Crossrail

[Capzilla]

Originally Posted by N1

And the three lines only makes sense if we end up with a two or three horizontal lines.

Try this analogy to find out why you're wrong: the Underground logo only makes sense if TfL discontinues all services except for the Circle and Central lines. It's just a bloody logo, not a minimap.

[CharlieP]

Originally Posted by Capzilla

Try this analogy to find out why you're wrong: the Underground logo only makes sense if TfL discontinues all services except for the Circle and Central lines.

And, by the same logic, changes the Circle line colour to red and the Central line to navy blue.

Apparently the roundel design was pinched from the London General Omnibus Company - it's not related in any way to route schematics.

[Garth38]

The Acton Interchange has already been discussed on the London Overground thread however I think its a brilliant idea.

Yes it would be costly and in the middle of no where but it would provide a link between crossrail and SW London, and therefore opening up SW London to docklands. By providing an interchange at Acton with the LO, commuters in SW LDN will have a quicker route to Docklands while also taking pressure off both the District and Centre lines plus maybe even Waterloo. Traffic would also be taken off the local roads as commuters in Acton could use the LO to reach the interchange. And as for there being too many stops, just scrap Acton Mainline, the proposed interchange is not that much further away.

Also crossrail should not have its own branding, it just encourages TfL to waste money on something that is not vital to the day to day running of the line. Either allow independent train operaters/NR to run the line like Thameslink or if it has to become part of TfL just let it have the LO branding and keep crossrail as a common name.

[sotonsi]

Originally Posted by Garth38

The Acton Interchange has already been discussed on the London Overground thread however I think its a brilliant idea.

Yes it would be costly and in the middle of no where but it would provide a link between crossrail and SW London, and therefore opening up SW London to docklands.

so would a Hounslow branch, such as the one that CLRL completely ignored.

Also crossrail should not have its own branding, it just encourages TfL to waste money on something that is not vital to the day to day running of the line. Either allow independent train operaters/NR to run the line like Thameslink or if it has to become part of TfL just let it have the LO branding and keep crossrail as a common name.

Either LO or NR branding sounds good, with LO sounding better. LU has different line colours, there's no reason why LO shouldn't.

[johnb78]

Originally Posted by Garth38

Also crossrail should not have its own branding, it just encourages TfL to waste money on something that is not vital to the day to day running of the line. Either allow independent train operaters/NR to run the line like Thameslink or if it has to become part of TfL just let it have the LO branding and keep crossrail as a common name.

If you think TfL's branding is an unimportant waste of money, you're a terrifying heathen and I'm glad you're not in charge. The extent to which LT (historically) and TfL (more recently) take design seriously has been a massive and positive step, which not only makes the system more pleasant and usable but has been the main source of inspiration for designers on other metro systems worldwide...

[/rant]

[Republica]

Branding is hugely important imo and will go hand in hand with integration and standardisation, hopefully.

[Leeds No.1]

Design makes a fundamental difference to the usability of the transport network. Compare the ease of using transport in London to transport in other parts of the UK- it's significantly more difficult outside London.

[Dothog]

Originally Posted by johnb78

If you think TfL's branding is an unimportant waste of money, you're a terrifying heathen and I'm glad you're not in charge. The extent to which LT (historically) and TfL (more recently) take design seriously has been a massive and positive step, which not only makes the system more pleasant and usable but has been the main source of inspiration for designers on other metro systems worldwide...

[/rant]

You mean like having a route indicator with digits so narrow they are obscured on this route 221 bus?

[Garth38]

Originally Posted by johnb78

If you think TfL's branding is an unimportant waste of money, you're a terrifying heathen and I'm glad you're not in charge. The extent to which LT (historically) and TfL (more recently) take design seriously has been a massive and positive step, which not only makes the system more pleasant and usable but has been the main source of inspiration for designers on other metro systems worldwide...

[/rant]

I quite frankly couldn't give a rats ar*e if TfL has been an "inspiration for designers on other metro systems worldwide." As a commuter I want to get from A to B in the quickest and most efficient way. People will use crossrail if its convenient for their journey. Not because it has a pretty new logo that's different from all the other logo's its created in the past!!!

[potto]

soul man soul

[sirstan74]

The Canary Wharf Crossrail station site today.


Note the big piling rig.

[iampuking]

I think the TBMs will start from here and go westwards, so will this site have to be excavated relatively early?

[ill tonkso]

Well the sooner this site is finished the sooner CWG can build North Quay.

[mtj73]

Thanks for the update Sirstan, keep us updated on this station as it's going to be interesting.

[cle]

Just wildly thinking about a Crossrail line linking Euston with Fenchurch St (Crossrail 3?), which route through London would you have it take, and what provisions would you make?

I'd have it run south to an interchange at Holborn, swing east to a station at City Thameslink, continue east to a station at Cannon Street and then the Fenchurch St station.

I would have Euston as an underground station with two island platforms, the inner two tracks for terminating and the outer two for through services. The intermediate stations would just be 2 platform stations, either island or side - and Fenchurch St I'd probably have the same as Euston. I might remarket this as a 'Tower' Interchange station.

Some peak services might still need to terminate in the traditional termini but I'd hope the island platforms could cope, combined with most services being through trains.

Services:

The 2tph to Tring and 1tph slow to MKC - in addition to 2tph semi to Northampton and 1tph fast to Northampton provide 6tph on regular schedules.

