Tokyo-style through services possible for London?

[U-Bahnfreund]

For those who are not familiar: in Tokyo, ten of its 13 metro lines connect at one or both ends with both private and JR (the ex-national railway) lines. The rolling stock of all companies are used throughout all lines, though the staff usually stays within its company's area. Some trains travel up to 50 or 60 miles from one end of the Tokyo metro area to the other.
Read more in this online article: http://www.ejrcf.or.jp/jrtr/jrtr63/pdf/14-21_web.pdf

Conclusion

Japan’s traditional through service style between different
railway operators’ suburban lines and subway lines started
about 50 years ago. Today, 18 railway operators run through
service in Greater Tokyo with those sections covering
about 1000 km of lines. This method started in Greater
Tokyo, expanding later to Osaka, Nagoya, and Fukuoka.
Additionally, a new method of through service with suburban
lines using urban freight lines also has appeared.

As mentioned, through service has various impact for
various groups. For railway users, the ability to use railways
from the suburbs to the city centre without inconvenient
transfers shortens journey times. Areas along suburban
lines see promotion of housing, increase in population,
and expansion of choices in day-to-day life. Areas along
subway lines see an influx of commercial and business
buildings relocating.

However, train delays have become more frequent
in recent years, especially in Greater Tokyo during the
morning peak hours, threatening the long-held belief that
Japan’s railways always run on time. Through service
between different operators has been pointed out as
factors in expanding delays and impeding recovery to
normal time schedule. Coming up with measures against
delays, such as the timing to terminate through service,
and where to terminate it, has become a major issue for
those involved in railways.
In urban areas of Europe, a tram–train method for
operating trams on conventional lines has been promoted,
starting in Karlsruhe, Germany. There are high hopes for
expansion of this and other through-service methods, which
alleviate the bother of train transfers and expand destination
choices for aging populations in cities around the worl

I wonder whether *network-wise* this would also be an idea for London's transport system. Of course, I understand that TfL probably wouldn't care about customers from outside Greater London, and there would also be technological barriers to overcome, but I think there are quite a few corridors, where a through service from National Rail onto the Underground could relieve the big terminals and provide direct services for many passengers.

For example:

• Wimbledon: District line onto South Western Railway suburban routes, Southern/Thameslink loop (Chessington, Epsom?)
• Richmond: District line onto South Western Railway suburban routes (Windsor?)
• Ealing Broadway: District or Central line onto Great Western Railway (Windsor? Greenford?) -- probably unnecessary due to Crossrail
• West Ruislip: Central line onto Chiltern Railways (Princes Risborough? Oxford?)
• Amersham: Metropolitan line onto Chiltern Railways (Aylesbury - duh)
• Harrow & Wealdstone: Bakerloo line onto WCML (Watford? Milton Keynes? St Albans? Tring?)
• Barking/Upminster: District or H&C lines onto c2c (Southend?)
• A proposed Bakerloo line extension could also connect to many South London suburban railways

What do you think about this?

 

[johnnychips]

Are the underground platforms long enough? Would the trains fit in? Is the current and collection method the same?

 

[3141]

Michael Schwabas (formerly of GB Railways) suggested some years ago that instead of just Crossrail 1 or 2 there should be several links through Central London to connect networks across the capital, but I think he was thinking of new connections and not of using existing Underground routes.

The problem with extending existing Underground lines is that you're likely to get slow journeys. The Central Line from Epping is possibly the worst example, and from Ongar it was even worse. The Northern Line would have been a similar problem if it had got as far as Bushey Heath. Beyond a certain number of miles from the centre, or a certain number of journey minutes, you don't want stopping trains, but instead semi-fast services that call at just a few larger or more important stations. They certainly need to have only a small number of stops once they get closer than about eight miles from the centre. The Underground doesn't have the infrastructure to allow such limited stop services.

 

[Malcolmffc]

A whole rainbow of crayons here...

 

[HarleyDavidson]

The Japanese love to invest in transport and make things futureproof, they're not as myopic and naive as the British who only think of themselves and for the short term. That's why the Japanese have got a better rail network than what we have.

 

[bb21]

The Met/Chiltern and District/Southend ideas have some merit, and the former did previously run deep into Bucks territory.

The others are either catered for by Crossrail 1/2 or pointless/impossible.

