LONDON | Network Rail: Overground, Thameslink, Crossrail

[thun]

So no, it's not like an S-Bahn. An S-Bahn is more like a metro than a commuter train.

That's not true, I would say a typical S-Bahn (or Paris RER) works the same way as Crossrail: Running on normal tracks as a commuter train out of town (up to, let's say, 50km from the city), while the tunnel in the city centre is completely comparable to a metro (in terms of station density, design, links to other transports, time the train is calling, etc.), at least for the systems with tunnels (Munich, Frankfurt, Stuttgart, Hamburg, partly Berlin).
And the S-Bahn is run with three-doored coaches, like an underground which works perfectly.

Therefore, Rheintrams idea of combining two and three-doored coaches would be a good compromise IMO.

[jarbury]

Crossrail definitely seems like a London version of RER A.

[sweek]

Originally Posted by sarflonlad

It's not a hybrid.

It's a commuter train without a central terminus. Something most, but not all, commuter trains have in London. London Termini being one of main reasons tube routes go where they do - to connect them. Crossrail stops people changing on to the tube.

So no, it's not like an S-Bahn. An S-Bahn is more like a metro than a commuter train.

It's more than that, it really is like a metro with very high frequencies and a core section with 24 trains per hour that will absolutely be used in the same way as the tube is.

What's your definition of an s-bahn like system then?

[Svartmetall]

There isn't a solid definition of S-bahn. There is a huge difference between the Frankfurt, Munich and Rhein-Ruhr S-bahn's and the Hamburg and Berlin S-bahn's. The latter two are run on third rail and really are a metro system, whereas the former group are quite clearly a frequent commuter rail with a common shared section in both Frankfurt and Munich and a fully polycentric network in the Rhein-Ruhr.

You could not get more different systems that fit under one name if you tried!

[thun]

As, I said, it should be quite comparable to Munich, Frankfurt and Stuttgart S-Bahn networks: They have a central tunnel which all lines use and therefore very high frequencies on the core section (e. g. in Munich the tunnel was refitted and now has a capacity of30 trains/hour in regular service).

Therefore, making stops at the core stations as short as possible is esential for the reliability. If one train has to wait for, lets say, half a minute longer then the whole schedule gets delayed (Munich is having this problem for years now). So, they should really think about 3-door-coaches.

[sarflonlad]

Originally Posted by lightrail

Closest thing to Crossrail in the UK is Thameslink through London, the Merseyrail System in Liverpool and the Glasgow Northern Electric "Blue" trains.

Thameslink is a north-south rail system through central London via the SNow Hill Tunnel. Trains run as far south as the South Coast and as far north as Bedford.

Merseyrail Wirral Line has several branches, all converging into the a deep level tube tunnel under central Liverpool; the Northern Line runs north to south in a sub-surface tunnel under central Liverpool.

In Glasgow there are two east-west subsurface lines with electric trains to well outside Glasgow.

And BTW - Crossrail is such a lame name - hopefully, they come up with something more interesting than that.

More like a hybrid regional bahn and s-bahn then.

Crossrail. I guess not a great name. Though locals tend to develop idiosyncratic names for all things urban. The Tube. The Clockwork Orange. The Gherkin. etc. Wonder what Crossrail will be called?

[sarflonlad]

Originally Posted by sweek

It's more than that, it really is like a metro with very high frequencies and a core section with 24 trains per hour that will absolutely be used in the same way as the tube is.

What's your definition of an s-bahn like system then?

Dunno. The S-bahn in Berlin is very different from other supposed S-Bahns in Germany.

I very much doubt we will see people transferring from the tube on to Crossrail in the central section. At least to me, the whole concept is about getting those out of town, across the town without the need to change to the tube at Paddington and other termini.

[iampuking]

Why is everyone arguing over names and definitions, it really is futile. What is clear however, is that 2 doors per car per side will be insufficient on Crossrail trains.

Originally Posted by sarflonlad

I very much doubt we will see people transferring from the tube on to Crossrail in the central section..

