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?

Sounds suspiciously like a hoax to me, but it is nonetheless a nice
idea.

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?

Because the hoaxster couldn't read a tube map?

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.

I doubt it. The Euston trains are the preferred choice on the shared
section. Changing for the next train from the same platform isn't
exactly a huge hardship anyway, especially with a hike in frequency
like that.

With what stopping pattern?

From Waterloo the line would surface between Vauxhall and Waterloo.

Did you have a surfacing location in mind?

Sounds distinctly fishy to me: a portal onto a viaduct, whilst the
remaining 6 tracks on that viaduct are left in situ.

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?

The problem with Queenstown Road Battersea is that it's only on the
Windsor Lines. The proposal is basically a SW (Main) Slow Lines
takeover.

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

Aside from the great spelling in that section (at least it isn't the
variant which thinks the Derby is sponsored by a printer company),
there doesn't seem to be much information as to what would happen to
the other services on the Slow Lines (viz. the Kingston Loop,
Guildford via Cobham and possibly the Dorking Semi-Fasts if by Epsom
he means the trains which used to be 19s, but now have been extended
as 16s).

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

Epsom gets 4tph if you include the Dorking Semi-Fasts. Chessington,
Shepperton and Hampton all get 2tph off-peak.

Peak frequencies are (based on arrivals at Waterloo between 0800 and
0859):
16 Guildford via Epsom - 2tph
17 Dorking via Epsom - 3tph
18 Chessington South - 2tph
19 Epsom - 1tph
24 Shepperton - 2tph (capacity constraints mean that the other 2tph
run as 47 Shepperton via Richmond)
30 Hampton Court - 2tph
32 Kingston Loop - 4tph
42 Guildford via Cobham - 2tph (a further 2tph runs Fast)

The real problem is this is 18tph in the peaks on the Slow Lines (even
TL2k is only designed for 24, so there's not much leeway left), with
the added pressure of people piling off the 2tph Sutton Loop onto
already packed trains at Wimbledon. The only way I see of solving this
problem is by separating the route, at least as far as Wimbledon, so
that St Helier, Chessington and Epsom trains descend into a new tunnel
whilst the old line remains in place for Cobham, Shepperton, Kingston
etc.

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

Why?

Quite - the pressure for more trains seems much more acute on the SW
Main Line than on the rather lackadaisical LNW DC 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).

Oh that's just brilliant - give the least used branch the best onward
connection. Get real - the Epsom locals should go to Watford.

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.

Is this silly enough yet? Although one seat rides from Epsom to
Stansted would be nice for impromptu holidays... perhaps whilst we're
on stupidity, the Victoria Line could trackshare to Chingford to give
them 20tph or so more than they need...

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.

I really don't see anyone getting off the train at Waterloo to pile
onto a bus-on-rails to KXSP. I'm sorry, but the cross-platform
interchange at Oxford Circus is the best thing until there's some sort
of "Crossrail 3". I wouldn't use surface transit across Central London
unless somehow every single line in and out of Waterloo Underground
was closed - even then I'd try backtracking to Vauxhall.

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).

Hmmmm... that would be nice - combinations like waiting for ages for
the Circle Line only to end up on South Central are far from being one
of my favourite things.

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?

God knows. I only ever use that branch to get to Pad, which I presume
is what most other people coming from the South Western do.



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

My guess: a bullet point.

My opinion: bullet points should be taken out and shot.

 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!

I'm sorry, but there's plenty of capacity off-peak anyway. In the
peaks the bottleneck starts at Raynes Park.

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.

And indeed frees up the supposedly scarce platform space. The train
now standing at Platform 24 calls at all stations to Windsor.

 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.

Not to mention it being a far easier place to locate a portal. I'd
still go for Wimbledon though.

 A direct rail link between Waterloo and King's Cross.

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

There's a much simpler one already in existence - it's called the
Victoria Line. The only thing this might tempt me to do is stop using
my silly Epsom - Leicester without stairs route (Epsom - Sutton -
Farringdon (change to Fast train) - either Luton station -
Leicester).

It would also tempt me away from Epsom to Birmingham changing at
Clapham and Watford.

