The Crossrail 3 concept

Status
Not open for further replies.

HSTEd

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
10,980
Well the (in)famous "Red" Ken did bring up the idea of a "Crossrail 3" some time ago, connecting Waterloo to Euston or somesuch with the apparent idea of making a second Thameslink-style connection between commuter trains north and south of the river.

Assuming such a link was created, which trains would be connected to it?
I'm going to open the wild guessing with the Watford DC line for north of the river, probably in combination with the Bakerloo line being truncated to Queen's Park.

South of the river I'm not as familiar as I should be with the Metro Services operated out of Waterloo so I throw the floor open to the forum in general.

I'm going to assume a budget of ~24-32tph through the "core" and 200m length ten-carriage trains.

North of the River:

- 6tph over the Watford DC lines (presumably converted to AC operation?) with platform extensions to 200m throughout.
18-24tph free

South of the River:
24-32tph free
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

transmanche

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
6,008
I'm going to open the wild guessing with the Watford DC line for north of the river, probably in combination with the Bakerloo line being truncated to Queen's Park.
AFAIU, TfL have proposed transferring most/all of the DC line service north of Queen's Park from LO to the Bakerloo line.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
22,293
Even if you limited yourself to 24 tph you could easily take over every mainline side inner suburban service out of Waterloo - but what you really need for a reliable Crossrail type service is a simple network with only a couple of brances at either end. The SWML inner network splits into far too many destinations which currently each get only a couple of tph. The places you'd need to consider are basically Shepperton, Hampton Court, Chessington Sth, Dorking, Guildford (via Epsom) Guildford (via Cobham), Woking, etc. Probaby the Kingston Loop as well, so quite a 'messy' network.

A further problem of course is that NR/DfT/TfL are already seriously thinking of using the SWML inner suburban services as the western destination of Crossrail 2. Maybe somewhere on the SN or SE networks would be a better idea...
 

HSTEd

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
10,980
Even if you limited yourself to 24 tph you could easily take over every mainline side inner suburban service out of Waterloo - but what you really need for a reliable Crossrail type service is a simple network with only a couple of brances at either end. The SWML inner network splits into far too many destinations which currently each get only a couple of tph. The places you'd need to consider are basically Shepperton, Hampton Court, Chessington Sth, Dorking, Guildford (via Epsom) Guildford (via Cobham), Woking, etc. Probaby the Kingston Loop as well, so quite a 'messy' network.

A further problem of course is that NR/DfT/TfL are already seriously thinking of using the SWML inner suburban services as the western destination of Crossrail 2. Maybe somewhere on the SN or SE networks would be a better idea...
As I understand it the "Crossrail 3" would be more of a "Thameslink 2" than anything else, which has many destinations that are only served by a couple of trains per hour.

As I understood it "Crossrail 2" was going to take over a branch of the District line and fit more into the Crossrail mold?

If it does take over most of the SWT services, what about extending the line in tunnel to Clapham Junction and connecting into the SN network there?
Or perhaps more cheaply and dependant on where Crossrail 2 would "couple" to the existing SWT metro routes, run along the surface lines from Waterloo to Clapham Junction and have additional flyovers and diveunders to get across to the Southern side of the station.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
22,293
If it does take over most of the SWT services, what about extending the line in tunnel to Clapham Junction and connecting into the SN network there?
Or perhaps more cheaply and dependant on where Crossrail 2 would "couple" to the existing SWT metro routes, run along the surface lines from Waterloo to Clapham Junction and have additional flyovers and diveunders to get across to the Southern side of the station.
They are studying the idea of Crossrail 2 not surfacing until quite a long way out, ie between Wimbledon and Raynes Park, because it is already supposed to head in that general direction and take over the District Line to Wimbledon. This is to allow the four tracks between Wimbledon and Waterloo to be used solely by longer distance services, so it would be a fairly massive change but wouldn't really leave anything left over for your Crossrail 3, as far as the SW lines were concerned.
 