 

[Domh245]

There used to be through services (of a sort) back at around the turn of the century on the District Line. There used to be an Ealing Broadway - Southend service, swapping from Steam locomotives (from the LT&SR) to Electric at Barking. Withdrawn in 1939. Obviously it would be very very very difficult to do nowadays with the need to reconcile tube gauge tunnels (with their low headroom, circular shape, and low platforms) with mainline gauge trains for some of your proposals. The other thing to consider is that the tube is very much a metro service, with limited seating and maximised standing space, and high performance EMUs. Whether or not commuters from further out areas would appreciate such trains instead of their suburban services, I don't know (although guesses can be made based on the reaction to class 700s!)

 

[sirjojo]

The Japanese love to invest in transport and make things futureproof, they're not as myopic and naive as the British who only think of themselves and for the short term. That's why the Japanese have got a better rail network than what we have.

Please don't judge us all by your own low standards.
In what aspect do the Japanese have a better railway than us?

 

[30907]

I think 3141 sums it up. Most of the tube routes run miles out from the centre as it is and replaced or supplemented main line stopping trains like an S-Bahn (the Metropolitan line is an exception). So what you suggest would be a bit like running all services (say) Duesseldorf-Wuppertal-Hagen as S-Bahn and withdrawing the faster services (RE/IC)

All your ideas have some sort of history to them, though:
to add to what others have mentioned, the idea of extending the Bakerloo beyond Camberwell/Lewisham onto one of the SE lines is has been around since the 1940s and will no doubt happen eventually (the Hayes line is the traditional option).
The Wimbledon and Sutton line was originally promoted by the District, so that idea isn't way out (not that it's practicable now). And the District line route into Richmond was originally served by the LSWR, though there weren't through trains from Shepherd's Bush to Windsor etc!
The only exception is Ealing, but even there the GWR used to run through passenger trains via Paddington onto the Hammersmith and City.

 

[jopsuk]

I'm sure there's various sketch maps at TfL of what Crossrail 3/4/5 etc would be if they had the money- but they would all be based on new dig tunnels. There's potential that the Bakerloo may take over the Catford Loop and Hayes branch, and maybe run up to Watford, but beyond that I doubt any (more) Underground lines will be extended over National Rail routes, and mainline stock cannot use the Underground network beyond the current sharing, as there's all sort of loading gauge/clearance/platform height/current very high frequency issues.

 

[Master29]

Does that mean we could soon be pushing people on with sticks? I think there are a number of services on the network that could do with this now.

 

[Camden]

Sounds confusing, and sounds chaotic. If you can control things to the second you might be able to deal with the chaotic bit, but what are our chances there?... The tube is easy for anyone to use, leave it be.

 

[AlterEgo]

Please don't judge us all by your own low standards.
In what aspect do the Japanese have a better railway than us?

In just about every aspect, actually.

 

[Monarch010]

Sounds confusing, and sounds chaotic. If you can control things to the second you might be able to deal with the chaotic bit, but what are our chances there?... The tube is easy for anyone to use, leave it be.

Controlling things to the second brought this to mind.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ail-company-apologises-train-20-seconds-early

 

[stut]

It's a really useful system. For example, I've used the Keisei Access Express from Narita Airport, which branches off and takes you directly on to the Subway system, bringing you to Asukusa station (which is exactly where I wanted to be) - quicker and an order or magnitude cheaper than the N'Ex. But if you think the Met is confusing for visitors as it is, the Tokyo system is massively so - with limited stop trains and city centre branches everywhere.

Strict reliability is the key to it working, as well as orderly passenger behaviour. We simply don't have that right now.

There's also an issue of comfort. These are full metro trains, with bench seats (not even LO- or Met-style bench seats) and minimal comfort, doing long journeys. This may be the norm for Japanese suburban rail services, and, well, the direction we seem to be taking, but is this what we want?

 

[Monarch010]

Some of these lines are private, I understand, so do they have combined ticketing or something similar to Oyster?

 

[JaJaWa]

There were various proposals in the late 1990s when Railtrack proposed cancelling Crossrail and running a whole variety of services via the Circle line (and other sub-surface lines). It even delayed the SSL PPP contract.

