On Mar 25, 5:01*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Andy wrote:
On Mar 25, 8:00*am, The Real Doctor wrote:
On 24 Mar, 23:10, Adrian wrote:

On Mar 24, 4:00 pm, Dan G wrote:
Anyone seen a more detailed costing of the scheme? *Why* is it costing
so much more than other, not dissimilar, projects?

In part it will cost a lot because it will be (or should be)
engineered to a very high standard. *The Jubilee Line extension is a
pointer in that respect.

But it is predicted to cost more than five times as much as the
Jubilee Line extension ...

You have clearly never lived in a city where good spacious (1,000 sq
ft per person) affordable housing is available to middle class
workers. *Or, enjoyed one where a normal comfortable journey to work
is 40 minutes or less.

And how many people do you think will find good, spacious, affordable
housing as a result of this line. It'll knock quarter of an hour,
tops, off the journey onto London - are those fifteen minutes really
deterring millions from moving to good, spacious, affordable housing?

But wasn't the main justification for crossrail the relief of the
overcrowding already present on existing lines, as well as allowing
for predicted growth. It will take a fair number of people off the
Central line (and other Underground lines) as well as providing extra
capacity on the National Rail lines to either side.

Except it won't. It will relieve the Central line west of Stratford, for
sure, which in practice means Stratford to Oxford Circus. But it doesn't
actually add any capacity at all to the Great Eastern or Western railways
- every path that Crossrail will use is currently used by a normal train.
Crossrail trains will be a bit longer, but you could deliver the same
capacity increase by adapting those lines for longer trains without the
central tunnel bit for a lot less money.


It will also relieve the Circle, Met, H&C, the Bakerloo and the
Jubilee, at least. If you look back, the relief of already overcrowed
underground lines was always the main reason behind the plans. The
services to/from the West will gain a considerable increase in
capacity, with 10 car trains replacing the current shorter DMUs. The
services to/from the East will generally also gain in train length, as
the stopping trains are mostly (all?) eight cars.

The fact that it will reduce journey times is an added benefit, but not
the main justification for the construction.

It also won't reduce journey times much. Trips you can make with Crossrail
can currently be made with train plus Central line via quite easy changes
at Stratford or Ealing Broadway (or more painful ones at Liverpool Street
or Paddington, after a quicker run to the terminal). It will make the
trips a lot more convenient by eliminating those changes, but not hugely
faster.


There will certainly be faster journey times on the western side, as
the EMUs will accelerate considerably better than the Turbos and with
all (at least during the peak) trains being of the same type pathing
will be slightly easier. There is also the consideration of having to
leave time for delays on the underground when heading home. A change
of train at either Ealing or Paddington means having to pad your
journey a fair amount. I do agree that this is less of a problem on
the Eastern side though.

Don't forget that the capacity doesn't just deal with the trains, but
the space needed at the stations for interchange. A fair amount of the
costs of Crossrail stations in central london will be needed anyway as
the current underground stations can't cope. Oxford Circus is
sometimes closed due to overcrowding, and Tottenham Court Road always
a bit of a nightmare to get around, even off peak.

tom

--
I believe there is no philosophical high-road in science, with
epistemological signposts. No, we are in a jungle and find our way by
trial and error, building our road behind us as we proceed. -- Max Born

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Andy wrote:

On Mar 25, 5:01*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Andy wrote:

But wasn't the main justification for crossrail the relief of the
overcrowding already present on existing lines, as well as allowing
for predicted growth. It will take a fair number of people off the
Central line (and other Underground lines) as well as providing extra
capacity on the National Rail lines to either side.

Except it won't. It will relieve the Central line west of Stratford,
for sure, which in practice means Stratford to Oxford Circus. But it
doesn't actually add any capacity at all to the Great Eastern or
Western railways - every path that Crossrail will use is currently used
by a normal train. Crossrail trains will be a bit longer, but you could
deliver the same capacity increase by adapting those lines for longer
trains without the central tunnel bit for a lot less money.

It will also relieve the Circle, Met, H&C, the Bakerloo and the
Jubilee, at least.

You're right, it will relieve the Circle/Met/H&C between Liverpool Street
and Farringdon, my bad. The Bakerloo too, but this is not exactly
overcrowded as it stands. The Jubilee?

