The Crossrail 3 concept

[MCR247]

What about the Class 380?

Class 380 is a new train, therefore realistically problems expected

377/5: It shouldn't be all that hard to produce 92 vehicles almost identically the same as 1108 vehicles you have already produced?

 

[AlanFry1]

Not having to pay the employment benefits of just 300 people isn't a significant cost-saving factor. It'd be a couple of million pounds, tops.

You have forgot the suppliers as well

How much will it really save building the trains in Germany?

 

[Opinion3]

You have forgot the suppliers as well

How much will it really save building the trains in Germany?

There is nothing inherently difficult about British Engineers and production lines delivering goods and services that can meet the design requirements and specifications of the Railways and TFL.

Derby is awash with world class engineering talent based at both British world leader Rolls Royce and Japanese world leader Toyota.

If Derby's finished products are substandard then the pressure should be on them to get their house in order. It needs to be world beating. Its not up to the British taxpayer to place future orders to keep them employed, it is far cheaper and better that the products are designed and built to high world class standards at competitive prices than the business cease to trade.

Sounds like the stick should be beating the dog and not the tail wagging the dog.

 

[AlanFry1]

I have an idea on how Crossrail 3 might work, build a line between Euston and Waterloo with stations at Bloomsbury and Covent Garden, Euston would be rebuilt (if Crossrail 2 and 3 were built at the same time as HS2) while at Waterloo the current (historic) station will become a shopping precent and enlarged passenger concourse while a (posibbly underground) thorugh station will be built in front of the current station

The Watford DC line services (which would be linked to the St Albans Branch Line) will be linked directly South West Trains suburban services so services like St Albans Abbey-Watford Junction-Reading/Whitton/Feltham/Staines/Weybridge/Twickenham/Teddington/Guildford/Hampton Court/Alton/Chessington

The London Midland WCML services would be linked to SWT Main Line Services so services like Crewe/Birmingham New Street-Southampton Central/Bournemouth/Poole/ Weymouth/Portsmouth/Salisbury/Yeovil Junction/Exeter St Davids/Bristol Temple Meads

It would require the conversion of the SWT 444s and 450s to dual voltage and more duel voltage Class 350s and dual voltage 444s and even new Class 185s

 

[VTPreston_Tez]

I have an idea on how Crossrail 3 might work, build a line between Euston and Waterloo with stations at Bloomsbury and Covent Garden, Euston would be rebuilt (if Crossrail 2 and 3 were built at the same time as HS2) while at Waterloo the current (historic) station will become a shopping precent and enlarged passenger concourse while a (posibbly underground) thorugh station will be built in front of the current station

The Watford DC line services (which would be linked to the St Albans Branch Line) will be linked directly South West Trains suburban services so services like St Albans Abbey-Watford Junction-Reading/Whitton/Feltham/Staines/Weybridge/Twickenham/Teddington/Guildford/Hampton Court/Alton/Chessington

The London Midland WCML services would be linked to SWT Main Line Services so services like Crewe/Birmingham New Street-Southampton Central/Bournemouth/Poole/ Weymouth/Portsmouth/Salisbury/Yeovil Junction/Exeter St Davids/Bristol Temple Meads

It would require the conversion of the SWT 444s and 450s to dual voltage and more duel voltage Class 350s and dual voltage 444s and even new Class 185s

Weymouth service from the WCML. what could operate it, 4 car voyagers?
Similar issues for every other idea that isnt already in use (Brum-Bristol) etc

 

[HSTEd]

Well with a Crossrail 3/Thameslink 2 in place.... dual voltage electric multiple units?

