Alex Terrell wrote:
(Aidan Stanger) wrote...
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.
They always say that. But lets assume passenger numbers treble. That
would fill six trains per hour.
I think the main point is that they don't want the domestic services to
prevent future growth in international services. They want the passenger
numbers to do far more than just treble.
(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).
I don't really know enough, (and live in a different part of Kent) but
it would depend on:
1. Lower Thames Crossing being built
Obviously it couldn't use freed up capacity before the capacity was
freed up!
2. Some means to get car commuters to Ebsfleet Park and Ride out of
thir cars
Light rail would BE some means to get car commuters to Ebsfleet Park and
Ride out of thir cars!
But I still don't see the disadvantage of using the existing N Kent
Line as it serves Ebsfleet and Ebbsfleet, Rochester, Gillingham and
Chatham.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. The high speed services
probably will use the existing N Kent line, and trains from Maidstone
can connect with them at Strood. However, a new route along the A2
corridor from Ebbsfleet to Cuxton would be shorter and faster than going
via Gravesend and Strood.
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.
Only from somewhere South of Maidstone West. And if the line goes
there, then why not Tonbridge.
Because the high speed trains cost far more than normal trains, so it
doesn't make sense to spend millions of pounds on the extra high speed
trains needed for the Tonbridge service when normal trains could do the
job just as well.
I've never been able to figure out how
to get from Tunbridge Wells to Maidstone by train.
It would require reversing at Tonbridge.
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.
I think there should 4 CTRL tph to Rochester and on to Faversham,
where they should divide for Dover and Dover. As well as 4 tph to
Ashford, where they should split to Ramsgate and Folkstone.
It would be much quicker to get to Dover via Folkestone, so I see no
point in extending using the high speed trains to run there via
Faversham if those trains are well designed.
On the North Kent Line the high speed trains could get overcrowded in
the peaks if they went all the way to Ramsgate. That's part of the
reason I suggested turning them back at Rochester. That way commuters
for whom Stratford and Kings Cross are much better destinations would
have cross platform interchange at Rochester (which has double faced
platforms, unlike Chatham and Gillingham), but passengers without such a
strong preference of London termini would continue to go to Victoria.
I still think 2 tph to Tonbridge would be good, but if the track can't
take it, then the older trains should run Tonbridge to Dartford. (It
makes no sense to stop at Paddock Wood and Strood).
I don't know about Tonbridge, but Dartford is not a suitable terminus.
FWIW I don't think Paddock Wood is a good choice of terminus. When BR
was originally broken up, AIUI there was planned to be a Maidstone to
Gatwick Airport microfranchise, but the plan was abandoned and the
service pattern went back to how it was before.
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.
Then more train services
The trains can't do it directly without reversing at Strood, and IIRC
the junction at Strood is flat and quite busy (and will be busier once
the high speed trains start running).
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.
Let's hope. Have they placed rolling stock orders?
Not
AFAIK. Shall we take this to uk.railway?