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


Thinking about this, I now agree - forget running CrossRail trains
through the CTRL. But what domestic services should be run through the
CTRL from 2007? After all, operators should start to order rolling
stock about now.

There was a consultation about this last year. The SRA had identified
the core service destinations as Gravesend, Canterbury West and
Folkestone Central, and were seeking views on extending it to Rainham,
Faversham, Ramsgate (either way) or Maidstone West. Service frequency
was to be 8tph peak, 4tph offpeak.

Does that mean 8 tph to Gravesend, then 4 tph to Canterbury West and 4
to Folkstone Central? That would mean a lot of people travelling to
these stations to get to London.

I suppose they didn't look at splitting trains? They can even do that
with TGVs.

I suggested:

Peak:
4tph Rochester via Gravesend
2tph Dover via Folkestone
2tph Ramsgate via Canterbury

Offpeak:
2tph Ramsgate via Gravesend
2tph Dover and Ramsgate (splitting at Ashford)

I pointed out that the Amtrak Metroliners had proved decades ago that
front doors weren't incompatible with high speeds, and they passed that
info on to the train manufacturers.

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.) Why can't the existing line go from Ebbsfleet to
Gravesend, through the Strood tunnel, and on to Maidstone West,
Paddock Wood, and Tonbridge.

Do you know whether any action is being taken? On the CTRL website I
see no mention of a connection with the North Kent line.

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


Thinking about this, I now agree - forget running CrossRail trains
through the CTRL. But what domestic services should be run through the
CTRL from 2007? After all, operators should start to order rolling
stock about now.

There was a consultation about this last year. The SRA had identified
the core service destinations as Gravesend, Canterbury West and
Folkestone Central, and were seeking views on extending it to Rainham,
Faversham, Ramsgate (either way) or Maidstone West. Service frequency
was to be 8tph peak, 4tph offpeak.

Does that mean 8 tph to Gravesend, then 4 tph to Canterbury West and 4
to Folkstone Central? That would mean a lot of people travelling to
these stations to get to London.

No, it means 8tph London to Ebbsfleet, then 4tph to Gravesend and 4tph
to Ashford, 2 of which would then continue to Folkestone Central and 2
would continue to Canterbury West. There are various options for running
the trains further than that, though none involve Hastings via Rye (the
population is too low to justify electrification, let alone high speed
trains).

There aren't expected to be as many paths available as you think.

I suppose they didn't look at splitting trains? They can even do that
with TGVs.

They did look at splitting trains at Ashford in the offpeak times.

I suggested:

Peak:
4tph Rochester via Gravesend
2tph Dover via Folkestone
2tph Ramsgate via Canterbury

Offpeak:
2tph Ramsgate via Gravesend
2tph Dover and Ramsgate (splitting at Ashford)

I pointed out that the Amtrak Metroliners had proved decades ago that
front doors weren't incompatible with high speeds, and they passed that
info on to the train manufacturers.

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.

Why can't the existing line go from Ebbsfleet to
Gravesend, through the Strood tunnel, and on to Maidstone West,
Paddock Wood, and Tonbridge.

It can, though it wouldn't be much faster than the existing services to
Maidstone. By the time it reached Tonbridge, it would be substantially
slower than the existing route to London. That's quite an inefficient
use of these trains, which are more expensive than normal trains.

The other problem is that quite a lot of people commute between
Maidstone and the Chatham area, and rail has a very low market share
because it finishes up on the wrong side of the Medway. A light rail
proposal was developed to solve this problem, but stalled due to lack of
funding. If a lot of money's going to be spent on that line, serving
Chatham's a better objective than high speed services.

Do you know whether any action is being taken? On the CTRL website I
see no mention of a connection with the North Kent line.

There will be one. The core service is as certain as UK rail plans can
be, although how far the trains will be extended remains to be seen.

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


Thinking about this, I now agree - forget running CrossRail trains
through the CTRL. But what domestic services should be run through the
CTRL from 2007? After all, operators should start to order rolling
stock about now.