You can read about some of them here: http://www.lurs.org.uk/articles13_htm_files/03 CROSSRAIL VIA THE CIRCLE LINE.pdf

CROSSRAIL VIA THE CIRCLE LINE? by John Hawkins

Back in 1999 the privatisation of LT underground assets was under consideration. Railtrack were interested in acquiring the sub-surface lines for integration with their suburban rail network, promising better journey flexibility, greater capacity and easier interchange at key locations. Railtrack, a listed private company, were at that time responsible for most infrastructure of the national rail network and LT were keen to link the East London Line at both ends, eventually achieved in 2010. However, Treasury was anxious to find a low-cost alternative to the proposed Crossrail scheme, at that time only intended to link Paddington and Liverpool Street with deep tunnels. Services from Shenfield in Essex would have reached Heathrow, Reading and also Aylesbury via a link from Old Oak Common to Neasden. Main line services had once linked into the northern part of the Circle Line from Paddington. Proposed resignalling was expected to provide additional train paths which could perhaps accommodate Railtrack services. Recent Internet postings by insiders to the Railtrack proposals have added insight into the original concept.

In early 1999 Railtrack proposed two new cross-London services, one of which would have linked the Paddington and Liverpool Street suburban services using the north side of the Circle Line. This would have presumably reused the original tunnel route of the Metropolitan Railway into platforms 1 and 2 of the then new Great Eastern Railway station. It was only used by Metropolitan passengers for five months in 1875 until the Company’s own Bishopsgate (now Liverpool Street) station became available. This connection was the reason for the main line station being constructed at a low level, and these two platforms remained linked by an overbridge until the main line station reconstruction was undertaken from 1985.

The Railtrack proposal would have introduced another flat junction to the Circle Line, whose short platforms would have restricted train lengths. Shenfield services currently leave from the eastern side of Liverpool Street station to provide cross-platform interchange with the Central Line at Stratford. However, at that time a Crossrail alignment had also been safeguarded from Stratford to the Lea Valley Line, and another alignment to be considered in the light of changing demand was the North Thames line. The second Railtrack link proposed was between Fenchurch Street services and the District Line to Wimbledon.

With the aim of undercutting the Crossrail project budget, an ambitious £5 billion scheme was suggested by Railtrack involving the lengthening of Circle Line platforms for 10- or 12-car trains, possible conversion to 25kV overhead power with the fitting of moving-block signalling for 36 trains per hour, and the elimination of flat junctions by grade separation or the withdrawal of Circle Line and Metropolitan Line Aldgate services. Metropolitan Line trains terminated in the four platforms at Baker Street except during peak hours until 14 May 1990, but through passengers would have put great pressure on interchange routes there if such services had been totally withdrawn. Unsurprisingly, London Transport did not support the proposed changes.

Perhaps the Hammersmith branch receives more trains than it needs now that the Circle Line also ends up there. A few of those paths could have been diverted at Paddington onto Heathrow together with any frequency increase on the north side of the Circle Line. This could perhaps have provided 8tph through to Heathrow and still have permitted an increase in Metropolitan Line trains east of Baker Street. Half of the Heathrow trains would have had to terminate at Aldgate with the diverted Hammersmith trains continuing on to their Barking terminus. The current SSR resignalling promises 32tph, so the Railtrack scheme would have allowed an additional 4tph to 36tph east of Aldgate East to benefit the District Line or former Fenchurch Street services.

Abolition of Circle Line services has been considered from time to time and yet it remains an operational difficulty, transferring delays between all SSR lines with its six flat junctions. A considerable number of travellers rely on this service, and alternative interchange at Aldgate East and Earl’s Court remains inconvenient during service disruptions. Paths vacated by withdrawal of the Circle Line could not easily be filled by additional District Line trains, as they are already filled by Hammersmith & City trains east from Aldgate East and by Wimbledon trains west of Gloucester Road.

A simple Circle Line replacement scheme might be to double the Wimbledon-Edgware Road and Hammersmith & City services, and to cover the south side of the Circle Line with additional Tower Hill reversing services. This would give an improved service on the heavily pressed Wimbledon branch, but would require the curtailment of some current District Line trains at Tower Hill to leave paths for the additional Hammersmith trains to Barking. A better scheme might operate the Circle Line as a Hammersmith to Aldgate shuttle, and extend Tower Hill reversers to the outer platforms at Aldgate for interchange. This would prevent contamination of the District Line service by the Circle Line, but would replace the conflicting moves at Minories Junction by those of reversing District Line trains. The withdrawal of Circle Line services from the Gloucester Road and High Street Kensington flat junctions would provide an improvement, which would be partly offset by a doubling of the Edgware Road service with double the conflicting moves on the eastbound at Earls Court.

