Crossrail - Would Dartford have been a better destination than Abbey Wood?

[ess]

Why was Abbey Wood chosed as the end of Crossrail? Why not Dartford which has better connections?

 

[Ianno87]

The cost of the engineering to get there, and the performance risk from mixing up Crossrail and Southeastern services being imported into the Crossrail core tunnel.

 

[matt_world2004]

The cost of the engineering to get there, and the performance risk from mixing up Crossrail and Southeastern services being imported into the Crossrail core tunnel.

The London resort may see it extended as far as Gravesend.

 

[JonathanH]

The London resort may see it extended as far as Gravesend.

Is the "London resort" expecting to pay for the extra rolling stock, more traincrew, servicing facilities, capacity enhancements east of Abbey Wood, especially at Dartford etc?

An hour round trip from Abbey Wood - how many paths are we talking? Would some of the legacy services to the traditional termini be withdrawn to provide the paths? If it was 4tph, at least four extra 345s would be needed. Anything less and it would appear not to be worth it at all.

Extending beyond Abbey Wood has the effect of potentially transferring delays from the Southeastern network to the GWR lines.

I'm not sure I see the point.

Why was Abbey Wood chosed as the end of Crossrail? Why not Dartford which has better connections?

Abbey Wood, as the station for Thamesmead and with bus connections to other locations is the most appropriate traffic objective. More to the point, I guess that the land was available for a terminus station.

 

[matt_world2004]

Is the "London resort" expecting to pay for the extra rolling stock, more traincrew, servicing facilities, capacity enhancements east of Abbey Wood, especially at Dartford etc?

An hour round trip from Abbey Wood - how many paths are we talking? Would some of the legacy services to the traditional termini be withdrawn to provide the paths? If it was 4tph, at least four extra 345s would be needed. Anything less and it would appear not to be worth it at all.

Extending beyond Abbey Wood has the effect of potentially transferring delays from the Southeastern network to the GWR lines.

I'm not sure I see the point.

Yes . My understanding is a certain section of the various planning acts requires them to pay for any infrastructure changes as a result of increases to demand caused by their construction. They are also required to pay for increased operation costs for three years and then it would become tfls responsibility

 

[Ianno87]

Yes . My understanding is a certain section of the various planning acts requires them to pay for any infrastructure changes as a result of increases to demand caused by their construction. They are also required to pay for increased operation costs for three years and then it would become tfls responsibility

But not for the whole thing, just the parts specifically attributable to them.

 

[JonathanH]

Yes . My understanding is a certain section of the various planning acts requires them to pay for any infrastructure changes as a result of increases to demand caused by their construction. They are also required to pay for increased operation costs for three years and then it would become tfls responsibility

OK. I could imagine that the developers rhetoric would be "We want Crossrail to come to our resort", they would be told the costs of just building a station, let alone getting Crossrail trains extended and all that would happen is that they would have a bus link to the existing Southeastern operation.

 

[matt_world2004]

But not for the whole thing, just the parts specifically attributable to them.

It can include any significant impacts on transport in its area and the surrounding area.l so if there is forecast to be significant flow changes between London and abbey wood and abbey wood and gravesend they would have to pay for the whole route.

One example: is tfl want £15 billion from heathrow airport as a result of changes in demand caused by the third runway.

OK. I could imagine that the developers rhetoric would be "We want Crossrail to come to our resort", they would be told the costs of just building a station, let alone getting Crossrail trains extended and all that would happen is that they would have a bus link to the existing Southeastern operation.

They may not have a choice but pay for crossrail to go to their resort and gravesend if the demand models shows that it is needed to cope with the increase in patronage on the line.

 

[JonathanH]

The big cost here appears to be Dartford station remodelling. I would guess that trying to get more trains through what is a pretty awkwardly set up station is the main practical obstacle.

They may not have a choice but pay for crossrail to go to their resort and gravesend if the demand models shows that it is needed to cope with the increase in patronage on the line.

Yes, maybe so. I wonder if the London Resort paying part of the cost of Dartford remodelling would also unlock extension to any development at Ebbsfleet as well.

 

[Ianno87]

It can include any significant impacts on transport in its area and the surrounding area.l so if there is forecast to be significant flow changes between London and abbey wood and abbey wood and gravesend they would have to pay for the whole route.

Chances are it wouldn't. Most of the road traffic etc impacts would be between it and the M25. And most rail extra rail demand would be largely accomodatable on Southeastern services off peak.

 

[JonathanH]

And most rail extra rail demand would be largely accomodatable on Southeastern services off peak.

Very much so. The long trains which run out of Charing Cross and Cannon Street have plenty of capacity once east of Abbey Wood off-peak (and indeed in some cases further west). I can't see numbers travelling to any London Resort development causing overcrowding east of Abbey Wood off-peak even pre-March 2020.