HSTEd

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
10,980
They are studying the idea of Crossrail 2 not surfacing until quite a long way out, ie between Wimbledon and Raynes Park, because it is already supposed to head in that general direction and take over the District Line to Wimbledon. This is to allow the four tracks between Wimbledon and Waterloo to be used solely by longer distance services, so it would be a fairly massive change but wouldn't really leave anything left over for your Crossrail 3, as far as the SW lines were concerned.
Aren't there six tracks between Waterloo and Clapham Junction though?
Would they really be that many trains using them in that case?
(ie. would they miss two of them?)

That way the tunnel still only has to extend to the vicinity of Waterloo while allowing access to the SN network at Clapham Junction, and as I understand it with the latest LO expansions all significant Victoria SN trains will go through Clapham Junction anyway.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
22,293
Aren't there six tracks between Waterloo and Clapham Junction though?
Would they really be that many trains using them in that case?
(ie. would they miss two of them?)
There are up to 8 tracks east of Clapham Jn, but the Windsor side and the Mainline side are normally operated separately. The problem the London and SE RUS tries to address is the lack of capacity on the fast lines inbound from Woking through Wimbledon and then Clapham Jn to Waterloo. A number of medium distance services run on the fasts through Wimbledon and switch to the slow lines further out beyond Surbiton, and they want to be able to run these on the slows all the way into Waterloo. Amongst other advantages it allows far more trains to stop at Clapham Jn, as discussed in previous threads. That means the existing users of the slows would have to be diverted - and CR2 is a useful option for that - by effectively providing six tracking inbound from Raynes Park.

Putting your CR3 idea onto the slows between Waterloo and Clapham Jn removes the advantage CR2 provides for SWML long distance services.
 

HSTEd

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
10,980
There are up to 8 tracks east of Clapham Jn, but the Windsor side and the Mainline side are normally operated separately. The problem the London and SE RUS tries to address is the lack of capacity on the fast lines inbound from Woking through Wimbledon and then Clapham Jn to Waterloo. A number of medium distance services run on the fasts through Wimbledon and switch to the slow lines further out beyond Surbiton, and they want to be able to run these on the slows all the way into Waterloo. Amongst other advantages it allows far more trains to stop at Clapham Jn, as discussed in previous threads. That means the existing users of the slows would have to be diverted - and CR2 is a useful option for that - by effectively providing six tracking inbound from Raynes Park.

Putting your CR3 idea onto the slows between Waterloo and Clapham Jn removes the advantage CR2 provides for SWML long distance services.
Well some of the SWML Long distance trains could be transferred to Victoria as it would be loosing 24tph from its suburban service count, although I will bow to your superior knowledge and try and work out something else.
 

HSTEd

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
10,980
One of BR's Crossrail/Thameslink proposals had APT's in the promo material!
Well I still think we need a Crossrail/Thameslink system taht uses Cl395 knockoffs for a metro style service to Bristol or Norwich or somesuch......

How about just linking Victoria to Euston, that simplifies all the issues with regards Waterloo station and the trackage around Clapham Junction?
You could transfer the bulk of the metro services out of Victoria and use the platforms for additional Long distance trains and the like, assuming you could take the extra loading on the Victoria approach with the addition of flyovers and the like to make track use more efficient.
 

ert47

Member
Joined
28 Feb 2010
Messages
666
crossrail 3 should like somewhere completely different. say marylebone to charing cross
There is absolutely no space around Charing Cross for a portal to be constructed as the line into the station is above ground level before it gets to Bermondsey. Waterloo has enough space if you were to use the space for the International platforms.
 

Chris125

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2009
Messages
2,521
How about just linking Victoria to Euston, that simplifies all the issues with regards Waterloo station and the trackage around Clapham Junction?
Just like Waterloo its not the station thats the real capacity issue but the lines into it, sorting that out will involve a much longer tunnel. Hopefully when the route for CR2 is firmed up the team investigating it will move onto CR3, and i suspect this is where they'll end up looking.