Current plans will rely on the new computer signalling system to improve junction working by adjusting junction approaches for parallel running, so minimising conflicting routes. This will depend on compliant passengers at closely adjoining stations such as at Baker Street, Aldgate and Aldgate East.

The Fenchurch Street line looked like a good match for the District Line, but insufficient new paths were planned to accommodate the current 19tph National Rail service and also provide some District Line service increase east of Bow Road. A flat junction at Campbell Road where the two lines split might have only offered 7tph. By transferring National Rail trains onto the District Line at the grade separated Barking, some 14 paths may have been available but these would have been slowed through four additional stations. They would have also left insufficient District Line trains for services east of Barking which would have required Hammersmith trains to be extended at least as far as Dagenham East. At the Wimbledon end, where another flat junction would probably have been used by through trains, most of the branch service would have been operated by National Rail trains leaving the Edgware Road service to operate perhaps to Ealing Broadway, moving Earls Court conflicting moves from the eastbound to the westbound lines. The current solution of lengthening Fenchurch Street services to 12-coach trains appears to be a more desirable outcome, although the poorly connected terminus remains.

When bids were invited for PPP contracts for the deep tube lines in June 1999, it was announced that Railtrack were considering taking on the sub-surface lines contract. By this time there was only talk of Railtrack extending their Heathrow Express service over the north side of the Circle Line and perhaps on to Barking. With dual-voltage stock this would have required no extension of existing electrification. It would have provided a direct airport link from the City stations of Liverpool Street, Moorgate, Barbican and Farringdon as proposed by Crossrail, although it would not have relieved Liverpool Street suburban services.

However, in September 1999 Chiltern Railways came up with a proposal to extend four-rail electrification to Aylesbury and to operate dual-voltage stock from there through Baker Street and on to a Liverpool Street link out onto the suburban services. This latter connection was soon dropped from Chiltern's proposal, but the whole thing again came to nothing. Whilst the current Crossrail project avoids the need for alternative routes linking to Shenfield and Heathrow, Aylesbury remains an unsolved problem with a former Metropolitan Railway connection. The current diesel trains arrive at the poorly connected Marylebone terminus. A boost to 36tph services beyond the current SSR resignalling to 32tph would allow paths for the Aylesbury peak 4tph to reach Baker Street, or Aldgate, if 23 miles of line were electrified north of Amersham. This might leave 22tph reversing in the two platforms at Aldgate compared with the current 14tph there, and 33tph being achieved at Brixton.

It was not until late November 1999 that Railtrack gave up on their plans and that bidders were invited for the SSL InfraCo. Metronet finally signed a 30-year contract in April 2003 which led to the current SSR line upgrades. In 2001 TfL and the Department of Transport formed a joint venture to pursue the original 1991 Crossrail plans, rejected back in 1994, which eventually led to the 2008 approval of the line under construction today. Railtrack talked of operating 36tph which probably appeared high compared with the current SSR peak services of 26tph, and Metronet later promised 32tph which remains the current target. However, there are already plans to stretch the current Victoria and Jubilee Line services to 36tph, and Crossrail 2 consultation papers reveal a similar ambition for the District Line at least.

This article actually says it was so close to happening that only the Paddington rail crash stopped it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/471250.stm

"If it hadn't been for the rail crash last week the government was due to announce on Wednesday that it was going to give the control of the District and Circle Lines to Railtrack"

Keep Tube away from Railtrack - Livingstone

Ken Livingstone is hoping to prevent the break-up of the Tube

Ken Livingstone is calling for an assurance from the government that Railtrack will not be given control over parts of the London Underground following the Paddington rail crash.

The candidate for the Labour nomination for London mayor also insisted he could beat the latest entrant into the party contest, Health Secretary Frank Dobson.


The planning minister Nick Raynsford - who recently announced his decision to stand on the understanding that Mr Dobson was not in the running - is expected to announce his decision to drop out.

Mr Raynsford will put his support behind the health secretary later on Monday.