Rubbish. Why would passengers go a longer way on the Tube when Crossrail is quicker?

[ajw373]

Originally Posted by iampuking

Rubbish. Why would passengers go a longer way on the Tube when Crossrail is quicker?

Who said crossrail will be quicker? The bottom line is cross rail is designed to get people into the central part of town from the suburbs and counties near London. For travel around the city the tube will always be a much better option.

[Coccodrillo]

Paris' RER is used also for travel within the City. That's why line 14 has been built.

[mtj73]

Originally Posted by iampuking

What is clear however, is that 2 doors per car per side will be insufficient on Crossrail trains.

I am not so sure about that
If you take the Crossrail section through central London there are 7 stations between Ealing broadway and Stratford, but on the Central line which more or less runs parallel there are 21 stations. Dwell times will not be such an issue on low density station spacing.

It does suggest you are right about crossrail being quicker though.

[sweek]

Originally Posted by ajw373

Who said crossrail will be quicker? The bottom line is cross rail is designed to get people into the central part of town from the suburbs and counties near London. For travel around the city the tube will always be a much better option.

What about Padidngton to the West End or Canary Wharf? A very common trip. Or anywhere along the Eastern end of the Central Line to Heathrow? Canary Wharf to Ealing Broadway? Farringdon to Tottenham Court Road? There are so many common trips within London like these that people will definitely start using Crossrail for.

[Minato ku]

Originally Posted by mtj73

I am not so sure about that
If you take the Crossrail section through central London there are 7 stations between Ealing broadway and Stratford, but on the Central line which more or less runs parallel there are 21 stations. Dwell times will not be such an issue on low density station spacing.

It does suggest you are right about crossrail being quicker though.

A lower density of station mean more people taking the train by station, don't forget that all these 7 stations are big interchange hub.
Dwell times will be an issue. With only two doors per cars, I think that 80,000 passengers per hours is impossible and 24 tph will be difficult to do.

[ajw373]

Originally Posted by sweek

What about Padidngton to the West End or Canary Wharf? A very common trip. Or anywhere along the Eastern end of the Central Line to Heathrow? Canary Wharf to Ealing Broadway? Farringdon to Tottenham Court Road? There are so many common trips within London like these that people will definitely start using Crossrail for.

Yeah there are some times where it might make sense but Crossrail isn't designed as a replacement to the tube. The main purpose is to get people into the central area from the suburbs and home counties without the need for THEM to change to tube and yes clearly vice versa.

[iampuking]

Originally Posted by ajw373

Yeah there are some times where it might make sense but Crossrail isn't designed as a replacement to the tube. The main purpose is to get people into the central area from the suburbs and home counties without the need for THEM to change to tube and yes clearly vice versa.

Just because it's designed for that does not mean that will be its sole use...

[ajw373]

Originally Posted by iampuking

Just because it's designed for that does not mean that will be its sole use...

Never said sole use. People will use it for what ever they like, but the bulk will be using it as I said to get from the outter lying areas to the city, ie as it is designed.

[sweek]

Originally Posted by ajw373

Never said sole use. People will use it for what ever they like, but the bulk will be using it as I said to get from the outter lying areas to the city, ie as it is designed.

And that's not a bad thing, is it? It still relieves capacity from the more inner-London lines.

[ajw373]

Originally Posted by sweek

And that's not a bad thing, is it? It still relieves capacity from the more inner-London lines.

No it isn't a bad thing, it is the whole idea of it, hence why I reckon those in the city area's will still be (in most cases) better off getting the tube, leaving Crossrail to the longer distance commuter.

[streetquark]

Originally Posted by sarflonlad

Crossrail. I guess not a great name. Though locals tend to develop idiosyncratic names for all things urban. The Tube. The Clockwork Orange. The Gherkin. etc. Wonder what Crossrail will be called?

The Sardine

[Minato ku]

With only two doors per cars and transversal seats, this is sure.