If you look back, the relief of already overcrowed underground lines was
always the main reason behind the plans.

Kind of. I've read all of the rail studies that have led to Crossrail over
the last 20 years or so, and one thing that's conspicuously absent is a
solid justification. The studies take it as a starting point that an
east-west rail tunnel will be built, and just look at the details of how
best to do it.

The services to/from the West will gain a considerable increase in
capacity, with 10 car trains replacing the current shorter DMUs. The
services to/from the East will generally also gain in train length, as
the stopping trains are mostly (all?) eight cars.

True. All of which could be done without the tunnel, for a fraction of the
price.

The fact that it will reduce journey times is an added benefit, but not
the main justification for the construction.

It also won't reduce journey times much. Trips you can make with Crossrail
can currently be made with train plus Central line via quite easy changes
at Stratford or Ealing Broadway (or more painful ones at Liverpool Street
or Paddington, after a quicker run to the terminal). It will make the
trips a lot more convenient by eliminating those changes, but not hugely
faster.

There will certainly be faster journey times on the western side, as the
EMUs will accelerate considerably better than the Turbos and with all
(at least during the peak) trains being of the same type pathing will be
slightly easier.

Again, could be done without the tunnel.

There is also the consideration of having to leave time for delays on
the underground when heading home. A change of train at either Ealing or
Paddington means having to pad your journey a fair amount. I do agree
that this is less of a problem on the Eastern side though.

I wonder how much rearranging Ealing Broadway for better interchange from
NR to LU would cost. Probably a lot.

Don't forget that the capacity doesn't just deal with the trains, but
the space needed at the stations for interchange. A fair amount of the
costs of Crossrail stations in central london will be needed anyway as
the current underground stations can't cope. Oxford Circus is sometimes
closed due to overcrowding, and Tottenham Court Road always a bit of a
nightmare to get around, even off peak.

Do we know how much of the budget is for this? My understanding was that
Oxford Circus wasn't going to be rebuilt; the Crossrail station would be
essentialy separate. It thus has a slightly marginal effect on
overcrowding - the people relieved onto Crossrail will no longer be
clogging the place up, but plenty of other people will. No idea about TCR.

tom

--
I believe there is no philosophical high-road in science, with
epistemological signposts. No, we are in a jungle and find our way by
trial and error, building our road behind us as we proceed. -- Max Born

On 25 Mar, 23:49, Tom Anderson wrote:
The Jubilee?

To Docklands. AIUI the Jubilee between London Bridge and North
Greenwich is already one of the most congested bits of the network.

True. All of which could be done without the tunnel, for a fraction of the
price.

And without increasing any capacity from the termini to where people
work/shop/go out/etc, which is the whole point of the current
iteration of the project.

Again, could be done without the tunnel.

And where do you plan to build the extra platforms at Paddington and
Liverpool Street?

Do we know how much of the budget is for this? My understanding was that
Oxford Circus wasn't going to be rebuilt; the Crossrail station would be
essentialy separate. It thus has a slightly marginal effect on
overcrowding - the people relieved onto Crossrail will no longer be
clogging the place up, but plenty of other people will. No idea about TCR.

Slightly marginal? The two Crossrail stations adjacent to Oxford
Circus will have enormous entrances at the ends nearest to it, exactly
to attract the crowds away without overcrowding the actual Oxford
Circus area. In theory at least they're hoping to attract away a lot
more passengers.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

On Mar 26, 12:11*am, Mr Thant
wrote:
On 25 Mar, 23:49, Tom Anderson wrote:

The Jubilee?

To Docklands. AIUI the Jubilee between London Bridge and North
Greenwich is already one of the most congested bits of the network.


Indeed, why do you think that TfL bought forward the lengthening of
the Jubilee line trains to seven cars by several years. It was because
the Waterloo / London Bridge - Docklands section was already getting
overcrowded. The Crossrail service from the Abbey Wood will take a
fair part of that burden.

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Mr Thant wrote:

On 25 Mar, 23:49, Tom Anderson wrote:

The Jubilee?

To Docklands. AIUI the Jubilee between London Bridge and North
Greenwich is already one of the most congested bits of the network.

