The Crossrail 3 concept

[Norman]

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.

These services actually switch to the slow lines immediately before Surbiton in order to call there.

 

[swt_passenger]

These services actually switch to the slow lines immediately before Surbiton in order to call there.

I know, so I should have said to call at Surbiton and beyond. Hardly makes a difference to the original point which is about the situation in the Wimbledon area.

 

[Norman]

I know, so I should have said to call at Surbiton and beyond. Hardly makes a difference to the original point which is about the situation in the Wimbledon area.

No, but I am sure you'll agree that it is best to eliminate inaccuracies when they occur, indeed you are never slow to correct people when they are wrong!

 

[LE Greys]

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?

I think I agree with that. I'd also have sent it west up the Thames to Heathrow and Southall rather than south to Wimbledon and would leave the District Line alone. "Crossrail 2" could do an awful lot better by absorbing the ideas in the original Crossrail/Superlink proposals to connect the new line with places such as Milton Keynes, Stansted, Southend and Aylesbury. In other words, two more tunnels running parallel with the ones being dug now, making Crossrail four-track.

 

[swt_passenger]

I think I agree with that. I'd also have sent it west up the Thames to Heathrow and Southall rather than south to Wimbledon and would leave the District Line alone. "Crossrail 2" could do an awful lot better by absorbing the ideas in the original Crossrail/Superlink proposals to connect the new line with places such as Milton Keynes, Stansted, Southend and Aylesbury. In other words, two more tunnels running parallel with the ones being dug now, making Crossrail four-track.

So you agree with it being a metro/LU route, but then still want it to link Southend and Milton Keynes.

Sorry, but that makes no sense to me...

 

[LE Greys]

So you agree with it being a metro/LU route, but then still want it to link Southend and Milton Keynes.

Sorry, but that makes no sense to me...

Southend and Milton Keynes would be linked by Crossrail 2 which is an expansion of Crossrail 1 (similar to Thameslink 2000 being an expansion of the original Brighton-Bedford Thameslink) by adding some extra tunnels to the route. It would produce a network something like this. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Detailed_route_map_large3.svg

The new route would be the Chelney Line, a completely separate Tube line linking Hainault and Heathrow/Southall. It would follow the line as proposed as far as Chelsea, then head up river through Fulham, Barnes and Chiswick where it would split into two branches. Since it would use Tube-size tunnels, it would be impossible to send conventional-sized trains down there.

If you want a Crossrail 3, then my suggestion would be (strangely) to cut an entirely new tunnel between St Pancras and Blackfriars, bypassing Snow Hill). You could then link Euston via the d.c. lines into the old Kentish Town-Moorgate route, dive under the Thames somewhere around Tower Hill and reconnect to the southern lines at New Cross. Hastings-Northampton anyone?

That or extend the HS1 domestic services up HS2 to Birmingham.

 

[mister-sparky]

Southend and Milton Keynes would be linked by Crossrail 2 which is an expansion of Crossrail 1 (similar to Thameslink 2000 being an expansion of the original Brighton-Bedford Thameslink) by adding some extra tunnels to the route. It would produce a network something like this. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Detailed_route_map_large3.svg

The new route would be the Chelney Line, a completely separate Tube line linking Hainault and Heathrow/Southall. It would follow the line as proposed as far as Chelsea, then head up river through Fulham, Barnes and Chiswick where it would split into two branches. Since it would use Tube-size tunnels, it would be impossible to send conventional-sized trains down there.

If you want a Crossrail 3, then my suggestion would be (strangely) to cut an entirely new tunnel between St Pancras and Blackfriars, bypassing Snow Hill). You could then link Euston via the d.c. lines into the old Kentish Town-Moorgate route, dive under the Thames somewhere around Tower Hill and reconnect to the southern lines at New Cross. Hastings-Northampton anyone?

That or extend the HS1 domestic services up HS2 to Birmingham.

the kentish town to moorgate route that has been cut off by extending farringdon's platforms?

