Would running fast lines under london be useful?

[mr_jrt]

It's funny how this old chestnut keeps cropping up time and time again

IMHO, the Thameslink tunnels were a prototype to see if RER-style services worked in London. Experiment successful, they do, and thus we have Crossrail under construction.

As people keep mentioning but without nailing it down, you can't sensibly mix stopping patterns in a high-capacity railway. There's a reason the 'New' DC lines were built on the WCML...

Now we've established Thameslink works, lets do it properly. A new bored tunnel from West Hampstead to somewhere suitable, perhaps East Croydon, perhaps just Herne Hill, and extended 6-tracking out to the limits of the metro service. Regardless, the existing slow Victorian route can then be used for what it was designed to be used for - slow Victorian-esque all stations services, aka the Thameslink metro services. Give the new TL tunnel just major station interchanges to keep it nippy, and jobs a good 'un. Thameslink can then operate as the comfortable 100mph suburban railway it needs to be to serve Bedford/Cambridge/Brighton, and the metro services can have suitable high-density stock running all stations up to 75mph.

In the context of Crossrail, London is a lot wider than it is high, so there are always going to be more stations across it, so mixing the two is more acceptable. Really, there needs to be 6 tracks out to airport junction, and Crossrail can then operate to Slough/Heathrow/High Wycombe all stations with the same 75mph metro stock as Thameslink out to Shenfield and Dartford. On the relief/slow lines you can then operate the faster-geared suburban stock (with toilets!) out beyond there to Reading/Newbury/Didcott/Bicester/Oxford and Ipswich/Gravesend etc.

 

[JamesRowden]

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).

But might the only extra path crossing that wouldn't be happening anyway (Liverpool Street to Southend/Colchester services already have to cross intercity Shenfield bound services when travelling in/out of Liverpool Street) be the West Bound service that I am proposing and the East Bound metro Crossrail services and any additional metro services that are sent to terminate at Liverpool Street from Shenfield (I cannot see much point in having such services when Crossrail should be more uesfull). It looks like it might be possible to have the semi-fast services crossover between Stratford and Maryland (if points were installed).

 

[HSTEd]

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)?

No, I would put them on and off trains through the width of door which is now typical for trains in Britain.... double sliding doros at the 1/3rd and 2/3rd position

"Intercity doors" are dying in Britain and have been since privatisation.

 

[tbtc]

No, I would put them on and off trains through the width of door which is now typical for trains in Britain.... double sliding doros at the 1/3rd and 2/3rd position

"Intercity doors" are dying in Britain and have been since privatisation.

So London to Sheffield would be run by trains with "commuter" doors?

 

[joeykins82]

It depends on whether the route the stock is required for requires throughput and shorter dwell times over comfortable (not 3+2) seating capacity; the pendolinos, voyagers, meridians, adelantes and even SWT's c444 stock are all IC style carriage end single leaf doors procured since privatisation and I suspect that more routes will use 444esque stock in due course (TPE, King's Lynn & Cambridge fasts, Ipswich/Norwich). IEP will be IC style doors too (although that's a replacement for existing IC stock of course).

 

[HSTEd]

So London to Sheffield would be run by trains with "commuter" doors?

Why not?

There are far more important things in modern train design for determining the comfort of the occupants than the location of the doors and therefore the location of the seats relative to the bogies.

Once you fit 378 style full width gangways this problem shrinks further into irrelevance.

Even if you limited the trains to 100mph they could probably beat today's slovenly HST timings, and if you were to do a special derivative build with 110mph capability the timetable advantage of even the modern diesel 125mph units dissapears.

People want affordable, clean trains that get to the destination in reasonable time and go somewhere they want to go.
Not many people want to go to Islington specifically, and the connectivity enabled by Thameslink assists this.

 

[LexyBoy]

"Intercity doors" are dying in Britain and have been since privatisation.

Really? True of Scotland and trans-Pennine routes, but elsewhere we have:
- WCML Mk2/3s replaced with Pendolini - kept IC doors
- XC Mk2/3s replaced with Voyagers - kept IC doors
- SWML slam-door stock replaced with 444s/450s - kept a mixture
- Welsh 101s & Mk2s replaced with 175s - kept/gained IC doors
- GWML HSTs to be replaced with IEP - keeping IC doors
- ECML HSTs & Mk4s to be replaced with IEP - keeping IC doors
- MML - Mk2s (?) replaced with 170s replaced with 222s - loss, then gain of IC doors

 

[HSTEd]

Really? True of Scotland and trans-Pennine routes, but elsewhere we have:
- WCML Mk2/3s replaced with Pendolini - kept IC doors
- XC Mk2/3s replaced with Voyagers - kept IC doors
- SWML slam-door stock replaced with 444s/450s - kept a mixture
- Welsh 101s & Mk2s replaced with 175s - kept/gained IC doors
- GWML HSTs to be replaced with IEP - keeping IC doors
- ECML HSTs & Mk4s to be replaced with IEP - keeping IC doors
- MML - Mk2s (?) replaced with 170s replaced with 222s - loss, then gain of IC doors

Don't forget the last remaining WCML Mk 1s and I believe some of the Mark 2s that were replaced with Class 350s. As well as other withdrawn loco hauled stock elsewhere.