 

[swt_passenger]

I have an idea on how Crossrail 3 might work, build a line between Euston and Waterloo with stations at Bloomsbury and Covent Garden, Euston would be rebuilt (if Crossrail 2 and 3 were built at the same time as HS2) while at Waterloo the current (historic) station will become a shopping precent and enlarged passenger concourse while a (posibbly underground) thorugh station will be built in front of the current station

The Watford DC line services (which would be linked to the St Albans Branch Line) will be linked directly South West Trains suburban services so services like St Albans Abbey-Watford Junction-Reading/Whitton/Feltham/Staines/Weybridge/Twickenham/Teddington/Guildford/Hampton Court/Alton/Chessington

The London Midland WCML services would be linked to SWT Main Line Services so services like Crewe/Birmingham New Street-Southampton Central/Bournemouth/Poole/ Weymouth/Portsmouth/Salisbury/Yeovil Junction/Exeter St Davids/Bristol Temple Meads

So you are proposing linking the 3 tph DC line service with about a 40 tph SWT suburban service, and then linking about 10 tph WCML suburban services with about 28 tph SWT long distance services?

Can't you see a slight problem with this?

 

[AlanFry1]

Weymouth service from the WCML. what could operate it, 4 car voyagers?
Similar issues for every other idea that isnt already in use (Brum-Bristol) etc

Some of these routes are done by XC, but these would also serve London, unlike XC, answering the question about operating the Weymouth to Birmingham service would be dual voltage versions of the 444
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So you are proposing linking the 3 tph DC line service with about a 40 tph SWT suburban service, and then linking about 10 tph WCML suburban services with about 28 tph SWT long distance services?

Can't you see a slight problem with this?

No doubt, to be honest, if the government desided to do Crossrail 3, then it would be a smaller scale plan

But if they (unlikely) do adopt it, then I plan to increase frequncy on WCML and Watford DC services to match SWT service, there would be space when HS2 s built/and or a few upgrades

I think we can all agree there a many challenges with this plan, but benefits as well

 

[Batman]

By Cross Rail 2, do we really mean the long proposed Chelsea and Hackney Line?

Cross Rail 3 should run from London Bridge to Euston, taking a mix of express services on the South East mainlines and a few inner suburban services away from Cannon Street and Charing Cross and linking them to the LM services from Euston.

How does Dover - Birmingham New Street, or Ramsgate - Northampton or Tonbridge - Tring sound?

 

[HSTEd]

So you are proposing linking the 3 tph DC line service with about a 40 tph SWT suburban service, and then linking about 10 tph WCML suburban services with about 28 tph SWT long distance services?

Can't you see a slight problem with this?

Well if you truncate the Bakerloo line you can get another half dozen there, and then there are always the Chiltern suburban and WCML inner stuff.

SWT is gone, it will likely be folded into the new Crossrail 2 proposals.
Its got to be SN or SE really.
And who says you have to move completely to it?
I wasn't talking about closing Victoria.

 

[Batman]

By Cross Rail 2, do we really mean the long proposed Chelsea and Hackney Line?

Cross Rail 3 should run from London Bridge to Euston, taking a mix of express services on the South East mainlines and a few inner suburban services away from Cannon Street and Charing Cross and linking them to the LM services from Euston.

How does Dover - Birmingham New Street, or Ramsgate - Northampton or Tonbridge - Tring sound?

SW metro services could link up with CR3 in a tunnel close to Waterloo East and continue north either to south facing bays at Euston or to the Watford DC lines. There probably would be capacity for that because some Southeastern trains (both metro and express) will still terminate at Charing Cross and Cannon Street.

 

[AlanFry1]

By Cross Rail 2, do we really mean the long proposed Chelsea and Hackney Line?

Cross Rail 3 should run from London Bridge to Euston, taking a mix of express services on the South East mainlines and a few inner suburban services away from Cannon Street and Charing Cross and linking them to the LM services from Euston.

How does Dover - Birmingham New Street, or Ramsgate - Northampton or Tonbridge - Tring sound?

I do mean the Chelsea-Hackney line as Crossrail 2

What stations would be between Euston-London Bridge Crossrail 3?