Right. And how is Crossrail going to relieve that? By letting people on
the North Kent line from east of Abbey Wood change there? That's not
exactly a huge fraction of the Jubilee's passengers, is it? And don't they
already have the option to do Greenwich - Docklands by DLR? Not that
that's exactly a high-capacity route itself.

True. All of which could be done without the tunnel, for a fraction of the
price.

And without increasing any capacity from the termini to where people
work/shop/go out/etc, which is the whole point of the current iteration
of the project.

Entirely agreed. But the point i was making in the text that's been
snipped is that the Crossrail project doesn't deliver significant
increases in capacity outside central London, and none that couldn't be
provided much more cheaply.

Again, could be done without the tunnel.

And where do you plan to build the extra platforms at Paddington and
Liverpool Street?

Liverpool Street isn't limited by platform capacity, it's limited by
capacity through the station throat. Rebuilding that is entirely possible,
although of course not trivial. I don't know about Paddington, i have to
confess. But since all we're talking about is lengthening trains, why do
we need more platforms?

Do we know how much of the budget is for this? My understanding was that
Oxford Circus wasn't going to be rebuilt; the Crossrail station would be
essentialy separate. It thus has a slightly marginal effect on
overcrowding - the people relieved onto Crossrail will no longer be
clogging the place up, but plenty of other people will. No idea about TCR.

Slightly marginal? The two Crossrail stations adjacent to Oxford Circus
will have enormous entrances at the ends nearest to it, exactly to
attract the crowds away without overcrowding the actual Oxford Circus
area. In theory at least they're hoping to attract away a lot more
passengers.

If you're going into Oxford Circus to get on the Victoria line, this isn't
going to make any difference whatsoever. The new bit being added, however
enormous, will only decongest the existing station to the extent that they
can abstract passengers away from the Central line.

tom

--
GOLDIE LOOKIN' CHAIN [...] will ultimately make all other forms of music
both redundant and unnecessary -- NTK

On Mar 26, 6:53*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Mr Thant wrote:
On 25 Mar, 23:49, Tom Anderson wrote:

The Jubilee?

To Docklands. AIUI the Jubilee between London Bridge and North
Greenwich is already one of the most congested bits of the network.

Right. And how is Crossrail going to relieve that? By letting people on
the North Kent line from east of Abbey Wood change there? That's not
exactly a huge fraction of the Jubilee's passengers, is it? And don't they
already have the option to do Greenwich - Docklands by DLR? Not that
that's exactly a high-capacity route itself.


There will also be the East London Line extension feeding passengers
in at Whitechapel. These passengers who would currently goto London
Bridge for the Jubilee line.

True. All of which could be done without the tunnel, for a fraction of the
price.

And without increasing any capacity from the termini to where people
work/shop/go out/etc, which is the whole point of the current iteration
of the project.

Entirely agreed. But the point i was making in the text that's been
snipped is that the Crossrail project doesn't deliver significant
increases in capacity outside central London, and none that couldn't be
provided much more cheaply.


But it is the central London section that needs the capacity, as the
Underground can not distribute passengers arriving from the mainline.
How much cheaper would it be to provide the extra capacity across
London without the joining the lines to the west and east? Passengers
taken off, for example, the Central line at Liverpool Street /
Stratford will give more capacity for passengers from the West Anglia
lines.

Again, could be done without the tunnel.

And where do you plan to build the extra platforms at Paddington and
Liverpool Street?

Liverpool Street isn't limited by platform capacity, it's limited by
capacity through the station throat. Rebuilding that is entirely possible,
although of course not trivial. I don't know about Paddington, i have to
confess. But since all we're talking about is lengthening trains, why do
we need more platforms?


Paddington has at least three platforms that are of limited length
(12-14, plus 11 which shares the country end track with the entrance
to platform 12). If you lengthen the trains to 8 or 10 coaches, I
don't think that any of these platforms can cope. Liverpool Street
also suffers from some of the same problems, with platforms 16-18
limited to 8 coaches. At both locations, the trains serving these
platforms will be the ones sent down the crossrail tunnels.

Do we know how much of the budget is for this? My understanding was that
Oxford Circus wasn't going to be rebuilt; the Crossrail station would be
essentialy separate. It thus has a slightly marginal effect on
overcrowding - the people relieved onto Crossrail will no longer be
clogging the place up, but plenty of other people will. No idea about TCR.