Mr Dobson has already announced that he cannot continue as health secretary while running for mayor and also said he would step down as an MP should he win next May's election.

There are two other candidates running for the party's nomination, the former junior minister Glenda Jackson and broadcaster Trevor Phillips.

Tube guarantee

Mr Livingstone told the BBC the tragedy of the Paddington rail crash underlined the need for the changes he was promising as mayor.

"If it hadn't been for the rail crash last week the government was due to announce on Wednesday that it was going to give the control of the District and Circle Lines to Railtrack.

"And those of us who have been opposed to the break-up of the Tube are delighted that this is being put on hold, but I want an absolute guarantee from the government that Railtrack will not being taking control for any part of the Tube."

Mr Livingston predicted that the health secretary may now oppose the government's proposals for the Underground.

"It may be that part of Frank's conditions to stand was that he wouldn't be lumbered with this unpopular policy," he said.

The former leader of the GLC again insisted that he would not be blocked from standing for the party's nomination, a view that seems to be reinforced by Mr Dobson's confidence that he can beat Mr Livingstone in a ballot of London's Labour Party members.

He said: "I do not believe that the British prime minister would rig an election in full view of the world's media."

Mr Livingstone added that he would not stand as an independent if he were not to win the party's backing, saying he would give his support to the eventual victor.

 

[rebmcr]

This was already rejected, in favour of Crossrail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superlink_(railway_network)

 

[WideRanger]

Some of these lines are private, I understand, so do they have combined ticketing or something similar to Oyster?

All Urban Railway lines (including the various Metros) in Japan allow the use of smart cards (in Tokyo the two cards are Suica, run by JR, and Pasmo, run by the priavte companies) and they are completely interoperable. The lines and networks have a clear set of fares for every station pair (no zoning), and if a journey takes in more than one company (either on a through train or with changes) then the fares on the various company's networks are simply added together with a small discount for through routes.

 

[WideRanger]

The Japanese love to invest in transport and make things futureproof, they're not as myopic and naive as the British who only think of themselves and for the short term. That's why the Japanese have got a better rail network than what we have.

I'm not sure that's really fair. The main reason it is an option is because most of the lines have been built relatively recently, with through running built in at the design stage. An example of this is the Tokyu Den-en-toshi - Tokyo Metro Hanzomon - Tobu combination. It's really quite new, and was in practice all built from the same initial plan, even though three companies were involved. A more instructive example would be the Odakyu - Tokyo Metro Chiyoda - JR combination, where trains that go through the centre have to be a narrower loading gauge than trains that are only on the above-ground networks. Through running has not been possible on the two oldest Tokyo Metro lines (Ginza and Marunouchi) even though it would seem logical on a map. This is because the track gauge (standard vs Japanese narrow), loading gauge (very tight vs generous)) and power supply (3rd rail vs overhead) are all different to the lines they meet at their ends.

Where through working has been introduced after the outer lines, it has been through new lines through the centre, designed for that purpose. Recent examples are the new Tokyo Metro Fukutoshin line which links Tokyu Toyoko with some of the private lines out of Ikebukero, and the new JR line between Tokyo station and Ueno, which allows through running between the Tokaido and Tohoku main lines.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

I'm not sure that's really fair. The main reason it is an option is because most of the lines have been built relatively recently, with through running built in at the design stage. An example of this is the Tokyu Den-en-toshi - Tokyo Metro Hanzomon - Tobu combination. It's really quite new, and was in practice all built from the same initial plan, even though three companies were involved. A more instructive example would be the Odakyu - Tokyo Metro Chiyoda - JR combination, where trains that go through the centre have to be a narrower loading gauge than trains that are only on the above-ground networks. Through running has not been possible on the two oldest Tokyo Metro lines (Ginza and Marunouchi) even though it would seem logical on a map. This is because the track gauge (standard vs Japanese narrow), loading gauge (very tight vs generous)) and power supply (3rd rail vs overhead) are all different to the lines they meet at their ends.

Where through working has been introduced after the outer lines, it has been through new lines through the centre, designed for that purpose. Recent examples are the new Tokyo Metro Fukutoshin line which links Tokyu Toyoko with some of the private lines out of Ikebukero, and the new JR line between Tokyo station and Ueno, which allows through running between the Tokaido and Tohoku main lines.