In my opnion it should go though Charring Cross before reaching Euston
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I could revise my plans to include Chltern Services as well, with the SWT suburban also linking Chiltern suburban services and even Metropoltian Line services beyond Baker Street (along with Watford SC services), while SWT Main line sevices could also link up with Chiltern Main line services (as well as LM WCML services)

Would that solve the frequncy problem?

 

[swt_passenger]

SWT is gone, it will likely be folded into the new Crossrail 2 proposals.
Its got to be SN or SE really.

That's right - however if Crossrail 2 takes over the L&SE RUS option of the mainline side inner suburban services that is still only a relatively small fraction of SWT's services. Meridian was listing practically the whole SW Network, that runs to nearly 70 tph as of today.

Proposing linking through services to the extent of Exeter to Crewe via London is just ridiculous though, I'd agree that linking a WCML based CR3 with SE and SN metro stuff is favourite.

 

[AlanFry1]

That's right - however if Crossrail 2 takes over the L&SE RUS option of the mainline side inner suburban services that is still only a relatively small fraction of SWT's services. Meridian was listing practically the whole SW Network, that runs to nearly 70 tph as of today.

Proposing linking through services to the extent of Exeter to Crewe via London is just ridiculous though, I'd agree that linking a WCML based CR3 with SE and SN metro stuff is favourite.

Crossrail 2 is more likely going to be a link (via Central London) of the Wimbledon branch of the District Line with the Epping Branch (hopefully up to Ongar) of the Central Line

Crossrail 3 involving linking SE and SN metro services, might also work and be easier than plan as well

 

[HSTEd]

That's right - however if Crossrail 2 takes over the L&SE RUS option of the mainline side inner suburban services that is still only a relatively small fraction of SWT's services. Meridian was listing practically the whole SW Network, that runs to nearly 70 tph as of today.

Proposing linking through services to the extent of Exeter to Crewe via London is just ridiculous though, I'd agree that linking a WCML based CR3 with SE and SN metro stuff is favourite.

There is always the possibility of Birmingham - Ashford or somesuch, Birmignham isn't that much further than Peterborough from London, and if you used the Chiltern Line you would probably decrease travel times with the requisite electrification. (And Thameslink has 1st class-equipped trains on it doesn't it?).

SE is probably a better choice out of Victoria because you don't want to tangle up with Thameslink on the Brighton Main Line in case of disruption.

 

[swt_passenger]

Crossrail 2 is more likely going to be a link (via Central London) of the Wimbledon branch of the District Line with the Epping Branch (hopefully up to Ongar) of the Central Line.

Not any more it isn't.

Both the latest NR L&SE RUS, and TfL's latest long term proposals, both suggest CR2 taking over the SW main suburban services through Wimbledon and also some WA suburban services.

Connecting the Central and District was the original plan.

If you did a bit of up to date research before going off on ridiculous tangents all the time you'd know this already.

Here's TfL's input to the RUS for instance:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downlo...ndon-south-east-rus-consultation-response.pdf

 

[Batman]

I do mean the Chelsea-Hackney line as Crossrail 2

What stations would be between Euston-London Bridge Crossrail 3?

In my opnion it should go though Charring Cross before reaching Euston
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I could revise my plans to include Chltern Services as well, with the SWT suburban also linking Chiltern suburban services and even Metropoltian Line services beyond Baker Street (along with Watford SC services), while SWT Main line sevices could also link up with Chiltern Main line services (as well as LM WCML services)

Would that solve the frequncy problem?

Revision of plans.

From the north, have two tunnel, one starting at Marylebone, linking to the Chiltern line, and one from Euston, linking to the WCML. These would link at Tottenham Court Road for connections to CR1&2. The line would then run 4 track to a lower level platforms at Charing Cross, with cross over between Tottenham Court Road and Charing Cross to allow interactivity between the two lines. From Charing Cross they would both run in a tunnel under the Thames with the SW line calling at lower level platforms at Waterloo and running in a tunnel following roughly the course of the current line and emergin to the surface and connecting with it in the Nine Elms area.