There was a consultation about this last year. The SRA had identified
the core service destinations as Gravesend, Canterbury West and
Folkestone Central, and were seeking views on extending it to Rainham,
Faversham, Ramsgate (either way) or Maidstone West. Service frequency
was to be 8tph peak, 4tph offpeak.

Does that mean 8 tph to Gravesend, then 4 tph to Canterbury West and 4
to Folkstone Central? That would mean a lot of people travelling to
these stations to get to London.

No, it means 8tph London to Ebbsfleet, then 4tph to Gravesend and 4tph
to Ashford, 2 of which would then continue to Folkestone Central and 2
would continue to Canterbury West. There are various options for running
the trains further than that, though none involve Hastings via Rye (the
population is too low to justify electrification, let alone high speed
trains).

So 8 tph limited commuter services. That means with 4 Eurostar
services, the CTRL Phase 2 will only be taking 12 tph. They should at
least be extending the Gravesend services to Chatham, and some beyond
to Ramsgate.

They talk about 8 eurostar tph, but can't even fill 3 at the moment,
and for some bizarre reason they want to keep Waterloo International
just to operate a few Eurostar per day.

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.


I suppose they didn't look at splitting trains? They can even do that
with TGVs.

They did look at splitting trains at Ashford in the offpeak times.

I suggested:

Peak:
4tph Rochester via Gravesend
2tph Dover via Folkestone
2tph Ramsgate via Canterbury

Offpeak:
2tph Ramsgate via Gravesend
2tph Dover and Ramsgate (splitting at Ashford)

I pointed out that the Amtrak Metroliners had proved decades ago that
front doors weren't incompatible with high speeds, and they passed that
info on to the train manufacturers.

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.

Why can't the existing line go from Ebbsfleet to
Gravesend, through the Strood tunnel, and on to Maidstone West,
Paddock Wood, and Tonbridge.

It can, though it wouldn't be much faster than the existing services to
Maidstone. By the time it reached Tonbridge, it would be substantially
slower than the existing route to London. That's quite an inefficient
use of these trains, which are more expensive than normal trains.

I estimate 1 hour from Tonbridge to St Pancras, compared with about 40
minutes to Waterloo East. 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. From Maidstone, it will be quickest to
take the CTRL. The alternative for many will be to drive to Ebbsfleet.
It will also help people commuting into Maidstone.

The other problem is that quite a lot of people commute between
Maidstone and the Chatham area, and rail has a very low market share
because it finishes up on the wrong side of the Medway. A light rail
proposal was developed to solve this problem, but stalled due to lack of
funding. If a lot of money's going to be spent on that line, serving
Chatham's a better objective than high speed services.

But a high frquency of services from Dartford to Sittingbourne, as
well as frequent buses from Strood, would partially solve that issue.
People could get from Tonbridge and Maidstone to Rochester via Strood.

Do you know whether any action is being taken? On the CTRL website I
see no mention of a connection with the North Kent line.

There will be one. The core service is as certain as UK rail plans can
be, although how far the trains will be extended remains to be seen.

Better than nothing. It'll run for a year, then there'll be a study
for 2 years, then they'll decide there's an urgent need to extend
services. Then they'll order rolling stock, and services will be
extended about 2013.

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


Thinking about this, I now agree - forget running CrossRail trains
through the CTRL. But what domestic services should be run through the
CTRL from 2007? After all, operators should start to order rolling
stock about now.

There was a consultation about this last year. The SRA had identified
the core service destinations as Gravesend, Canterbury West and
Folkestone Central, and were seeking views on extending it to Rainham,
Faversham, Ramsgate (either way) or Maidstone West. Service frequency
was to be 8tph peak, 4tph offpeak.

Does that mean 8 tph to Gravesend, then 4 tph to Canterbury West and 4
to Folkstone Central? That would mean a lot of people travelling to
these stations to get to London.

