frankly, freedom.

Given those "legacy fasts" also provide a fast service from Twyford, Maidenhead and perhaps the local stations out to Didcot (or would people from there change at Reading?) I don't think you can call them "legacy", even if they are less useful from Slough.

Services running fast within Greater London do provide a useful role - to provide acceptably-fast services from further out.

Regarding limited-stops services to Dartford - these did exist for many years (as has been discussed on other threads in the past) but weren't desperately fast, e.g. 29 mins from London Bridge in 1982 calling only at Lewisham, Woolwich and Abbey Wood.

 

[London Trains]

That seems a reasonable solution to me too. But I think it would require more infrastructure work than you're suggesting. In particular, with this proposal, you'd have to end the rounders, so Dartford would see 12tph arriving from the West (6 from Bexleyheath and 6 from Bexley), most but not all of which would terminate. I'd be surprised if one island platform could comfortably handle that, so I'd expect you'd need to do some rebuilding/enlarging of Dartford station.

A timetable recast would be necessary anyway, so the service pattern could easily be changed to have a rounder that runs via Bexleyheath and Sidcup (also restoring the Cannon St to Sidcup line link), which means Dartford would only have 8tph which should be fine.

 

[PGAT]

When extending to Dartford you can’t remove or alter the ThamesLink service as this completely messes up the slot it currently has in the core and overall reliability. It also means anyone from the Greenwich line trying to get to the Medway would have to change at Abbey Wood and again at Gravesend (assuming the Cannon Street - Gravesend service is left untouched).

As I briefly touched on in post #91, the best way (in my opinion) to fit the Elizabeth Line in at Dartford would join up the two Charing Cross - Dartford routes by making it a circular service bypassing Dartford, (Dartford - Charing Cross would still be possible from the Gravesend trains), turning around the Victoria trains in the sidings (most services do this already), and keeping services on the NKL the same to minimise disruption. With this, you could fit up to 6tph into the platforms of Dartford and have them join up nicely with the current Elizabeth Line paths at Abbey Wood.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I’d at least keep that Thameslink (or possibly even SE by then) to Medway then reroute the Thameslink to run via Lewisham, then curtail SE Greenwich trains at Abbey Wood but there’s at least one through service.

Actually, thinking about it, that does seem a practical possibility. The issue with SouthEastern is their trains are 3rd rail only, while EL trains are OHL only - so you can't run the both on the same tracks for any length of time. But the Thameslink trains are dual-voltage, so if you were willing to pay to convert Abbey Wood-Dartford to OHL, then you could run both EL trains and Thameslink on them. I'm still not convinced that there'd be a lot of point though. The EL frequency is by itself more than adequate for stations between Abbey Wood and Dartford without needing additional trains. Besides, for anyone travelling north of Farringdon even if there were through Thameslink trains, it'd still be quicker to use the Elizabeth line and change at Farringdon. And many people travelling on stations to London Bridge would probably be happy to change at Abbey Wood too, since that gives you a much more frequent service than the max 2tph Thameslink that you could provide as through trains.

 

[mangyiscute]

And many people travelling on stations to London Bridge would probably be happy to change at Abbey Wood too, since that gives you a much more frequent service than the max 2tph Thameslink that you could provide as through trains.

As has been shown many many times before, the general traveller way prefers a through train even if its quite infrequent - look at how much outrage there was after the southeastern timetable change

 

[DynamicSpirit]

A timetable recast would be necessary anyway, so the service pattern could easily be changed to have a rounder that runs via Bexleyheath and Sidcup (also restoring the Cannon St to Sidcup line link), which means Dartford would only have 8tph which should be fine.

I think a Bexleyheath-Sidcup rounder would do more harm than good: Since there are no stations between Slade Green and Dartford, it would provide no interchange opportunities to connect to Woolwich/Elizabeth line/Gravesend/ etc. The only people who'd benefit would be the relatively small numbers who'd want to use the train to do journeys like Bexleyheath to Bexley, while the larger numbers of people who would want to get to Dartford or to all the interchange opportunities there would presumably see long 20-minute gaps in their services (assuming you timed it for a train every 10 minutes on each of the Bexleyheath and Sidcup lines, with some trains running as rounders.

