CTRL to benefit Kent: What services?
 

"Jonn Elledge" wrote in message ...
More useful, is it possible to send CrossRail through the CTRL link
from Stratford to Ebbsfleet?


Why? The point of the Ebbsfleet branch is surely not to link Ebbsfleet to
Crossrail, but to connect the Isle of Dogs, Royal Docks and other more
populated parts of North Kent.

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.

CTRL capacity is 16 tph. CTRL say there'll be capacity for 8 Eurostar
tph, but at present they can't fill three, so I reckon there could be
8 to 12 domestic trains per hour running each way from St Pancras to
Ebbsfleet. These could in theory be 16 cars long. Where should they
go?

Here's my thoughts. Assuming dual voltage trains that can run off
overhead or third rail:

1. 4 tph from Ebbsfleet to Chatham via Strood, where the train would
divide, with half going to Dover Priory and the other half to
Ramsgate. This would require a link to Dartford - Chatham line at
Ebbsfleet, and I suspect a lengthening of platforms at Chatham.
Without the link, I'd run the regional services as far as Dartford,
and accept (a) lots of changing at Swanscombe / Ebbsfleet, and (b)
running lots of half empty trains to Ashford.

2. 4 tph using the CTRL phase 1 to Ashford. There the train would
divide into three, with sections going to Hastins via Rye; to Margate
via Dover Priory; to Ramsgate via Rye.

3. 2 tph going to Tonbridge via Strood, Maidstone West and Paddock
Wood. (Tonbridge to London would still be faster via Sevenoaks)

4. A few Intercity Services, such as Ashford, Ebbsfleet, Stratford,
Watford Junction, Milton Keynes and beyond.

This would provide faster, more comfortable and reliable services into
London for most of East Kent. Once CrossRail comes on stream, many
commuters would change to CrossRail at Ebbsfleet or Stratford. Until
then, this would put extra strain on Stratford to London services
(overground and underground) - though perhaps improved bus links from
Stratford could help.

Services from East Kent (beyond Ashford and Chatham) to London Bridge
would be curtailed (there would still be stopping services from
Ashford and Ebbsfleet), and the capacity freed up would be improve the
Hastings via Tunbridge Wells service, as well as local SE London
services.

Any thoughts?

CTRL to benefit Kent: What services?
 

After posting the message I found this:

http://www.medway.gov.uk/oco20030128r-7.pdf

It dates from Jan 2003, and broadly agrees with me, and calls for more
research. I suspect that nothing has been done, in line with the usual
British policy on infrastructures, e.g.

- Build the channel tunnel. When finished, start planning CTRL.
- Build Heathrow Terminal 5. When finished, start planning rail links
(Airtrack).
- Build CTRL. When finished, start planning links to Kent rail and
perhaps ordering rolling stock.

The main issue identified in the report is the fact that the Dover to
Folkstone tunnel can't take modern trains. This would therefore need
to be maintained by a local service, say Folkstone to Ramsgate.
(Currently a 48 minute journey for some reason)

CTRL to benefit Kent: What services?
 

CTRL to benefit Kent: What services?
 

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.

CTRL to benefit Kent: What services?
 

CTRL to benefit Kent: What services?
 

"Alex Terrell" wrote

- Build the channel tunnel. When finished, start planning CTRL.
- Build Heathrow Terminal 5. When finished, start planning rail links
(Airtrack).
- Build CTRL. When finished, start planning links to Kent rail and
perhaps ordering rolling stock.


As against the other side of the Channel where the high speed link south
from the tunnel was completed and lying dormant for quite some time before
tunnel was completed.

CTRL to benefit Kent: What services?
 

"Alex Terrell" a écrit dans le message de
om...
"Jonn Elledge" wrote in message
...
More useful, is it possible to send CrossRail through the CTRL link
from Stratford to Ebbsfleet?


