Potential transport options for Thamesmead?

[Mikey C]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/barking-riverside-extension-london-overground-updates.133908/

How many people in Thamesmead really want an Overground crossing to take them to Barking?

What they surely want is better connections to Abbey Wood, which will have brilliant connections to central London via the Greenwich line and Crossrail

 

[J-2739]

How many people in Thamesmead really want an Overground crossing to take them to Barking?

What they surely want is better connections to Abbey Wood, which will have brilliant connections to central London via the Greenwich line and Crossrail

Tbh, they've got many bus services to get them to Abbey Wood.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

How many people in Thamesmead really want an Overground crossing to take them to Barking?

What they surely want is better connections to Abbey Wood, which will have brilliant connections to central London via the Greenwich line and Crossrail

It wouldn't just be Thamesmead to Barking though, would it. It'd be Belvedere to Wanstead, Plumstead to Leytonstone, Abbey Wood to Haringay, and so on.

The Overground seems to have proven that there is a very significant demand for orbital travel around London (if the congestion on many roads in outer London wasn't already enough to show that)

Aside from a small matter that an Abbey Wood extension would doubtless be used by many people in Thamesmead - as well as by people in Barking Riverside - to connect to SouthEastern/Crossrail at Abbey Wood anyway!

 

[Chris125]

It does seem madness to waste so much money on a potentially temporary station and approach viaduct given that it's an unconstrained open site.

How much money would be wasted if there isn't a tunnel? That seems the more likely outcome, by far.

 

[mr_jrt]

The real comparison is the cost difference of an elevated station and approach viaduct vs. a cut and cover tunnel less the money from all the potential over site development along the buried alignment...

 

[DynamicSpirit]

How much money would be wasted if there isn't a tunnel? That seems the more likely outcome, by far.

I would take the opposite view: That extending the GOBLIN to Abbey Wood is almost inevitable. There's huge political pressure for Thames crossings in the area with a growing awareness that the main focus needs to be on public transport; the population of Thamesmead (and stretching into Belvedere) is set to massively increase over the next 10 years because of new housing development; and the benefits of the short (albeit expensive) extension are so obvious and overwhelming.

If money can't be found, it might be another 20 years before it happens, but it will happen eventually.

 

[DimTim]

What are the freight implications of a potential river crossing east of London? As far as I'm aware north/south freight is routed through Kensington Olympia to the west of London. Would a crossing east of the capital open up alternative routes?

 

[Mikey C]

Tbh, they've got many bus services to get them to Abbey Wood.

The roads are very congested though

The advantage of a tram type service, connecting to Abbey Wood is that it would serve more areas than a heavy rail link with a single station too.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

What are the freight implications of a potential river crossing east of London? As far as I'm aware north/south freight is routed through Kensington Olympia to the west of London. Would a crossing east of the capital open up alternative routes?

Unlikely on current plans, which tend to envisage an underground N-S facing platforms at Abbey Wood, and therefore no physical connection with the SouthEastern/CrossRail tracks. Maybe if the line could be built to curve round and approach Abbey Wood from the West or East, it could be done.

Besides, one of the big issues on the GOBLIN is that frequencies for passenger trains are already restricted by the amount of freight that uses the line. If anything, the motivation would be to get the existing freight off the line, not to add new freight to it (but removing existing freight trains almost certainly requires building a new orbital freight line outside London, so would be very expensive).

 

[mr_jrt]

Besides, one of the big issues on the GOBLIN is that frequencies for passenger trains are already restricted by the amount of freight that uses the line. If anything, the motivation would be to get the existing freight off the line, not to add new freight to it (but removing existing freight trains almost certainly requires building a new orbital freight line outside London, so would be very expensive).

Depends on the connections you wanted to make. Freight doesn't need stations, per-se, so you could in theory just bore a long deep tunnel straight across. You would of course need big terminals further out though.

 

[ScotGG]

How many people in Thamesmead really want an Overground crossing to take them to Barking?

What they surely want is better connections to Abbey Wood, which will have brilliant connections to central London via the Greenwich line and Crossrail

To Barking? Probably not many. To c2c services and numerous tube services across London? A lot more.