No, it means 8tph London to Ebbsfleet, then 4tph to Gravesend and 4tph
to Ashford, 2 of which would then continue to Folkestone Central and 2
would continue to Canterbury West. There are various options for running
the trains further than that, though none involve Hastings via Rye (the
population is too low to justify electrification, let alone high speed
trains).

So 8 tph limited commuter services. That means with 4 Eurostar
services, the CTRL Phase 2 will only be taking 12 tph. They should at
least be extending the Gravesend services to Chatham, and some beyond
to Ramsgate.

They talk about 8 eurostar tph, but can't even fill 3 at the moment,
and for some bizarre reason they want to keep Waterloo International
just to operate a few Eurostar per day.

Really? Last I heard they were planning to close Waterloo International.
Diverting some trains to Waterloo would increase the number of available
paths on the CTRL.

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.

(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).

Why can't the existing line go from Ebbsfleet to
Gravesend, through the Strood tunnel, and on to Maidstone West,
Paddock Wood, and Tonbridge.

It can, though it wouldn't be much faster than the existing services to
Maidstone. By the time it reached Tonbridge, it would be substantially
slower than the existing route to London. That's quite an inefficient
use of these trains, which are more expensive than normal trains.

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.

From Maidstone, it will be quickest to
take the CTRL. The alternative for many will be to drive to Ebbsfleet.
It will also help people commuting into Maidstone.

....Which is a less important destination than Rochester/Chatham UIVMM.

The other problem is that quite a lot of people commute between
Maidstone and the Chatham area, and rail has a very low market share
because it finishes up on the wrong side of the Medway. A light rail
proposal was developed to solve this problem, but stalled due to lack of
funding. If a lot of money's going to be spent on that line, serving
Chatham's a better objective than high speed services.

But a high frquency of services from Dartford to Sittingbourne, as
well as frequent buses from Strood, would partially solve that issue.
People could get from Tonbridge and Maidstone to Rochester via Strood.

But they'd have great difficulty providing a convenient service when
it's not a one seat ride.

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.

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.

Also, improving the existing service would be possible by constructing a
short connection near the M26 so that the express trains can run via
Orpington instead of taking the longer route via Swanley.

Do you know whether any action is being taken? On the CTRL website I
see no mention of a connection with the North Kent line.

There will be one. The core service is as certain as UK rail plans can
be, although how far the trains will be extended remains to be seen.

Better than nothing. It'll run for a year, then there'll be a study
for 2 years, then they'll decide there's an urgent need to extend
services. Then they'll order rolling stock, and services will be
extended about 2013.

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.

(Aidan Stanger) wrote in message ...

So 8 tph limited commuter services. That means with 4 Eurostar
services, the CTRL Phase 2 will only be taking 12 tph. They should at
least be extending the Gravesend services to Chatham, and some beyond
to Ramsgate.

They talk about 8 eurostar tph, but can't even fill 3 at the moment,
and for some bizarre reason they want to keep Waterloo International
just to operate a few Eurostar per day.

Really? Last I heard they were planning to close Waterloo International.
Diverting some trains to Waterloo would increase the number of available
paths on the CTRL.

That wan't the plan a year ago, but if they've changed their mind
that's good. Those 4 Waterloo platforms could be useful for long
distance commuters.

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.


(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
2. 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 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. I've never been able to figure out how
to get from Tunbridge Wells to Maidstone by train.


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.

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).

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



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?

"Alex Terrell" wrote in message
om...
(Aidan Stanger) wrote in message
...
I've never been able to figure out how
to get from Tunbridge Wells to Maidstone by train.

T.Wells to Tonbridge
Tonbridge to Paddock Wood
P.Wood to Maidstone West

55 minutes, 20 of which are hanging around waiting for your connections.

Neil

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?

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!

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

Tom Anderson wrote in message ...
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

Quite. I don't know what the elevations of the lines are round there,
but it looks on the OS 1:25k map like it would be rather easy to
create a spur between Cuxton and the Chatham line before it goes over
the bridge, thus allowing a Gillingham - Paddock Wood service.