Guns or butter? Crossrail or cross-connections?

In the run-up to the first world war, Germans were asked to choose
between "Guns or butter", that is, between war and home comforts. They were
asked to choose guns, but at least they were told that they had a choice.
The people of London are now being asked to choose "guns" in the form of the
Crossrail project, without being told that "butter" is also a choice.

So far as I remember the Crossrail project was first mooted in the
70s, more or less as a drawing lines on a map exercise. It was justified
by saying that it would relieve congestion, though in fact all its length it
is paralleled by other routes, or simply takes them over. It is also said
that it is essential to the development of London, and here we are coming to
the real truth. Most of the route mileage is outside of London, so it can't
be of any benefit to to Londoners. What it will do is bring more commuters
into London, so overstuffing London, increasing congestion and prices and
forcing more to commute. Not really for the benefit of Londoners! More for
big business and the CITY, to give London an even stronger grip on the
South-East, as if it needed it. Truly, guns! The current talk is fairly
frank about that.

There a trickle of mentions of Crossrail in the press to give the
impression that the project exists and is going to happen, but it is pie
in the sky because it is not value for money. So as not to formally abandon
the idea, the promoters don't mention the alternative, the butter, the home
comforts. That money and effort could be much better spent in another way,
obvious every day to travellers in London.

There are dozens of places in London where stations on different
routes are just too far apart for cross-connection, the result of the
railway politics of the 19th century and the bad planning of the 20th.

The kinds of places I am think of are :-

* The cross-over of the Northern Line and the North London Line. This would
mean building two new underground stations. Simple, but expensive!

* Putney and East Putney stations. Both stations could demolished and a new
station built at the crossover, but it might be cheaper and better to link
the existing stations, for example with a rope-hanging cable car. Tricky but
cheap!

* Create a new station on the nameless piece of land west of Old Oak
Common sidings. This would allow at least 4 routes to have interchange, and
more could be set up to call at this newly attractive interchange. By
building a platform over the lot, space could be created for housing and/or
shopping, so the cost could be offset or maybe even make a profit. This
should be made the opportunity for some station rationalisation, for example
closing East Acton, very inappropriately sited in a residential road. and
opening a new station opposite Hammersmith Hospital; hospitals are huge
traffic generators. A major project!

To make this kind of cross-connection would allow much better use of
what there is, and make easy journeys which are now difficult. Truly home
comforts. Truly, butter!

How can Ken Livinstone and the CITY justify spending money to bring
more people and activity into London when they haven't done their best for
those they already have.?

--
Michael Bell

In article ,
(Michael Bell) wrote:

* Putney and East Putney stations. Both stations could demolished and a
new station built at the crossover, but it might be cheaper and better
to link the existing stations, for example with a rope-hanging cable
car. Tricky but
cheap!

Not that old chestnut again! Exactly how many people would use such a link
to justify its cost?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

"Michael Bell" wrote in message
...

So far as I remember the Crossrail project was first mooted in the
70s, more or less as a drawing lines on a map exercise. It was justified
by saying that it would relieve congestion, though in fact all its length
it
is paralleled by other routes, or simply takes them over. It is also said
that it is essential to the development of London, and here we are coming
to
the real truth. Most of the route mileage is outside of London, so it
can't
be of any benefit to to Londoners.

Exactly what map of London are you looking at...? I believe the current
Crossrail proposal includes a grand total of seven stations outside London
(Brentwood, Shenfield, Dartford, Stone Crossing, Greenhithe, Swanscobe,
Ebbsfleet).

It will effectively bring the tube to London's busiest national rail line
(Liverpool St - Shenfield), provide a new fast link from North Kent to
Docklands, the city and West End, provide a cheap fast route from Heathrow,
and relieve congestion on the Central, Circle and District lines.

Don't get me wrong, I think we need better connections too, but I don't see
Crossrail as a waste of money by any means.

Jonn

" It will effectively bring the tube to London's busiest national
rail line
(Liverpool St - Shenfield), provide a new fast link from North Kent to
Docklands, the city and West End, provide a cheap fast route from Heathrow,
and relieve congestion on the Central, Circle and District lines.



Crossrail may do all these things, but, wherever it crosses the river,
it will be of little ure to most people in South-East London. IMHO
Crossrail should take its place in the queue behind Thameslink 2000
which will allow more trains into Central London from all parts of SE
London including a future link with Crossrail at Farringdon.

"Gary Jenkins" wrote in message
om...
" It will effectively bring the tube to London's busiest national
rail line
(Liverpool St - Shenfield), provide a new fast link from North Kent to
Docklands, the city and West End, provide a cheap fast route from
Heathrow,
and relieve congestion on the Central, Circle and District lines.



