Would running fast lines under london be useful?

[eps200]

In threads about cross-rail people always mention that the stations are actually the expensive part and the tunnels are relatively less expensive.

Has connecting termini and running long distance stuff through ever been priced up? surely it would take a lot of strain off the tube and end the nightmare of crossing London. Probably want the odd station for monster interchanges where mainlines cross but not enough to drive cost to high or allow people to use it as a new tube line.

 

[yorkie]

In threads about cross-rail people always mention that the stations are actually the expensive part and the tunnels are relatively less expensive.

With an emphasis on the word relatively. It's still billions.

Has connecting termini and running long distance stuff through ever been priced up?

It doesn't make sense for long distance trains to use such tunnels, but there are proposals for Crossrail 2, yes.

surely it would take a lot of strain off the tube and end the nightmare of crossing London.

Yes, a couple of proposals exist to do this, do a search for "Crossrail 2" for more information.

Probably want the odd station for monster interchanges where mainlines cross but not enough to drive cost to high or allow people to use it as a new tube line.

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but if you are suggesting a line costing £billions exclusively for long-distance traffic, that's not sensible nor feasible in my opinion.

 

[dysonsphere]

I would say that idea is a non starter for traveling through London where would you be going anyway. London is pretty far south when you think about it. Also you are having to go pretty deep under London to avoid all the other lines will soon reach the point of getting to deep.

 

[swt_passenger]

It's easy to lose track of the fact that the vast majority of passengers are not 'crossing London' anyway, they are going to or from London. (This is often pointed out about Thameslink.) Also, those that do cross London are not all heading to the same mainline terminus on the other side, so any pair of routes you 'joined up' would still only cover a small subset of travellers. For example, thinking about Waterloo, where do you connect the through line - maybe to the line from Euston, St Pancras, Kings Cross, or Liverpool St?

 

[LE Greys]

It's an old idea. The original plan behind the Eastern Counties Railway was to build it 7ft gauge and link it directly with the Great Western. As it was, it was 5ft and the link eventually turned into the Metropolitan Railway, used for a very different purpose, while the Eastern Counties' roundabout route from London to Norwich via Cambridge was supplanted by what eventually became the Great Eastern. The trouble is, you really need a new station for all the lines to link up into. Berlin Hauptbahnhof is a good example, so maybe ours could be 'London Central'. You also still need the Underground as a collector/distributor network around London, plus a additional stops at the current stations to take some pressure off London Central. This would push prices through the roof. If we were starting from scratch, I wouldn't have restricted the main lines at Euston Road, but encouraged them to tunnel under the road and link up somewhere around Holburn Viaduct in one huge station, but Victorian London was so densely-packed that this would have been impossible even then.

Possible, but impractical. Really, the best we can hope for is fast lines for Crossrail, thus extending FGW's Paddington-Bristol service through to Norwich, with perhaps an Oxford-Ipswich suburban route, but even that would probably be too pricey.

 

[IrishDave]

The short answer is yes, but not since 1980. A proposal by the British Railways Board in 1980 would have seen a tunnel linking Euston and Victoria - with no intermediate stations besides those two - with links to the WCML, MML and ECML to the north, and connecting to the mess of junctions in the Battersea area for connections to the Chatham, Brighton and Bournemouth mainlines.

London Reconnections had a post about it a couple of years ago: http://www.londonreconnections.com/2011/what-if-crossrail-1980/ with a link to a scanned PDF of the BRB's proposal: http://www.dragondark.co.uk/lr/crossrail1980londonreconnections.pdf - both are well worth a read.

 

[gerryuk]

Is it not possible to run the MML services from Sheffield through to Brighton on Thameslink? I am assuming the platforms at London Bridge, Gatwick and Brighton are long enough, although don’t know the score on the Thameslink platforms at St. Pancras?
As there are only 4 trains in each direction per hour on the MML would this not be possible even if it meant axing a couple of Thameslink services per hour?
If all MML services went to Brighton on Thameslink , linking at Kentish Town (if possible) it could free up platform space at St. Pancras for alternative future use.
This would give people from Sheffield and the East Midlands direct services South of London particularly Gatwick and Brighton, and visa versa.
Would this not give more seating capacity between London and Brighton?
With the train stock, stations and signalling that work these lines today is this technically possible?