 

[swt_passenger]

Southend and Milton Keynes would be linked by Crossrail 2 which is an expansion of Crossrail 1 (similar to Thameslink 2000 being an expansion of the original Brighton-Bedford Thameslink) by adding some extra tunnels to the route. It would produce a network something like this. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Detailed_route_map_large3.svg

The new route would be the Chelney Line, a completely separate Tube line linking Hainault and Heathrow/Southall. It would follow the line as proposed as far as Chelsea, then head up river through Fulham, Barnes and Chiswick where it would split into two branches. Since it would use Tube-size tunnels, it would be impossible to send conventional-sized trains down there.

Ah I see. My confusion was because Crossrail 2 and Chelney are normally considered as the same thing.

 

[LE Greys]

the kentish town to moorgate route that has been cut off by extending farringdon's platforms?

It's a bit impractical now, and that's one reason why, but I reckon that this would have cost less than the existing Thameslink upgrade. Imagine that it's 1999 and the upgrade has not started yet. Instead, they are cutting a new tunnel between St Pancras and Blackfriars, with new stations at Grays Inn Road and Chancery Lane. Now fastforward to today. City Thameslink is closed and abandoned for good. The Moorgate branch is mothballed until King's Cross Thameslink can be hooked up to South Hampstead (alternatively, the DLR could use it to get to King's Cross). Farrindon is being rebuilt under a different arrangement. Meanwhile, trains are running between St Pancras and Blackfriars in twelve minutes, using the new tunnels. It is easy to change to the Central Line at Chancery Lane (the station for the City) and the potential for a travolator link between Grays Inn Road and Farringdon. All of which would have been about the same price as upgrading the existing line, because there would be far fewer delay payments. Was this a missed opportunity?

 

[swt_passenger]

A new tunnel was definitely considered and turned down, it was one of the objector's alternative proposals made during both the 2000/01 inquiry and the reopened 2005 inquiry into the TWA order.

In the end, the second inspector also came down against it:

21. In regard to the alternatives put forward to the Thameslink 2000 scheme, the Inspector concluded that changes since the first inquiry had weakened the case for either tunnelling (from King's Cross or Farringdon to Bermondsey) or for diverting more services via Elephant and Castle. Both alternatives would require more infrastructure and, in the Inspector's view, deliver fewer benefits than Thameslink 2000 (18.3.22; 19.4).
22. The Inspector noted that the tunnelling option would require a very deep underground station at London Bridge to avoid existing tunnels and below ground services, which would raise environmental and technical problems and make interchange significantly more difficult and time-consuming. It would also cost around two and a half times the proposed Thameslink scheme. The Inspector considered that Network Rail's re-evaluation reaffirmed the first Inspector's conclusion that the cost and delay of tunnelling weighed against such a course (18.3.16)..

 

[Bald Rick]

It's a bit impractical now, and that's one reason why, but I reckon that this would have cost less than the existing Thameslink upgrade. Imagine that it's 1999 and the upgrade has not started yet. Instead, they are cutting a new tunnel between St Pancras and Blackfriars, with new stations at Grays Inn Road and Chancery Lane. Now fastforward to today. City Thameslink is closed and abandoned for good. The Moorgate branch is mothballed until King's Cross Thameslink can be hooked up to South Hampstead (alternatively, the DLR could use it to get to King's Cross). Farrindon is being rebuilt under a different arrangement. Meanwhile, trains are running between St Pancras and Blackfriars in twelve minutes, using the new tunnels. It is easy to change to the Central Line at Chancery Lane (the station for the City) and the potential for a travolator link between Grays Inn Road and Farringdon. All of which would have been about the same price as upgrading the existing line, because there would be far fewer delay payments. Was this a missed opportunity?

Err, where does the money get saved?

 

[ert47]

The new route would be the Chelney Line, a completely separate Tube line linking Hainault and Heathrow/Southall. It would follow the line as proposed as far as Chelsea, then head up river through Fulham, Barnes and Chiswick where it would split into two branches. Since it would use Tube-size tunnels, it would be impossible to send conventional-sized trains down there.

A part of me is hoping that the Chelnea line won't be built to tube standard... Its so much "fun" lugging suitcases on the Piccadilly Line!