Crossrail may do all these things, but, wherever it crosses the river,
it will be of little ure to most people in South-East London. IMHO
Crossrail should take its place in the queue behind Thameslink 2000
which will allow more trains into Central London from all parts of SE
London including a future link with Crossrail at Farringdon.

I agree that South East London needs better transport, and that Crossrail
isn't it. (I think it's mildly ridiculous that it won't serve Woolwich, for
a start). But I definitely don't think it's TL2000 - if I was living in,
say, Eltham and could choose between two trains per hour to Charing Cross
and two more onto Thameslink, and four to Charing Cross, I'd choose the
latter.* The train services in South East London are appalling, and sending
a few of them to Luton isn't going to change that. What the area needs,
short of an extension of the Bakerloo line, is proper turn-up-and-go metro
services - something that TL2000 is going nowhere near providing.

Jonn

*Yes I've just plucked those figures out of the air.

I agree that South East London needs better transport, and that Crossrail
isn't it. (I think it's mildly ridiculous that it won't serve Woolwich, for
a start). But I definitely don't think it's TL2000 - if I was living in,
say, Eltham and could choose between two trains per hour to Charing Cross
and two more onto Thameslink, and four to Charing Cross, I'd choose the
latter.* The train services in South East London are appalling, and sending
a few of them to Luton isn't going to change that. What the area needs,
short of an extension of the Bakerloo line, is proper turn-up-and-go metro
services - something that TL2000 is going nowhere near providing.

Which is really an argument for one part of TL2k without the other -
the quadrupling from Met C Jct to Boro Mkt Jct and the London Bridge
station rebuild without silly dual-voltage through routings. The
problem with this is that up to 48tph might be a little much for the 6
platforms at Charing X. The solution might be a nice little bit of
tunnel - either to Victoria or to run as a Chelney style line to
Parson's Green (then Wimbledon to take over the lines to Sutton, Epsom
and Chessington).

The same functionality as TL2k with the added bonus of decongesting
London Bridge a bit would be the construction of an interchange
station in Southwark where the Holborn Line crosses over the SE Main.

*Yes I've just plucked those figures out of the air.

Regardless, you make a good point. Compare the success of
high-frequency metro lines with the mess of branching low-frequency
routes in South London.

Jonn Elledge wrote:
"Gary Jenkins" wrote in message
om...

" It will effectively bring the tube to London's busiest national
rail line

(Liverpool St - Shenfield), provide a new fast link from North Kent to
Docklands, the city and West End, provide a cheap fast route from

Heathrow,

and relieve congestion on the Central, Circle and District lines.



Crossrail may do all these things, but, wherever it crosses the river,
it will be of little ure to most people in South-East London. IMHO
Crossrail should take its place in the queue behind Thameslink 2000
which will allow more trains into Central London from all parts of SE
London including a future link with Crossrail at Farringdon.


I agree that South East London needs better transport, and that Crossrail
isn't it. (I think it's mildly ridiculous that it won't serve Woolwich, for
a start). But I definitely don't think it's TL2000 - if I was living in,
say, Eltham and could choose between two trains per hour to Charing Cross
and two more onto Thameslink, and four to Charing Cross, I'd choose the
latter.* The train services in South East London are appalling, and sending
a few of them to Luton isn't going to change that. What the area needs,
short of an extension of the Bakerloo line, is proper turn-up-and-go metro
services - something that TL2000 is going nowhere near providing.

Jonn

*Yes I've just plucked those figures out of the air.

How about that Jubilee Line extension from North Greenwich...


--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...
I agree that South East London needs better transport, and that
Crossrail
isn't it. (I think it's mildly ridiculous that it won't serve Woolwich,
for
a start). But I definitely don't think it's TL2000 - if I was living in,
say, Eltham and could choose between two trains per hour to Charing
Cross
and two more onto Thameslink, and four to Charing Cross, I'd choose the
latter.* The train services in South East London are appalling, and
sending
a few of them to Luton isn't going to change that. What the area needs,
short of an extension of the Bakerloo line, is proper turn-up-and-go
metro
services - something that TL2000 is going nowhere near providing.

Jonn

*Yes I've just plucked those figures out of the air.

How about that Jubilee Line extension from North Greenwich...


Same problem as Crossrail, to my mind - by coming to the Woolwich line that
far East, you limit the route of any possible extension to pretty much
heading out to Abbey Wood and beyond. Given that the Woolwich line already
has two routes to central London (via Greenwich, and via the Blackheath
tunnel), you'd end up with one suburban route with three different routes
into town - the exact opposite of what makes a useful high-frequency metro
connection.

What any tube extension should do is be able to seperate one route from the
rest of the network. For example, extending teh Bakerloo down the Old Kent
Road to New Cross and Lewisham would allow tube connections to (say) Hayes
and Bromley North, but leave the rest of the network intact. In contrast, if
you take the Jubilee to Thamesmead via Woolwich, you need to double track
the Woolwich line; if you continue it all the way to Dartford you could
avoid this, but then you end up with Greenwich and Deptford cut off.