Why? The point of the Ebbsfleet branch is surely not to link Ebbsfleet
to
Crossrail, but to connect the Isle of Dogs, Royal Docks and other more
populated parts of North Kent.

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.

CTRL capacity is 16 tph. CTRL say there'll be capacity for 8 Eurostar
tph, but at present they can't fill three, so I reckon there could be
8 to 12 domestic trains per hour running each way from St Pancras to
Ebbsfleet. These could in theory be 16 cars long. Where should they
go?

Here's my thoughts. Assuming dual voltage trains that can run off
overhead or third rail:

SNIP

Any thoughts?

Your assumptions about the operation of Eurostars might not be valid,
because as others have already pointed out, the present constraints, which
are not very sensible, are liable to change. In particular, the reduction in
journey times and improved timekeeping resulting from the completion of
CTRL2 should boost demand substantially.

But other potential changes could have a far greater impact, eg the
introduction of measures to reduce congestion at London's airports by
reducing the number of slots allocated for flights on routes where the
overall journey time is typically longer than that by rail.

The basic problem is that there is no obvious way to recover the enormous
investment required to build the CRTL or Crossrail directly from fees paid
its users (especially commuters); as in similar cases (eg the Jubilee Line
and ELL extensions), the lion's share of the economic benefit goes to local
landowners, who enjoy signficant consequential increases in property values.
Only when you have solved it can we start meaningful discussions of train
services.

Regards,

- Alan (in Brussels - mind the spamtrap)

CTRL to benefit Kent: What services?
 

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.

CTRL to benefit Kent: What services?
 

CTRL to benefit Kent: What services?
 

"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

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

CTRL to benefit Kent: What services?
 

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.

CTRL to benefit Kent: What services?
 

CTRL to benefit Kent: What services?
 

"Alex Terrell" wrote in message
om...

Overall, I accept that some of the lines are not suitable for high
speed services. But that means that Ashford and Ebbsfleet need to
become hubs for normal train services (remember, CTRL will have huge
capacity), such as:

Via Ebbsfleet:
- Tonbridge to Dartford
- Dartford to Sittingbourne
- A new tram / light rail service from Ebbsfleet to Bluewater, and
ideally on to somewhere inside the M25. I haven't figured out a path,
but Bluewater seems to be a place where lots of people want to go to,
and Ebbsfleet will be a place where lots of people can go to.
- Of course, CrossRail from Isle of Dogs to Ebbsfleet

Fastrack segregated bus service, which will serve Dartford, Bluewater,
Ebbsfleet, Gravesend is already under construction.

Via Ashford:
Easbourne to Ashford (currently goes only to Hastings)
Gatwick to Ashford?
Ashford to Folkstone to Dover to Ramsgate (see below)

A Brighton - Eastbourne - Hastings - Ashford through service is already
planned, and the Class 171 trains to run it are being built.

Peter

CTRL to benefit Kent: What services?
 

Alex Terrell wrote:

(Aidan Stanger) wrote\...
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.

What they want and what's realistic are two very different things.
Knocking 30 minutes off the journey time won't treble volumes,
especially with the rise of low cost airlines. So we still have 10 tph
for domestic services.

Knocking 30 minutes off the journey time won't treble volumes
immediately, but what makes you think that it won't do so over 20 years?

| snip

Overall, I accept that some of the lines are not suitable for high
speed services. But that means that Ashford and Ebbsfleet need to
become hubs for normal train services (remember, CTRL will have huge
capacity), such as:

Via Ebbsfleet:
- Tonbridge to Dartford
- Dartford to Sittingbourne
- A new tram / light rail service from Ebbsfleet to Bluewater, and
ideally on to somewhere inside the M25. I haven't figured out a path,
but Bluewater seems to be a place where lots of people want to go to,
and Ebbsfleet will be a place where lots of people can go to.

Kent County Council have figured out a path, and are building a busway
called Fastrack (whick despite its name, will be unguided) along the
route. A future conversion to light rail is tentatively planned.