 

[The Ham]

The short answer is yes, but not since 1980. A proposal by the British Railways Board in 1980 would have seen a tunnel linking Euston and Victoria - with no intermediate stations besides those two - with links to the WCML, MML and ECML to the north, and connecting to the mess of junctions in the Battersea area for connections to the Chatham, Brighton and Bournemouth mainlines.

London Reconnections had a post about it a couple of years ago: http://www.londonreconnections.com/2011/what-if-crossrail-1980/ with a link to a scanned PDF of the BRB's proposal: http://www.dragondark.co.uk/lr/crossrail1980londonreconnections.pdf - both are well worth a read.

Depends on if anything happens with Crossrail 3 - which is proposed to be Euston to Waterloo - it (or something similar) may come about some time after it was proposed.

 

[tbtc]

Is it not possible to run the MML services from Sheffield through to Brighton on Thameslink? I am assuming the platforms at London Bridge, Gatwick and Brighton are long enough, although don’t know the score on the Thameslink platforms at St. Pancras?

The EMT services used through Bedford are generally a lot shorter than Thameslink services are going to be so I doubt there'd be any physical problem with this (once the wires are up north of Bedford, of course).

However you'd then need to run Thameslink stock to Nottingham/ Derby/ Sheffield (to ensure that it was compatible with the "core"), but that wouldn't be comfortable for a two hundred mile journey.

 

[joeykins82]

I don't think that through London routes for anything other than metro services is a great idea; the disruption to both sides of Thameslink when the wires came down at Radlett affected the north and south routes because there were drivers and stock out of position. The service would be more resilient (although obviously less convenient) if it was just short distance metro routes going through the TL core and the suburban & semi-fast services terminated and turned back.

 

[Holly]

It's easy to lose track of the fact that the vast majority of passengers are not 'crossing London' anyway, they are going to or from London. (This is often pointed out about Thameslink.) ...

If Thameslink is indeed overcrowded in this way they should impose pick up only / set down only type restrictions.

So as to divert away to other lines all traffic that can use the lines that do not cross the centre.

 

[HSTEd]

The EMT services used through Bedford are generally a lot shorter than Thameslink services are going to be so I doubt there'd be any physical problem with this (once the wires are up north of Bedford, of course).

However you'd then need to run Thameslink stock to Nottingham/ Derby/ Sheffield (to ensure that it was compatible with the "core"), but that wouldn't be comfortable for a two hundred mile journey.

Well the only thing you would have to do to ensure compatibility with the core is fit it for the same ATO equipment and probably make sure all the doors are in the right place.

Doesn't really say anything about the interior.

 

[JamesRowden]

Really, the best we can hope for is fast lines for Crossrail, thus extending FGW's Paddington-Bristol service through to Norwich, with perhaps an Oxford-Ipswich suburban route, but even that would probably be too pricey.

The planned Paddington-Reading-(beyond) (2tph) semi-fast (5 intermediate stops including Hayes & Harlington [which can proberly be missed once Western access to Heathrow is operational]) is planned to run down the same tracks as the Great Western Crossrail services. I think that it would be very usefull to merge this service with the Liverpool Street to Southend/Colchester services and have it run all stations through the Crossrail core. The complication might be getting the trains on to the fast lines East of Stratford but at only 2tph there might be space for crossing paths. It would create a fast route from West to East London and the outer suburbs and mean that some intercity travellers who want go get to the other side of London can make one change at their intercity terminus (Paddington or Liverpool Street) to get to where they mght are traveling without having to be on a slow metro service. On the western end there should be enough space for 4tph and so perhaps there could be some semi-fasts to Heathrow and some that run along the Stratford to Barking route. My service idea would not be run by transport for London and would make use of standard style stock (not style London Overground stock).

 

[swt_passenger]

My service idea would not be run by transport for London and would make use of standard style stock (not London Overground stock).

Crossrail won't be using London Overground stock either...

But it will be using 10 car fixed formation trains with ATO, that line up with platform edge doors on the underground section, so your suggested stock will have to match it in size, be fitted with ATO, and match its performance.

It is only advantageous for the a small subset of GW passengers that happen to be headed for your eventual destinations, anyone else would still have to change trains as now.

 

[JamesRowden]

It is only advantageous for the a small subset of GW passengers that happen to be headed for your eventual destinations, anyone else would still have to change trains as now.