 

[RobShipway]

Trains from Birmingham would be able to access Crossrail via the station at Old Oak Common from details that I saw on the Crossrail website.

I thought I read somewhere that a proposed Crossrail 2 route was tking trains to Heathrow via a Tunnel from Staines to link up with Terminal 5? This would mean that you could travel from Shenfiled via Crossrail 1 to Heathrow, through to Staines, then back via Clapham Junction to either Waterloo or go on through to Kensington Olympia and from there on to the Watford DC lines or maybe on up to Milton Keynes.

 

[Ivo]

I thought I read somewhere that a proposed Crossrail 2 route was tking trains to Heathrow via a Tunnel from Staines to link up with Terminal 5? This would mean that you could travel from Shenfiled via Crossrail 1 to Heathrow, through to Staines, then back via Clapham Junction to either Waterloo or go on through to Kensington Olympia and from there on to the Watford DC lines or maybe on up to Milton Keynes.

And you would make such a diversion because...?

 

[HSTEd]

Why would you use Tube-sized tunnels on Chelney?

It saves hardly any money and constrains capacity, building the tunnels to a mainline cross section with 25kV power supplies does not preclude a tube style service with tube style stop frequencies.

Trains in mass transit systems are normally traction limited which essentially means that the weight of the vehicle is irrelevent, while the increased pasenger comfort of a larger train weighs in the favour of a main lien compatible cross section (air con leading to fewer problems in summer).

 

[RobShipway]

And you would make such a diversion because...?

Well, creating the tunnel to Terminal 5 from Woking and/or Stains helps to enable better access for people coming from the South of Clapham and West from Clapham better access to Heathrow than having to go say from Guildford to somwhere like Staines to change to a bus service to Heathrow, when the Tunnel to Terminal 5 can be accessed from both sides of the in and around Woking.

Yes, my thinking on this is because I live not too far away from Wokingham/Bracknell area where I would either have to travel to Feltham then get a bus from there to Heathrow or Travel towards Reading to either get the Railair link or get a train to Maidenhead or Slough to then get a train onward to Heathrow either a West - east flyover that joins the existing flyover or by changing trains at Southall.

There is all ready I believe a circle route round from the Brighton Line that allows trains to come on to the line for Woking/Basingstoke/reading etc at Clapham Junction as part of the loop for Kensington Olympia, if not then a way should be enabled as mentioned before for a flyover to be built such that Brighton line trains could go on to Heathrow.

The above would then mean that you would have direct connectivity by Rail between Gatwick and Heathrow Airports, without the need to be using road transport should passengers need to be transferred between airports for any reason.

 

[LE Greys]

A new tunnel was definitely considered and turned down, it was one of the objector's alternative proposals made during both the 2000/01 inquiry and the reopened 2005 inquiry into the TWA order.

In the end, the second inspector also came down against it:

Err, where does the money get saved?

Now that's interesting. I always thought it would go over the top at Blackfriars Bridge, but going under London Bridge makes some sense. I always assumed that the compensation costs for Thameslink 2000 were so high that a new tunnel was actually cheaper. Looks like I was mistaken.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why would you use Tube-sized tunnels on Chelney?

It saves hardly any money and constrains capacity, building the tunnels to a mainline cross section with 25kV power supplies does not preclude a tube style service with tube style stop frequencies.

Trains in mass transit systems are normally traction limited which essentially means that the weight of the vehicle is irrelevent, while the increased pasenger comfort of a larger train weighs in the favour of a main lien compatible cross section (air con leading to fewer problems in summer).

That was a combination of maintaining compatibility with the Central Line and the fact that the long tunnels needed to pass under the whole of the West End, Hackney, Islington, Fulham, Barnes and Chiswick (remember, my idea is to head west up the river) along with at least one Heathrow runway would be cheaper at a smaller bore. The idea would be a self-contained route, but part of the deep-level Tube system with the same sort of station distances as the Victoria Line.