 

[PGAT]

Actually, thinking about it, that does seem a practical possibility. The issue with SouthEastern is their trains are 3rd rail only, while EL trains are OHL only - so you can't run the both on the same tracks for any length of time. But the Thameslink trains are dual-voltage, so if you were willing to pay to convert Abbey Wood-Dartford to OHL, then you could run both EL trains and Thameslink on them. I'm still not convinced that there'd be a lot of point though. The EL frequency is by itself more than adequate for stations between Abbey Wood and Dartford without needing additional trains. Besides, for anyone travelling north of Farringdon even if there were through Thameslink trains, it'd still be quicker to use the Elizabeth line and change at Farringdon. And many people travelling on stations to London Bridge would probably be happy to change at Abbey Wood too, since that gives you a much more frequent service than the max 2tph Thameslink that you could provide as through trains.

If the extension ever does come into effect I believe the 345s will be given a 3rd rail shoe instead of re-electrifying the line to OHLE.

 

[Benjwri]

If the extension ever does come into effect I believe the 345s will be given a 3rd rail shoe instead of re-electrifying the line to OHLE.

Would require lowering the ballast across probably all the GWML lines (fast for diversions), as past Maidenhead (I think it's maidenhead at least), it's currently too high to clear them, as a Class 769 found out a few years ago.

 

[Non Multi]

Would require lowering the ballast across probably all the GWML lines (fast for diversions), as past Maidenhead (I think it's maidenhead at least), it's currently too high to clear them, as a Class 769 found out a few years ago.

That was a 769 heading east in error on the up relief beyond Maidenhead. The down relief is often used by 3rd rail stock on a one way journey to Newport.

 

[Benjwri]

That was a 769 heading east in error on the up relief beyond Maidenhead. The down relief is often used by 3rd rail stock on a one way journey to Newport.

I was under the impression they have their 3rd rail shoes removed, but could definitely be wrong. That's still 3 lines that would need the ballast lowering, not sure about the GEML.

 

[NorthKent1989]

Actually, thinking about it, that does seem a practical possibility. The issue with SouthEastern is their trains are 3rd rail only, while EL trains are OHL only - so you can't run the both on the same tracks for any length of time. But the Thameslink trains are dual-voltage, so if you were willing to pay to convert Abbey Wood-Dartford to OHL, then you could run both EL trains and Thameslink on them. I'm still not convinced that there'd be a lot of point though. The EL frequency is by itself more than adequate for stations between Abbey Wood and Dartford without needing additional trains. Besides, for anyone travelling north of Farringdon even if there were through Thameslink trains, it'd still be quicker to use the Elizabeth line and change at Farringdon. And many people travelling on stations to London Bridge would probably be happy to change at Abbey Wood too, since that gives you a much more frequent service than the max 2tph Thameslink that you could provide as through trains.

But you’d be breaking a lot of well established and long standing journey opportunities, Lewisham and Greenwich are destinations in their own right.

It’s not so much the trains per hour most in this neck of the woods are particularly concerned with, if all you had on each line was 2tph to Charing Cross most would prefer this to the current situation we have now, so even if it was only two trains per hour to a destination via Greenwich or via Lewisham, the links would be maintained.

 

[Non Multi]

I was under the impression they have their 3rd rail shoes removed, but could definitely be wrong. That's still 3 lines that would need the ballast lowering, not sure about the GEML.

You're not wrong. Seems to depend on how thorough the depot is. Looking at old photos, Connex slam door stock had the whole shoe beam removed, Southern 458 stock only the shoes were removed.

Edit: They'll probably need to lower the ballast for the battery 230 train, as it'll need to go back and forth to Reading depot.

 

[Horizon22]

I’m afraid I’m not in favour of curtailing SE or Thameslink’s at Abbey Wood entirely.

I see this idea floating around a lot and pretty sure it’s been ruled out as an option officially, the plan is for SE and/or Thameslink to run alongside The Liz line.

I’d at least keep that Thameslink (or possibly even SE by then) to Medway then reroute the Thameslink to run via Lewisham, then curtail SE Greenwich trains at Abbey Wood but there’s at least one through service.

There’s passive provision to extend the Elizabeth line past Abbey Wood and I’m pretty sure the route is still safeguarded too.

No need to start messing around with new junctions (not to mention the CBTC problems) west of Abbey Wood.