It should be very useful to anyone along the western part of the route travelling to Central London (far more stops to pick to from to change at to get to the required London Underground line), Eastern London and those places East and London and those travelling from the eastern part of the route to Central London, Western London and places West of London.

Crossrail won't be using London Overground stock either...

I meant Overground style stock.

 

[swt_passenger]

I meant Overground style stock.

Crossrail isn't going to run 'Overground style' stock either. They are going for about 450 seats per 10 car train, you cannot fit all that in with longitudinal seating, there'd have to be 2+2.

 

[JamesRowden]

Crossrail isn't going to run 'Overground style' stock either. They are going for about 450 seats per 10 car train, you cannot fit all that in with longitudinal seating, there'd have to be 2+2.

That is only an average 45 seats per carriage on a ten car toiletless, two cab train with apparently 1500 passenger capacity (seems like a lot of standing room). '2+2' seating 375s have an average of 59 seats per carriage (20.4m) with toilets. 345s seem more like metro stock (such as London Overground) than mainline stock to me.

 

[swt_passenger]

All a bit academic as they are highly unlikely to do what you suggest for sound operational reasons anyway...

 

[JamesRowden]

All a bit academic as they are highly unlikely to do what you suggest for sound operational reasons anyway...

Like?

 

[swt_passenger]

Like?

Regular repeating timetable, ATO, PEDs, short dwell times. Designed to be, and allowed by the Crossrail Act, to be a high capacity metro, not a part time intercity railway.

 

[Deerfold]

I meant Overground style stock.

What type of stock would you want to use? Would it skip stops in Central London (but be unlikely to gain any time as it would be between all-stopping services) or would it need to be able to cope with people using it as a tube-style service?

 

[LexyBoy]

Surely the point of any cross-London line, whether intercity or metro, is that it removes the need for large terminus stations in central London (and thus frees capacity at the existing termini).

So you have two options:
1)Run suburban services through the tunnels, increasing capacity on these routes and freeing terminus capacity for IC services, or
2)Run IC services through the tunnels, increasing capacity on these routes and freeing terminus capacity for suburban services.

Nice as it would be for those travelling via, rather than to, London to have 0/1 changes rather than 2, I think there are more benefits to (1):
- A fairly self-contained system such as Crossrail is more reliable and thus able to make better use of the core (short headways)
- Passengers boarding IC trains are likely to have more luggage, take time boarding and finding their seats, and tend to arrive well in advance of departure. Starting at a terminus suits this better.
- IC trains will pick up most passengers in London, so it makes sense for the train to have a chance to be freshly cleaned and staffed which requires a long time.

If money were no object then certainly I'd advocate building IC lines under London!

 

[JamesRowden]

Regular repeating timetable, ATO, PEDs, short dwell times. Designed to be, and allowed by the Crossrail Act, to be a high capacity metro, not a part time intercity railway.

I the centre the services I suggest would act like that. I am not suggesting any intercity services run through Crossrail. I am suggesting that some outer suburban services could run through Crossrail.

My services would effectively be an extension of Crossrail services that are planned to terminate at Paddington and would act like having another branch.

What type of stock would you want to use? Would it skip stops in Central London (but be unlikely to gain any time as it would be between all-stopping services) or would it need to be able to cope with people using it as a tube-style service?

The stock that I am suggesting would be something like an electrostar (2 wide doors per 20.5m carriage allows a fast flow of passengers). It could have more standing room.

The places that would find the services most useful would be those large places that are outside or on the outskirts of London and at which the Crossrail stopping service would simply be so much slower than a semi-fast service such as Maidenhead, Slough, Romford and Shenfield. Rather than the people having to choose between a slow crossrail service and a faster service that terminates at a London terminal, the people would be able to get the 'best of both Worlds'. If there was a problem of faster Crossrail services catching up too much with slower ones along a branch then there could be more than two stopping patterns along the branch with one that stops everywhere and does not run so far out and another which just outside the core runs semi-fast and then as a stopping service further out and another that runs as a semi-fast throughout apart from the core. There would also be the possibility of the semi-fast services stopping at more than one popular station within a single built up area to save people needing to get to the centre or their town to get a fairly speedy service to a variety of stops in Central London.

 

[Bald Rick]

The complication might be getting the trains on to the fast lines East of Stratford but at only 2tph there might be space for crossing paths.

There isn't.

