London's Transport Infrastructure

[Rational Plan]

Would'nt it be easier to build a new high speed tunnel from Oak common until the M4 where it could pop above and below ground where needed until past Slough/Maidenhead or all the way to Reading. That way we're only talking of two interfaces with a working railway. Once the new route is open, you could then refurbish platfoms on the fast lines.

There is no need to boost acton mainline or westbourne park, there are already good tube options.

Maybe Southhall east, not west as the regenration land practically starts next to the station. Stockley park is possible as it is a bigger gap between stations, you could also build a large park and ride site here.

Middle green road is a better location, the other road is practically next to the main station. it would be receive good walk up trade. Currently it has a narrow hump back bridge, but that it not much of a hindrance. I'd also avoid a station at the A355 and build one a bit further west closer to the Leigh road in the middle of the estate. Slough estates plans to rebuild the road bridge and develop several million more sq ft of office space here.

[Vulcan's Finest]

Originally Posted by Rational Plan

Would'nt it be easier to build a new high speed tunnel from Oak common until the M4 where it could pop above and below ground where needed until past Slough/Maidenhead or all the way to Reading. That way we're only talking of two interfaces with a working railway. Once the new route is open, you could then refurbish platfoms on the fast lines.

There is no need to boost acton mainline or westbourne park, there are already good tube options.

Maybe Southhall east, not west as the regenration land practically starts next to the station. Stockley park is possible as it is a bigger gap between stations, you could also build a large park and ride site here.

Middle green road is a better location, the other road is practically next to the main station. it would be receive good walk up trade. Currently it has a narrow hump back bridge, but that it not much of a hindrance. I'd also avoid a station at the A355 and build one a bit further west closer to the Leigh road in the middle of the estate. Slough estates plans to rebuild the road bridge and develop several million more sq ft of office space here.

The idea of a new mainline from OOC to Reading is nice, but realistically isn't going to happen until 20TPH on the existing fast lines are wedged and it would cost an absolute fortune. My more modest proposal for twin 3.75 mile long bored tunnels and underground platforms at Ealing is almost certainly going to cost a £billion.

Why shouldn't Acton and Westbourne Park have fast links to the City (and the West)? Why are they any less deserving than Ealing?

The regeneration land to the West of Southall station isn't accessible to the public. Plus the highly congested and narrow roads are totally unsuitable for major traffic flows. I know this because my brother lives in the old watertower on The Straight and getting there is a nightmare.

An A312 station would be close physically to the existing Slough station but would be very convenient for road users coming from the George Green direction. Just try to drive that section via the A4 and you'll see how much hassle it is to get to the existing station.

My proposal for the A355 takes into account the disused railway land that could be easily used for road links and car parking on the North side. This amount of land isn't available West of the A355 bridge.

[Rational Plan]

The idea of a new mainline from OOC to Reading is nice, but realistically isn't going to happen until 20TPH on the existing fast lines are wedged and it would cost an absolute fortune. My more modest proposal for twin 3.75 mile long bored tunnels and underground platforms at Ealing is almost certainly going to cost a £billion.

But it was also to build six tracks to Slough? There is not the land to do that with purchase and demolition and a lot of bridge and station rebuilding. As the the majority of trains on the fast tracks don't stop till after Slough, with Reading often being the first stop, it would be much easier to divert the fast lines than rebuild the existing. Look at how expensive the West coast mainline was and the only quad tracking occurred deep in the countryside.

I think if they were ever serious about looking at 6 tracking they would investigate the two options. I suspect they would push for a new route.

Why shouldn't Acton and Westbourne Park have fast links to the City (and the West)? Why are they any less deserving than Ealing?

Acton has loads of existing tube stations nearby. westbourne park was removed from the network as people were mostly using the next door tube platform and if they want crossrail they can change at Paddington. The idea of six tracking was to be able have a proper two tier crossrail service. The problem with adding too many stations on the slow line is it makes the journey time to long for everyone else. These areas already have a good tube service.

The regeneration land to the West of Southall station isn't accessible to the public. Plus the highly congested and narrow roads are totally unsuitable for major traffic flows. I know this because my brother lives in the old watertower on The Straight and getting there is a nightmare.

