My thoughts on why Crossrail should not have been built

[Wolfie]

The north needs investment, and it's starting to happen with Lancashire and Transpennine electrification and other projects, but there's no way that investment should come forward instead of Crossrail.

Look at TfL's annual passenger numbers: 20 million at Bond Street, 99 million at Oxford Circus and 37 million at Tottenham Court Road. Dividing this crudely by the number of lines at each station gives 62 million passengers using the Central line at just these three stations - about the same as Manchester Piccadilly (24m), Leeds City (28m) and Liverpool Lime Street (13m) put together and all on a twin track railway.

That's before considering the growth which will be stimulated in Woolwich, Thamesmead, the Docklands and elsewhere, which will help Crossrail to 'pay its way' in additional council tax and business rates.

Hey, using facts to justify rational decisions... that will never ever become popular on this forum...

And yet Crossrail's tunnels are shorter and smaller, but were pricier to build.

It really annoys me how much infrastructure people get in London compared to the north. It really is very frustrating.

WRT your first point, was the Large Hadron Collider built in the middle of the most congested city in Europe if not the world?

Perhaps, wrt your second point, if people and businesses in the North were prepared to put their hands in their pockets in the same way as those in London do...

 

[HSTEd]

The Large Hadron Collider didn't actually have to pay for the tunnel.
That is left over from the previous collider project.

 

[Statto]

Before this thread gets inevitably locked my thoughts.

Crossrail is badly needed, i have been to London, & the tube is bursting at the seems, Crossrail will ease that, plus make a faster connection from East to West & to the Central London & City than having to go through the tube Liverpool Street/Paddington.

Most roads in London are a nightmare at the best of times, & no new roads will be built without even more costly compulsory purchases & public enquiries.

 

[Feathers44]

I deliberately left this thread for a quieter part of the day so I could digest the alternatives I was expecting to read. Unfortunately, the "thoughts" promised in the title seem to comprise of nothing more than "because".

I'm a little disappointed in some strange way.

 

[EM2]

As someone whose regular station is due to see Crossrail services, I can see exactly the logic behind it.
If you come from east or west of London and need to get to the centre, the Central Line is the obvious choice. The problem is, everyone has the same idea and it gets incredibly busy to the point that you often need to let two or three trains go in the peak, because there's no space.
With Crossrail, you won't need to change trains, and therefore the traffic that all decamps onto the Central Line won't be there. The result is, Crossrail passengers AND Central Line passengers all get a more comfortable journey.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

As someone whose regular station is due to see Crossrail services, I can see exactly the logic behind it.
If you come from east or west of London and need to get to the centre, the Central Line is the obvious choice. The problem is, everyone has the same idea and it gets incredibly busy to the point that you often need to let two or three trains go in the peak, because there's no space.
With Crossrail, you won't need to change trains, and therefore the traffic that all decamps onto the Central Line won't be there. The result is, Crossrail passengers AND Central Line passengers all get a more comfortable journey.

Not to mention one seat rides to Heathrow from Canary Wharf and the inner suburbs in East London. A very difficult journey by public transport today. The connectivity at Farringdon will be a game changer.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

In summary - should have been built a long time ago. It will be a game changer. Above all, we are steadily getting increasing investment in our railways which was for many years neglected.

A vital piece of infrastructure that will benefit us now and for generations.

 

[TheNewNo2]

WRT your first point, was the Large Hadron Collider built in the middle of the most congested city in Europe if not the world?

I'm going to say no, because The Flash has taught us all the dangers of building particle accelerators in cities.

 

[muddythefish]

OK, I'm going to be brutally honest here:

I don't see the point of Crossrail. It's basically just a second Central Line. I'm sure there were lots of more cost-effective solutions to overcrowding. The money would be spent better up north.

The Large Hadron Collider was cheaper to build than Crossrail, and is longer and cheaper.

So I think that we shouldn't have bothered with Crossrail and should have spent the money on these railway lines.

Agree with this.

Crossrail is essentially another London commuter railway and of benefit only to the capital and the south east.

