Alex Terrell wrote:
(Aidan Stanger) wrote...
Alex Terrell wrote:
(Aidan Stanger) wrote...
Alex Terrell wrote:
Thinking about this, I now agree - forget running CrossRail trains
through the CTRL. But what domestic services should be run through the
CTRL from 2007? After all, operators should start to order rolling
stock about now.
There was a consultation about this last year. The SRA had identified
the core service destinations as Gravesend, Canterbury West and
Folkestone Central, and were seeking views on extending it to Rainham,
Faversham, Ramsgate (either way) or Maidstone West. Service frequency
was to be 8tph peak, 4tph offpeak.
Does that mean 8 tph to Gravesend, then 4 tph to Canterbury West and 4
to Folkstone Central? That would mean a lot of people travelling to
these stations to get to London.
No, it means 8tph London to Ebbsfleet, then 4tph to Gravesend and 4tph
to Ashford, 2 of which would then continue to Folkestone Central and 2
would continue to Canterbury West. There are various options for running
the trains further than that, though none involve Hastings via Rye (the
population is too low to justify electrification, let alone high speed
trains).
So 8 tph limited commuter services. That means with 4 Eurostar
services, the CTRL Phase 2 will only be taking 12 tph. They should at
least be extending the Gravesend services to Chatham, and some beyond
to Ramsgate.
They talk about 8 eurostar tph, but can't even fill 3 at the moment,
and for some bizarre reason they want to keep Waterloo International
just to operate a few Eurostar per day.
Really? Last I heard they were planning to close Waterloo International.
Diverting some trains to Waterloo would increase the number of available
paths on the CTRL.
There aren't expected to be as many paths available as you think.
But there would if they replace 8 car paths to London Bridge with 12
or 16 Car paths to Stratford and St Pancras.
No, the shortage of paths is on the CTRL, as a lot more people are
expected to start using Eurostars once they run at high speeds all the
way.
(snip)
I also put a case for converting the Maidstone West line to light rail,
and (after A2 capacity is freed up by the opening of the Lower Thames
Crossing) taking over 2 lanes of the A2 to extend it to Ebbsfleet.
Not sure I follow. The Lower Thames Crossing was only proposed, not
planned. (It might be needed as more people try and drive to
Ebbsfleet.)
'Tis generally accepted that it will be needed eventually, and ITYF it
is planned, though not in great detail. How long it will be before it
gets built depends on several other factors, including whether the
Thames Gateway Bridge gets built as planned, as both it and the Lower
Thames Crossing would be partly paid for with the revenue from Dartford
tolls.
Lower Thames Crossing is needed now. If London Gateway port goes
ahead, even more so.
So do you still object to my plan to use freed up A2 capacity for a
light rail line from Ebbsfleet to Cuxton, where it would join the
Maidstone line (which would also be converted to light rail).
Why can't the existing line go from Ebbsfleet to
Gravesend, through the Strood tunnel, and on to Maidstone West,
Paddock Wood, and Tonbridge.
It can, though it wouldn't be much faster than the existing services to
Maidstone. By the time it reached Tonbridge, it would be substantially
slower than the existing route to London. That's quite an inefficient
use of these trains, which are more expensive than normal trains.
I estimate 1 hour from Tonbridge to St Pancras, compared with about 40
minutes to Waterloo East.
The Maidstone - St.Pancras time is officially estimated to be 46
minutes. The Medway Valley Line is unsuitable for high speed running.
People might use it if they wanted to go from Tunbridge Wells or Tunbridge
to Stratford, or St Pancras if Thameslink 2000 doesn't happen.
'Tis still quicker by Tube.
From Maidstone, it will be quickest to
take the CTRL. The alternative for many will be to drive to Ebbsfleet.
It will also help people commuting into Maidstone.
....Which is a less important destination than Rochester/Chatham UIVMM.
The other problem is that quite a lot of people commute between
Maidstone and the Chatham area, and rail has a very low market share
because it finishes up on the wrong side of the Medway. A light rail
proposal was developed to solve this problem, but stalled due to lack of
funding. If a lot of money's going to be spent on that line, serving
Chatham's a better objective than high speed services.
But a high frquency of services from Dartford to Sittingbourne, as
well as frequent buses from Strood, would partially solve that issue.
People could get from Tonbridge and Maidstone to Rochester via Strood.
But they'd have great difficulty providing a convenient service when
it's not a one seat ride.
If the CTRL trains ran to Maidstone then they'd have no connection with
the trains to Victoria. However, if they ran via Rochester then they'd
connect with both the Maidstone and East Kent services.
Buses from Strood are not the answer, as the Medway Bridge is crowded
enough already. Those passengers who want to take the bus can do so from
Maidstone.
Also, improving the existing service would be possible by constructing a
short connection near the M26 so that the express trains can run via
Orpington instead of taking the longer route via Swanley.
Do you know whether any action is being taken? On the CTRL website I
see no mention of a connection with the North Kent line.
There will be one. The core service is as certain as UK rail plans can
be, although how far the trains will be extended remains to be seen.
Better than nothing. It'll run for a year, then there'll be a study
for 2 years, then they'll decide there's an urgent need to extend
services. Then they'll order rolling stock, and services will be
extended about 2013.
Why do you assume they'll only start with the "core service" option?
After all, this consultation provoked several suggestions on how to
operate the service more efficiently.