Slightly marginal? The two Crossrail stations adjacent to Oxford Circus
will have enormous entrances at the ends nearest to it, exactly to
attract the crowds away without overcrowding the actual Oxford Circus
area. In theory at least they're hoping to attract away a lot more
passengers.

If you're going into Oxford Circus to get on the Victoria line, this isn't
going to make any difference whatsoever. The new bit being added, however
enormous, will only decongest the existing station to the extent that they
can abstract passengers away from the Central line.


The difference in getting to the Victoria line is that it will be
easier to enter the station. It will also mean that Oxford Circus
doesn't need to be expensively rebuilt to add capacity for entrance /
exit.

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Andy wrote:

On Mar 26, 6:53*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Mr Thant wrote:
On 25 Mar, 23:49, Tom Anderson wrote:

The Jubilee?

To Docklands. AIUI the Jubilee between London Bridge and North
Greenwich is already one of the most congested bits of the network.

Right. And how is Crossrail going to relieve that? By letting people on
the North Kent line from east of Abbey Wood change there? That's not
exactly a huge fraction of the Jubilee's passengers, is it? And don't they
already have the option to do Greenwich - Docklands by DLR? Not that
that's exactly a high-capacity route itself.

There will also be the East London Line extension feeding passengers in
at Whitechapel. These passengers who would currently goto London Bridge
for the Jubilee line.

Oh, i see. So, Kent - New Cross Gate - Whitechapel - Canary Wharf?
They'll make two changes and a sort of spiral round Docklands?

True. All of which could be done without the tunnel, for a fraction of the
price.

And without increasing any capacity from the termini to where people
work/shop/go out/etc, which is the whole point of the current iteration
of the project.

Entirely agreed. But the point i was making in the text that's been
snipped is that the Crossrail project doesn't deliver significant
increases in capacity outside central London, and none that couldn't be
provided much more cheaply.

But it is the central London section that needs the capacity, as the
Underground can not distribute passengers arriving from the mainline.
How much cheaper would it be to provide the extra capacity across London
without the joining the lines to the west and east? Passengers taken
off, for example, the Central line at Liverpool Street / Stratford will
give more capacity for passengers from the West Anglia lines.

Absolutely. Sorry that i haven't really made myself clear about all this -
i think Crossrail's a good idea (although not as good an idea as some
other options which were dismissed - but that's another story), i just
think it's misleading to say it'll increase capacity on the lines it's
assimilating.

Again, could be done without the tunnel.

And where do you plan to build the extra platforms at Paddington and
Liverpool Street?

Liverpool Street isn't limited by platform capacity, it's limited by
capacity through the station throat. Rebuilding that is entirely
possible, although of course not trivial. I don't know about
Paddington, i have to confess. But since all we're talking about is
lengthening trains, why do we need more platforms?

Paddington has at least three platforms that are of limited length
(12-14, plus 11 which shares the country end track with the entrance to
platform 12). If you lengthen the trains to 8 or 10 coaches, I don't
think that any of these platforms can cope. Liverpool Street also
suffers from some of the same problems, with platforms 16-18 limited to
8 coaches. At both locations, the trains serving these platforms will be
the ones sent down the crossrail tunnels.

Right. Problems which could be solved without recourse to a tunnel.

Do we know how much of the budget is for this? My understanding was that
Oxford Circus wasn't going to be rebuilt; the Crossrail station would be
essentialy separate. It thus has a slightly marginal effect on
overcrowding - the people relieved onto Crossrail will no longer be
clogging the place up, but plenty of other people will. No idea about TCR.

Slightly marginal? The two Crossrail stations adjacent to Oxford Circus
will have enormous entrances at the ends nearest to it, exactly to
attract the crowds away without overcrowding the actual Oxford Circus
area. In theory at least they're hoping to attract away a lot more
passengers.

If you're going into Oxford Circus to get on the Victoria line, this isn't
going to make any difference whatsoever. The new bit being added, however
enormous, will only decongest the existing station to the extent that they
can abstract passengers away from the Central line.

The difference in getting to the Victoria line is that it will be easier
to enter the station.

Yes, yes, but the extent to which it does that is only the extent to which
you take passengers off the Central, that's what i'm saying.