It should have been built as a main line railway, connecting the old LNER with the the old GWR so that journeys such as Norwich - Plymouth and Ipswich - Cardiff would be possible without the tiresome trek across London, and benefiting the wider UK rather than just the SE .

Diverting main line trains in this way would have the added benefit of freeing up capacity in Liverpool St and Paddington for commuter traffic.

Crossrail as it stands is only going to make worse London's stranglehold on the national economy.

 

[NSEFAN]

Crossrail is essentially another London commuter railway and of benefit only to the capital and the south east.

It should have been built as a main line railway, connecting the old LNER with the the old GWR so that journeys such as Norwich - Plymouth and Ipswich - Cardiff would be possible without the tiresome trek across London, and benefiting the wider UK rather than just the SE .

Diverting main line trains in this way would have the added benefit of freeing up capacity in Liverpool St and Paddington for commuter traffic.

How many people would be making Norwich - Plymouth journeys, though? I doubt that would be at all comparable with the journeys made by people on the commuter trains. The capacity of Crossrail will be higher with metro style trains as opposed to intercity ones, so I would suggest that more people benefit by having Crossrail as proposed, compared to making it an extreme version of Thameslink.

 

[306024]

Crossrail is essentially another London commuter railway and of benefit only to the capital and the south east.

It should have been built as a main line railway, connecting the old LNER with the the old GWR so that journeys such as Norwich - Plymouth and Ipswich - Cardiff would be possible without the tiresome trek across London, and benefiting the wider UK rather than just the SE .

Diverting main line trains in this way would have the added benefit of freeing up capacity in Liverpool St and Paddington for commuter traffic.

Crossrail as it stands is only going to make worse London's stranglehold on the national economy.

What capacity have you created between Shenfield and Liverpool St? All you've done is make a few platforms at Liverpool St redundant. As both the main and electric lines are at capacity during the high peak, you've simply created platform capacity at Liverpool St you can't use.

Crossrail is indeed for London and the South East. Sorry but you haven't grasped the overcrowding problem that Crossrail is being created to ease.

 

[najaB]

Diverting main line trains in this way would have the added benefit of freeing up capacity in Liverpool St and Paddington for commuter traffic.

But it doesn't do anything for commuters who are arriving from the east and trying to get to work in the west end, and vice versa.

Crossrail as it stands is only going to make worse London's stranglehold on the national economy.

I suppose they have made the classic mistake of building transportation that gets people from where they are to where they need to be, rather than building transport that gets people from where they are not, to where you want them to go.

 

[306024]

How many people would be making Norwich - Plymouth journeys, though? I doubt that would be at all comparable with the journeys made by people on the commuter trains. The capacity of Crossrail will be higher with metro style trains as opposed to intercity ones, so I would suggest that more people benefit by having Crossrail as proposed, compared to making it an extreme version of Thameslink.

No doubts at all, you wouldn't even need to take your socks off to count the number of Norwich - Plymouth customers compared to what Crossrail will provide.

 

[Domh245]

Agree with this.

Crossrail is essentially another London commuter railway and of benefit only to the capital and the south east.

It should have been built as a main line railway, connecting the old LNER with the the old GWR so that journeys such as Norwich - Plymouth and Ipswich - Cardiff would be possible without the tiresome trek across London, and benefiting the wider UK rather than just the SE .

Diverting main line trains in this way would have the added benefit of freeing up capacity in Liverpool St and Paddington for commuter traffic.

Crossrail as it stands is only going to make worse London's stranglehold on the national economy.

We get it. You hate the London-centric economy that the UK has, but seriously, what alternatives do you propose (other than the one you have already given), I'm genuinely interested to hear them? If you can, please do try to avoid turning it into another North vs South debate. I think as a forum there have been quite enough of those!

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I suppose they have made the classic mistake of building transportation that gets people from where they are to where they need to be, rather than building transport that gets people from where they are not, to where you want them to go.

Abso-bloody-lutely spot on.

I don't know why TfL, DfT and NR have a legion of traffic and demand forecasting staff and the equipment to do it, when we've got muddythefish and backontrack telling us all the demand forecasting is wrong and what we need is something our current demand forecasting (and lots of common sense) tells us nobody would use.

