Could Crossrail eventually run longer distance eg: Oxford to Ipswich

[NorthKent1989]

Far off on the future of course; Say 2050s,
I know there were plans long ago to have
A long distance, interurban Crossrail and the scheme we will soon have is much smaller.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

A long distance, interurban Crossrail and the scheme we will soon have is much smaller.

The problem would be that the quickest service would be non-stop from Oxford to Paddington and non-stop from Liverpool Street to Ipswich. That's probably better achieved by changing at Paddington and Liverpool Street onto a souped-up Central Line. Changing on the same platform at Ealing and Stratford might be another fast option.

You would need a non-stop or limited stop segregated connection from Paddington to Liverpool Street to make a through service work

 

[JN114]

Far off on the future of course; Say 2050s,
I know there were plans long ago to have
A long distance, interurban Crossrail and the scheme we will soon have is much smaller.

The track is there; so in theory yes they could. Given Crossrail is a (principally) all stations metro service akin more to London Overground than Thameslink I’m really not sure why you’d want to...

 

[AM9]

Far off on the future of course; Say 2050s,
I know there were plans long ago to have
A long distance, interurban Crossrail and the scheme we will soon have is much smaller.

How many would benefit from the longer journey options?

 

[jimm]

The initial impetus for the East West Rail project way back when came from Suffolk - in large part to create a way to connect East Anglia to other parts of the country without going anywhere near London, thus avoiding the pressures that coping with commuters place on all rail routes in the capital. That ambition for a not-via-London link hasn't changed.

 

[306024]

Crossrail is primarily to cope with the growth of London’s population. It is basically a tube line that happens to use some existing main line infrastructure. Therefore an Ipswich - Oxford service in 2050 is about as likely as the District line being extended from Upminster to Shoeburyness

 

[Andyjs247]

Crossrail is primarily to cope with the growth of London’s population. It is basically a tube line that happens to use some existing main line infrastructure. Therefore an Ipswich - Oxford service in 2050 is about as likely as the District line being extended from Upminster to Shoeburyness

Ipswich to Oxford via East West Rail is rather more likely. But via Crossrail on stock without toilets, no thanks.

 

[306024]

Ipswich to Oxford via East West Rail is rather more likely. But via Crossrail on stock without toilets, no thanks.

Could be, but via Tottenham Court Road, no indeed.

 

[tbtc]

via Crossrail on stock without toilets, no thanks.

That's the problem.

There's not going to be much scope for additional services through the Crossrail core (without directly replacing stoppers from Shenfield (etc), but even if there was then it'd have to be run by stock with three doors per carriage (given the platform-edge doors in the core), which means either using toilet-less 345s on such long journeys or building specialist stock for longer services, which would still have to have "Metro" interiors (to cope with the large numbers getting on/off at each stop between Liverpool Street/ Paddington and maybe hope that there's room for a toilet between all of those sets of doors (and any new train would obviously need a fully accessible toilet).

Essentially, TfL have found a neat way of ensuring that nobody else gets to play trains on "their" line due to the complexities of the non-standard trains and need for doors to align with the fixed platform-edge gaps. So it's part of the National Rail network but we'll probably never see "national" trains running on it.

 

[AM9]

That's the problem.

There's not going to be much scope for additional services through the Crossrail core (without directly replacing stoppers from Shenfield (etc), but even if there was then it'd have to be run by stock with three doors per carriage (given the platform-edge doors in the core), which means either using toilet-less 345s on such long journeys or building specialist stock for longer services, which would still have to have "Metro" interiors (to cope with the large numbers getting on/off at each stop between Liverpool Street/ Paddington and maybe hope that there's room for a toilet between all of those sets of doors (and any new train would obviously need a fully accessible toilet).

Essentially, TfL have found a neat way of ensuring that nobody else gets to play trains on "their" line due to the complexities of the non-standard trains and need for doors to align with the fixed platform-edge gaps. So it's part of the National Rail network but we'll probably never see "national" trains running on it.

Which is the same as the Thameslink core. Both railways have been engineered to maximise capacity through their respective cores. Gven the costs in providing such capacity, their operators don't want to compromise this capacity with an unwieldy mix of rolling stock.

 

[Class 170101]

It was suggested as a Superlink idea but once TfL came on the scene there was no chance if they were expected to pay for it. TfL's only remit is to Londoners.

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

Crossrail is primarily to cope with the growth of London’s population. It is basically a tube line that happens to use some existing main line infrastructure. Therefore an Ipswich - Oxford service in 2050 is about as likely as the District line being extended from Upminster to Shoeburyness

(There did used to be some District trains years ago that I think went from Windsor or some westerly point through to Southend. )

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

I did wonder why Elizabeth Line services are ending at Shenfield and Abbey Wood, especially the latter, surely more connections could be made if it went to Dartford at least or perhaps Gravesend or one of the Medway towns, (the new station at Rochester perhaps could have had an extra platform added for this?) and the used to be four platforms at Chatham instead of the two that are now there, I think the other sides are now car parks?

 

[30907]

I did wonder why Elizabeth Line services are ending at Shenfield and Abbey Wood, especially the latter, surely more connections could be made if it went to Dartford at least or perhaps Gravesend or one of the Medway towns, (the new station at Rochester perhaps could have had an extra platform added for this?) and the used to be four platforms at Chatham instead of the two that are now there, I think the other sides are now car parks?

There is a lobby for an extension beyond Abbey Wood.
However, not to Chatham, as the loops were taken out in order to extend the main platforms to 12 cars! Tunnels and bridges get in the way...

 

[jimm]

I did wonder why Elizabeth Line services are ending at Shenfield and Abbey Wood, especially the latter, surely more connections could be made if it went to Dartford at least or perhaps Gravesend or one of the Medway towns, (the new station at Rochester perhaps could have had an extra platform added for this?) and the used to be four platforms at Chatham instead of the two that are now there, I think the other sides are now car parks?

Presumably to try to ensure that the service is as robust as possible when it comes to funnelling everything into the tunnel under central London at a frequency of up to 20 trains per hour.

Out to Shenfield and Reading Crossrail will pretty much have a pair of tracks to itself, with the amount of other traffic allowed on them limited. Out to Abbey Wood it is Crossrail's own private railway, but extend trains on to the route to Dartford and that would change, with all the risks of importing delays into the tunnel section and messing up the service in all directions for a long time.

Plus you would need to add third-rail capability to the trains for use over a matter of a few miles.

 

[hwl]

I did wonder why Elizabeth Line services are ending at Shenfield and Abbey Wood, especially the latter, surely more connections could be made if it went to Dartford at least or perhaps Gravesend or one of the Medway towns, (the new station at Rochester perhaps could have had an extra platform added for this?) and the used to be four platforms at Chatham instead of the two that are now there, I think the other sides are now car parks?

Crossrail has a safeguarded route to Gravesend which didn't make the final cut to reduce costs (was estimated at just under £400m at the beginning of the decade.

 

[cle]

I think anything east of Abbey Wood on Crossrail either needs to be dedicated use of existing, or new tracks. Agreed that the network needs to be kept pure from delays at London Bridge, Lewisham etc...

So either Crossrail takes on all SE service east of Abbey Wood or it is four-tracked. If it took on all service, those 12tph could be used well. You could have a 15 minute rotation per hour... 4tph to Rochester, 4tph to Gravesend, 4tph to Dartford, or similar. You would also have the HS1 trains to factor in, so maybe only as far as Gravesend.