Chris
 

HSTEd

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
10,980
Finsbury Park - Moorgate - Bank - Waterloo...
Where do we go once we reach Waterloo?
We end up against the same problem with Crossrail 2 already taking all those trains.
Additionally there is nowhere to disperse 24tph to on the GN with Thameslink being finished by then (only 3tph to Moorgate remains and the existing infrastructure will only stretch to 36 20m vehicles per hour).
 

OxtedL

Established Member
Associate Staff
Quizmaster
Joined
23 Mar 2011
Messages
2,379
Maybe you could try and hook a Waterloo to Moorgate line up to the West Anglia as well.

It'll be ages before the crucial people even start to consider thinking about maybe beginning to have an short blue sky meeting to the effect of Crossrail 3, I would think, though.
 

HSTEd

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
10,980
Maybe you could try and hook a Waterloo to Moorgate line up to the West Anglia as well.

It'll be ages before the crucial people even start to consider thinking about maybe beginning to have an short blue sky meeting to the effect of Crossrail 3, I would think, though.
You mentioning West Anglia somehow got me onto c2c and the fact that a tunnel connecting Fenchurch street and Canon street would only be a kilometre long (although it would likely have to be longer to extend under the Thames and come up in the vicinity of London Bridge tube station - making is about 2km long).

This allows all c2c's services to London to run thorugh, with atleast 14tph available at Canon Street off peak.
Fenchurch Street surface station would probably be closed and replaced by an underground station "box" beneath the current site with the Tower Gateway DLR "stub" extended to a surface station at a similar location to the current mainline station.

This frees up the majority of the Fenchurch Street site for redevelopment (saving the facade obviously as I am pretty sure that is listed) which raises quite a lot of money as thats quite a central location in quite a fashionable area of London.

Something similar could occur on the site of Canon street although I imagine the terminating platforms would have to be retained even if a new Thames crossing takes the majority of traffic off of the bridge, for peak times and as an engineering works "sink station" for disrupted services.

Off peak service densities would be roughly 12-14tph with it increasing to 24tph in the peaks or more running through the "core" with excess services on the c2c half of the route being reversed at Barking.

Nutty plan #1 :D
 

OxtedL

Established Member
Associate Staff
Quizmaster
Joined
23 Mar 2011
Messages
2,379
Going anywhere near LTS's happy and practically service conflict free paradise with messy cross-London delay avalanche patterns of operation would perhaps not be an advisable move.
 

mister-sparky

Member
Joined
28 Jan 2007
Messages
379
Location
Kent
From Welwyn Garden City (4tph) and Hertford North (4tph), then to
Wimbledon - Epsom (2), Chessington (2), Hampton Court (2) & Shepperton (2).
welwyn and hertford are going to be served by thameslink.
epsom, chessington, hampton and shepperton are suggestions for chelney.
so again duplications of existing.
 

HSTEd

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
10,980
welwyn and hertford are going to be served by thameslink.
epsom, chessington, hampton and shepperton are suggestions for chelney.
so again duplications of existing.
The Hertford Loop is actually not going to be served by Thameslink, those 3tph will be the only traffic remaining into Moorgate apparently, hence the common attempts on this forum to justify folding it into LO simply because it seems tacked onto the new Thameslink franchise.
 

David Goddard

Member
Joined
8 Aug 2011
Messages
1,016
Location
Reading
The Hertford Loop is actually not going to be served by Thameslink, those 3tph will be the only traffic remaining into Moorgate apparently, hence the common attempts on this forum to justify folding it into LO simply because it seems tacked onto the new Thameslink franchise.
OK. Had not realised that the WGC inners were going into Thameslink, I thought that they were only taking the CBG/PBO/LET outers, with the present WGC/HFN to Moorgate trains staying as is.