Yes but the masterplan for the site is to build new roads from the west avoiding the town centre. A bus only road is proposed to link the station to the centre of the site, but the narrow eastern wedge is adjacent to the station, there is no need for another station there.

An A312 station would be close physically to the existing Slough station but would be very convenient for road users coming from the George Green direction. Just try to drive that section via the A4 and you'll see how much hassle it is to get to the existing station.

The end of Slough station platform are half a mile from the western side of the A312. That is far too close for another station, these aren't light little tubes but 10 coach trains. Drivers on the A312 will just go to Slough Station, as that is where the semi fasts will stop, not at Langley or Burnham. Traffic in Slough is bad west of the town centre and from Langley down to the A4 and towards the airport.

There may be demand for a local stop between Middlegreen and St Marys road (the exact mid point between two stations. It would certainly have decent walk up trade but whether it would have enough would need to balanced against the cost of the station and the slowing of service to the West.

My proposal for the A355 takes into account the disused railway land that could be easily used for road links and car parking on the North side. This amount of land isn't available West of the A355 bridge.

Leigh road is only a quarter of mile to the west of the A355. A new station could be accessible from either road via Buckingham Avenue. If the main station building was focused towards the Leigh road, it would be closer to the centre of trading estate and it's 30,000 jobs. As Slough estates owns the entire estate and wants to turn Leigh road into a new centrepiece for the estate with new office buildings, hotels, training centres and two bus stations,

1. 4 million sq ft offices 2 hotels, training centre, conference centre, transport interchanges and cafes and retail.













[/QUOTE]



I'd imagine they'd bit your arm off to get a new station to form a centre piece of their plans. Those old warehouses would be demolished before could print the termination of leases.

[sotonsi]

Originally Posted by Rational Plan

The end of Slough station platform are half a mile from the western side of the A312. That is far too close for another station, these aren't light little tubes but 10 coach trains. Drivers on the A312 will just go to Slough Station, as that is where the semi fasts will stop, not at Langley or Burnham. Traffic in Slough is bad west of the town centre and from Langley down to the A4 and towards the airport.

Either you mean Hayes & Harlington station (unlikely as you mention Langley and Burham) or the A412.

I don't know who started it, but the error is being maintained and it's bothering my OCD when it comes to correct road numbers.

[Rational Plan]

Originally Posted by sotonsi

Either you mean Hayes & Harlington station (unlikely as you mention Langley and Burham) or the A412.

I don't know who started it, but the error is being maintained and it's bothering my OCD when it comes to correct road numbers.

A412

[Vulcan's Finest]

Rational Plan wrote: "Leigh road is only a quarter of mile to the west of the A355. A new station could be accessible from either road via Buckingham Avenue. If the main station building was focused towards the Leigh road, it would be closer to the centre of trading estate and it's 30,000 jobs. As Slough estates owns the entire estate and wants to turn Leigh road into a new centrepiece for the estate with new office buildings, hotels, training centres and two bus stations, 1. 4 million sq ft offices 2 hotels, training centre, conference centre, transport interchanges and cafes and retail".

TBH I'm pretty agnostic exactly where stations are situated in Slough as long as there are suitable road links and plenty of land is available for car parking. If Slough Estates donate land then fine, as long as commuters from North & South of the A4 on the West side can easily access the station. At the moment though it is pure conjecture.

The Southall Gas works plan is a bit fanciful IMHO despite Boris forcing it through - it was opposed by the two local authorities because both the A312 (yes, the A312) and A3005 already suffer from severe traffic problems. Another 3,500 homes and lots of businesses will cause chaos at times even with the Crescent being eradicated - unless the new development has great public transport links. A station near the West end of the development would also serve many dwellings to the South of the railway line via Brent Road.

In terms of adding tracks to existing main lines I believe this is how it goes in cost terms, with 1) the cheapest and 6) the most expensive. Of course even cheaper than 1) is to run the longest possible trains at the maximum frequency possible.....

1) New surface tracks possible, largely within existing railway lands and structures.
2) New surface tracks, but requiring significant purchase of undeveloped adjacent land and bridge/station rebuilding.
3) New tracks in cut and cover tunnels.
4) New tracks in bored tunnels (requiring TBMs).
5) New tracks in bored tunnels with excavated Underground stations.
6) New surface tracks, requiring use of adjacent developed land containing residential and commercial property, requiring compulsory purchase and demolition of expensive real estate.

