Crossrail 3 - Page 6 - SkyscraperCity
 

forums map | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > European Forums > UK & Ireland Architecture Forums > Transport, Urban Planning and Infrastructure

Transport, Urban Planning and Infrastructure Shaping space, urbanity and mobility


Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old October 25th, 2017, 01:53 AM   #101
Jon10
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 6,426
Likes (Received): 2524

Or.
Build interchange platforms at Wembley Park.
Build a flyover over the Chiltern Main Line at Neasden to the Dudding Hill Line.
Run to Old Oak Common and, er, beyond.
Jon10 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old October 25th, 2017, 04:36 PM   #102
mr_jrt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,705
Likes (Received): 138

Problem there is the way things are looking, there may not be enough capacity on CR1 for much beyond serving the GWML, even for my pet project of services to High Wycombe!

...if there's the option to send traffic via a different route rather than funnelling it all down one pipe (a-la Thameslink 2000), then it probably needs to happen lest we end up filling up the new capacity on day one with no room to grow.
mr_jrt no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 25th, 2017, 05:39 PM   #103
kerouac1848
Registered User
 
kerouac1848's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NW London
Posts: 4,319
Likes (Received): 4470

Waterloo-Euston is a rubbish route, something that seems to look good on a map.

Waterloo to the City and then taking over the Shenfield branch would be far more useful for London (solving the problem of CR1 splitting in the east) and commuters on the lines out to Surrey (limited connections and capacity to the City at present). Another, more costly option is a City-CW-Barking route - the jubilee will need it in a decade. Either way, you want to head east as that's where the capacity constraints are, where the network is less dense and where the city is growing fastest, not to mention Waterloo is well served with West End connections: there must be nearly a 100tph to the W/N of Waterloo, not mention the huge numbers who walk, cycle and get the bus.
kerouac1848 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old October 25th, 2017, 06:13 PM   #104
cle
Registered User
 
cle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,690
Likes (Received): 819

I definitely see the GWML corridor exploding with Crossrail - can't even fathom a second branch and Paddington terminators slowly all extended west. Shame a Windsor dive-under couldn't have been done, would have been a useful addition and midway turning point.

CR3 - always thought the Fenchurch St lines would be good for. All electric and 12 car - and so skewed to the City. Won't relieve too much tube, given that Fenchurch St isn't on it - but might open up a lot more employment and consumption patterns.

I'd twin with Euston (12 car, electric) via City Thameslink and Holborn.

Arguably it could take over all Fenchurch Street services. That could either be closed or used as another terminus for DLR (close Tower Gateway?) - or some services up to the GEML?
cle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 25th, 2017, 06:53 PM   #105
Gavrosh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,029
Likes (Received): 2080

DLR is eventually to extend to Tower Hill.

Fenchurch Street hasnt really got a long term future so incoporation into CR3 makes sense, if the appeal by the east London mayors to extend CR2 to the via the hackney central spur out to the south Essex routes goes nowhere, as looks more than likely.
Gavrosh no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 25th, 2017, 10:18 PM   #106
cle
Registered User
 
cle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,690
Likes (Received): 819

Is just to Tower Hill that beneficial?

I'd imagine better would be to either upgrade to send all to Bank, and close it entirely - or if tunnelling, send onwards at least one stop to somewhere better like Blackfriars.
cle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 26th, 2017, 02:11 AM   #107
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,199

The DLR proposal for Tower Hill is a station on the Bank branch replacing Tower Gateway. The problem is that passenger flow at Bank might struggle with that number of trains.

I don't know why people are obsessed with Euston trains being in CR3 - yes serve it for HS2 (should CR2 not do so), but - despite the Elizabeth line better serving the destinations of passengers, the relatively cheap cost of construction of the chord, and the removal of trains from Euston while it was rebuilt, a case struggled to be made for Crossrail to Tring. The Euston suburban services are among the least crowded into London, and projected to continue to be so. There's little benefit of serving them, save as an incidental.

The 'obvious' route, looking at crowding data, for CR3 is something like Windsor Lines -> Shenfield route (doubling frequency on both Crossrail branches east of Whitechapel and dealing with crowding) with a branch to Grays (taking that branch off the c2c network and allowing crowding on the main route to be fixed) over existing track. I can't see it being allowed to be too expensive what with the heafty price tag of CR2, so taking over existing railway from Stepney east would be a big plus.