- Of course, CrossRail from Isle of Dogs to Ebbsfleet

....is an insane waste of money!

(As an aside, I'd also propose building an Olympic village
accommodation within walking distance of Ebbsfleet. That would put
athletes within ~10 minutes of Stratford. Later it could be turned
into affordable housing)

So Athletes would have to rely on the high speed trains that the crowds
would also rely on?

| snip

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.

As I understand the Dover - Folkstone tunnel is not suitable for high
speed trains.

I have already explained to you why it is! They were thought to be
unsuitable because of incompatibility with end doors, but high speed
trains with end doors were around decades ago!

So I would run conventional trains from Ashford to
Folstone to Dover to Ramsgate, with high speed trains splitting at
Ashford to go to Folkstone and Ramsgate.

It would still be advantageous to have conventional trains do so as
well.


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.

Getting overcrowded is a sign of success and clearly something the
train operators would like.

Not if the train operators are competent. Some trains getting
overcrowded is a sign of bad timetabling!

Bear in mind these could be 12 or 16 car trains. Perhaps only half the
train would continue from Rochester (or Ebbsfleet, if Strood and Rochester
stations can't take 16 carriage trains.

The station length is not the problem. The trains are almost certain to
be a success, but overcrowding would be unpopular with the passengers.

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.

Tonbridge is as it's a major interchange. I don't know about Dartford
- pick somewhere else, bearing in mind that many commuters from west
of Ebbsfleet will also want to take CTRL.

There is really only one sensible alternative: London. However, traffic
on the Medway Valley line is unlikely to ever half fill a train of the
length needed for services in the London suburbs. Presumably that's why
the service was cut back to Strood in the first place.

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).

Passengers can change at Strood. As long as there's about 8 tph, and
it's cross platform, that's not too big an issue.

On what basis do you assume that? Considering that it's quicker by car,
and that a lot of Chatham is a long way from the railway, I'd say it's a
bigger issue than you think.

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?

Agreed - and thanks for your thoughts.

[Followups set to uk.railway only]

CTRL to benefit Kent: What services?
 

James wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote...
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?

Light rail could serve more places, penetrating deeper into the towns it
serves without sacrificing the advantages of a "real" railway. It would
also be able to manage steeper gradients, and would avoid capacity
problems on the Strood Bridge to Gillingham section of line.

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.

Rather steep IIRC, though I expect modern trains could manage it.

CTRL to benefit Kent: What services?
 

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004, Aidan Stanger wrote:

James wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote...
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?

Light rail could serve more places, penetrating deeper into the towns it
serves

Ah, so you're thinking of including on-street running? A solution towards
the tram end of light rail?

without sacrificing the advantages of a "real" railway.

Um.

Still, could well be a good idea.

tom

--
sh(1) was the first MOO

CTRL to benefit Kent: What services?
 

Alex Terrell wrote:


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.

Yes indeed the Metroliners do have end corridor connections, but if I
recall correctly they are limited to 125 MPH.

Until the end of 2001 I was the head of Electrification & Plant for
Union Railways and was initmately involved in the development of the
CTRL domestic rolling stock specification. A few facts:

The units have to be 6 coaches long in order to prevent both
pantographs (1 per unit) from entering the long carrier wire neutral
setions. If they did, a phase to phase short circuit at 44kV would
result.

In order to maintain the required line capacity, the units were
specified to have a top speed of 140MPH (225 Km/h), with a high rate
of accelleration. The crashworthiness standards for stock of this
speed are very stringent unless you want to end up with the farce
applied to the like of pendolinos where the front half of each leading
vehicle cannot be used for passenger accommodation - a complete non
starter for a commuter train where bums on seats is paramount.

We consulted 7 rolling stock manufacturers over the crashworthiness
standards and end loadings and not one of them could satisfactorily
engineer the requisite stength with a central corridor connection.