 

[matt_world2004]

Chances are it wouldn't. Most of the road traffic etc impacts would be between it and the M25. And most rail extra rail demand would be largely accomodatable on Southeastern services off peak.

The way it works in tfL/Network Rail/PTE will ask how many people does the resort predict will visit each day.

TfL /Network Rail will then produce their own model of passenger flows through the station and weather there will be excess demand or capacity. (typically using a piece of software called rail plan)

The planning provider is free to use the tfl /Network rails models as a basis of their negotiations for payment or hire a transport consultancy firm to produce their own models

If there is a discrepancy between the two models there will be some neogotiation and compromises on what the developer pays for reached. A developer may also link with other developers which will allow infrastructure costs to be spread between them if they are doing other infrastructure projects along the line.

The modelling will not just take into account capacity on the trains themselves but capacity of stations and weather it would require stations to be shut for overcrowding

TfL /Network rail will often use the development works to put their own infrastructure changes in like step free access which they (Tfl /NR) will pay for by combining infrastructure changes it is often cheaper for both parties. Also the development costs to enhance a station or line to cope with increases in demand will often improve the business case for the operator paying for other infrastructure changes.

I don't know what the models say for the London resort. But the costs were significant for the MSF sphere (Capacity 21000)

Sports /concerts arenas often have more expensive infrastructure changes to cope with the surge in demand that takes place at the end of events.

 

[Ianno87]

The way it works in tfL/Network Rail/PTE will ask how many people does the resort predict will visit each day.

TfL /Network Rail will then produce their own model of passenger flows through the station and weather there will be excess demand or capacity. (typically using a piece of software called rail plan)

The planning provider is free to use the tfl /Network rails models as a basis of their negotiations for payment or hire a transport consultancy firm to produce their own models

If there is a discrepancy between the two models there will be some neogotiation and compromises on what the developer pays for reached. A developer may also link with other developers which will allow infrastructure costs to be spread between them if they are doing other infrastructure projects along the line.

The modelling will not just take into account capacity on the trains themselves but capacity of stations and weather it would require stations to be shut for overcrowding

TfL /Network rail will often use the development works to put their own infrastructure changes in like step free access which they (Tfl /NR) will pay for by combining infrastructure changes it is often cheaper for both parties. Also the development costs to enhance a station or line to cope with increases in demand will often improve the business case for the operator paying for other infrastructure changes.

And usually, the number of actual extra on train passengers predicted by that approach is relatively trivial (if you assume that, of the total daily attendees at the resort, only a percentage will arrive by rail).

Then those passengers are generally spread over a few hours rather than in one big rush, and travelling (largely) contra-peak in spare train capacity.

Then the likely pinch points for station crowding are likely to be the stations serving the resort itself, if you consider that the likes of St Pancras, London Bridge etc (where most passengers will be travelling from) are already sized for peak flows.

 

[swt_passenger]

But isn’t this going off at a tangent? When the Crossrail Act was passed, I bet no one had even thought of “London Resort”, so it probably isn’t the answer to the original question...

 

[Ianno87]

But isn’t this going off at a tangent? When the Crossrail Act was passed, I bet no one had even thought of “London Resort”, so it probably isn’t the answer to the original question...

Correct. The only driver at the time would've been peak capacity from Dartford/Gravesend etc.

 

[matt_world2004]

And usually, the number of actual extra on train passengers predicted by that approach is relatively trivial (if you assume that, of the total daily attendees at the resort, only a percentage will arrive by rail).

Then those passengers are generally spread over a few hours rather than in one big rush, and travelling (largely) contra-peak in spare train capacity.

Then the likely pinch points for station crowding are likely to be the stations serving the resort itself, if you consider that the likes of St Pancras, London Bridge etc (where most passengers will be travelling from) are already sized for peak flows.

Will it be trivial the resort predicts it will employ 27 000 people .it is also going to have targets set on sustainable travel and environmental mitigation in its planning consent. Remodeling will not just be required where people start and end their journey but at interchange points too. It's not going to be an airport size increase in demand. But it is going to be bigger than the msg spheres increase in demand.

 

[Tio Terry]

It would only make sense if you provided an extra pair of tracks from Abbey Wood to Dartford and a pair of dedicated platforms at Dartford for Crossrail. If you didn't do that you risk importing any problems from South Eastern onto the Western services and vice versa. That is unless you make the dominant services between Abbey Wood and Dartford Crossrail, and make SE services subservient to those so that any delays become SE's and not Crossrails. At least with the Shenfield and Heathrow/Maidenhead/Reading services they are all Crossrail.

 

[JonathanH]

Isn't it as simple as recognising that there isn't enough demand at Belvedere, Erith or Slade Green for the big uplift in capacity and Dartford is too congested? Extending there just wasn't worth the effort.