The complete route would be:
Hainault-Fairlop-Newbury Park-Gants Hill-Redbridge-Wanstead-Leytonstone-Leyton Midland Road (under Hackney Marsh)-Clapton Park-Hackney (linking Central and Downs)- (parallel with Graham Road) Dalston Junction-Essex Road (meaning the line could follow Essex Road)-Angel (parallel with the Northern)-King's Cross/St Pancras-(potentially Russell Square)-Tottenham Court Road-Piccadilly Circus (under the Mall)-Victoria-Chelsea Embankment-King's Road Chelsea-Fulham Broadway-Craven Cottage (under the Thames)-Barn Elms-Barnes Bridge (parallel with the LSWR route)-Chiswick (swings north)-Gunnersbury-Kew Bridge (back parallel with LSWR route)-Brentford (where the line splits)

Southall branch:
Brentford (parallel with M4)-Boston Manor (parallel with GWR branch on surface)-Elthorne Park-Southall

Heathrow branch:
Brentford (parallel with LSWR line, on surface if there's room)-Syon Lane-Isleworth-Hounslow-Feltham (back in tunnel, parallel with river)-East Bedfont-Heathrow Terminal 4-Heathrow Terminals 1,2,3-Heathrow Terminal 5

I'd propose it shares tracks with the Piccadilly section into Terminal 5, yet another reason for Tube loading gauge. I've tried to link up with as many different lines as possible, including the GOBLIN and GN&C.

 

[Bald Rick]

Compensation costs are about 2% of the whole programme.

 

[LE Greys]

Compensation costs are about 2% of the whole programme.

I think my source (which I can't remember the name of) quoted 25%. That's the source of the error.

 

[Waverley125]

Crossrail 2 or 3 should not be built until the infrastructure in the north, West & Wales has been upgraded into the 21st century. The continuous fetishisation of infrastucture projects in London is, to most people in the country, obscene.

 

[mister-sparky]

Crossrail 2 or 3 should not be built until the infrastructure in the north, West & Wales has been upgraded into the 21st century. The continuous fetishisation of infrastucture projects in London is, to most people in the country, obscene.

let's not turn this into another one of those threads please. they're getting boring.

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

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

I did not know there was a crossrail 2 and 3 project, I wonder if they will ever get built? The only sort of rail link there was talk about that I did hear was not quite the same, but a Tram Link calling at Waterloo, then going to Euston and Kings Cross/St. Pan, which would be a good idea, I think they could reuse the Kingsway & Holborn Old Tunnels (and maybe extend through to the Holborn Aldwych line too,) but I think the Mayor shelved that tram plan.

 

[ntg]

I did not know there was a crossrail 2 and 3 project, I wonder if they will ever get built? The only sort of rail link there was talk about that I did hear was not quite the same, but a Tram Link calling at Waterloo, then going to Euston and Kings Cross/St. Pan, which would be a good idea, I think they could reuse the Kingsway & Holborn Old Tunnels (and maybe extend through to the Holborn Aldwych line too,) but I think the Mayor shelved that tram plan.

Crossrail 2 is pretty much a done deal now that HS2 is going ahead, 3 isn't even safeguarded and might not even be needed depending on which option for CR2 is preferred. There was a Camden-Brixton cross river tram being planned but Boris indeed killed it, Ken wants to bring it back, but I don't think there was any intention on using any old infrastructure for it.

 

[AlanFry1]

I think a Crossrail 3 would be a good idea, it would make better use of the Watford DC line and link of the South West of London to the North West of London

 

[Nym]

Why not simply hand the Watford DC line over to Crossrail 1? Theres plenty of spare paths from Paddington and it wouldn't be that hard to put a junction in place to get access to the lines in Wildsen Junction, hell you could even run the Tring stoppers and DC Line services, jump the whole lot up to 4tph and run all of these onto Crossrail, re-open the Primrose Hill curve and then have services that currently run down to Euston go through that way as a shuttle between Willden Jcn and Highbury & Islington.

So services for the DC lines North of Wilsden would run either down the Bakerloo Line or Crossrail, and the Slows up the WCML (Tring terminators) can get upped to 4tph (pathing permitted, possibly stop them short at Watford Jcn) and have 8tph Wilsden - Crossrail, and 4tph Willsden - Highbury & Islington. Take a load of pressure off Euston.