 Avoids the problem of building a mainline station at
Piccadilly Circus

Just what exactly is the problem there?

Not wanting to build an underground foot passageway of approximately
100yds to link two ticket halls.

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???

Actually at some stations it would be a real headache. Ewell West only
manages 8 cars by some extremely narrow platform extensions under the
Chessington Road bridge.

In article ,
(James) wrote:

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?

The problem with Queenstown Road Battersea is that it's only on the
Windsor Lines. The proposal is basically a SW (Main) Slow Lines
takeover.

Is there room though? There are only two (used) Windsor Line platforms and
the faster trains don't call.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

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?

The problem with Queenstown Road Battersea is that it's only on the
Windsor Lines. The proposal is basically a SW (Main) Slow Lines
takeover.

Is there room though? There are only two (used) Windsor Line platforms and
the faster trains don't call.

The faster trains not calling there reflects the level of patronage.
As you implied, there is of course a 3rd platform, albeit on the
Windsor Reversible Line (ie the relatively useless one). As for
putting platforms on the Main Slow Lines, there are two big problems -
the constraints imposed by the Atlantic Line viaduct overhead at the
Up end and the BML itself being elevated (Queenstown Rd viaduct) at
the Down end.

(Aidan Stanger) wrote in message .. .
Nitro wrote:

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.

Commuters don't need a direct service to Padddington, they can change
at Tottenham Court Road for Crossrail 1. There are less stops between
Queen's Park and Tottenham Court Road if you go via Euston (via my
scheme) than going via Paddington.

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

I agree with James. The plan is hopelessly unrealistic and it's probably a hoax.

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

I agree with James. The plan is hopelessly unrealistic and it's probably a hoax.

Having said that, hopelessly unrealistic plans can be quite fun. I
have my own unrealistic (but hopefully not hopeless) crossrail line
plan:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/james.dowden/xrail.htm

James wrote:

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

I agree with James. The plan is hopelessly unrealistic and it's probably
a hoax.

How could it be a hoax? He never claimed the plan was anything other
than his own, and ISTR Ken was making those sorts of comments around
that time.

Having said that, hopelessly unrealistic plans can be quite fun. I
have my own unrealistic (but hopefully not hopeless) crossrail line
plan:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/james.dowden/xrail.htm

Well I for one am glad it is hopeless. Why would passengers from
Dartford and the Sidcup Line or Orpington want to go to Lewisham then
back to Blackheath then loop round the docklands?

(Aidan Stanger) wrote in message ...
James wrote:

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

I agree with James. The plan is hopelessly unrealistic and it's probably
a hoax.

How could it be a hoax? He never claimed the plan was anything other
than his own, and ISTR Ken was making those sorts of comments around
that time.

Having said that, hopelessly unrealistic plans can be quite fun. I
have my own unrealistic (but hopefully not hopeless) crossrail line
plan:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/james.dowden/xrail.htm

Well I for one am glad it is hopeless. Why would passengers from
Dartford and the Sidcup Line or Orpington want to go to Lewisham then
back to Blackheath then loop round the docklands?

You're thinking of where these places are on the NSE Map. It's not as
crazy a route on a normal map. In fact, they might even want to go to
Docklands...

On 24 Apr 2004, James wrote:

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

I agree with James. The plan is hopelessly unrealistic and it's
probably a hoax.

Having said that, hopelessly unrealistic plans can be quite fun. I
have my own unrealistic (but hopefully not hopeless) crossrail line
plan:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/james.dowden/xrail.htm

I really think we should start a gallery of crossrail proposals, since
everyone seems to have one. We could have awards - Best Relief of
Congestion, Best Relief Of Central London Interchange, Best Provision of
Access to Regenerating Areas, Most Entertainingly Unrealistic, etc.

tom

--
If you had a chance to do any experiment you pleased, unconstrained by any considerations of humanity or decency, what would you choose?

I really think we should start a gallery of crossrail proposals, since
everyone seems to have one. We could have awards - Best Relief of
Congestion, Best Relief Of Central London Interchange, Best Provision of
Access to Regenerating Areas, Most Entertainingly Unrealistic, etc.

If anyone has such proposals, e-mail them to me, and I will gladly set
up such a gallery.