[ChrisH]

Wouldn't it be better to build a western connection to Heathrow from Slough, and route some Heathrow Express trains west to Reading, stopping at Slough and Maidenhead? Or have I missed what the constraints are?

[cle]

Originally Posted by ChrisH

Wouldn't it be better to build a western connection to Heathrow from Slough, and route some Heathrow Express trains west to Reading, stopping at Slough and Maidenhead? Or have I missed what the constraints are?

Yep that's under consideration.

A western curve would have the same issues as Airport Junction - now being remodelled. In other words - you'd want grade separated connection to both the fast and slow lines heading west.

If you could have both, it'd be fantastic. Perhaps at that point, semi-fast services (given the Heathrow paths are free) might cover the three stations you mentioned, and extend to Didcot and Oxford for those connections too. You could also have Bristol and Cardiff once wired.

Another option is to tunnel west from Terminal 5 and rejoin the GWML around Iver - a detour but more efficient I guess. Again, with wires, some intercity trains could route this way.

[Rational Plan]

Originally Posted by cle

Yep that's under consideration.

A western curve would have the same issues as Airport Junction - now being remodelled. In other words - you'd want grade separated connection to both the fast and slow lines heading west.

If you could have both, it'd be fantastic. Perhaps at that point, semi-fast services (given the Heathrow paths are free) might cover the three stations you mentioned, and extend to Didcot and Oxford for those connections too. You could also have Bristol and Cardiff once wired.

Another option is to tunnel west from Terminal 5 and rejoin the GWML around Iver - a detour but more efficient I guess. Again, with wires, some intercity trains could route this way.

There's already been a report into it. They decided the best option would be a brand new route using a Western connection to the main line just East of Langley Station. It's only a matter of time for this option, as it is much less problematical than the staines option and it allows through runnig of some crossrail services.

[Vulcan's Finest]

Originally Posted by ChrisH

Wouldn't it be better to build a western connection to Heathrow from Slough, and route some Heathrow Express trains west to Reading, stopping at Slough and Maidenhead? Or have I missed what the constraints are?

Exactly what has recently been proposed at a cost of £370 million, a pair of tracks underground from T5 that joins the GWML a little to the East of Langley station. The MP for Slough is championing it and had a a cab ride in a class 57 locomotive a few weeks ago to see the route. For details see below:

http://wrath.thamesvalleyberkshire.c...ation-Form.pdf

Not that this proposal helps with GWML line capacity, a diversion via the airport will add 15-17 minutes - so no sane commuter would use these services to/from Slough or Reading.

[Vulcan's Finest]

Originally Posted by cle

Yep that's under consideration.

A western curve would have the same issues as Airport Junction - now being remodelled. In other words - you'd want grade separated connection to both the fast and slow lines heading west.

If you could have both, it'd be fantastic. Perhaps at that point, semi-fast services (given the Heathrow paths are free) might cover the three stations you mentioned, and extend to Didcot and Oxford for those connections too. You could also have Bristol and Cardiff once wired.

A Western curve at Stockley would be very difficult indeed to build due to Stockley lake, various warehouses, the A408 on an elevated embankment & bridge at the exact point where flyovers would be needed and several residential roads nearby.

A cut price electric train service from Reading and Slough to Heathrow is actually possible (once the line is electrified) without major expenditure by simply reversing at Hayes & Harlington! There is even space for a dedicated reversing siding and platform to the West of Station Road bridge situated between the up relief line and the new up Heathrow loop line. The only other expenditure would be associated reversible signalling on the relief lines and perhaps one additional crossover. Cost? £10 million at most....

[Rational Plan]

Sending trains down to Hayes either to reverse at Hayes or a difficult to build junction limits the number of services that can be sent into Heathrow. Also reversing at Hayes will eat into paths for trains towards London.

If they don't build a western facing link, then all they need to do is get rid of the premium charged for accessing the airport so it's part of the travelcard and have more trains stop at Hayes so people can change trains. If there is going to be at least 6 (probably 10) crossrails an hour to Heathrow then it's not an ordeal to change there.

