How could the Elizabeth line expand?

[Meerkat]

i can’t see there being capacity in the centre section for extensions. If there is any spare capacity it needs keeping free for the vast amounts of housing being built along the route!

 

[CarrotPie]

i can’t see there being capacity in the centre section for extensions. If there is any spare capacity it needs keeping free for the vast amounts of housing being built along the route!

You could possibly squeeze a few extra tph out of it, maybe even 30tph? Failing that, extend them all to 11 cars (if Alstom hasn't gone bust by then).

 

[NorthKent1989]

Beyond the Ebbsfleet/Gravesend (which I notice has been cut back to Dartford in recent years) and this new Staines/Western access link to Heathrow I’m not sure you could expand the EL further than what it already is.

A part of me feels that it might’ve been better had the EL been an east-version of Thameslink, ie like then proposed SuperCrossrail idea from the 2000s, whereby like how on the Thameslink you can travel from Brighton to Cambridge on one service you could have a Southend to Oxford or even to Banbury/Leamington Spa service.

I guess in the future you could have the Didcot semi fasts absorbed into the EL, especially if the Western access to Heathrow goes ahead.

 

[MPW]

My fun idea for the day:

1. Keep EL as is
2. SE via woolwich runs fast between belvedere or erith to westcombe park, stopping only at Abbey Wood and woolwich.
3. North/east greenwich Tram route via dual carriageways from North greenwich, westcome park (a few possible routes), woolwich (via a206), former Plumstead station, thamesmead. Final strech either to belvedere with possibly branch to Abbey Wood (noting it would connect EL at woolwich anyway).

The now faster SE route would be competitive time wise with EL for some journeys to central london, and would also be a reasonable alternative to HS1 for North Kent passengers. Might be able to have longer trains by skipping woolwich dockyard (are any other stations an issue on that line?).

No extension of EL reduces capacity impact there, but maybe the tram and fast train connections would cancel that out.

As said and as always, just fun idea. I'll take no offense for opposing views but if choosing to use insults please make them funny.

 

[CarrotPie]

2. SE via woolwich runs fast between belvedere or erith to westcombe park, stopping only at Abbey Wood and woolwich.

What would the eastern terminus of those be? Dartford? Gravesend? Rochester? Gillingham?

if choosing to use insults please make them funny.

You are a huge toffee-filled lollipop!

 

[NorthKent1989]

My fun idea for the day:

1. Keep EL as is
2. SE via woolwich runs fast between belvedere or erith to westcombe park, stopping only at Abbey Wood and woolwich.
3. North/east greenwich Tram route via dual carriageways from North greenwich, westcome park (a few possible routes), woolwich (via a206), former Plumstead station, thamesmead. Final strech either to belvedere with possibly branch to Abbey Wood (noting it would connect EL at woolwich anyway).

The now faster SE route would be competitive time wise with EL for some journeys to central london, and would also be a reasonable alternative to HS1 for North Kent passengers. Might be able to have longer trains by skipping woolwich dockyard (are any other stations an issue on that line?).

No extension of EL reduces capacity impact there, but maybe the tram and fast train connections would cancel that out.

As said and as always, just fun idea. I'll take no offense for opposing views but if choosing to use insults please make them funny.

Running fast between Dartford to Abbey Wood in event of a EL extension has been on the cards, leaving Slade Green, Erith & Belvedere served by EL trains only

If it’s extended to Gravesend, SE and/or Thameslink may miss out Stone, Swanscombe & Northfleet as well.

 

[MPW]

Running fast between Dartford to Abbey Wood in event of a EL extension has been on the cards, leaving Slade Green, Erith & Belvedere served by EL trains only

If it’s extended to Gravesend, SE and/or Thameslink may miss out Stone, Swanscombe & Northfleet as well.

I understood that EL extension to ebbsfleet was projected to cost a huge amount of money because of need to quad-track existing SE route (especially if wanted SE to run fast).

So my thinking was instead of expanding the current abbey wood to dartford route to 4 tracks from 2, you could instead spend the money on a tram route. That tram route would better serve the 'opportunity areas' in north and east greenwhich, which are mostly closer to the river than the existing railway. Only the tram itself is a significant cost output (i know, 'only') whereas the SE fasts would effectively just be mothballing existing stations, with no alignments, bridges, clearances, etc.

If people from dartford want the EL, they can get to Abbey wood faster if the SE route didn't stop on the way. That should make up for requirement to change trains rather than having one seat all the way. The faster SE trains would also hopefully encourage some of those people to avoid the EL core altogether.

If passengers want to go somewhere in thamesmead, belvedere etc, the tram will probably take them closer to the actual destination than current railway alignment.

I guess other option is to do larger dlr extension instead of tram. Might need public acceptance of elevated track to be viable. (Again, lots of dual carriageways which could go down to one lane each direction with pedestrian/cycling space under elevated sections).

 

[PGAT]

Not if it comes with trains carrying fresh air from Shenfield to Southend. It would be interesting to know what volume of passengers travel direct from Shenfield on the Elizabeth Line into London rather than taking considerably faster trains run by Greater Anglia.

In other considerations, what is the Elizabeth Line going to do with ten extra 345s? Can the core service be made more intensive? Is it possible to extend some Paddington terminators to Hayes & Harlington or West Drayton in the high peak?

Definitely some of the extra 345s will be required when all Paddington terminators get extended to Old Oak Common, but probably not as much as 10. You couldn't fit anything more onto the relief lines, so perhaps diverting the Gidea Park trains away from Liverpool Street high-level into the core and maybe increase that to 4tph

 

[cle]

Definitely some of the extra 345s will be required when all Paddington terminators get extended to Old Oak Common, but probably not as much as 10. You couldn't fit anything more onto the relief lines, so perhaps diverting the Gidea Park trains away from Liverpool Street high-level into the core and maybe increase that to 4tph

If this worked, it would be a good thing - maybe they could squeeze past OOC into the Hayes bay or even onto Heathrow (or 2 and 2) - but any addl frequency through the core will be welcome, to OOC at least.