There's also a need for another N-S line across The City to relieve the Northern and the ELL.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 26th, 2017, 01:52 PM   #108
BiggerisBetter
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Manchester
Posts: 567
Likes (Received): 337

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
The 'obvious' route, looking at crowding data, for CR3 is something like Windsor Lines -> Shenfield route (doubling frequency on both Crossrail branches east of Whitechapel and dealing with crowding) with a branch to Grays (taking that branch off the c2c network and allowing crowding on the main route to be fixed) over existing track. I can't see it being allowed to be too expensive what with the heafty price tag of CR2, so taking over existing railway from Stepney east would be a big plus.
I've always wondered if this could be achieved by an extension of the 11tph (?) Metropolitan Line from Aldgate to Pitsea via Grays in a new tunnel then taking over the existing railway from Barking. A kink wither to the north to serve Stratford or to the south to serve the Docklands could be integrated. I would then extend the District Line to Grays via Ockenden.

A new tunnel may be too expensive for only 11tph but would help regenerate the northern part of the Thames Gateway and free up a lot of capacity on the mainline to Southend.
BiggerisBetter no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 26th, 2017, 02:34 PM   #109
damo_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,270
Likes (Received): 256

Quote:
Originally Posted by BiggerisBetter View Post
I've always wondered if this could be achieved by an extension of the 11tph (?) Metropolitan Line from Aldgate to Pitsea via Grays in a new tunnel then taking over the existing railway from Barking. A kink wither to the north to serve Stratford or to the south to serve the Docklands could be integrated. I would then extend the District Line to Grays via Ockenden.

A new tunnel may be too expensive for only 11tph but would help regenerate the northern part of the Thames Gateway and free up a lot of capacity on the mainline to Southend.
There is no much point expanding even the sub surface tube. Tunnel diameter is not a cost constraint any more so you might as well do full size, full length trains.
__________________

Vulcan's Finest liked this post
damo_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 26th, 2017, 03:01 PM   #110
kerouac1848
Registered User
 
kerouac1848's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NW London
Posts: 4,319
Likes (Received): 4470

Although I agree building 'tube-size' trains is silly, you're assuming there are no trade-offs with building 'full size' (which SSL trains are) and 'full length' (why do we need to automatically have 10-12 car trains?). In reality, they're larger stations that place more demands, making them more complex and costly to construct.

There are also engineering and operational issues with bolting them onto the main line network. The RER's lines D and C are infamous for their poor reliability. Thameslink's reliability is also shoddy. Building a functionally separate line with no branches is going to run smoother than something that spreads all over the network and has different technical aspects (signalling, power supply, etc). It's also not going to cause direct problems for the wider system since it is isolated, which is one of the issues with the Circle, Met, etc.
__________________

Rapidtransitman liked this post
kerouac1848 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 26th, 2017, 04:32 PM   #111
cle
Registered User
 
cle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,690
Likes (Received): 819

The Victoria line is more important and moves more people than Thameslink. Frequency and simplicity (reliability) has its place.

How much relief does the Grays branch need? It's 4-6tph even in peaks. Barking Riverside should increase this a bit, but there aren't even plans for a new station - the GOBLIN would push people to Barking which means they'd be on all c2c routes.

The ELL can take more investment before it needs a CR relief line. Trains need to go up to 6 cars, and much higher frequency, through metro signalling. If that means simplifying branches (cut New Cross, cut London Bridge trains via Forest Hill?) - I'd suggest a major rebuild at NXG in time for the Bakerloo, with a ELL bay and all TL/SL trains stopping. Another London Bridge, of sorts.
cle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 26th, 2017, 05:05 PM   #112
kerouac1848
Registered User
 
kerouac1848's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NW London
Posts: 4,319
Likes (Received): 4470

I guess the Grays branch is as much about housing and development as anything else. That huge slice of land has been eyed up for housing since Prescott was Home Secretary. Get housing and you also get funding. Helpfully there is also a direct link from the Shenfield branch after Forest Gate, although I guess freight limits movements? Any space to quadtrack it to Barking?