A westward facing link has the advantage of quicker journey times from the West. A through crossrail service can also act as local service to the west and east of the airport as well as passengers to the airport. Also the airport can have higher through put as there are fewer terminating services.

In regards to the effects of diversion on through travel of points either side of the airport, well it all depends. If the services to the airport stop at the local stations that often only get a half hourly service off peak, then the time delay might not matter compared to waiting for the direct service. If service speed is important then the main stations will have the semi fasts to London and you will likely already do as you do now and time your arrival at the station for the fast service.

That is a harder thing to do at the London end as you not sure when and where you decide to head back to Paddington and the timings are off, so you are much more likely to get to Paddington and catch the first train home, whether it is the slow or fast one. For places like Slough or Reading there are so many trains that stop there you can wait a bit to catch the faster one and still beat the slower one, but once you get to gap of more than 10 minutes it's not worth waiting for a faster train.

[Rational Plan]

Interesting data on onward journeys from London rail terminals.

50% of people walk from the terminal they go to. 40% by tube the rest by bus and bike.

over 80% of walking is within 2km and over 80% over 2km for the tube.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...ini_report.pdf

Here are some interesting maps. In each square on the map a pie chart shows the number of passengers from the terminal and the how they got there.

[Vulcan's Finest]

Originally Posted by Rational Plan

Sending trains down to Hayes either to reverse at Hayes or a difficult to build junction limits the number of services that can be sent into Heathrow. Also reversing at Hayes will eat into paths for trains towards London.

If all lines are running to full capacity then that is clearly true - however only 6TPH will run West of Airport Jcn on the relief lines and the section from Hayes to Airport Jcn will have 7-8 tracks. I suspect 2TPH from Reading to Heathrow could easily be accommodated as I described.

Originally Posted by Rational Plan

If they don't build a western facing link, then all they need to do is get rid of the premium charged for accessing the airport so it's part of the travelcard and have more trains stop at Hayes so people can change trains. If there is going to be at least 6 (probably 10) crossrails an hour to Heathrow then it's not an ordeal to change there.

Agreed, the premium fares and not accepting travelcards cannot continue. In fact the Heathrow passengers currently waste a lot of fast line track capacity which would be much better used for longer-distance trains - only 800 pax arrive on HEX in the busiest hour.

A westward facing link has the advantage of quicker journey times from the West. A through crossrail service can also act as local service to the west and east of the airport as well as passengers to the airport. Also the airport can have higher through put as there are fewer terminating services.

Agreed, it would clearly be my preference. But £370 million is a lot of money, I'm showing there is a much cheaper alternative if necessary which would allow more limited services to/from LHR. It is debateable however that running 10-car Crossrail trains West from Heathrow to Reading is sensible. Many more brand-new units would need to be procured and arguably it would have a poor rate of return compared to using existing 4/5 car units that are cascaded and refurbished.

In regards to the effects of diversion on through travel of points either side of the airport, well it all depends. If the services to the airport stop at the local stations that often only get a half hourly service off peak, then the time delay might not matter compared to waiting for the direct service. If service speed is important then the main stations will have the semi fasts to London and you will likely already do as you do now and time your arrival at the station for the fast service.

That is a harder thing to do at the London end as you not sure when and where you decide to head back to Paddington and the timings are off, so you are much more likely to get to Paddington and catch the first train home, whether it is the slow or fast one. For places like Slough or Reading there are so many trains that stop there you can wait a bit to catch the faster one and still beat the slower one, but once you get to gap of more than 10 minutes it's not worth waiting for a faster train.

It will be a no-brainer for all but the dimmest of regular commuters travelling to Slough and Reading. Fast express trains today typically take 13-15 (Slough) and 24 minutes respectively. The basic-spec Crossrail trains diverted via Heathrow will take at least 30 and 50 minutes in comparison. Regular commuters ignore the slow trains in the rush hours, they will do the same with trains looped in future via the Airport and overtaken by successive fast trains.

[Rational Plan]

Originally Posted by Vulcan's Finest

If all lines are running to full capacity then that is clearly true - however only 6TPH will run West of Airport Jcn on the relief lines and the section from Hayes to Airport Jcn will have 7-8 tracks. I suspect 2TPH from Reading to Heathrow could easily be accommodated as I described.



