Alex Terrell wrote:
(Aidan Stanger) wrote...


to spread out into five branches at each end.

Why so many? Don't you think a frequent service is worth having?

In order to spread the benefit across the widest number of people.

Not everyone has to have direct Crossrail services in order to benefit,
and spreading the benefits too thinly would reduce their attractiveness.

I supposed I'm inspired by the Munich S-Bahn services. Of course,
London is bigger, so CrossRail can't serve everyone, but it ought to
fan out at each end. Five branches at each end gives 10 lines served.
I think about 30 railway lines intersect the M25.

....many of which have more than 2 tracks.

Ultimately, it would be nice if all of these 30 lines went into
CrossRail 1, CrossRail 2, and Thameslink 2000 services.

ROFL

Not only would three lines not have anywhere near the capacity needed,
they wouldn't be able to physically connect to all those lines! And
don't forget Heathrow (which is inside the M25).

But those people who still want to take the tube from Paddington might
prefer non CrossRail services,

Why?

Because they might be faster, more frequent and less crowded.

It's only practical to make them faster if you have more than two
tracks.

How frequent?

Should Crossrail be offputtingly crowded before the busy central
section?

which would be sharing the line.

And with that many lines shared, performance benefits would have to be
lower otherwise reliability would suffer.

I'm not sure I follow the above. I agree performance pollution is a
problem, but the answer is not to jealously guard one area of track,
but to improve performance overall, and add flexibility into the
system. This will still allow 20 to 24 tph in the main tunnel section.

You can't add flexibility to the system without reducing performance.
You may be able to increase performance in other ways to compensate, but
that's not without its costs. 20tph is a ridiculously low utilization
rate for such an expensive tunnel.

For example, at the Western end, 4 trains per hour could go to each
of: Kingston, Heathrow, Reading, Aylesbury, Watford

Why stop at Watford? Milton Keynes would make a far better destination.

CrossRail is envisioned as a stopping service.

Crossrail has been envisioned as all sorts of different things. Although
it is primarily designed for stopping services, it is possible to get
high performance trains that are also capable of running longer distance
services. Although these would be more expensive, the additional revenue
from fares would more than make up for the extra cost. Considering the
benefits to passengers, the Milton Keynes option is far better than that
ridiculous idea of taking over the DC lines (which even CLRL had to
admit was a non starter).

Not sure what DC lines you're referring to.

The lines currently used by the all stations train from Euston to
Watford Junction are shared with the Bakerloo Line and are electrified
by third rail, not overhead wires.

However, bringing stopping
trains all the way from MK may lead to punctuality problems

Why? There aren't that many stations on the line. Remember I'm not
proposing they make a lot of stops S of Watford.

What would be better varies from route to route. Stopping at all
stations would be better on the Heathrow service, but the WCML is
different - for a start, a Crossrail service couldn't stop all stations
there because it wouldn't join the line at the start.

Someone commuting from
Milton Keynes would be better off taking a fast train, and changing to
CrossRail at Watford, or going all the way in to Euston.

That depends what part of Milton Keynes they're coming from. The fast
trains don't stop at Bletchley.

You should also consider that the fast trains are more likely to be
crowded in the peaks, and that some people would prefer a one seat ride
despite it being slower. And don't forget that people also commute INTO
Milton Keynes.

For commuting into MK, why not provide a shuttle service from Watford
to Northampton,

Because then you'd have loads of commuters at Watford trying to get on
the Virgin trains to Euston, of course. And if you're going to stop at
those stations, why not continue the journey onto Crossrail.

and Bicester to Bedford.

Oxford to Bedford at least, though I'd prefer to see the service
extended to Cambridge. Despite the indirectness, I think the best way to
do this is via Thurleigh and Alconbury airfields, which would become
airports. After that, the service could be profitably extended from
coast to coast.

With it's planned expansion,
MK certainly needs improvements to its rail infrastructure.

But I would see the optimum terminus somewhere outside the M25 -
perhaps Hemel Hempsted.

Why do you consider a Hemel Hempsted terminus to be optimal?

First major town outside the M25 - but I agree there are alternatives.

This is why I consider Wolverton to be the optimal terminus:

It is the last station in a highly built up area (Milton Keynes).
There is a long gap between there and the next station (Northampton).
Northampton would itself be a suitable terminus, but that would involve
frequent long trains going there nearly empty. IMO it would be better
and cheaper to let some of the fast trains serve Northampton instead.

I think MK should have its own rail services (and it needs a tram from
the Station to the main shopping areas and beyond). People from
Wolverton would be faster to get the local service to MK, and then an
express to Watford Junction, where they could pick up the slow
CrossRail service to Paddington.

As I said before, even Crossrail Corporation admit that the idea of
taking over the DC lines is a non starter.

Under my plan, people from Wolverton would be able to change onto the
fast lines at MK if they were in a hurry. However, even if they didn't,
they'd still get to Paddington (or wherever) sooner than your plan.