And there is the benefit of heading straight to Abbey Wood Crossrail the other way. Also a benefit to those in Essex to reach various areas of SE London and Kent.

The LO does all this - any DLR extension just to Thamesmead doesn't.

 

[ScotGG]

Tbh, they've got many bus services to get them to Abbey Wood.

It can take 20-30 minutes at busy times and they're narrowing the flyover by Abbey Wood station from two lanes including 1 bus lane to one general lane. That trip could get even slower from 2018.

 

[Busaholic]

The roads are very congested though

The advantage of a tram type service, connecting to Abbey Wood is that it would serve more areas than a heavy rail link with a single station too.

Couldn't agree more, but 'tram' now appears to be a dirty word in TfL circles.

 

[ijmad]

Thought the priority was now going to be DLR from Gallions Reach to Thamesmead instead of Overground?

 

[contractador]

To Barking? Probably not many. To c2c services and numerous tube services across London? A lot more.

And there is the benefit of heading straight to Abbey Wood Crossrail the other way. Also a benefit to those in Essex to reach various areas of SE London and Kent.

The LO does all this - any DLR extension just to Thamesmead doesn't.

Its useful to also consider the northern destination / connections too rather than just abbey wood

On the flip side to to the LO option though, the dlr option would also open up connections to Stratford for geml and West anglia main line. In addition to the shopping centre itself.

A c2c connection would still be possible at West Ham. Agree less ideal than Barking but still very handy nonetheless.

Personally I think an extension of either option to Abbey Wood is sensible. There are broader aspects that should be considered besides Thamesmead itself. Without it the dlr would offer a crossrail connection at Customs House. However there would be a missed opportunity to benefit users who don't live in Thamesmead with a river crossing as you reference above.

 

[ijmad]

Lots of expense tunnelling under the river for 4 trains per hour, which is what TfL think will be able to serve Barking Riverside.

With the DLR option you'd get 8 or 12 (depending on whether they keep Beckton).

 

[cle]

Its useful to also consider the northern destination / connections too rather than just abbey wood

On the flip side to to the LO option though, the dlr option would also open up connections to Stratford for geml and West anglia main line. In addition to the shopping centre itself.

A c2c connection would still be possible at West Ham. Agree less ideal than Barking but still very handy nonetheless.

Personally I think an extension of either option to Abbey Wood is sensible. There are broader aspects that should be considered besides Thamesmead itself. Without it the dlr would offer a crossrail connection at Customs House. However there would be a missed opportunity to benefit users who don't live in Thamesmead with a river crossing as you reference above.

I'm torn because I prefer Heavy Rail in general but there are compelling arguments for DLR too, especially if there will be no freight and no connection to the North Kent line. 4tph of 4 cars is a bit rubbish for a such a big build. Even if that increased in time (with a short working somewhere perhaps, Blackhorse Road or maybe up to Enfield Town even) - it isn't that much capacity or use, without freight.

DLR to Abbey Wood wouldn't offer much to anyone except Thamesmead people though - as Crossrail does the rest. And this scheme is for Barking Riverside over Thamesmead, for better or worse...

A hybrid of the old Dagenham Dock DLR proposal, following the river and swinging south to Thamesmead (tunnel or bridge) - would be odd but cover off both areas.

A new c2c station between Barking and DD might also then support the lack of a Barking/Fenchurch St connection, and decrease reliance for a whole new area on one random link.

 

[CdBrux]

Lots of expense tunnelling under the river for 4 trains per hour, which is what TfL think will be able to serve Barking Riverside.

With the DLR option you'd get 8 or 12 (depending on whether they keep Beckton).

surely when considering expense you need to consider the number of people that will travel through it, not number of trains / DLR vehicles

 

[ijmad]

surely when considering expense you need to consider the number of people that will travel through it, not number of trains / DLR vehicles

Well sure, but 8+x 3-unit DLR trains can fit a lot more people than 4x 4-5 car Overgrounds.

 

[adrock1976]

Has any thought been given as to how to seriously penetrate Thamesmead from the Barking side, or would it be better to do it from the Plumstead/Abbey Wood side?

 

[plcd1]

Has any thought been given as to how to seriously penetrate Thamesmead from the Barking side, or would it be better to do it from the Plumstead/Abbey Wood side?