The South East line would call at a new station at the southern end of Blackfries bridge (with a walkway to the main station to allow for connection to Thameslink) and it would continue to lower level platforms at London Bridge before emerging to the service at connecting with the SE mainline in the Bermondsey area.

Unfortunately I can't find anyway of getting SW metro trains to connect with Thameslink.

It might even be possible to build a tunnel from London Bridge to Fenchurch Street so that Essex Thameside can become part of CR3. But I'm not sure about capacity issues that might cause.

 

[AlanFry1]

There is always the possibility of Birmingham - Ashford or somesuch, Birmignham isn't that much further than Peterborough from London, and if you used the Chiltern Line you would probably decrease travel times with the requisite electrification. (And Thameslink has 1st class-equipped trains on it doesn't it?).

SE is probably a better choice out of Victoria because you don't want to tangle up with Thameslink on the Brighton Main Line in case of disruption.

Certainly it will link the south with the north and add more stations in Central London

So would your idea of Crossrail 3 be Victoria-Marybourne?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not any more it isn't.

Both the latest NR L&SE RUS, and TfL's latest long term proposals, both suggest CR2 taking over the SW main suburban services through Wimbledon and also some WA suburban services.

Connecting the Central and District was the original plan.

If you did a bit of up to date research before going off on ridiculous tangents all the time you'd know this already.

Here's TfL's input to the RUS for instance:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downlo...ndon-south-east-rus-consultation-response.pdf

Is not the case that the safeguarded route is the same?

 

[Batman]

I'm confused. So in the real world, has the route for CR2 been changed so that it will now link with SW metro services from Waterloo, rather than the Wimbledon branch of the District line?

 

[HSTEd]

I'm confused. So in the real world, has the route for CR2 been changed so that it will now link with SW metro services from Waterloo, rather than the Wimbledon branch of the District line?

Apparently so.

EDIT:

Tunnel from around South Hempstead on the DC line (probably need a new station in a cutting or the like), with a branch connecting to the Chiltern Main Line approaches immediately north of Marylebone. Appropriate crossovers with dual electrification would enable WCML slow services to also go down the slip from the DC line. (Alternatively have trains using the DC line switch from AC to DC here and have two switchover points on the system if this is not operationally troublesome)


The main tunnel would have a station below Marylebone, another at Green Park for better london underground interchange and finally a third one beneath Victoria, with the tunnel emerging onto the running lines on the SE side of the station, with the trackwork around Victoria being changed to allow more platforms to be used by SN.

 

[AlanFry1]

Revision of plans.

From the north, have two tunnel, one starting at Marylebone, linking to the Chiltern line, and one from Euston, linking to the WCML. These would link at Tottenham Court Road for connections to CR1&2. The line would then run 4 track to a lower level platforms at Charing Cross, with cross over between Tottenham Court Road and Charing Cross to allow interactivity between the two lines. From Charing Cross they would both run in a tunnel under the Thames with the SW line calling at lower level platforms at Waterloo and running in a tunnel following roughly the course of the current line and emergin to the surface and connecting with it in the Nine Elms area.

The South East line would call at a new station at the southern end of Blackfries bridge (with a walkway to the main station to allow for connection to Thameslink) and it would continue to lower level platforms at London Bridge before emerging to the service at connecting with the SE mainline in the Bermondsey area.

Unfortunately I can't find anyway of getting SW metro trains to connect with Thameslink.

It might even be possible to build a tunnel from London Bridge to Fenchurch Street so that Essex Thameside can become part of CR3. But I'm not sure about capacity issues that might cause.

You idea is a good one, but I would make further changes, the tunnels from Euston and Maryboune would link at Tottenham Court Road and go to Charring Cross, the current station will become a concourse and a new underground station below it would be built, the tunnel would then reaches under the South Bank where it splits in 2, one going towards Waterloo and another emerging at Waterloo East

Also I suggest buiding a station at Leicester Square between Tottenham Court Road and Charring Cross and stations at Portland Place (between MaryBourne and Tottenham Court Road) and Bloomsbury (between Euston and Tottenham Court Road)

 

[swt_passenger]

I'm confused. So in the real world, has the route for CR2 been changed so that it will now link with SW metro services from Waterloo, rather than the Wimbledon branch of the District line?