I think it is fair because our rather shortsighted government put the stop on a through linkage from (what I personally think is a white elephant) HS2 to HS1, which would have provided the ability to run from anywhere on the EU mainland which is able to provide trains that can run on the LGV tracks to the Chunnel to Birmingham, Manchester and future destinations on any extensions to it.

You just know what's going to happen sometime in the future and that will be they'll want to link it directly into HS1, but instead of it being an intrinsic part of the HS2 project, it will mean that it will be another major project and cost far more to do and take a lot longer than what it would have done had it been a part of HS2 initially.

Paris/Brussels have through running to a limited extent and I'm trying to remember where else has it, a big beautiful & impressive station either in Belgium/Netherlands or Germany. They do it, so why can't we?

Naivety, stupidity, political dogma or just penny pinching?

 

[AndrewE]

Paris/Brussels have through running to a limited extent and I'm trying to remember where else has it, a big beautiful & impressive station either in Belgium/Netherlands or Germany. They do it, so why can't we?

Naivety, stupidity, political dogma or just penny pinching?

Antwerp fits the bill. Just think what fast cross-city services St Pancras could have offered if it had been given the same treatment (with a southbound Crossrail tunnel).
So I think all your suggested reasons apply.

 

[U-Bahnfreund]

Thank you all for your interesting answers! I do understand that an idea like mine will never happen, but I just thought I would be interesting to think about what if..?

I think 3141 sums it up. Most of the tube routes run miles out from the centre as it is and replaced or supplemented main line stopping trains like an S-Bahn (the Metropolitan line is an exception). So what you suggest would be a bit like running all services (say) Duesseldorf-Wuppertal-Hagen as S-Bahn and withdrawing the faster services (RE/IC)

I do not really understand your comparison with the Düsseldorf–Wuppertal–Hagen line here. I did not suggest to eliminate any fast/express services whatsoever, just that one could combine some of the inner- and outer-suburban NR lines with the tube lines, instead of terminating all trains at the big termini.

It's a really useful system. For example, I've used the Keisei Access Express from Narita Airport, which branches off and takes you directly on to the Subway system, bringing you to Asukusa station (which is exactly where I wanted to be) - quicker and an order or magnitude cheaper than the N'Ex. But if you think the Met is confusing for visitors as it is, the Tokyo system is massively so - with limited stop trains and city centre branches everywhere.

Yes, I think this one of the major disadvantages of the current Tokyo system, the through services are really complicated. If one would introduce such a service to London though, one could certainly think of many ways how wayfinding could be improved compared to Tokyo’s system (especially: coherent train categories and line numbers)

Strict reliability is the key to it working, as well as orderly passenger behaviour. We simply don't have that right now.

There's also an issue of comfort. These are full metro trains, with bench seats (not even LO- or Met-style bench seats) and minimal comfort, doing long journeys. This may be the norm for Japanese suburban rail services, and, well, the direction we seem to be taking, but is this what we want?

Yes, this is probably one of the best arguments against it. Seeing how busy most of the lines out of London are, a single incident could spread to other NR and then also tube lines.

There were various proposals in the late 1990s when Railtrack proposed cancelling Crossrail and running a whole variety of services via the Circle line (and other sub-surface lines). It even delayed the SSL PPP contract.

You can read about some of them here: [link]

This article actually says it was so close to happening that only the Paddington rail crash stopped it: [link]

"If it hadn't been for the rail crash last week the government was due to announce on Wednesday that it was going to give the control of the District and Circle Lines to Railtrack"

Wow, that is very interesting! Thank you for sharing this. I didn’t know it had been this close.

 

[rebmcr]

I think it is fair because our rather shortsighted government put the stop on a through linkage from (what I personally think is a white elephant) HS2 to HS1, which would have provided the ability to run from anywhere on the EU mainland which is able to provide trains that can run on the LGV tracks to the Chunnel to Birmingham, Manchester and future destinations on any extensions to it.

You just know what's going to happen sometime in the future and that will be they'll want to link it directly into HS1, but instead of it being an intrinsic part of the HS2 project, it will mean that it will be another major project and cost far more to do and take a lot longer than what it would have done had it been a part of HS2 initially.

Paris/Brussels have through running to a limited extent and I'm trying to remember where else has it, a big beautiful & impressive station either in Belgium/Netherlands or Germany. They do it, so why can't we?

