CTRL to benefit Kent: What services?
 

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004, Aidan Stanger wrote:

Alex Terrell wrote:

Alex Terrell wrote:

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.

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).

Why would it have to be light rail, rather than a real railway?

tom

--
I had no idea it was going to end in such tragedy

CTRL to benefit Kent: What services?
 

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?

CTRL to benefit Kent: What services?
 

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

You keep talking about filling the trains. I for one don't want to
travel on full trains, and unlike with aeroplanes the economics don't
require it.

50-70% sounds comfortable to me - it's still fuller than the average
car - and gives spare capacity to cover for breakdowns and peak days
without having to run extra trains.

100% full trains are not pleasant to travel on, especially if you're
alone.

Treble the passengers would be comfortable on 9 trains. The other 3
could serve destinations beyond London and Brussels. With CTRL, the
tunnel should be quicker than air for lots more origins/destinations.

Colin McKenzie
--
The great advantage of not trusting statistics is that
it leaves you free to believe the damned lies instead!

CTRL to benefit Kent: What services?
 

In message , at
14:39:30 on Sun, 15 Aug 2004, Colin McKenzie
remarked:
100% full trains are not pleasant to travel on, especially if you're
alone.

100% works OK on Eurostar, where everyone has an allocated seat (so you
can easily trump the folks who put their bag on the seat next to them
and glare at anyone who comes along), and where the seats are large
enough and spaced out enough that you can cope with the space allocated
to one.

OTOH, a 3+2 arranged WAGN 317 in the rush hour, loaded beyond 80%[1], is
quite a different kettle of fish!

[1] ie actually needing some people to sit three abreast on the "3"
side.
--
Roland Perry

CTRL to benefit Kent: What services?
 

Colin McKenzie wrote in
:


... With CTRL, the
tunnel should be quicker than air for lots more origins/destinations.

Colin McKenzie

Which destinations had you in mind? Even with CTRL it will still be the
wrong side of two hours, plus check-in, for both Paris and Brussels. You
might make a dent in the London - Rotterdam market but everywhere else
remains significantly more than than magic three hours from London. (I
can't find a figure for the London-Koln journey time but London-Amsterdam
is quoted at 3h 45m over the new Dutch high speed line. This isn't going
to create a massive modal shift or vast increase in the number of
passengers between London and Amsterdam).

David

CTRL to benefit Kent: What services?
 

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 19:43:19 +0000, David Jackman wrote:

Colin McKenzie wrote in
:


... With CTRL, the
tunnel should be quicker than air for lots more origins/destinations.

Colin McKenzie

Which destinations had you in mind? Even with CTRL it will still be the
wrong side of two hours, plus check-in, for both Paris and Brussels. You
might make a dent in the London - Rotterdam market but everywhere else
remains significantly more than than magic three hours from London.
(I can't find a figure for the London-Koln journey time but
London-Amsterdam is quoted at 3h 45m over the new Dutch high speed line.
This isn't going to create a massive modal shift or vast increase in
the number of passengers between London and Amsterdam).

People travel London-Edinburgh by train. Wouldn't you get enough for even
one an hour?

I'd like some long distance sleepers to be honest. Direct from London,
leave at night ~ 10PM, through tunnel, stop at calais, paris, then down to
Geneva, Milan, Rome, Naples, Bari, Brindisi, Lecce. Another one might be
Paris, Nice, Turin, Milan, Venice (or mestre and onto Triest and
Lubjania). An Iberian one to Paris, Bordeux, Barcelona, Madrid, Lisbon. A
Brussels, Amsterdam, Berlin, Warsaw one, Another to South Germany and
Austria. Etc.

How far can you travel in 10 hours? You can probably make Turin and
Berlin at least.

Is the tunnel used much at night? (leave London arorund 11 or midnight, so
midnight - 2AM)?

CTRL to benefit Kent: What services?
 

Paul Weaver wrote:

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 19:43:19 +0000, David Jackman wrote:


Colin McKenzie wrote in
:



... With CTRL, the
tunnel should be quicker than air for lots more origins/destinations.

Colin McKenzie

Which destinations had you in mind? Even with CTRL it will still be the
wrong side of two hours, plus check-in, for both Paris and Brussels. You
might make a dent in the London - Rotterdam market but everywhere else
remains significantly more than than magic three hours from London.
(I can't find a figure for the London-Koln journey time but
London-Amsterdam is quoted at 3h 45m over the new Dutch high speed line.
This isn't going to create a massive modal shift or vast increase in
the number of passengers between London and Amsterdam).


People travel London-Edinburgh by train. Wouldn't you get enough for even
one an hour?

I'd like some long distance sleepers to be honest. Direct from London,
leave at night ~ 10PM, through tunnel, stop at calais, paris, then down to
Geneva, Milan, Rome, Naples, Bari, Brindisi, Lecce. Another one might be
Paris, Nice, Turin, Milan, Venice (or mestre and onto Triest and
Lubjania). An Iberian one to Paris, Bordeux, Barcelona, Madrid, Lisbon. A
Brussels, Amsterdam, Berlin, Warsaw one, Another to South Germany and
Austria. Etc.