Agreed, the premium fares and not accepting travelcards cannot continue. In fact the Heathrow passengers currently waste a lot of fast line track capacity which would be much better used for longer-distance trains - only 800 pax arrive on HEX in the busiest hour.



Agreed, it would clearly be my preference. But £370 million is a lot of money, I'm showing there is a much cheaper alternative if necessary which would allow more limited services to/from LHR. It is debateable however that running 10-car Crossrail trains West from Heathrow to Reading is sensible. Many more brand-new units would need to be procured and arguably it would have a poor rate of return compared to using existing 4/5 car units that are cascaded and refurbished.



It will be a no-brainer for all but the dimmest of regular commuters travelling to Slough and Reading. Fast express trains today typically take 13-15 (Slough) and 24 minutes respectively. The basic-spec Crossrail trains diverted via Heathrow will take at least 30 and 50 minutes in comparison. Regular commuters ignore the slow trains in the rush hours, they will do the same with trains looped in future via the Airport and overtaken by successive fast trains.

They only ignore them completely at Reading but not at Slough, it depends if you are going to London or not. There is the Oxford express that is express to London from Slough, otherwise the others have a mixture of stopping patterns and there is not much in it, certainly not over ten minutes and often only 5 or 6, so really you are often better off getting the first one to arrive.

For the stations that only get a local service every half hour (langley, Burnham, if the next train to arrive to London was via Heathrow and the one following was another 15 minutes then you might as well get on that one.

[streetquark]

Originally Posted by sotonsi

The Canary Wharf <-> Liverpool St problem we knew about, ditto Stratford Crossrail branch. For all the 'Stepney curve' brigade, unless they assume all Stratford - Canary Wharf pax will do a cross-platform at Whitechapel, it's not looking good - while the JLE is busy coming into Canary Wharf from North Greenwich, the route is pretty average loadings for zone 3.

Surely "the 'Stepney curve' brigade" would not be advocating cross platform interchange at Whitechapel as the new chord would simply curve east of Stepney Green, a mile or so away. Surely the problem of using Whitechapel in this way is only likely in the absence of direct Stratford-Canary Wharf services? Or by 'they' did you mean TfL and this was a grudging acceptance of at least one aspect of an idea you clearly don't like.

Then again if you recognise Stratford-Canary Wharf as not particularly busy then why worry about people changing at Whitechapel at all. I must admit the apparent lack of need to alleviate the JLE east of canary Wharf lessens the appeal of the Stepney Curve idea but it all depends on the costs for the project and whether or not a branch from North Greenwich is desirable and what affect Lea Valley - perhaps via Strat Int - would have on passenger usage and the appeal of non-stop Stratford to Canary Wharf as compared to one with 3 intermediate stations.

I'll repeat also the point about direct journeys along the CR route via the curve from east of Stratford as compared to those from Stratford JLE to CW which would only start at Stratford.

Noting mr_jrt's response, I would add we should be careful when reading future capacity estimates not to second guess why particular sections are busy. For example it could be that a lot of the crowding on Crossrail east of Liverpool Street is precisely because people would be heading into Whitechapel and out again (note how light Crossrail west of Whitechapel is.

Your follow on post doesn't make things any clearer...

Originally Posted by sotonsi

Note I quote several mr_jrt posts in this one.
However the pro-Stepney curve side say things like:
to enhance the line's business case. It's not that congested, and the desired amount of relief won't happen.

The brigade would tell you (if they were all adhering to some imaginary party line) relieving it is not the main purpose or only one. The JLE route and the Crossrail one are apples and oranges, especially with the opportunities open to Crossrail and the jub. Your claim that advantages that would support a business case are some how tacked on in order to dress up the proposal at best shows a lack of understanding of the proposal, at worst an ad hominem attack.

and that it's actually not that rammed (average for zone 2-3) - OK, North Greenwich to Canary Wharf is busy, and Canada Water to the West End is too. However, with a Bakerloo extension to Lewisham (and hopefully Dartford) that would reduce pressure on North Greenwich (where a lot of traffic buses from SE London) and perhaps a City Airport Crossrail station would remove a lot of the from-DLR-Woolwich-branch-to-Jubilee-line at Canning Town interchangers, you have the capacity to extend it up the Lea Valley fairly easily (and West End traffic would use the Vic/CR2 and so the Canada Water into West End bit won't see more traffic)

Having criticised a proposal based on additional advantages (?) you then try to lessen its appeal by advocating an as yet non-viable proposal that has nothing directly to do with it and very little indirectly. Perhaps you would consider both the costs and the overall business case for this Bakerloo extension when considering both aspects of the Stepney Curve proposal.

