Nitro wrote:

Crossrail 3

Hi all,

As an alternative to the Chelsea-Hackney Line, Mayor Ken Livingstone
talked about a Crossrail 3 between Euston and Waterloo and said this
may go ahead if it has a stronger case than Crossrail 2.

When did he say that?

Here is a proposal for a Crossrail 3. Feel free to comment on it.

The Line

The Central tunnel would run from Waterloo, stopping at Temple (at the
western end of the station) and Tottenham Court Road (with an additional
exit near Covent Garden / Leicester Square) before dividing into two
branches: one branch would go to Euston, the other branch to King's Cross.

That's rather zigzaggy! Why not go via Holborn?

From Euston the line would surface near a new Camden Lock station
(either on Parkway (the street) or near Chalk Farm Safeway) and would
continue along the 'DC' lines to Watford Junction. The Bakerloo Line
would be cut back to Queen's Park. As at most 12 trains per hour
(tph) would run on this line, the Bakerloo Line would still be able to
use Stonebridge Park Depot.

I think a lot of commuters would be upset about losing their direct
Paddington service.

From King's Cross the line would continue to Dalston Junction station
and Hackney Central station.

Do you mean Hackney Downs?

The line would then surface near Clapton,
or if this is not possible an underground station at Clapton. Some
trains would then continue to Chingford,

Although you're not the first to suggest a Crossrail line take over the
Chingford branch, it doesn't seem such a good idea to me. The loss of a
direct service to the City would be very unpopular with many people who
moved to the area because of its good links to the City.

others to Stansted Airport.

With what stopping pattern?

From Waterloo the line would surface between Vauxhall and Waterloo.

Did you have a surfacing location in mind?

Crossrail 3 would then takeover the Wimbledon slow lines and serve
Vauxhall, Battersea (new platforms),

What's wrong with the old ones? Or are you saying that there should be
new platforms on the Victoria to Brixton line?

Clapham Junction and on to Hampton Court (4 tph), Chessington South
(4tph), Shepperton (4tph) and Espom (4tph).

Why stop at 4tph? And don't they already get that?

The rest of the service would have to terminate in an as
yet undecided location (possibly Clapham Junction - build some
reversing sidings there?).

Why?

Connections between the fast lines and
slow lines would be retained in the event of an emergency (e.g. if SWT
and Crossrail 3 had to squeeze onto the slow lines).

In the North, the 4tph to Chessington South would go up to Watford
Junction, as would the unspecified 8tph (that terminates somewhere
along the line - Clapham Junction?). The remaining 12tph goes to
Stansted / Chingford (2tph to Stansted, 10tph to Chingford).

That would leave Chingford with an extremely irregular service! And why
only 2tph to Stansted? At that frequency you'd get all the disbenefits
of slower boardings (due to passengers' luggage) without the ridership
benefits that a frequent service to the airport would bring.

Advantages:
 Relief for the Victoria Line,

Some, but not as much as Crossrail 2.

Northern Line,

True. However, this branch of the Northern Line isn't as busy as the
City branch, and the planned Cross River Tram will make it even less
crowded.

Waterloo & City Line,

Hardly! A few W&C passengers might go via Temple instead, but the vast
majority would find the existing route more convenient. If you want to
relieve the W&C, a Waterloo to Liverpool Street link would be far more
effective (even though it would probably require the demolition of a few
buildings).

the South West Trains network, the Bakerloo Line and the
District Line from Wimbledon.

Why would it have any effect whatsoever on the District Line from
Wimbledon?



I'm curious - what was that meant to be?

South West services that Crossrail 3 takes over are not
diverted away from Waterloo so commuter journeys not affected. North
East services are diverted away from Liverpool Street, but as a result
the Enfield Town / Southbury services will operate at an increased
frequency. Passengers will be able to change at Hackney for Liverpool
Street.

Quite an awkward interchange!

 South West branches get a better service than now, service
cannot be improved due to lack of platforms at Waterloo.

With so many trains to an undecided destination, you seem rather
reluctant to give them a better service!

 Relief to Euston, Liverpool Street and Waterloo - delays
reduced on other services into the termini.

As is the case for almost any Crossrail service. However, Crossrail 1
(if done correctly) should remove (or at least greatly postpone) the
need for further relief to Euston and Liverpool Street.

In the long term a Crossrail line will probably be needed to handle the
capacity at Waterloo, but Eurostar's planned abandonment of its current
terminal removes a lot of the urgency.

 Regeneration of Battersea, Vauxhall, Hackney, Clapton,
Wembley, Harlesden, Stonebridge Park, Willesden Junction, Chingford,
Walthamstow, Clapham Junction and Carpenders Park.

There might be regeneration in some of those places, but by no means all
of them. Walthamstow in particular would suffer from the loss of its
direct link to the City.

 Increased rail capacity to Camden on Sundays, with new
journey opportunities.

But London Underground will have provided sufficient capacity long
before then anyway.

 Less line in tunnel (if the Chelsea-Hackney line is going
underground at Clapham Junction).

But going underground at Clapham Junction enables line 2 to bring rail
services to parts of Battersea and Chelsea that have not previously had
them. There is nothing comparable in your proposal.

Also, Line 2 could surface at Dalston Junction.

 No stations will have to close.
 A direct rail link between Waterloo and King's Cross.

There's a much cheaper (light rail) one on the drawing board!

 Reduction in amount of interchange at Victoria.
 Avoids the problem of building a mainline station at
Piccadilly Circus

Just what exactly is the problem there?

Note:
 If platform lengthening is too costly 8 car trains could be
run instead of 12 cars. Some empty trains will be starting at, say,
Clapham Junction, so these will cater for commuters further along the
line.

You're proposing a multibillion pound railway and you're worried that
lengthening suburban platforms would be too expensive???