To be honest I think it has been kicked into the long grass by TfL. Part of that is because the Mayor has a preference for the DLR to serve Thamesmead but that's all gone very, very quiet. I think the second element is that there's a view that a tunnel link could not be justified on the basis on a relatively low frequency service and that it's not possible to run an intensive service because of freight and C2C pathing issues between Renwick Road and Barking. You also end up with fairly serious issues about how Barking station would handle the level of interchange traffic. That's already a concern with the Riverside extension as is - and it's constrained to only 4 tph max. There is no obvious plan to add serious capacity to Barking Station to cope with far more people. If the GOBLIN service over goes up to 5 tph then 1 tph would have to turn at Barking as there aren't 5 spare paths per hour east of Barking.

The final problem is money - TfL won't have any for a very long time and there's no obvious priority from anyone to build that link. It would also involve eventual demolition of the planned viaduct and elevated station on Barking Riverside meaning the scrapping of an expensive asset after a potenially short asset life.

Personally I'd be building the link now under the Thames BUT you would need a big scheme to add track and station north of the Thames and consideration as to if / how you link to the South Eastern network. This is on the basis of allowing through services across the Thames as part of a wider and properly considered regional rail strategy. Sadly we don't have such a thing for passengers or freight.

 

[mr_jrt]

Still think it's madness they're not building the station in a cut and cover trench with an open space in front to open out and recover a TBM from when the extension happens. Surely a cut and cover tunnel over open ground is no more expensive than building a viaduct over the same length?

 

[swt_passenger]

Still think it's madness they're not building the station in a cut and cover trench with an open space in front to open out and recover a TBM from when the extension happens. Surely a cut and cover tunnel over open ground is no more expensive than building a viaduct over the same length?

The station would have to be very deep, as far as I can see the station site is too close to the river to be reused as part of a heavy rail tunnelled route. I mentioned in a post on page one that the situation with the DLR and Woolwich was quite different in terms of distance from the river, and DLR gradients and curvature can be significantly different to heavy rail anyway.

Is it actually possible (in the distance available) to include a flat section suitable for a station in a heavy rail line that’s running from a highest point flying over Ripple Lane Yard down to a suitable depth under the River Thames?

 

[BritishGuy54]

I'm torn because I prefer Heavy Rail in general but there are compelling arguments for DLR too, especially if there will be no freight and no connection to the North Kent line. 4tph of 4 cars is a bit rubbish for a such a big build. Even if that increased in time (with a short working somewhere perhaps, Blackhorse Road or maybe up to Enfield Town even) - it isn't that much capacity or use, without freight.

DLR to Abbey Wood wouldn't offer much to anyone except Thamesmead people though - as Crossrail does the rest. And this scheme is for Barking Riverside over Thamesmead, for better or worse...

A hybrid of the old Dagenham Dock DLR proposal, following the river and swinging south to Thamesmead (tunnel or bridge) - would be odd but cover off both areas.

A new c2c station between Barking and DD might also then support the lack of a Barking/Fenchurch St connection, and decrease reliance for a whole new area on one random link.

I agree with what you say, an in-between station (lets call it Rippleside) would be a great idea to serve c2c and maybe the Overground. A DLR hybrid would do well, interchanging at Barking Riverside and maybe a Beckton curve to relieve trains heading to London/Stratford. I think the Overground would be better in general for Thamesmead, but the DLR seems more likely. Possibly extending this Thamesmead DLR down to Bexleyheath via Abbey Wood and West Heath was an idea of mine, but it won’t happen.

Sorry for going off-topic here, but then there’s the situation if Crossrail 2’s eastern branch gets approved, judging by current plans, there may be a core section stretching from Angel to potentially Barking at most east, since platforms will be a problem, so if Crossrail 2 eastern branch gets approved, TfL will have a choice, build new Overground platforms (likely called 9 + 10) or build new XR platforms underground (likely called A + B).

 

[PeterC]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/barking-riverside-extension-london-overground-updates.133908/

How many people in Thamesmead really want an Overground crossing to take them to Barking?

What they surely want is better connections to Abbey Wood, which will have brilliant connections to central London via the Greenwich line and Crossrail

How many people wanted a through services from Camden to Stratford? Look at the Overground now.