Naivety, stupidity, political dogma or just penny pinching?

To be fair, except for (Crossrail/RER), one has to change between (Euston/Gare du Lyon) and (St Pancras/Gare du Nord) to travel via (London/Paris). *delete as applicable

 

[stut]

To be fair, except for (Crossrail/RER), one has to change between (Euston/Gare du Lyon) and (St Pancras/Gare du Nord) to travel via (London/Paris). *delete as applicable

Well, the infrastructure is there in the case of Paris. And a handful of trains, in fairness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGV_Interconnexion_Est

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm sure there's various sketch maps at TfL of what Crossrail 3/4/5 etc would be if they had the money

They're aren't.

 

[yorkie]

A whole rainbow of crayons here...

True

• Wimbledon: District line onto South Western Railway suburban routes, Southern/Thameslink loop (Chessington, Epsom?)

No. Would cost a fortune to sort out what would otherwise be a flat junction at Wimbledon. Would cause capacity issues at busy times, due to the shorter length of the LU sub-surface trains compared to SWR's 10-car trains. What possible tangible benefits could there be?

• Richmond: District line onto South Western Railway suburban routes (Windsor?)

Is it wise to replace 10-car SWR trains with shorter LU sub-surface trains? Is it worth the electrification expense? And again you'd have the issue of introducing conflicting moves at Richmond. Why?

• Ealing Broadway: District or Central line onto Great Western Railway (Windsor? Greenford?) -- probably unnecessary due to Crossrail

This is absolutely nonsensical. Are you seriously proposing dual electrification west of Ealing Broadway, and introducing conflicting moves? And tube stock to Windsor? This can't be serious.

• West Ruislip: Central line onto Chiltern Railways (Princes Risborough? Oxford?)

Fourth rail electrification to Oxford? Or diesel trains in tube tunnels? This cannot be a serious proposal. "Welcome to the Chiltern Underground service, calling at Oxford Parkway, Bicester Village, then non-stop to West Ruislip and all stations to Epping". No chance.

• Amersham: Metropolitan line onto Chiltern Railways (Aylesbury - duh)

This is the only one (apart from Bakerloo to Watford [Junction]) that is not completely crazy. But it's still not realistic. At busy times trains from Amersham are full & standing with people wanting to go to London after just a few stops. There'd be no room for people to board at stations in Greater London.

• Harrow & Wealdstone: Bakerloo line onto WCML (Watford? Milton Keynes? St Albans? Tring?)

Fourth rail electrification, alongside 25kV overhead electrification, to Milton Keynes? And mixing 6-car (16m vehicles) trains doing, what, 50mph, on the same tracks as 12-car (20m vehicles) trains doing 100mph? Sorry but no.

• Barking/Upminster: District or H&C lines onto c2c (Southend?)

No.

• A proposed Bakerloo line extension could also connect to many South London suburban railways

There are sensible proposals for a southern Bakerloo line extension, and that should happen, not some crayonista scheme.

We already have Thameslink, soon we'll have Crossrail. There are sensible proposals for Crossrail 2.

The schemes posted above are not desirable, let alone remotely viable.

 

[Bald Rick]

We already have Thameslink, soon we'll have Crossrail. There are sensible proposals for Crossrail 2. These schemes are not desirable, let alone remotely viable.

yorkie, I don't like to question your English, but I do hope you don't mean that Thameslink, Crossrail and Crossrail 2 "are not desirable, let alone remotely viable"

 

[30907]

Thank you all for your interesting answers! I do understand that an idea like mine will never happen, but I just thought I would be interesting to think about what if..?


I do not really understand your comparison with the Düsseldorf–Wuppertal–Hagen line here. I did not suggest to eliminate any fast/express services whatsoever, just that one could combine some of the inner- and outer-suburban NR lines with the tube lines, instead of terminating all trains at the big termini.

If you extend tube or LUL services beyond Watford Jn (for example), in the peak hours you would have to reduce the LM services out of Euston to make room, because the line is so busy.
I realise my example of your local line is not quite comparable, because there are far fewer RE/RB/IC services.

 

[johnnychips]

yorkie, I don't like to question your English, but I do hope you don't mean that Thameslink, Crossrail and Crossrail 2 "are not desirable, let alone remotely viable"

Come on Yorkie, either lay off the whisky or get a good night's sleep!