The next effect since privatisation has been a rather large loss of end doors and a gain in suburban door layouts.
See the Turbostars, Class 185s and other units.

Apart from the Class 175s I can't think of any services that have gained end doors since privatisation. And the Class 175s are a rounding error.

And with the rise of the full width gangway I think the traditional pair of single leaf end doors at each end of the carriage are probably going to dissapear eventually (post IEP procurement obviously).
It will become practical to have double leaf doors at one end of each carriage.

 

[LexyBoy]

Hmm, I'm not convinced - I think it's that more of the stock replacement has been (outer) suburban rather than IC, hence mostly 1/3, 2/3 layout. I think that a suburban style layout doesn't create the impression IC TOCs are after so they'll prefer carriage end doors for image if nothing else.

It will become practical to have double leaf doors at one end of each carriage.

That I can see - works fine for TGVs, so with wider doors & larger vestibules could work for standard IC stock.

 

[si404]

Now we've established Thameslink works, lets do it properly. A new bored tunnel from West Hampstead to somewhere suitable, perhaps East Croydon, perhaps just Herne Hill, and extended 6-tracking out to the limits of the metro service. Regardless, the existing slow Victorian route can then be used for what it was designed to be used for - slow Victorian-esque all stations services, aka the Thameslink metro services.

You could even call it Crossrail 3...

The biggest problem I see is how do you use the capacity generated. Does 5 pairs of tracks north of Croydon not over-provide for the 5 routes south of there: via WCro, via Oxted, Tats/Cats, via Reigate and Quarry lines? If you sort out the Croydon area capacity problems and also treat CR3 as the Vic fasts (say, by taking them over in the Streatham area), you are likely to turn one line (LB fasts) into a ghost line. Perhaps a branch to another mainline (Chatham, SWML?), or some outside-the-box thinking like making better use of the Reigate-Tonbridge line and getting some E Kent services onto CR3.

Thameslink just as metro would require some rejigging in the approach to London Bridge (don't want BML fasts for metro service) - do-able, but not the easy win that having CR3 bypass everything gives you in the north (given you are basically 10-/6-tracking the BML to Purley as you are 6-tracking the MML to St Albans in the north). Also gives you justification for doing what Thameslink is too chicken to do - sorting out SE London.

Both lines would also need at least one other northern route to the MML semi-fasts and St Albans/WGC routes. May I suggest Aylesbury/Chesham via a mile of new track in the Cricklewood/Neasden area?

 

[Bald Rick]

But might the only extra path crossing that wouldn't be happening anyway (Liverpool Street to Southend/Colchester services already have to cross intercity Shenfield bound services when travelling in/out of Liverpool Street) be the West Bound service that I am proposing and the East Bound metro Crossrail services and any additional metro services that are sent to terminate at Liverpool Street from Shenfield (I cannot see much point in having such services when Crossrail should be more uesfull). It looks like it might be possible to have the semi-fast services crossover between Stratford and Maryland (if points were installed).

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying, but 2 things prevent this:
1) there is insufficient space between Stratford and Maryland for any more points, unless of course the existing ones (well used for freight late evening and overnight) ones are removed
2) there is no space in the timetable peak or off peak to get a train off the Down Electric through the Up Main to the Down Main.

 

[gerryuk]

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...

But the trains needn’t stop at St. Pancras. The first stop for the Sheffield service would be Farringdon, then Blackfriers and London Bridge. I am sure these stations could cope with diesel fumes before the entire line to Sheffield is electrified.
By running the Sheffield services through London it would take some of the strain off Kings Cross tube with customers transferring on to the Met, Circle, H&C and Crossrail at Farringdon not Kings Cross,
With Euston about to be rebuilt the freed up platforms at St. Pancras could be temporarily used for services from Manchester and Liverpool during the rebuild. Just a thought.

 

[Bald Rick]

By running the Sheffield services through London it would take some of the strain off Kings Cross tube with customers transferring on to the Met, Circle, H&C and Crossrail at Farringdon not Kings Cross,

What strain? Didn't LU just spend a billion rebuilding KXX?

Besides as said previously, there are only 4 types of trains permitted in the Thameslink Tunnels in traffic - 377s, 319s, 317s (as far south as Farringdon only) and the theoretical Class 700. The tunnels are VERY tight.

 

[Deerfold]

But the trains needn’t stop at St. Pancras. The first stop for the Sheffield service would be Farringdon, then Blackfriers and London Bridge. I am sure these stations could cope with diesel fumes before the entire line to Sheffield is electrified.
By running the Sheffield services through London it would take some of the strain off Kings Cross tube with customers transferring on to the Met, Circle, H&C and Crossrail at Farringdon not Kings Cross,
With Euston about to be rebuilt the freed up platforms at St. Pancras could be temporarily used for services from Manchester and Liverpool during the rebuild. Just a thought.