Actually, at Stratford, platform congestion on the platform 3-5 island in the morning peak will likely increase with a Stepney curve, especially if we end up with your preferred alternative of Canary Wharf services going up the Lea Valley and not Shenfield*:

Who says the Lea Valley route would go via separate platforms at Stratford if via Stratford at all? Why not Up Up Down Down? Or just share the existing platforms? If they're not going to be too crowded now why would they then? A few extra people changing can surely be absorbed easily by Stratford? Your '*' reference to reduced paths from junctions doesn't compare with the amount of paths added for services along the Stepney Curve.

How do you square lack of demand with overcrowding anyway? And who says existing crowding at Stratford HL 3-5 or the black line overcrowding of capacity forecasts would mean demand post-Stepney Curve would not be able to be absorbed at Stratford? Surely doubling paths then taking a couple off for junctions (if necessary at all) would mean less crowding at Stratford?

Indeed it would, however, you'd have Lea Valley to Central London passengers use it and do a same-/cross- platform interchange - more people on the platform. You'd also have Shenfield route to Canary Wharf doing a same-platform change (though if the next train arriving is a Liverpool Street, and they have to wait 7.5 minutes at Stratford for a CW*, they'd be better off going via Whitechapel). You'd have waiting around at Stratford for the Crossrail core and CW trains. All in all, a busier platform - probably dangerously busy.

You also add additional fun at CW in the pm peak as it's not simply 'board the first train you can get on'.

You'd have people waiting for the next train along the Lea Valley if overcrowding at Stratford were such a problem Ditto ex-Shenfield and Liverpool Street heading east, CW in the peak etc as you point out but fail to see would - eg for those heading to/from the City/West End - mean waiting for as long as they would do without the Stepney Curve. They would also have the choice of waiting or changing. Of course Whitechapel would be less busy without the new curve as so many would be taking the direct service along it instead of changing there. Though it would mean more changing at Stratford and therefore more crowding it doesn't mean Stratford can't take it. Then again those who aren't already on the correct train can also change at Whitechapel instead of Stratford if heading into town if they wanted CW or even cross-platform change at CW if they wanted liverpool St etc. Again, Canary Wharf could take some extra patronage and would have (nearly) double frequency.

Of course this all assumes the first train that comes along is an Abbey Wood instead of a Maidenhead/Heathrow, or vice versa, or one of these destinations instead of Shenfield or vice versa.

Any Stratford to Canary Wharf fast link needs to be segregated from Crossrail at Stratford:
1)because otherwise it makes the London-bound island at Stratford more congested and dangerous than it otherwise would be
2)because it blocks Crossrail upping the frequency through the core and relieving congestion into zone 1 that way

'More dangerous' is an assumption but so is overestimating the number of people changing. I say this even though I can see the new service being busy (which apparently you can't...some of the time...or something). As I've already pointed out the existing junction at Stepney means addition of the curve junctions is unlikely to reduce paths. There would be (nearly) as many trains heading for the centre but at least a significant number could wait for the right train further out and the not-insignificant number who want to go to CW instead could do the same, change at Whitechapel as currently envisaged.

I can't really understand why you would want to swing round the Lea Valley route either side of Stratford CR on separate rails.

[Jon10]

BBC:



The new Thames cable car spanning the river in east London will open to the public at midday on 28 June.

The Emirates Air Line will create a direct link between the 02 Arena in Greenwich and the ExCel exhibition centre and carry 2,500 people an hour.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18479479

[mackenziesoley]

From TfL;

Emirates Air Line to open to passengers from end of June

18 June 2012

Passengers will be able to take the first flight from midday Thursday 28 June 2012.

This spectacular new addition to London's skyline will provide a much needed new river crossing in the east of our great city.
Boris Johnson, Mayor of London
The Mayor of London will fulfill his pledge to build the UK's first urban cable car when the Emirates Air Line opens to the public from midday on Thursday 28 June 2012, providing a vital new river crossing for east London.