Either way, the connection from Stratford to Whitechapel already exists, so a tunnel and, say, 5 stations between the latter and CJ is probably all that would be needed.
kerouac1848 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 27th, 2017, 12:12 AM   #113
Rational Plan
Registered User
 
Rational Plan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Slough
Posts: 3,814
Likes (Received): 797

Quote:
Originally Posted by cle View Post
The Victoria line is more important and moves more people than Thameslink. Frequency and simplicity (reliability) has its place.

How much relief does the Grays branch need? It's 4-6tph even in peaks. Barking Riverside should increase this a bit, but there aren't even plans for a new station - the GOBLIN would push people to Barking which means they'd be on all c2c routes.

The ELL can take more investment before it needs a CR relief line. Trains need to go up to 6 cars, and much higher frequency, through metro signalling. If that means simplifying branches (cut New Cross, cut London Bridge trains via Forest Hill?) - I'd suggest a major rebuild at NXG in time for the Bakerloo, with a ELL bay and all TL/SL trains stopping. Another London Bridge, of sorts.
The constraints on the ELL is the old bit between Whitechapel and Surrey Quays. It other wise extneding platforms to 8 cars would be relatively easy.

The North London line could also be extended cheaper than building a new line.

The awkward stations on the ELL are underground and busy, no way can they be rebuilt without several years closure.

More likely is the long term option of a new lines hooking up the ELL and extra lines south to a new Canary Wharf station and line to direct to Stratford and various lines from there.
Rational Plan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 27th, 2017, 12:25 AM   #114
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,199

The line from Rainham to Barking is one of the most crowded NR routes in London. While 12-car trains and 8tph would slake the demand, there's the development aspect (compare with the 12tph CR2 + 4tph Stratford for the Lea Valley) too - but it wasn't the driver of my suggestion. And, as a branch, 8tph from CR3 is fine - Gidea Park will see 16tph peak when the Liz opens (4tph to Liverpool Street terminus that will be lighter-loaded), so that makes 24tph to feed into a Crossrail.

Barking and beyond as a branch of CR2 is a bit mental, given the lengthy tunnel from Haggerston to Barking. But if you split CR1 with CR3 (or something else), then it's a low hanging fruit with a lot of potential gain - little-to-no construction and the also highly-crowded c2c main route given more capacity due to not branching at Barking.

Freight is an issue (as it is wrt the Liz Line and Goblin), though it doesn't run at peak times.

As for 5 stations between CJ and Whitechapel, that seems about right - 2 or 3 in The City, Charing Cross, Victoria (preferably cross-platform with CR2) and perhaps Battersea. Obviously interchange with the Northern and DLR at Monument Bank, and Thameslink at Ludgate would drive the locations of the City stations. I envisage those interchanges being western ends of stations under a two station plan, and eastern ends under a 3 station plan (though Ludgate could go either way), with the 3rd station being near Aldgate and Fenchurch Street.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 27th, 2017, 07:04 PM   #115
cle
Registered User
 
cle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,690
Likes (Received): 819

Rainham has 1.7m people and Dagenham Dock 0.3m or so. Both declined in use!

Most suburban stations have 2.0 upwards in inner London, so being the busiest NR in London is complete rubbish. No Fenchurch St train has ever made the top 10. Grays has more use, but even still less than 4m and also via Upminster.

So I don't see CR3 being required for that branch alone. Adding in the Upminster routes, definitely so.
cle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 27th, 2017, 07:55 PM   #116
bench_mark_2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hampstead
Posts: 2,953
Likes (Received): 1390

The easiest new line is a DLR extension to Stevenage with a new tunnel from Bank to a new station at Moorgate and then using the old Northern City Line to Finsbury Park from where the local tracks via Potters Bar can be used to Stevenage and all tracks from Finsbury park to Stevenage might be used. This will provide 6 trains per hour in the two branches which will be a service rather adequate to the demands. This of course will provide opportunities for more housing and prospective services of 24 trains to Lewisham - 12 in each branch.
bench_mark_2 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 27th, 2017, 08:50 PM   #117
Vulcan's Finest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: None these days.
Posts: 9,031
Likes (Received): 2780