Well that'd annoy all the current passengers from Bedford and Luton for who St Pancakes is handy - and who have put up with all the disruption of rebuilding that station and the Thameslink core.

My experience of regularly catching Thameslink between St Pancras and Blackfriars is that St Pancras is by far the most popular place for passengers to get off from both directions - and you'd have lots of passengers having to make elongated journeys because they could no longer connect with the Victoria, Piccadilly and Northern lines (And Kings Cross mainline).

There's only 4 platforms at most which would be freed up at St Pancras - which could perhaps make a small contribution to helping with whichever of the 18 at Euston were shut at the time.

I certainly wouldn't be keen on diesels running through Farringdon.

 

[JamesRowden]

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying,

The only extra path crossing caused by my idea on the Greate Eastern line is between my West bound services and East bound Crossrail services. This is because the present Great Eastern semi-fast services that I would be replacing have to Cross the paths of the Shenfield bound intercity services due to sharing the line into and out of Liverpool Street.

1) there is insufficient space between Stratford and Maryland for any more points, unless of course the existing ones (well used for freight late evening and overnight) ones are removed

On Googlemaps I could not quite see the points. Either the points that I was talking about are already there or there could be points to the East of Maryland station.

2) there is no space in the timetable peak or off peak to get a train off the Down Electric through the Up Main to the Down Main.

There is only one train per 10 minutes off-peak along the metro route through Maryland. As I have already explained the gap to cross the intercity services already exists (timetable would be need to be altered to put the gap in the right place) and it should be possible for services to cross a 1 train per 10 minutes service.

The unknown element is to what extent all of the timetabling contraints across the network combine together to determine how realistic such a service is. Someone/thing would need to do very complicated timetable developement (which I do not think the standard user of this site (including myself) would be willing to go to the effort to determine).

 

[tbtc]

How long before some people start fantasising about Crossrail4?

The first one won't be open for a while, the second one is still at the "wishlist" stage, people are jumping the gun about a third one...

 

[Bald Rick]

The only extra path crossing caused by my idea on the Greate Eastern line is between my West bound services and East bound Crossrail services. This is because the present Great Eastern semi-fast services that I would be replacing have to Cross the paths of the Shenfield bound intercity services due to sharing the line into and out of Liverpool Street.


There is only one train per 10 minutes off-peak along the metro route through Maryland. As I have already explained the gap to cross the intercity services already exists (timetable would be need to be altered to put the gap in the right place) and it should be possible for services to cross a 1 train per 10 minutes service.

The unknown element is to what extent all of the timetabling contraints across the network combine together to determine how realistic such a service is. Someone/thing would need to do very complicated timetable developement (which I do not think the standard user of this site (including myself) would be willing to go to the effort to determine).

Dont forget Crossrail sees 8 an hour off peak, 12 in the peak, plus the 6 peak extras to Liv St.

Westbound is actually easy as they could use the Up avoider at Ilford, and sit there till their Crossrail slot came up. Eastbound is impossible though, as those of us who do / have done complicated TT development and / or run the GEML as part of their job will testify.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How long before some people start fantasising about Crossrail4?

The first one won't be open for a while, the second one is still at the "wishlist" stage, people are jumping the gun about a third one...

Allegedly, a certain Mr Livingstone (I presume) got as far as Crossrail 5 in one meeting with the TfL planners.

 

[si404]

Allegedly, a certain Mr Livingstone (I presume) got as far as Crossrail 5 in one meeting with the TfL planners.

Not sure what Crossrail 4 or 5 were*, but Crossrail 3 was Ken's Euston - TCR - Waterloo plan, hence why mr_jrt's plan should be called that - being an evolution of that.

*at a guess, two to the SE - probably a North Bank route and a rehashed Fleet line that looks more like the original 'Line F' plans.

 

[306024]

Dont forget Crossrail sees 8 an hour off peak, 12 in the peak, plus the 6 peak extras to Liv St.

Westbound is actually easy as they could use the Up avoider at Ilford, and sit there till their Crossrail slot came up. Eastbound is impossible though, as those of us who do / have done complicated TT development and / or run the GEML as part of their job will testify.

My cue to agree with Mr B Rick. And even running up the avoiding line at Ilford and across to the up electric before Manor Park would need to be pathed just ahead of a stopping train, otherwise you would just call at all signals to Stratford.

What is also sometimes missed in these discussions is the capacity that needs to be reserved for freight. The development of Thames Gateway has the potential to increase freight to and from the Barking direction, which hopefully will go via the Tottenham and Hampstead (T&H - how I hate the term GOB), but some may not, further increasing the difficulties of crossing all four lines between Stratford and Forest Gate Jn.

Add in all the ECS moves to and from Ilford Car Sheds and Gidea Park CS, and you'll soon find that the suggestion that "the timetable would be need to be altered to put the gap in the right place" becomes very difficult to achieve off peak, and impossible in the peak.