It would be possible to terminate the trains at MK Central, but I think
the benefits of continuing for one more stop outweigh the costs. If
Oxford - MK - Bedford services were introduced, they'd have to reverse
at MK Central, and Crossrail trains in the way could be a problem.

The kind of service I envisage would stop at Willesden Junction to give
cross platform access to the Tube. It would probably make another stop
in the Wembley or Harrow area, and would have cross platform interchange
with the fast trains at Watford Junction in order to balance loadings
(because Crossrail would be more attractive for passengers going to and
from much of Central London, the pick up/set down restrictions that
Virgin Trains currently have could be lifted). The Crossrail trains
would then stop at all stations to Milton Keynes. Although this would be
slower than some of the current services, the much better penetration of
London and the shorter headways would more than make up for this.

It could work - it certainly provides CrossRail access to a wide range
of people coming in from the North West. I'd also like to Watford
Junction served by Thameslink 2000, so CrossRail and TL2000 join up at
their edges.

I see no real advantage in joining them up at their edges, nor any good
reason to send TL2K to Watford. It might be nice to send Crossrail 2
there (via Finsbury Park, Mill Hill East and Edgeware) but there are
many other lines far more worthy of funding.

"Alex Terrell" wrote in message
om...

24 tph is probably the max achievable. They're not planning double
tracks or double platforms at station. On current plan, the bottleneck
will probably be at Liverpool Street on West bound trains, since the
majority of the passengers will want to get off, replaced by the a
similar number of passengers wanting to get on.

But a large number of passengers on the Shenfield line already want to go
west of Liverpool Street. There's crossplatform interchange to the Central
Line at Stratford, where something like 2/3rds of the train empties out.
This huge number of passengers that you assume only want to go as far as
Liverpool Street doesn't seem to exist in my experience.

Jonn Elledge

"Jonn Elledge" wrote in message ...
"Alex Terrell" wrote in message
om...

24 tph is probably the max achievable. They're not planning double
tracks or double platforms at station. On current plan, the bottleneck
will probably be at Liverpool Street on West bound trains, since the
majority of the passengers will want to get off, replaced by the a
similar number of passengers wanting to get on.

But a large number of passengers on the Shenfield line already want to go
west of Liverpool Street. There's crossplatform interchange to the Central
Line at Stratford, where something like 2/3rds of the train empties out.
This huge number of passengers that you assume only want to go as far as
Liverpool Street doesn't seem to exist in my experience.

Jonn Elledge

No, they may not want to go beyond Farringdon. How many of the 2/3
changing at Stratford only go to Bank? My guess would be about 1/4
will want to take CrossRail (longer term, this will increase, as
people will be prepared to accept jobs in Bond Street or Bond Street
workers might move to Shenfield).

But what's true for Shenfield will be true for the Stansted and Grays
and other lines. Except the 1/4 here (making 3/4 of a CrossRail train)
will all be trying to board the CrossRail train at Liverpool St, just
as the 3/4 will be trying to get off.

I think they should put in double platforms at Liverpool Street.

The situation will be somewhat complicated by Kent commuters getting
off the CTRL trains at Stratford to board CrossRail services.

Alex Terrell wrote:

"Jonn Elledge" wrote in message ...

"Alex Terrell" wrote in message
.com...

24 tph is probably the max achievable. They're not planning double
tracks or double platforms at station. On current plan, the bottleneck
will probably be at Liverpool Street on West bound trains, since the
majority of the passengers will want to get off, replaced by the a
similar number of passengers wanting to get on.

But a large number of passengers on the Shenfield line already want to go
west of Liverpool Street. There's crossplatform interchange to the Central
Line at Stratford, where something like 2/3rds of the train empties out.
This huge number of passengers that you assume only want to go as far as
Liverpool Street doesn't seem to exist in my experience.

Jonn Elledge


No, they may not want to go beyond Farringdon. How many of the 2/3
changing at Stratford only go to Bank? My guess would be about 1/4
will want to take CrossRail (longer term, this will increase, as
people will be prepared to accept jobs in Bond Street or Bond Street
workers might move to Shenfield).

I doubt that many people change from Gt Eastern services to the Central
Line just to go to Bank - practically everywhere within Bank's catchment
area must also be within Liverpool St's.

But what's true for Shenfield will be true for the Stansted and Grays
and other lines. Except the 1/4 here (making 3/4 of a CrossRail train)
will all be trying to board the CrossRail train at Liverpool St, just
as the 3/4 will be trying to get off.

I think they should put in double platforms at Liverpool Street.

The situation will be somewhat complicated by Kent commuters getting
off the CTRL trains at Stratford to board CrossRail services.

This could be quite a significant proportion as St Pancras is
inconvenient for parts of the West End and City. A CTRL-Crossrail
journey will probably be faster than a SET-Tube journey for destinations
close to Crossrail stations.

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