David Jackman wrote:
Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 20:12:38 +0000, Dave Arquati wrote:

Fresh off the press - to prevent performance pollution from SET,
Crossrail will share no track with SET on its Isle of Dogs branch and
will terminate at a new cross-platform interchange at Abbey Wood.

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/pages/pro...announced.html

That's a rather neat way of cutting scheme costs now while leaving open
the door for a separately funded extension through to Ebbsfleet at some
far off point in the future. Something tells me this is the first of
many such announcements to ensure the financial problems are resolved.

That's a sensible decision (though it doesn't go far enough). There's no
great advantage to linking the West End, City and Wharf with Ebbsfleet.

True, but the biggest cost is the tunnel which is very difficult to reduce
without killing off the scheme (remove Canary Wharf and you lose any
funding from that source that might have been available, remove either of
the other legs (Paddington-Liverpool Street/Liverpool Street-Stratford) and
there really isn't a lot of point).

On the contrary, removing Canary Wharf would be the most sensible thing
they could do! The funding is available from Canary Wharf wouldn't go
anywhere near covering the enormous costs of that branch, and passenger
capacity to Canary Wharf could easily be provided with boats (which
could become quite popular if they accepted travelcards) and with a few
minor improvements to the bus network.

In the long term, I'd like to see another Crossrail line linking the
Canary Wharf area with Kings Cross, Woolwich (and possibly Abbey Wood)
and Southend via Tilbury (running alongside the DLR to Gallions Reach,
then taking over its Dagenham branch. But there are other lines, such as
Crossrail 2, that should take priority. Making half a service to Canary
Wharf part of Crossrail 1, with no provision for improvement, will only
serve to deter future investment.

Alan Osborn wrote:

I'll believe Crossrail when I see it in operation
What will be first Crossrail or Thameslink 2000.


I fear we may see neither under "New" Labour. The gaping hole in the
public finances is widening and the slowing of the economy means that
the Government is holding back on infrastructure projects.

As the song went, "things can only get b.. WORSE"!

;-)

Dave Arquati wrote in message ...
Jonn Elledge wrote:
"Rich Mallard" wrote in message ...

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...

Fresh off the press - to prevent performance pollution from SET, Crossrail
will share no track with SET on its Isle of Dogs branch and will terminate
at a new cross-platform interchange at Abbey Wood.

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/pages/pro...announced.html

What a let down! Wasn't one of big benefits of Crossrail supposed to be
regeneration of north Kent, Greenhithe, Stone, Dartford through to Slade
Green, Erith and Belvedere?

If they think it's not feasible to track-share a few stops with SET to
Dartford & Ebbsfleet, what hope have they got running to and from
Shenfield?!



Surely Crossrail won't share tracks to Shenfield - the line is pretty
much segregated anyway. There's talk of a few trains terminating at
Liverpool Street to serve Maryland but I don't see it happening.

Jonn

I think they need the extra Liverpool St-only trains to cater for demand.

(sorry if this appears twice - server problems)

You really think so? When people complain that 4tph should be
sufficient for the line, I tend to assume they've never used it; but
even with the extra passengers Crossrail will bring, would 12 long
trains really be insufficient?

Jonn

Jonn Elledge wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote in message ...

Jonn Elledge wrote:

"Rich Mallard" wrote in message ...


"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...


Fresh off the press - to prevent performance pollution from SET, Crossrail
will share no track with SET on its Isle of Dogs branch and will terminate
at a new cross-platform interchange at Abbey Wood.

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/pages/pro...announced.html

What a let down! Wasn't one of big benefits of Crossrail supposed to be
regeneration of north Kent, Greenhithe, Stone, Dartford through to Slade
Green, Erith and Belvedere?

If they think it's not feasible to track-share a few stops with SET to
Dartford & Ebbsfleet, what hope have they got running to and from
Shenfield?!



Surely Crossrail won't share tracks to Shenfield - the line is pretty
much segregated anyway. There's talk of a few trains terminating at
Liverpool Street to serve Maryland but I don't see it happening.

Jonn

I think they need the extra Liverpool St-only trains to cater for demand.


(sorry if this appears twice - server problems)

You really think so? When people complain that 4tph should be
sufficient for the line, I tend to assume they've never used it; but
even with the extra passengers Crossrail will bring, would 12 long
trains really be insufficient?

Jonn

Romford receives up to 15tph in the evening peak, and significant growth
is expected at Stratford. CLRL estimate morning peak volumes on
westbound trains arriving at Stratford in 2016 to be around 36,000
passengers (across a period of around 3 hours). At an average of 12,000
pph, you'll need more than 12 trains to make sure overcrowding isn't
extremely severe. This figure is from the 2003 business case, before the
Richmond branch was axed, but I wouldn't have thought too many
passengers would be travelling from the Great Eastern to the Richmond
branch so soon after Crossrail opened.

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

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 20:12:38 +0000, Dave Arquati wrote:


Fresh off the press - to prevent performance pollution from SET,
Crossrail will share no track with SET on its Isle of Dogs branch and
will terminate at a new cross-platform interchange at Abbey Wood.

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/pages/pro...announced.html


That's a rather neat way of cutting scheme costs now while leaving open
the door for a separately funded extension through to Ebbsfleet at some
far off point in the future. Something tells me this is the first of
many such announcements to ensure the financial problems are resolved.

I also just realised that they no longer need dual-voltage stock. I
don't know if this makes any significant difference to cost or reliability.

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

Dave Arquati wrote:
Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 20:12:38 +0000, Dave Arquati
wrote:


Fresh off the press - to prevent performance pollution from SET,
Crossrail will share no track with SET on its Isle of Dogs branch
and will terminate at a new cross-platform interchange at Abbey
Wood.


http://www.crossrail.co.uk/pages/pro...announced.html


That's a rather neat way of cutting scheme costs now while leaving
open the door for a separately funded extension through to
Ebbsfleet at some far off point in the future. Something tells me
this is the first of many such announcements to ensure the
financial problems are resolved.

I also just realised that they no longer need dual-voltage stock. I
don't know if this makes any significant difference to cost or
reliability.

However, Crossrail's announcement says "We can all look forward to
completing the direct link to Ebbsfleet once the technical [sic]
problems of using the lines beyond Abbey Wood have been overcome", which
suggests that they would buy stock capable of running to Ebbsfleet.
Hounslow's Corridor 7 proposal (Paddington-Hounslow) also assumes
dual-voltage stock.

My impression is that dual-voltage doesn't add much to cost these days,
as it has been provided with little hard justification on various recent
EMU designs.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)