This really does leave the HFN trains as left on a limb, plus will create a great deal of connections being required for those who presently have direct trains into Moorgate.
 

Ivo

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2010
Messages
7,307
Location
Bath (or Southend)
Going anywhere near LTS's happy and practically service conflict free paradise with messy cross-London delay avalanche patterns of operation would perhaps not be an advisable move.
In years long gone there were serious proposals to link up Fenchurch Street and Waterloo using the W&C. With the Waterloo option gone should the Chelney be built to mainline standard (which I hope it isn't) there is no real value in connecting it up to anything, unless through services between Southend and Aylesbury (or similar) are to be considered - and there is no real benefit to such a scheme...
 

David Goddard

Member
Joined
8 Aug 2011
Messages
1,016
Location
Reading
through services between Southend and Aylesbury (or similar)...
Had the original Fleet Line tube been built to mainline standard then this could have been reality back in the late 70s, given that the Charing Cross branch was once projected as going on to the City and beyond.

Thankfully it didn't happen and Marylebone and Fenchurch Street stations have lived on to flourish!
 

HSTEd

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
10,980
In years long gone there were serious proposals to link up Fenchurch Street and Waterloo using the W&C. With the Waterloo option gone should the Chelney be built to mainline standard (which I hope it isn't) there is no real value in connecting it up to anything, unless through services between Southend and Aylesbury (or similar) are to be considered - and there is no real benefit to such a scheme...
Why should Chelney not be built to Mainline Standard?
If anything it should be built to a UIC compatible continental gauge if it was to be self contained (for double decker trains a la RER)
 

Ivo

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2010
Messages
7,307
Location
Bath (or Southend)
I think it would be more useful as a metro (i.e. LUL) route. Is it not correct that the line would omit a call at Piccadilly Circus if built to mainline standard? Similarly, was the plan not for it to take over the Epping route on the Central line, relieving congestion across what is ultimately a very busy railway?
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
15,934
Location
Yorkshire, Yorkshire, Yorkshire
Where do we go once we reach Waterloo?
We end up against the same problem with Crossrail 2 already taking all those trains.
Additionally there is nowhere to disperse 24tph to on the GN with Thameslink being finished by then (only 3tph to Moorgate remains and the existing infrastructure will only stretch to 36 20m vehicles per hour).
No reason you'd have to continue on to the current Waterloo suburban routes (though you could take the Reading lines from Waterloo, which I presume won't be touched by "Crossrail Two"?) - you could run into south London onto the shorter distance Southern services?
 

HSTEd

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
10,980
I think it would be more useful as a metro (i.e. LUL) route. Is it not correct that the line would omit a call at Piccadilly Circus if built to mainline standard? Similarly, was the plan not for it to take over the Epping route on the Central line, relieving congestion across what is ultimately a very busy railway?
Well there is no particular engineering reason why main line standard trains have to be slower accelerating than tube trains or not look like a Tube train inside - Infact the S-stock is effectively this - or be built with tube-standard distances between stations.
Building the tunnels large enough for mainline standard trains permits greater space for passengers and allows air conditioning, improving comfort and capacity.

The availability of TBMs that produce tunneling costs that are resistant to additional crossing sectional areas (ie. scales less than linearly against area until we reach silly sizes) make the extra cost minimal in such a large project.
 

ert47

Member
Joined
28 Feb 2010
Messages
666
Well there is no particular engineering reason why main line standard trains have to be slower accelerating than tube trains or not look like a Tube train inside - Infact the S-stock is effectively this - or be built with tube-standard distances between stations.
Building the tunnels large enough for mainline standard trains permits greater space for passengers and allows air conditioning, improving comfort and capacity.

The availability of TBMs that produce tunneling costs that are resistant to additional crossing sectional areas (ie. scales less than linearly against area until we reach silly sizes) make the extra cost minimal in such a large project.
How does the acceleration of the 378 compare to the S-Stock?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top