 

[AlanFry1]

Why not simply hand the Watford DC line over to Crossrail 1? Theres plenty of spare paths from Paddington and it wouldn't be that hard to put a junction in place to get access to the lines in Wildsen Junction, hell you could even run the Tring stoppers and DC Line services, jump the whole lot up to 4tph and run all of these onto Crossrail, re-open the Primrose Hill curve and then have services that currently run down to Euston go through that way as a shuttle between Willden Jcn and Highbury & Islington.

So services for the DC lines North of Wilsden would run either down the Bakerloo Line or Crossrail, and the Slows up the WCML (Tring terminators) can get upped to 4tph (pathing permitted, possibly stop them short at Watford Jcn) and have 8tph Wilsden - Crossrail, and 4tph Willsden - Highbury & Islington. Take a load of pressure off Euston.

What about services between Queens Park and Euston?

 

[LE Greys]

Why not simply hand the Watford DC line over to Crossrail 1? Theres plenty of spare paths from Paddington and it wouldn't be that hard to put a junction in place to get access to the lines in Wildsen Junction, hell you could even run the Tring stoppers and DC Line services, jump the whole lot up to 4tph and run all of these onto Crossrail, re-open the Primrose Hill curve and then have services that currently run down to Euston go through that way as a shuttle between Willden Jcn and Highbury & Islington.

So services for the DC lines North of Wilsden would run either down the Bakerloo Line or Crossrail, and the Slows up the WCML (Tring terminators) can get upped to 4tph (pathing permitted, possibly stop them short at Watford Jcn) and have 8tph Wilsden - Crossrail, and 4tph Willsden - Highbury & Islington. Take a load of pressure off Euston.

Or do what they planned to do with Superlink, leave the d.c. lines alone and take on the outer suburban traffic (not sure if they meant 'some of it' or 'all of it').

 

[Nym]

What about services between Queens Park and Euston?

Like I said, via Primrose Hill to Highbury & Islington.

 

[HSTEd]

Well if you truncate the Bakerloo line so it no longer runs on DC line tracks and then upped the frequency to 6-8tph to compensate (so it was turn up and ride) that might be viable.

The advantage of using the DC line as part fo a new North South link is that it becomes the ultimate turnback siding for the DC switchover if it was to occur quite far north.
(If the changeover fails send it down the DC to get it out of the way).

 

[Nym]

I'd keep the current services for the Bakerloo to Queens Park, possibly terminate more of them short at Willsden, But I'd be aiming to keep 12tph up the DC lines to Queens Park and at least 720m/hr of services to Tring, hence the 4tph.

But if this is to be part of Crossrail, I would be building a rather significantly sized interchange station at OOC on the WLL to be used by XR and WLL services that are DC / WCML bound, proberbly around the Mitre Bridge area for WLL services, and under Mitre Bridge, north of the proposed GWML Releif / XR Platforms at OOC, with services merging for XR between OOC and RO, WLL DC services continuing as is to call at Willsden, and if the line comes from platforms near Mitre Bridge, linked to the main OOC station complex with moving walkways, new platforms on the Slow lines at Willesden so services will call both at OOC and Willesden, is just a little bit too far to walk. Would need a new bridge for the DC services to get over the Depot and lines at Wilsden to get from Mitre Bridge to the DC lines, but it's not impossible, especially since Mitre Bridge is at a higher level anyway.

So.. in summary

XR: 4tph OOC N Platforms - Tring calling at new platforms on the slows at Willesden (As will all current slow line services, retaining the Willsden - Euston link) increase to 6tph if possible.
SN: 2tph (They want) OOC Mitre Bridge Platforms - MKC callign at the Willsden Slow platforms
XR: 4tph OOC N Platforms - DC Lines, thanks to the layout, not calling at OOC, stright over possibly before Mitre Bridge to the DC lines, likely to rise onto Mitre Bridge and cross there.
LO: 4tph Willsden LL - Harrow & Welstone via Primrose Hill