But who are we to argue with these experts.

 

[whoosh]

I fully expect Crossrail to be very busy from day one. Something that connects Canary Wharf and Heathrow is bound to be!
It seems the starting frequency will be half, with just Abbey Wood to Paddington trains. Then Shenfield to Liverpool Street trains diverted and extended into the tunnel later on. It will run with 9 car trains to start with, but 11 car trains are planned later. I expect 11 cars to be brought in quite quickly. This will be a busy railway, connecting at Farringdon with a much enhanced Thameslink (once the Thameslink Programme is completed), and running through the shopping areas of the West End, the banking district of The City, and the new Financial area of Docklands.
I think you need to have another look if you think this won't be a busy railway.

Compare to New York - where I was on holiday last week - where the subway delivers at best a 4 min peak headway on the overcrowded 6 line (Lexington Avenue East) - and a 10 min interval on the *8th Avenue local. They are very tight on rolling stock - and have expansion and new trains plans. In fact the local media were urging more investment to keep pace with Europe !

I think only the L and G lines run with only a Train Operator. All the others run with a Conductor to operate the doors. The Conductor on the New York subway operates from the centre of the train, closing the rear doors first and then the front doors. This means closing the doors takes twice as long, and extends dwell time.
By the way, extended dwell time is also something that would happen if the 'Train Captain' idea of the DLR is brought into use on the Tube with the Train Captain working the doors from a set of doors within the train (and having to close their local door) rather than working from a cab at the front of the train using monitors. That's why that's a pie in the sky idea, and why an operator will work from a cab, or the Tube will be fitted with platform edge doors and be fully driverless like parts of the Paris Or Lille Metros.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Try changing off a TLK at Farringdon onto an E/bound Met or Circle train on a normal day with no service probems , or try getting onto the Central line off the Shenfield line at 0800 and your horizons will be broadened.

Try changing at Paddington onto the Bakerloo or the Circle / ex Hammersmih lines at these times.



There are those which do (each day) - and the armchair commentators who do not experience it!

 

[TheNewNo2]

Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of a Plymouth to Norwich train in principle, but in practice it's a bit ridiculous.

Any line which goes through London is going to be a commuter line, otherwise there's pretty much zero point in putting it there. Bristol to Birmingham gets two trains per hour - Norwich and Plymouth are smaller places, and there's no point building a tunnel like that for 2tph. So the question is can one put intercity trains on it at all, and I'm afraid the answer is no. Any such train would have to stop at all London stations or there's no point in it. That means it needs to have a high capacity interior, and that's not what you want for long distance stock. Furthermore, it'll be jammed in London with commuters, which is also not what long distance travellers want. Plus it needs to be custom made to fit the PEDs... just not going to happen.

Fact is, terminal platforms work great for long-distance trains. There's comparatively few of them that it doesn't matter that they sit there a while. It's commuter trains you don't want terminating in central London, as it means 200m of train sheds its load every three minutes at a single location.

Would a Plymouth-Norwich service be good? Yes. But it should go via East-West rail and avoid London.

 

[Class 170101]

There is to a Bond Street station entrance in Hanover square which is only 3 minutes walk from Oxford station

The reason I belie they did not link to Oxford Circus station is avoid adding to the congestion there

The Post Office Railway got in the way and was still in use at the time Crossrail was first proposed.

All Crossrail stations will be double ended. Consequently one each of exits for both Tottenham Court Road and Bond Street are close to Oxford Circus Station.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It will run with 9 car trains to start with, but 11 car trains are planned later. I expect 11 cars to be brought in quite quickly.

Errr Try 7 and 9 instead of 9 and 11.

Trains will be 200m in length.

 

[rdeez]

OK, I'm going to be brutally honest here:

I don't see the point of Crossrail. It's basically just a second Central Line. I'm sure there were lots of more cost-effective solutions to overcrowding. The money would be spent better up north.

The Large Hadron Collider was cheaper to build than Crossrail, and is longer and cheaper.

