On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Andy wrote:

On Mar 25, 5:01*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Andy wrote:

But wasn't the main justification for crossrail the relief of the
overcrowding already present on existing lines, as well as allowing
for predicted growth. It will take a fair number of people off the
Central line (and other Underground lines) as well as providing extra
capacity on the National Rail lines to either side.

Except it won't. It will relieve the Central line west of Stratford,
for sure, which in practice means Stratford to Oxford Circus. But it
doesn't actually add any capacity at all to the Great Eastern or
Western railways - every path that Crossrail will use is currently used
by a normal train. Crossrail trains will be a bit longer, but you could
deliver the same capacity increase by adapting those lines for longer
trains without the central tunnel bit for a lot less money.

It will also relieve the Circle, Met, H&C, the Bakerloo and the
Jubilee, at least.

You're right, it will relieve the Circle/Met/H&C between Liverpool Street
and Farringdon, my bad. The Bakerloo too, but this is not exactly
overcrowded as it stands. The Jubilee?

If you look back, the relief of already overcrowed underground lines was
always the main reason behind the plans.

Kind of. I've read all of the rail studies that have led to Crossrail over
the last 20 years or so, and one thing that's conspicuously absent is a
solid justification. The studies take it as a starting point that an
east-west rail tunnel will be built, and just look at the details of how
best to do it.

The services to/from the West will gain a considerable increase in
capacity, with 10 car trains replacing the current shorter DMUs. The
services to/from the East will generally also gain in train length, as
the stopping trains are mostly (all?) eight cars.

True. All of which could be done without the tunnel, for a fraction of the
price.

The fact that it will reduce journey times is an added benefit, but not
the main justification for the construction.

It also won't reduce journey times much. Trips you can make with Crossrail
can currently be made with train plus Central line via quite easy changes
at Stratford or Ealing Broadway (or more painful ones at Liverpool Street
or Paddington, after a quicker run to the terminal). It will make the
trips a lot more convenient by eliminating those changes, but not hugely
faster.

There will certainly be faster journey times on the western side, as the
EMUs will accelerate considerably better than the Turbos and with all
(at least during the peak) trains being of the same type pathing will be
slightly easier.

Again, could be done without the tunnel.

There is also the consideration of having to leave time for delays on
the underground when heading home. A change of train at either Ealing or
Paddington means having to pad your journey a fair amount. I do agree
that this is less of a problem on the Eastern side though.

I wonder how much rearranging Ealing Broadway for better interchange from
NR to LU would cost. Probably a lot.

Don't forget that the capacity doesn't just deal with the trains, but
the space needed at the stations for interchange. A fair amount of the
costs of Crossrail stations in central london will be needed anyway as
the current underground stations can't cope. Oxford Circus is sometimes
closed due to overcrowding, and Tottenham Court Road always a bit of a
nightmare to get around, even off peak.

Do we know how much of the budget is for this? My understanding was that
Oxford Circus wasn't going to be rebuilt; the Crossrail station would be
essentialy separate. It thus has a slightly marginal effect on
overcrowding - the people relieved onto Crossrail will no longer be
clogging the place up, but plenty of other people will. No idea about TCR.

tom

--
I believe there is no philosophical high-road in science, with
epistemological signposts. No, we are in a jungle and find our way by
trial and error, building our road behind us as we proceed. -- Max Born