It will also mean that Oxford Circus doesn't need to be expensively
rebuilt to add capacity for entrance / exit.

It might. It probably will still need it!

tom

--
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0 -- AACS Licensing Administrator

On 27 Mar, 23:59, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Andy wrote:

On Mar 26, 6:53 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Mr Thant wrote:

On 25 Mar, 23:49, Tom Anderson wrote:

The Jubilee?

To Docklands. AIUI the Jubilee between London Bridge and North
Greenwich is already one of the most congested bits of the network.

Right. And how is Crossrail going to relieve that? By letting people on
the North Kent line from east of Abbey Wood change there? That's not
exactly a huge fraction of the Jubilee's passengers, is it? And don't they
already have the option to do Greenwich - Docklands by DLR? Not that
that's exactly a high-capacity route itself.

There will also be the East London Line extension feeding passengers in
at Whitechapel. These passengers who would currently goto London Bridge
for the Jubilee line.

Oh, i see. So, Kent - New Cross Gate - Whitechapel - Canary Wharf?
They'll make two changes and a sort of spiral round Docklands?


ITYM New Cross as opposed to New Cross Gate - NX being the potential
interchange point for people coming in from some parts of Kent, though
of course only so many trains actually stop there, others charge
through non-stop en route to London Bridge.

Of course the above route via Whitechapel is a nonsense for those
headed to the Docklands. If they were using the ELLX they'd head to
Canada Water and then pile on the (already crowded) Jubilee line one
stop to Canary Wharf. Given that it's just one stop in a way one could
say that the overcrowding isn't that big an issue for these passengers
- unless of course the Jubilee trains are so crowded that no more
people could actually get on board them.

And of course Crossrail will relieve this by taking passengers
currently using the Jubilee from central London to get to the
Docklands and instead putting them on Crossrail trains to the new Isle
of Dogs station next to Canary Wharf (and indeed beyond to Custom
House).

On Mar 27, 11:59*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Andy wrote:
On Mar 26, 6:53*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Mr Thant wrote:
On 25 Mar, 23:49, Tom Anderson wrote:

The Jubilee?

To Docklands. AIUI the Jubilee between London Bridge and North
Greenwich is already one of the most congested bits of the network.

Right. And how is Crossrail going to relieve that? By letting people on
the North Kent line from east of Abbey Wood change there? That's not
exactly a huge fraction of the Jubilee's passengers, is it? And don't they
already have the option to do Greenwich - Docklands by DLR? Not that
that's exactly a high-capacity route itself.

There will also be the East London Line extension feeding passengers in
at Whitechapel. These passengers who would currently goto London Bridge
for the Jubilee line.

Oh, i see. So, Kent - New Cross Gate - Whitechapel - Canary Wharf?
They'll make two changes and a sort of spiral round Docklands?


No, not Kent, London Bridge is not purely served by South Eastern, but
by Southern as well. The ELLX will run West Croydon and Crystal Palace
to Whitechapel giving passengers one stop on Crossrail to Docklands.
North Kent will be served by changing at Abbey Wood, as others have
suggested. There will also be the possibility of Thameslink passengers
changing at Farringdon from the south.

True. All of which could be done without the tunnel, for a fraction of the
price.

And without increasing any capacity from the termini to where people
work/shop/go out/etc, which is the whole point of the current iteration
of the project.

Entirely agreed. But the point i was making in the text that's been
snipped is that the Crossrail project doesn't deliver significant
increases in capacity outside central London, and none that couldn't be
provided much more cheaply.

But it is the central London section that needs the capacity, as the
Underground can not distribute passengers arriving from the mainline.
How much cheaper would it be to provide the extra capacity across London
without the joining the lines to the west and east? Passengers taken
off, for example, the Central line at Liverpool Street / Stratford will
give more capacity for passengers from the West Anglia lines.

Absolutely. Sorry that i haven't really made myself clear about all this -
i think Crossrail's a good idea (although not as good an idea as some
other options which were dismissed - but that's another story), i just
think it's misleading to say it'll increase capacity on the lines it's
assimilating.


But can we agree that it will provide extra capacity at the terminii
where the current trains will be removed? On top of any possible
increase in the lines that it serves directly.



Again, could be done without the tunnel.