Don't know too much about c2c trains, but I think there are 2tph via Dagenham Dock, 2tph via Ockendon and 4tph along the mainline to Shoeburyness/Southend. A lot more in the peaks.

In order to balance 8tph through the tunnel, there would need to be 2tph extra from Euston. Ideally these could turn around at Watford (or the old platform at Hemel) to get the quickest turnaround but I'm not sure they'd fit in.

10tph would be a minimum requirement though, for this to also be attractive as a 'tube' line. And it wouldn't interchange with Crossrail anywhere, as Farringdon and Liverpool St would both be very difficult to build below, same with TCR.

It wouldn't go directly to Docklands, but there woudl be easy interchange for there and LCY at Limehouse. City Thameslink is useful for Luton and Gatwick. Heathrow and Stansted connections not great.

Just bored at work knocking out a few ideas, any thoughts?

[CharlieP]

Purely and simply because I must have some kind of OCD, I keep drawing a schematic that links the eight largest London termini as though they're the points of a compass, at least in terms where their lines out of London end up going:

St. Pancras (North) - London Bridge (South): Exists as Thameslink

Paddington (West) - Liverpool Street (East): Under construction as Crossrail

Now if we leave Chelney as a tube line, and resurrect an old GNER plan, we have

Waterloo (South West) - Kings Cross (North East)

This leaves the obvious final line of

Euston (North West) - Victoria (South East)

Of course, a line between Euston and Victoria wouldn't really go anywhere useful, which probably trumps my desire for neatness and symmetry at the end of the day...

[Bob]

Well South West Trains proposed double deck trains through Clapham, Victoria, Kings Cross when those 30 year franchises were talked about.
Chelney is also Victoria, Kings X, (Hackney). So there is some agreement that this route would be useful.

There were once very early discussions about Crossrail 3 Euston, Waterloo.

I don't know the answer. Getting the enormous numbers of Waterloo commuters off the tube would be useful. Waterloo, Blackfriars (second entrance Fleet St.), City (Cheepside & bank), Fenchurch Street (& Bishopsgate) would be good.

Charing X, Euston would fit to me.

Charlie P - I think I have a similar OCD! I reckon it's because there is no perfect answer. It's endless, there are numerous possibilities that would work.

[sotonsi]

not really many trains on that line. 10tph wouldn't justify it.

Firstly, I'd serve Russell Square and Chancery Lane (north entrance of City Thameslink?), rather than Holborn. IIRC the original (ie 40s) Thameslink idea was, rather than reopening the Snow Hill Tunnel, was to have an Elephant-Waterloo-Blackfriars-Chancery Lane-Russell Square-Euston-West Hampstead/Finsbury Park tunnel. Waterloo was later dropped as it's quite a detour.

To the North, I'd build a tunnel to West Hampstead, then use the freight tracks on the MML to serve Cricklewood (and to save tunnelling). St Albans could be served (with the Thameslink trains that would do St Albans stopping at Kentish Town). Then via the Dudding Hill link and a short tunnel to the Chiltern ML tracks just north of Neasden Junction. Then up to Aylesbury, Chesham and Watford and beyond (short link at Kenton and take over the DC tracks from Harrow). This would give quite few more tph from the North.

In the South/East, you could either take over the District east of Barking as well as c2c, or you can go SE and serve the Rotherhithe/Surrey Quays area and then take over the New Cross Gate branch of the ELL. You can then build a junction (there's space for it) and another short tunnel, and serve Lewisham and the Hayes branch. Another idea would be Chancery Lane-Blackfriars-Waterloo then emerge and take some of those lines (like the 'official' idea for Crossrail 3). Maybe a triangle junction somewhere in the vicinity of Ludgate Circus, with a triangular station, allowing Euston-FS, Waterloo-FS and Waterloo-Euston flows (and easy interchange between them - have two levels, and same level interchanges). Then again, I'm entering a fantasy world now...

Watford would be 6tph, Aylesbury/Chesham would be 6tph, St Albans would be 6tph. 18tph, so for the S/SE option: 6tph Hayes, 6tph Crystal Palace, 4tph West Croydon, 2tph Beckenham Junction. Add more in the peaks and you can get to about 24tph.

[cle]

I think the problem with the Waterloo commuter trains is that there are just too many of them! A 20 platform terminus is the only place to take this volume of trains!

Nothing proposed in reality so far has anywhere near the frequency.

If Chelney/Crossrail 2 was National Rail (which I'm against) then the WAML would definitely need quadding all the way up to Stansted, possibly Cambridge to enable however many commuter trains which come into Waterloo (over 20tph easily) to actually find homes at the other end.

I think due to its magnitude, and lack of huge future growth in terms of long distance travel, Waterloo is best as a commuter terminus.

[Starscraper]

Originally Posted by CharlieP

Purely and simply because I must have some kind of OCD, I keep drawing a schematic that links the eight largest London termini as though they're the points of a compass, at least in terms where their lines out of London end up going:

St. Pancras (North) - London Bridge (South): Exists as Thameslink

Paddington (West) - Liverpool Street (East): Under construction as Crossrail

Now if we leave Chelney as a tube line, and resurrect an old GNER plan, we have

Waterloo (South West) - Kings Cross (North East)

This leaves the obvious final line of

Euston (North West) - Victoria (South East)

Of course, a line between Euston and Victoria wouldn't really go anywhere useful, which probably trumps my desire for neatness and symmetry at the end of the day...

Haven't you got Waterloo and Victoria the wrong way round?