So I think that we shouldn't have bothered with Crossrail and should have spent the money on these railway lines.

The LHC's planning & construction, of course, benefited from not having to navigate around other tunnels and sewer systems, didn't really have to worry about the effect on historic or relatively fragile buildings above it, didn't have to go through such challenging geology...among other things

 

[Bald Rick]

Errr Try 7 and 9 instead of 9 and 11.

Trains will be 200m in length.

Or try 9 and 11, which is what it is!

 

[mr_jrt]

The Post Office Railway got in the way and was still in use at the time Crossrail was first proposed.

All Crossrail stations will be double ended. Consequently one each of exits for both Tottenham Court Road and Bond Street are close to Oxford Circus Station.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Errr Try 7 and 9 instead of 9 and 11.

Trains will be 200m in length.

Methinks someone missed the memo about 23m carriages rather than 20m ones...it was originally 10x20m extending to 12x20m, then became 9x23m extending to 11x23m.

11x23m gives an extra 13m over 12x20m, but I hope they're not missing a trick by not building the platform tunnels to 12x23m, even if the full length isn't fitted out for years and years...

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Methinks someone missed the memo about 23m carriages rather than 20m ones...it was originally 10x20m extending to 12x20m, then became 9x23m extending to 11x23m.

11x23m gives an extra 13m over 12x20m, but I hope they're not missing a trick by not building the platform tunnels to 12x23m, even if the full length isn't fitted out for years and years...

Platform length is nominally 250m and that's pretty much what train length will be, give or take a couple of metres (driving cars normally being a fraction shorter than intermediate cars).

The nature of the tunnel lining and station construction would allow platform extensions, it's not going to be cheap but it's not unduly difficult.

 

[306024]

The nature of the tunnel lining and station construction would allow platform extensions, it's not going to be cheap but it's not unduly difficult.

It is not just the stations in the central tunnel though. Some of the stations on the GE and GW will require Selective Door Operation in 9 car formation, let alone anything longer. Plus stabling capacity alterations, Gidea Park for example will be remodelled next year to take 9 X 9 car 345s, but there is precious little space for anything longer in the future.

 

[jopsuk]

The first trains will arrive as 7-car formations (156m) which will replace the GEML Shenfield Metro 8-car Class 315 formations (160m) initially. They'll be extended to 9-car (200m) when the core opens, but the core platforms are 250m. However, as it is there will be some use of SDO on the GEML side, as far as I know, so a platform lengthening project will be needed if the option is taken to extend the fleet to 11-car (244m).

I know stations on the GWML side are being lengthened- are these being done to "bare minimum" 200m or "future proof" 250m?

 

[306024]

Errr Try 7 and 9 instead of 9 and 11.
Trains will be 200m in length.

Initially some sets will be 7 cars otherwise they won't fit at Liverpool St, extending to 9 cars when they go down the tunnel, extending to 11 cars one day when capacity demands. Hope that clears up any confusion.

There seems to be an echo in here !

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I know stations on the GWML side are being lengthened- are these being done to "bare minimum" 200m or "future proof" 250m?

Most should be 250m as the 9 x 26m IEP needs 234m and 12 x 20m Electrostar operation needs 240m. Would need to double double check though.

 

[jopsuk]

IEP will be on the Mains and unlikely to call at any stations between Paddington and Reading, whilst Crossrail will be on the Reliefs and won't go beyond Reading, whilst the 12-car Thames Valley electrics will only serve limited stations on the inners.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

IEP will be on the Mains and unlikely to call at any stations between Paddington and Reading, whilst Crossrail will be on the Reliefs and won't go beyond Reading, whilst the 12-car Thames Valley electrics will only serve limited stations on the inners.

It's true, but the route will be much more flexible after electrification and ERTMS introduction, so the station/platform infrastructure will need to be able to cope.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

All Crossrail stations will be double ended. Consequently one each of exits for both Tottenham Court Road and Bond Street are close to Oxford Circus Station.

Not all. Abbey Wood won't be for a start. I suspect you mean that all the ones inside central London will be.