And where do you plan to build the extra platforms at Paddington and
Liverpool Street?

Liverpool Street isn't limited by platform capacity, it's limited by
capacity through the station throat. Rebuilding that is entirely
possible, although of course not trivial. I don't know about
Paddington, i have to confess. But since all we're talking about is
lengthening trains, why do we need more platforms?

Paddington has at least three platforms that are of limited length
(12-14, plus 11 which shares the country end track with the entrance to
platform 12). If you lengthen the trains to 8 or 10 coaches, I don't
think that any of these platforms can cope. Liverpool Street also
suffers from some of the same problems, with platforms 16-18 limited to
8 coaches. At both locations, the trains serving these platforms will be
the ones sent down the crossrail tunnels.

Right. Problems which could be solved without recourse to a tunnel.


But at what proportion of the cost? To add a double track railway
junction at each end of the Crossrail tunnels is considerable easier
than fitting extra platforms / new layouts into the existing sites.
The junctions can be placed where there is room without the expense of
buying the land etc. You only need to look at the costs that seem to
be involved in adding just one platform at King's Cross. The point is
that the extra capacity is needed in central London and this can only
be provided by building a tunnel.



Do we know how much of the budget is for this? My understanding was that
Oxford Circus wasn't going to be rebuilt; the Crossrail station would be
essentialy separate. It thus has a slightly marginal effect on
overcrowding - the people relieved onto Crossrail will no longer be
clogging the place up, but plenty of other people will. No idea about TCR.

Slightly marginal? The two Crossrail stations adjacent to Oxford Circus
will have enormous entrances at the ends nearest to it, exactly to
attract the crowds away without overcrowding the actual Oxford Circus
area. In theory at least they're hoping to attract away a lot more
passengers.

If you're going into Oxford Circus to get on the Victoria line, this isn't
going to make any difference whatsoever. The new bit being added, however
enormous, will only decongest the existing station to the extent that they
can abstract passengers away from the Central line.

The difference in getting to the Victoria line is that it will be easier
to enter the station.

Yes, yes, but the extent to which it does that is only the extent to which
you take passengers off the Central, that's what i'm saying.

It will also mean that Oxford Circus doesn't need to be expensively
rebuilt to add capacity for entrance / exit.

It might. It probably will still need it!


Well, as it is already the busiest underground station, without a
National Rail interchange, I would hope that it will be able to cope
for a few years with a sizeable percentage of Central line passengers
removed.

tom

--
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0 -- AACS Licensing Administrator

On 26 Mar, 18:53, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Mr Thant wrote:

On 25 Mar, 23:49, Tom Anderson wrote:

The Jubilee?

To Docklands. AIUI the Jubilee between London Bridge and North
Greenwich is already one of the most congested bits of the network.

Right. And how is Crossrail going to relieve that? By letting people on
the North Kent line from east of Abbey Wood change there? That's not
exactly a huge fraction of the Jubilee's passengers, is it? And don't they
already have the option to do Greenwich - Docklands by DLR? Not that
that's exactly a high-capacity route itself.


You've a point about North Kent / south east London commuters who are
likely to already be interchanging with the DLR at Greenwich or
Lewisham.

However Lewisham/Greenwich - Canary Wharf DLR trains are rammed during
the rush hour, not least with many passengers who are making such an
interchange.

Interchange to Crossrail at Abbey Wood would be an option for some of
these passengers.

Note that as well as London to Dartford stopping services, Abbey Wood
is also served by Charing X to Gillingham (via Rochester and Chatham)
trains. These do also stop at Lewisham, so interchange is indeed
available with the overcrowded DLR there (note that these trains also
stop at Woolwich Arsenal).

However the South London RUS makes clear that Lewisham station is
badly struggling to reliably handle the number of trains that
currently stop there - if this service could be diverted away from
Lewisham that would definitely be of very significant benefit.
(Passengers would also have the option of changing to the DLR at
Woolwich Arsenal for other Docklands destinations.)

I've absolutely no idea if what I'm about to suggest is remotely
feasible, but if more trains from Kent were to stop at Abbey Wood then
this would provide some relief for the Jubilee line by removing a
number of passengers who arrive at London Bridge then 'double-back' on
the Jubilee to the Docklands.