So for other posters on this thread - 16 train cars? Are you serious.
Which platforms could accommodate them (apart from the eurostar
platforms), certainly not rural station platforms unless they were
split to 2 x 8 cars. That's not in the spec, so don't expect that to
happen either!

Richard

CTRL to benefit Kent: What services?
 

Add on to Richard's excellent summary that the trains need to be capable
of running with AWS, TPWS, TVM, KVB, to fit the UK standard loading
gauge, to be able to support CSR and GSM-R, to satisfy the EMI/EMC
characteristics of the UK conventional trains, to operate at both 25kV
and 750DC with automated changeover between the two, possibly to have a
capability to work on limited 25kV current if they escape to a BR AC
area, etc.

John

In article , Richard
Catlow writes
Alex Terrell wrote:


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.

Yes indeed the Metroliners do have end corridor connections, but if I
recall correctly they are limited to 125 MPH.

Until the end of 2001 I was the head of Electrification & Plant for
Union Railways and was initmately involved in the development of the
CTRL domestic rolling stock specification. A few facts:

The units have to be 6 coaches long in order to prevent both
pantographs (1 per unit) from entering the long carrier wire neutral
setions. If they did, a phase to phase short circuit at 44kV would
result.

In order to maintain the required line capacity, the units were
specified to have a top speed of 140MPH (225 Km/h), with a high rate
of accelleration. The crashworthiness standards for stock of this
speed are very stringent unless you want to end up with the farce
applied to the like of pendolinos where the front half of each leading
vehicle cannot be used for passenger accommodation - a complete non
starter for a commuter train where bums on seats is paramount.

We consulted 7 rolling stock manufacturers over the crashworthiness
standards and end loadings and not one of them could satisfactorily
engineer the requisite stength with a central corridor connection.

So for other posters on this thread - 16 train cars? Are you serious.
Which platforms could accommodate them (apart from the eurostar
platforms), certainly not rural station platforms unless they were
split to 2 x 8 cars. That's not in the spec, so don't expect that to
happen either!

Richard

--
John Alexander,

CTRL to benefit Kent: What services?
 

CTRL to benefit Kent: What services?
 

Richard Catlow wrote:

Alex Terrell wrote:


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.

Yes indeed the Metroliners do have end corridor connections, but if I
recall correctly they are limited to 125 MPH.

They were designed to run at 160mph. It was only the poor state of the
track that limited them to 125mph.

Until the end of 2001 I was the head of Electrification & Plant for
Union Railways and was initmately involved in the development of the
CTRL domestic rolling stock specification. A few facts:

The units have to be 6 coaches long in order to prevent both
pantographs (1 per unit) from entering the long carrier wire neutral
setions. If they did, a phase to phase short circuit at 44kV would
result.

How come?

In order to maintain the required line capacity, the units were
specified to have a top speed of 140MPH (225 Km/h), with a high rate
of accelleration. The crashworthiness standards for stock of this
speed are very stringent unless you want to end up with the farce
applied to the like of pendolinos where the front half of each leading
vehicle cannot be used for passenger accommodation - a complete non
starter for a commuter train where bums on seats is paramount.

I thought crashworthiness requirements under ATP were lower. If they
aren't, why aren't they. It's ridiculous mandating such high standards
on a line where there's nothing to crash into! An exemption should be
sought even if it requires special legislation to get it.

We consulted 7 rolling stock manufacturers over the crashworthiness
standards and end loadings and not one of them could satisfactorily
engineer the requisite stength with a central corridor connection.

Any idea how far short of the standard the Metroliners fell?

So for other posters on this thread - 16 train cars? Are you serious.
Which platforms could accommodate them (apart from the eurostar
platforms), certainly not rural station platforms unless they were
split to 2 x 8 cars. That's not in the spec, so don't expect that to
happen either!

Are you sure it's not in the spec? UIVMM all the consultation options
included some offpeak splitting at Ashford.