 

[Ianno87]

Isn't it as simple as recognising that there isn't enough demand at Belvedere, Erith or Slade Green for the big uplift in capacity and Dartford is too congested? Extending there just wasn't worth the effort.

The whole point of the branch is to basically get to Canary Wharf and tie into development at Woolwich. Abbey Wood is merely the first convenient point to surface (and provide an NR interchange).

 

[matt_world2004]

The whole point of the branch is to basically get to Canary Wharf and tie into development at Woolwich. Abbey Wood is merely the first convenient point to surface (and provide an NR interchange).

Woolwich station was not part of the original proposals and paid for by Berkley homes and Greenwich council

 

[Ianno87]

Woolwich station was not part of the original proposals and paid for by Berkley homes and Greenwich council

It was always (IIRC) "passive provision" - the developers essentially paid for the fit out of the box.

Happy to be corrected on this!

 

[Bald Rick]

They may not have a choice but pay for crossrail to go to their resort and gravesend if the demand models shows that it is needed to cope with the increase in patronage on the line.

They very much have a choice. If they are asked to pay more than they think it is worth to them them will walk away and not build the resort. The developer holds all the cards.

Woolwich station was not part of the original proposals and paid for by Berkley homes and Greenwich council

It was always (IIRC) "passive provision" - the developers essentially paid for the fit out of the box.

Happy to be corrected on this!

The box was a separate deal to the station fit out. Whilst the developer did contribute to both, it was very much a minority funder.

 

[JKF]

It would only make sense if you provided an extra pair of tracks from Abbey Wood to Dartford and a pair of dedicated platforms at Dartford for Crossrail. If you didn't do that you risk importing any problems from South Eastern onto the Western services and vice versa. That is unless you make the dominant services between Abbey Wood and Dartford Crossrail, and make SE services subservient to those so that any delays become SE's and not Crossrails. At least with the Shenfield and Heathrow/Maidenhead/Reading services they are all Crossrail.

Looking at the map, there isn’t too much in the way if you wanted to quadruple the track, barely anything would need knocking down as the railway boundary is quite wide all the way there. Earthworks in a lot of places would need replacing with retaining walls and bridges would need doing, so not cheap, but not impossible.

 

[30907]

Looking at the map, there isn’t too much in the way if you wanted to quadruple the track, barely anything would need knocking down as the railway boundary is quite wide all the way there. Earthworks in a lot of places would need replacing with retaining walls and bridges would need doing, so not cheap, but not impossible.

It looks as though passive provision was made woth one or two bridge reconstructions - but Dartford station itself (4 narrow platforms on a cramped site) would be a massive problem; I think the only solution would be to project all trains east to a new terminal point somewhere around Ebbsfleet, which would add to operating costs.
You would of course have to rebuild the intermediate stations too.

 

[telstarbox]

I did hear from a good local source that there are aspirations to shift Dartford station because it's a constraint. No idea if there's any funding etc for this at the moment.

Crossrail to anywhere in Greater London would be a start

 

[Bald Rick]

Looking at the map, there isn’t too much in the way if you wanted to quadruple the track, barely anything would need knocking down as the railway boundary is quite wide all the way there. Earthworks in a lot of places would need replacing with retaining walls and bridges would need doing, so not cheap, but not impossible.

There’s quite a lot in the way. Not least Slade Green depot.

It’s well north of a billion quid - we’ll outside the range of a theme park developer.

 

[43096]

Is the "London resort" expecting to pay for the extra rolling stock, more traincrew, servicing facilities, capacity enhancements east of Abbey Wood, especially at Dartford etc?

An hour round trip from Abbey Wood - how many paths are we talking? Would some of the legacy services to the traditional termini be withdrawn to provide the paths? If it was 4tph, at least four extra 345s would be needed. Anything less and it would appear not to be worth it at all.

Extending beyond Abbey Wood has the effect of potentially transferring delays from the Southeastern network to the GWR lines.

I'm not sure I see the point.

There's also the small matter that as well more 345s being needed, isn't the entire 345 fleet 25kV AC only?

 

[Bald Rick]

There's all the small matter that as well more 345s being needed, isn't the entire 345 fleet 25kV AC only?

It’s proposed to be a new line from Abbey Wood.

 

[43096]

It’s proposed to be a new line from Abbey Wood.

That's even more spectacularly bonkers, then, particularly in the post-Covid world.

 

[Bald Rick]

That's even more spectacularly bonkers, then, particularly in the post-Covid world.

The alternative is to spend a lot of cash on infrastructure around Dartford to fit in the extra services, plus power supply upgrades to the third rail, and converting the entire fleet to dual voltage, thus making them irreversibly less reliable. All at similarly non trivial costs.