The safeguarding hasn't changed yet, as that would require more formal proposals - but all the evidence is out there that TfL are moving towards both a diversion via Euston (to deal with HS2 dispersal), and connecting the WA and SW suburban routes. As I pointed out, TfL contributed to the latest RUS, which covers all this ground in a fair amount of detail.

For example from the L&SE RUS Ch 8, talking about Chelsea - Hackney:

"...the RUS notes that the West Anglia corridor
may provide an eventual destination for trains
using such a cross-London tunnel. This is because
such a tunnel would relieve the London terminal
capacity constraint on the West Anglia route,
into which a connection appears realistic. Fourtracking
of the West Anglia route should therefore,
in the longer term, be reviewed as part of the
development of such a scheme. Such an approach
appears to offer more potential strategic options
than the previously assumed destination of the
north eastern end of the London Underground
Central Line."

 

[Batman]

The safeguarding hasn't changed yet, as that would require more formal proposals - but all the evidence is out there that TfL are moving towards both a diversion via Euston (to deal with HS2 dispersal), and connecting the WA and SW suburban routes. As I pointed out, TfL contributed to the latest RUS, which covers all this ground in a fair amount of detail.

For example from the L&SE RUS Ch 8, talking about Chelsea - Hackney:

"...the RUS notes that the West Anglia corridor
may provide an eventual destination for trains
using such a cross-London tunnel. This is because
such a tunnel would relieve the London terminal
capacity constraint on the West Anglia route,
into which a connection appears realistic. Fourtracking
of the West Anglia route should therefore,
in the longer term, be reviewed as part of the
development of such a scheme. Such an approach
appears to offer more potential strategic options
than the previously assumed destination of the
north eastern end of the London Underground
Central Line."

Sounds very well, but I thought the WA line was been linked into Thameslink?

And does think make it more likely that the Chelsea and Hackney line will be built to LU standard?

 

[swt_passenger]

... the tunnel would then reaches under the South Bank where it splits in 2, one going towards Waterloo and another emerging at Waterloo East

You cannot physically build such a route and still run normal trains on it. Think about gradients, and then think about all the existing LU running and foot tunnels in that area. You'd have to get below the Bakerloo, Jubilee, Northern and Waterloo & City. The newer the line, the deeper they have to be.

Many of your ideas seem to fail the most basic of reality checks...

 

[AlanFry1]

The safeguarding hasn't changed yet, as that would require more formal proposals - but all the evidence is out there that TfL are moving towards both a diversion via Euston (to deal with HS2 dispersal), and connecting the WA and SW suburban routes. As I pointed out, TfL contributed to the latest RUS, which covers all this ground in a fair amount of detail.

For example from the L&SE RUS Ch 8, talking about Chelsea - Hackney:

"...the RUS notes that the West Anglia corridor
may provide an eventual destination for trains
using such a cross-London tunnel. This is because
such a tunnel would relieve the London terminal
capacity constraint on the West Anglia route,
into which a connection appears realistic. Fourtracking
of the West Anglia route should therefore,
in the longer term, be reviewed as part of the
development of such a scheme. Such an approach
appears to offer more potential strategic options
than the previously assumed destination of the
north eastern end of the London Underground
Central Line."

If that was the case, then the point were Crossrail 2 meet the WA routes would be at Hackney Downs
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You cannot physically build such a route and still run normal trains on it. Think about gradients, and then think about all the existing LU running and foot tunnels in that area. You'd have to get below the Bakerloo, Jubilee, Northern and Waterloo & City. The newer the line, the deeper they have to be.

Many of your ideas seem to fail the most basic of reality checks...

I agree that it is not easy to do, I suggested this so that it would more easily link Waterloo and Charring Cross

 

[swt_passenger]

Sounds very well, but I thought the WA line was been linked into Thameslink?