The 1.1km long river crossing, between Greenwich and the Royal Docks, will have the capacity to carry up to 2,500 people per hour in each direction, the equivalent of 30 buses.

Initially it will operate seven days a week, from 07:00 to 21:00 Mondays to Fridays, 08:00 to 21:00 on Saturdays and 09:00 to 21:00 on Sundays.

Frequent flyer

Transport for London (TfL) confirmed today that passengers will be able to touch in at the gates with their Oyster pay as you go cards to take a flight on the Emirates Air Line; and that they have developed a 'frequent flyer' boarding pass for regular users, which will allow them to make 10 single journeys for £16, equating to just £1.60 per single journey.

The frequent flyer boarding pass will appeal to people living or working in the local area who wish to use the Emirates Air Line on a regular basis and will be available to purchase from both Emirates Air Line terminals.

A single fare boarding pass using Oyster pay as you go for the Emirates Air Line will cost £3.20 (child fare £1.60).

Passengers with a Travelcard or other Oyster cards (including Freedom Passes) will be able to fly for the same fare but will need to buy a boarding pass from ticket offices or vending machines which are available at both terminals, Emirates Greenwich Peninsula and Emirates Royal Docks.

Fantastic views

Passengers without an Oyster or Travelcard will need to pay a slightly higher cash fare.

For those who want the experience of an extended journey to enjoy the fantastic views of the City, which include Canary Wharf, the Thames Barrier and the Olympic Park, there will be the option to take a non-stop return journey.

This '360 degree tour' will cost £6.40 with Oyster.

The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, said: 'On 28 June this spectacular new addition to London's skyline will provide a much needed new river crossing in the east of our great city.

Vibrant quarter

'It will open up access to jobs in the Royal Docks enterprise zone and attract businesses and investors to a previously under exploited area.

'The Emirates Air Line is part of my plan to develop a package of new river crossings in east London and transform the surrounding area into a vibrant new metropolitan quarter that will attract new jobs, homes and enterprise.'

The innovative Emirates Air Line is a key plank of the Mayor's plans to revitalise east London and create jobs for Londoners and attract investment into the capital.

Over 50 people have been employed by Mace Macro to operate the Emirates Air Line; nearly half of these employees come from the local area.

Peter Hendy CBE, London's Transport Commissioner, said: 'Passengers will very soon get to experience this unique and exciting new addition to London's transport network.

10-year deal

'Londoners and visitors to the capital will be able to experience a direct and quick way of crossing the river while enjoying the fantastic views from the cabins.

'The Emirates Air Line is an amazing achievement for all of those involved, given the timescale they worked within from it being an initial idea to a completed mode of transport.'

Emirates, one of the world's fastest growing airlines, helped to make this new transport scheme a reality by investing £36m in a 10-year sponsorship deal.

'Emirates is known for its innovative customer experiences and our partnership with Transport for London to link communities in the city is a testament to this,' said Tim Clark, President, Emirates Airline.

'The Emirates Air Line will bridge people closer, enabling them to discover, connect and express their ideas about this diverse city through crossing its majestic river, providing an incredible travel experience for residents, commuters and visitors alike.'


Notes to editors:
There will be extended opening hours when there are events at the local venues, including Olympic events. Details of the extended hours will be announced nearer the time
All cabins are wheelchair accessible. Cabins can accommodate up to two bikes
The standard fares for the Emirates Air Line are shown in the table below
Cash single fare Fare for Oyster pay as you go users, Travelcard & Freedom Pass holders 'Frequent flyer' ticket
- 10 journeys
Adult boarding pass £4.30 £3.20* £16.00
Child boarding pass £2.20 £1.60** n/a

* Oyster pay as you go users making 5 or more journeys in a week will be charged £1.60.
** For children aged 5 to 15. Children under 5 travel free.
Multi trip journeys need to be used within 12 months
Emirates Air Line fares will not be included in the Oyster daily capping

[citybus]

And I quote: "Much needed new river crossing in the east of our city".

[NCT]

The fares are a bit of a joke. Doesn't look like you can use travelcards either, which is very disappointing.