I would've thought long-distance sleeper services through the Tunnel
were a winner. Leave London in the evening (plenty of time to get from
most other places in the country) and wake up in the depths of Europe
without having to deal with getting to and from airports and exhausting
yourself during the day (or at some horrible time of morning if it's a
cheap airline!) You could essentially "save" a day's travelling.

How far can you travel in 10 hours? You can probably make Turin and
Berlin at least.

London to Milan is currently around 12 hours with changes at Paris and
Lausanne or Geneva so I think that could be a 10 hour destination.
London to Nice is already a 10 hour journey via Paris so that would make
an easy high-speed sleeper service.
London to Barcelona is around 12 hours changing at Lille and Perpignan;
that would be a problem as it is a Talgo service from Perpignan but you
could run the sleeper as far as Perpignan for the moment.
London to Berlin is currently a 12-hour journey travelling overnight
between Brussels and Wolfsburg, with connections either side. A direct
train might make it in 11 hours. (about an hour between connections at
Brussels but much less at Wolfsburg)

Is the tunnel used much at night? (leave London arorund 11 or midnight, so
midnight - 2AM)?

I think freight trains use it a lot at night so pathing through the
tunnel might be quite slow if it's between freights. It also depends if
any of these freights use the CTRL, as that would also slow down sleeper
services.

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

CTRL to benefit Kent: What services?
 

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...
Paul Weaver wrote:

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 19:43:19 +0000, David Jackman wrote:


Colin McKenzie wrote in
:



... With CTRL, the
tunnel should be quicker than air for lots more origins/destinations.

Colin McKenzie

Which destinations had you in mind? Even with CTRL it will still be the
wrong side of two hours, plus check-in, for both Paris and Brussels. You
might make a dent in the London - Rotterdam market but everywhere else
remains significantly more than than magic three hours from London.
(I can't find a figure for the London-Koln journey time but
London-Amsterdam is quoted at 3h 45m over the new Dutch high speed line.
This isn't going to create a massive modal shift or vast increase in
the number of passengers between London and Amsterdam).


People travel London-Edinburgh by train. Wouldn't you get enough for
even
one an hour?

I'd like some long distance sleepers to be honest. Direct from London,
leave at night ~ 10PM, through tunnel, stop at calais, paris, then down
to
Geneva, Milan, Rome, Naples, Bari, Brindisi, Lecce. Another one might be
Paris, Nice, Turin, Milan, Venice (or mestre and onto Triest and
Lubjania). An Iberian one to Paris, Bordeux, Barcelona, Madrid, Lisbon.
A
Brussels, Amsterdam, Berlin, Warsaw one, Another to South Germany and
Austria. Etc.

I would've thought long-distance sleeper services through the Tunnel
were a winner. Leave London in the evening (plenty of time to get from
most other places in the country) and wake up in the depths of Europe
without having to deal with getting to and from airports and exhausting
yourself during the day (or at some horrible time of morning if it's a
cheap airline!) You could essentially "save" a day's travelling.

How far can you travel in 10 hours? You can probably make Turin and
Berlin at least.

London to Milan is currently around 12 hours with changes at Paris and
Lausanne or Geneva so I think that could be a 10 hour destination.
London to Nice is already a 10 hour journey via Paris so that would make
an easy high-speed sleeper service.
London to Barcelona is around 12 hours changing at Lille and Perpignan;
that would be a problem as it is a Talgo service from Perpignan but you
could run the sleeper as far as Perpignan for the moment.
London to Berlin is currently a 12-hour journey travelling overnight
between Brussels and Wolfsburg, with connections either side. A direct
train might make it in 11 hours. (about an hour between connections at
Brussels but much less at Wolfsburg)

London to Munich is another that could be added to this list, currently
takes 10h30m to 14h30m depending on connections.
--
Cheers, Steve.
Change from jealous to sad to reply.

CTRL to benefit Kent: What services?
 

Dave Arquati wrote:

I would've thought long-distance sleeper services through the Tunnel
were a winner.

It's not the Government's job to subsidise your 'hotel' bills.

--
confguide.com - the conference guide

CTRL to benefit Kent: What services?
 

"david stevenson" wrote in message
...
Dave Arquati wrote:

I would've thought long-distance sleeper services through the Tunnel
were a winner.

It's not the Government's job to subsidise your 'hotel' bills.


I don't see how that's what was being suggested. I can see how sleeper
trains could be very popular - the idea of being able to get on a train in
central London at 10pm and waking up in Rome the following morning not only
has a certain romance, it could also be very practical. The ability to
travel without losing half a day of either work or a holiday hanging around
in airports could be very useful.

Jonn