The upshot of this seems to be that any tubes into North Kent of suburbs
shoudl avoid the Woolwich line like the plague. I'm already at a loss as to
how the post-Crossrail service pattern will look, and what will happen to
the Blackheath tunnel and Greenwich lines.

Jonn

I agree that South East London needs better transport, and that Crossrail
isn't it. (I think it's mildly ridiculous that it won't serve Woolwich, for
a start). But I definitely don't think it's TL2000 - if I was living in,
say, Eltham and could choose between two trains per hour to Charing Cross
and two more onto Thameslink, and four to Charing Cross, I'd choose the
latter.


But wouldn't TL2000 offer the possibility of four an hour to Charing
Cross plus two on Thameslink?



The train services in South East London are appalling, and sending
a few of them to Luton isn't going to change that. What the area needs,
short of an extension of the Bakerloo line, is proper turn-up-and-go metro
services - something that TL2000 is going nowhere near providing.

Jonn


Personally I think the problem is worst at peaks and extra trains via
TL2000 would help to alleviate overcrowding, although a short term
solution would be longer trains and lengthening platforms where
necessary to accommodate them.

I'm not sure a tube type service off peak is really needed. Moving
from four to six trains an hour, as the Strategic Rail Authority is
currently suggesting, seems to be a lot of investment for
comparatively little benefit. It shouldn't be beyond the wit of most
people to plan their journey to cope with four evenly spaced trains an
hour, at the same times past each hour. If someone does just turn up
on spec then a maximum wait of 15 mins isn't that much worse than one
of ten minutes.


As an alternative to a Bakerloo extension is it feasible to hope for a
Jubilee line branch from North Greenwich in a south-easterly direction
towards Charlton. Eltham and Sidcup? Alternatively this could be a
completely new line going on northwards to Canary Wharf, Mile End and
Hackney and finishing off at Finsbury Park or Tottenham Hale. This
could be delivered either for the 75th Jubilee of Elizabeth II (2027),
the 80th birthday of Charles III (2028) or the 50th birthday of
William V (2032)

"Gary Jenkins" wrote in message
om...

I agree that South East London needs better transport, and that
Crossrail
isn't it. (I think it's mildly ridiculous that it won't serve Woolwich,
for
a start). But I definitely don't think it's TL2000 - if I was living in,
say, Eltham and could choose between two trains per hour to Charing
Cross
and two more onto Thameslink, and four to Charing Cross, I'd choose the
latter.


But wouldn't TL2000 offer the possibility of four an hour to Charing
Cross plus two on Thameslink?

Not without some serious work upgrading the lines. And any suggestions would
no doubt be met with, "What do you need more trains for? You've already got
two to Charing Cross, and two on Thameslink."


I'm not sure a tube type service off peak is really needed. Moving
from four to six trains an hour, as the Strategic Rail Authority is
currently suggesting, seems to be a lot of investment for
comparatively little benefit. It shouldn't be beyond the wit of most
people to plan their journey to cope with four evenly spaced trains an
hour, at the same times past each hour. If someone does just turn up
on spec then a maximum wait of 15 mins isn't that much worse than one
of ten minutes.


I agree that for a lot of suburban routes trains per hour should do it. But
I think it would be better to have 4tph to a single destination - people
don't just want to go to "London", they want to go to Charing Cross, or
Victoria, or London Bridge. If it's 2tph to Charing Cross and another 2tph
to Victoria, that's effectively only a half-hour frequency to my mind.

I think Thameslink would be better providing 4+ trains per hour on a
smaller number of routes, taking them over completely. That way, there's
service predictability - you can turn up and know there'll be a train to
Blackfriars and King's Cross (timetabled) within the next fifteen minutes.

If Thameslink took the Bexleyheath, Swanley and Sutton loop routes over
completely for 4tph each, and then served some longer distance routes less
regularly, I think that'd be a much bigger improvement to services than just
redirecting a random selection of trains to Blackfriars every day.


As an alternative to a Bakerloo extension is it feasible to hope for a
Jubilee line branch from North Greenwich in a south-easterly direction
towards Charlton. Eltham and Sidcup? Alternatively this could be a
completely new line going on northwards to Canary Wharf, Mile End and
Hackney and finishing off at Finsbury Park or Tottenham Hale. This
could be delivered either for the 75th Jubilee of Elizabeth II (2027),
the 80th birthday of Charles III (2028) or the 50th birthday of
William V (2032)

Maybe it's just because I'm a republican (not in the US sense), but I don't
really believe that transport should be planned around royal birthdays... At
any rate, I don't think we'll be seeing any new 'tube lines' in London. I
think Crossrail type takeovers of suburban routes is the best we'll get.

Jonn