 

[306024]

There isn't.

Stratford to Forest Gate Jn. One of the more difficult bits of railway to operate without delay as it is, even with bi-di signalling (which can cause more delay if not used properly).

 

[IanXC]

Is it not possible to run the MML services from Sheffield through to Brighton on Thameslink? I am assuming the platforms at London Bridge, Gatwick and Brighton are long enough, although don’t know the score on the Thameslink platforms at St. Pancras?
As there are only 4 trains in each direction per hour on the MML would this not be possible even if it meant axing a couple of Thameslink services per hour?
If all MML services went to Brighton on Thameslink , linking at Kentish Town (if possible) it could free up platform space at St. Pancras for alternative future use.
This would give people from Sheffield and the East Midlands direct services South of London particularly Gatwick and Brighton, and visa versa.
Would this not give more seating capacity between London and Brighton?
With the train stock, stations and signalling that work these lines today is this technically possible?

I think another issue with the current stock and infrastructure is that running diesel 222s or HSTs through the Thameslink tunnels might, as a minimum create a rather unpleasant atmosphere for passengers waiting on platforms...

 

[Bald Rick]

I think another issue with the current stock and infrastructure is that running diesel 222s or HSTs through the Thameslink tunnels might, as a minimum create a rather unpleasant atmosphere for passengers waiting on platforms...

Not to mention that anyone sat in the middle of a coach would have a tunnel wall coming through their window.

 

[CatfordCat]

I think in terms of sheer numbers, the potential passenger flows for relatively short journeys are always going to be far greater than the potential for people to travel between the east midlands and Gatwick / Brighton.

Not necessarily that many full scale 'cross London' journeys, but from south London suburbs to the north side of central London and vice versa. The number of journeys, particularly commuting, where people need to get further in to central London than the London terminus of their local rail line is pretty high.

Trying to add one or two inter city trains per hour into the Thameslink mix is likely to add a whole new layer of complication into what's already a pretty complex timetable (either now or when the GN gets added and all the work at London Bridge is done) and the different acceleration / braking capability of IC trains, and the station dwell times needed, would probably mean that each IC train would cost two suburban train paths.

 

[tbtc]

Well the only thing you would have to do to ensure compatibility with the core is fit it for the same ATO equipment and probably make sure all the doors are in the right place.

Doesn't really say anything about the interior.

You'd want to put Intercity style stock through the Thameslink tunnel (trying to get hundreds of people onto and off trains in short dwell times through narrow Intercity doors)?

 

[LE Greys]

I think in terms of sheer numbers, the potential passenger flows for relatively short journeys are always going to be far greater than the potential for people to travel between the east midlands and Gatwick / Brighton.

Not necessarily that many full scale 'cross London' journeys, but from south London suburbs to the north side of central London and vice versa. The number of journeys, particularly commuting, where people need to get further in to central London than the London terminus of their local rail line is pretty high.

Trying to add one or two inter city trains per hour into the Thameslink mix is likely to add a whole new layer of complication into what's already a pretty complex timetable (either now or when the GN gets added and all the work at London Bridge is done) and the different acceleration / braking capability of IC trains, and the station dwell times needed, would probably mean that each IC train would cost two suburban train paths.

Really, you'd need a second tunnel, probably running down Grays Inn Road. It would allow two extra platforms for the CTRL at St Pancras, with a few spare bays on the west side.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The planned Paddington-Reading-(beyond) (2tph) semi-fast (5 intermediate stops including Hayes & Harlington [which can proberly be missed once Western access to Heathrow is operational]) is planned to run down the same tracks as the Great Western Crossrail services. I think that it would be very usefull to merge this service with the Liverpool Street to Southend/Colchester services and have it run all stations through the Crossrail core. The complication might be getting the trains on to the fast lines East of Stratford but at only 2tph there might be space for crossing paths. It would create a fast route from West to East London and the outer suburbs and mean that some intercity travellers who want go get to the other side of London can make one change at their intercity terminus (Paddington or Liverpool Street) to get to where they mght are traveling without having to be on a slow metro service. On the western end there should be enough space for 4tph and so perhaps there could be some semi-fasts to Heathrow and some that run along the Stratford to Barking route. My service idea would not be run by transport for London and would make use of standard style stock (not style London Overground stock).

I should have added that they could also combine Heathrow Express and Stansted Express end-on.