Quote:
Originally Posted by bench_mark_2 View Post
The easiest new line is a DLR extension to Stevenage with a new tunnel from Bank to a new station at Moorgate and then using the old Northern City Line to Finsbury Park from where the local tracks via Potters Bar can be used to Stevenage and all tracks from Finsbury park to Stevenage might be used. This will provide 6 trains per hour in the two branches which will be a service rather adequate to the demands. This of course will provide opportunities for more housing and prospective services of 24 trains to Lewisham - 12 in each branch.
Seriously? You are proposing that 80 km/h limited light rail vehicles of much shorter length than the current class 313 heavy rail units (120m) should share the 185km/h ECML high-speed tracks for nearly six kilometres between Welwyn and Woolmer Green?

To avoid wasting time, just accept that for many reasons it simply can't and won't happen.
__________________

Rapidtransitman, mr_jrt liked this post
Vulcan's Finest no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 27th, 2017, 08:58 PM   #118
cle
Registered User
 
cle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,690
Likes (Received): 819

The ELL is sort of another Crossrail/Thameslink network anyway. They've just released the procurement plans for additional sets, which will take it up to 20tph. Not bad.

Once Crossrail opens and Whitechapel becomes a bigger interchange, that'll only increase further.
cle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 27th, 2017, 09:00 PM   #119
Vulcan's Finest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: None these days.
Posts: 9,031
Likes (Received): 2780

Quote:
Originally Posted by kerouac1848 View Post
Although I agree building 'tube-size' trains is silly, you're assuming there are no trade-offs with building 'full size' (which SSL trains are) and 'full length' (why do we need to automatically have 10-12 car trains?). In reality, they're larger stations that place more demands, making them more complex and costly to construct.

The reason to plan for 200-250m trains and matching stations from the outset is simply to future-proof. Existing lines like the Victoria would be able to carry far more passengers had the track, stations and signalling been designed from the outset to allow much longer trains. The cost of rebuilding underground infrastructure decades after (while keeping the trains running) will be many multiples of simply incorporating ample extra space to expand during the initial build. Hence why Crossrail 1 has done so. This should be the future template for all new rail systems under London.

There is no good reason not to do this - the tunnels and rail infrastructure cost the same, whether the trains are 120m or 250m long.
Vulcan's Finest no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 27th, 2017, 09:49 PM   #120
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,199

Quote:
Originally Posted by cle View Post
Most suburban stations have 2.0 upwards in inner London, so being the busiest NR in London is complete rubbish.
Where did I say 'busiest'? I said 'crowded', which is a different kettle of fish!

The c2c network consistently been flagged as crowded:this from 2010 shows c2c in Red (second highest) east of Limehouse, and Black (highest) from Rainham to Barking. The Crossrail 2 case has maps showing a 2007 base, 2021 prediction and 2031 prediction (pages 16-18) all of which show black (the highest shown) levels of crowding for the route via Dagenham Dock.
Quote:
No Fenchurch St train has ever made the top 10.
The 'Essex Thameside Route' (as Network Rail call it) has consistent crowding at a high level, but you think it needs a stand-out exceptionally crowded train to deserve ~25% increase in frequency on routes east of Barking that would cost little to provide?

The two previous Crossrails will have served many of the corridors with top 10 trains (many of which are from outside London with short trains arriving at the sweet spot, like Henley-Paddington that is being replaced with a shuttle feeding longer trains) and with high levels of crowding, ditto other stuff like Thameslink. They won't all be solved, and CR3 can't get all of them, but the 2031 Black-level crowding routes of Purfleet -> West Ham, Maryland -> Liverpool Street, Ockendon -> Upminster, and Mile End -> Chancery Lane can be helped by an E-W Crossrail using existing tracks between Stepney and Shenfield/Grays. That's quite a lot relieved in East London without building anything much in East London!
Quote:
So I don't see CR3 being required for that branch alone. Adding in the Upminster routes, definitely so.
Where did I, or anyone, suggest it is required for that branch alone?

It's a secondary thing, boosting the case for splitting the Elizabeth line in east London by giving a branch that needs a small number of bucks and gives lots of bangs.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 05:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us