And does think make it more likely that the Chelsea and Hackney line will be built to LU standard?

The GN is the route linked to Thameslink, not the WA. Are you thinking of when it was WAGN? GN was the Kings Cross side, WA was the Liverpool St side of the once combined franchise.

Chelney won't be a deep tube size if it takes over mainline suburban routes at each end, it will be similar to Crossrail 1.

I just can't see another tube sized line being built nowadays - only extensions to existing lines.

 

[HSTEd]

Doing what I suggested (linking the DC/WCML slows at West Hampstead and the Chiltern Main Line outside Marylebone to the SE side of Victoria) would probably require the partial demolition of the Grosvenor Road Carriage shed, but then there will be less trains requiring stabling at Victoria......

6tph DC lines
8tph Chiltern Main Line
10tph WCML.

Not sure how to disperse south of the river though, but I imagine the DC trains and 2tph of the Chiltern (the Aylesbury trains) would connect to SN inner suburban connections while the others would connect to more long distance services. (Such as Tring-Dover or Birmingham Snow Hill to Ashford Int).

This does reduce Marylebone to a Rush hour only station like moorgate, but it has long platforms and the required electrification of the Chiltern Main Line would permit it to become the station of choice for minor London trains operated by open access or whatever.

 

[Batman]

The GN is the route linked to Thameslink, not the WA. Are you thinking of when it was WAGN? GN was the Kings Cross side, WA was the Liverpool St side of the once combined franchise.

Chelney won't be a deep tube size if it takes over mainline suburban routes at each end, it will be similar to Crossrail 1.

I just can't see another tube sized line being built nowadays - only extensions to existing lines.

Ok, My mistake, I got mixed up with the two parts of the old WAGN franchise.

So lets see if I've got this. Trains from Cambridge, Stanstead, Chingford etc, will run in a tunnel through to Waterloo where they will form SW metro trains?

That line will run via King's Cross/St Pancras and Euston for connectivity with Thameslink and HS2?

The Chelsea and Hackney line stays as it is, but is effectively downgraded to CR3?

 

[swt_passenger]

Ok, My mistake, I got mixed up with the two parts of the old WAGN franchise.

So lets see if I've got this. Trains from Cambridge, Stanstead, Chingford etc, will run in a tunnel through to Waterloo where they will form SW metro trains?

That line will run via King's Cross/St Pancras and Euston for connectivity with Thameslink and HS2?

The Chelsea and Hackney line stays as it is, but is effectively downgraded to CR3?

No, the 'Chelsea - Hackney route' was only ever the newly tunnelled section of the route, because the original intention was to run on the Central and District beyond the central section. They could just as easily have called it the Wimbledon - Epping line, but obviously the outer sections didn't need safeguarding, unlike the new bit.

So the Chelsea - Hackney 'route' would still be used (apart from diverting to Euston), but the two ends would be vastly different, turning it into a Crossrail 2.

As I see it, tube sized 'Chelney' has now morphed into mainline sized 'Crossrail 2', but you don't get both.

Crossrail 3 is a far more recent idea, and mostly (especially in this thread) speculation.

 

[Batman]

No, the 'Chelsea - Hackney route' was only ever the newly tunnelled section of the route, because the original intention was to run on the Central and District beyond the central section. They could just as easily have called it the Wimbledon - Epping line, but obviously the outer sections didn't need safeguarding, unlike the new bit.

So the Chelsea - Hackney 'route' would still be used (apart from diverting to Euston), but the two ends would be vastly different, turning it into a Crossrail 2.

As I see it, tube sized 'Chelney' has now morphed into mainline sized 'Crossrail 2', but you don't get both.

Crossrail 3 is a far more recent idea, and mostly (especially in this thread) speculation.

So basically, Wimbledon to Epping is now dead, and has been replaced with a heavy rail tunnel from Liverpool Street to Waterloo via Euston?