C2c to SWR Crossrail 3

[Bringback309s]

I've been reading about serious capacity issues at Fenchurch Street arising in some years time when the C2C route hits real capacity issues. As running services "through" seems a better solution than terminating service, how viable could a short tunnel from the Shadwell area of the Fenchurch Street to Shoebury line, to somewhere near Lambeth / Vauxhall on the SWR lines be? With underground stations at Waterloo and Monument, possibly Fenchurch Street remaining as a peak hour only station or combining with Tower Gateway as a DLR interchange. I know not many people would want to travel from Hampton Court to Basildon but the option would be there! Also potentially removes the need for the W&C line as many south of the river services would reach the city. I'm guessing the nature of construction just wouldn't work...

 

[PTR 444]

The number of suburban services out of Fenchurch Street and Waterloo is rather imbalanced, so joining them up may not work. Personally, I’d extend the Crossrail section beyond Waterloo to Marylebone and combine the c2c trains with the Chiltern suburban services.

 

[JonathanH]

The number of suburban services out of Fenchurch Street and Waterloo is rather imbalanced, so joining them up may not work. Personally, I’d extend the Crossrail section beyond Waterloo to Marylebone and combine the c2c trains with the Chiltern suburban services.

That is even more imbalanced though.

I think you have to consider what is to be gained by running West of Fenchurch Street. What traffic flows are you trying to make easier? Fenchurch Street is convenient for the offices in the city already, so there is relatively little to be gained by going west, and Tower Hill is a reasonable interchange. The trains already stop at West Ham which also deals with westward travel.

I've been reading about serious capacity issues at Fenchurch Street arising in some years time when the C2C route hits real capacity issues.

Fenchurch Street is already a fairly slick operation, and handles many trains in the peak hour, although 15tph seems below full capacity. Far more of those trains have 8 coaches, rather than 12, than they once did. Getting back to 12 coach operation may be a good first step, although I appreciate that demand isn't even across all destinations.

 

[PGAT]

Weren’t there proposals to close Tower Gateway to allow more platform space at Fenchurch Street and diverting all DLR traffic to Bank? Surely this would be cheaper and more practical than meeting it with SWR traffic

 

[JonathanH]

how viable could a short tunnel from the Shadwell area of the Fenchurch Street to Shoebury line, to somewhere near Lambeth / Vauxhall on the SWR lines be?

I'd say that any tunnel which isn't already on London's list of possible transport schemes isn't likely to be constructed. Small scale incremental schemes are likely to be easier to justify rather than grandiose ones.

 

[AF91]

Supposedly there were plans years ago to connect the London Tilbury and Southend lines with the Chiltern route up the met to Aylesbury.

Personally I think connecting the c2c network up with the Watford DC line via Fleet Street, Leicester Square and Tottenham Court Road could work. Possibly with a station at Camden to avoid joining the DC until it separates from the main lines out of Euston.

Almost certain never to happen though.

 

[Basil Jet]

Personally I think connecting the c2c network up with the Watford DC line via Fleet Street, Leicester Square and Tottenham Court Road could work. Possibly with a station at Camden to avoid joining the DC until it separates from the main lines out of Euston.

Why the DC line? Wouldn't the "Slow" line be a better match for the frequent 12-car trains on C2C?

 

[swt_passenger]

The number of suburban services out of Fenchurch Street and Waterloo is rather imbalanced, so joining them up may not work. Personally, I’d extend the Crossrail section beyond Waterloo to Marylebone and combine the c2c trains with the Chiltern suburban services.

But if Crossrail 2 had (logically) been built already the misbalance you’re thinking of would be completely different. But any tunnelled route through the Waterloo area, having been dug deep enough to avoid all the existing tube lines, probably wouldn’t be surfacing anywhere near Vauxhall, i think it would have to be further west. I suggest a Crossrail 3 would be better linking with the Windsor side, as Crossrail 2 goes via the other main route via Wimbledon. But even then, any line from the west towards Waterloo has almost gone past Central London, unless it does a sharp turn to the north. So should Waterloo be involved at all?

 

[SynthD]

Briantist/Brian Butterworth made this 2050 map from a series of London Reconnection posts on the local government plans. This has a Crossrail 3 from Rainham via Barking, Canary Wharf, London Bridge, Waterloo, Clapham Junction to Wimbledon and Twickenham. It wouldn't relieve much if it was above ground at Barking or Clapham. This does avoid the lack of space issue in central London that you have with almost any other pair of lines, eg Tring, Aylesbury, Harlow, Orpington.

 

[AF91]

Why the DC line? Wouldn't the "Slow" line be a better match for the frequent 12-car trains on C2C?

I was thinking in terms of it matching the relatively short distances between stops that c2c has. Also I could imagine it becoming a bit of a performance risk if you had the variety of stopping patterns and long distances of the WCML slows feeding into a tunnel through the city.

 

[Backroom_boy]

Didn't SWT propose something like this? Whether this was anything other than Brian Souter in crayonista mode to see if the dft would be seduced I don't know

 

[MPW]

The number of suburban services out of Fenchurch Street and Waterloo is rather imbalanced, so joining them up may not work. Personally, I’d extend the Crossrail section beyond Waterloo to Marylebone and combine the c2c trains with the Chiltern suburban services.

My crazy idea is similar to this, but less of a crossrail noting the very limited connections of fenchurch St and Marylebone now.

Fenchurch St moves east to a buried stations where tower gateway is, with better connections to tower Hill. DLR gets improved frequency to Bank but no new station. Fenchurch station and approaches can be turned into part walking and cycling path while still allowing space for some development. Or just sold off to developers and let them do what they want.

Marylebone station closed and developed like fenchurch and its approaches. Replacement station underground next to Baker St. As dictator I would do this by excavating in SW corner of regents park then restoring it back to park land.

Then just one intermediate stop. At mentioned at the top, these stations have poor onward connections now. So going from 1 to 3 central london stations is still an improvement.

That station would be blackfriars, built on W-E axis where Baynard house is now. That's eventually going to get redeveloped anyway. May as well get an expanded blackfriars station underneath. The eastern end could potentially be the closest national rail station to St Paul's and definitely the millenium bridge.

IF it was cheaper to do so because it reduced the scope and cost of HS2 euston, the existing shorter distance routes (eg overground and tring) could be diverted into the same tunnel from somewhere near West hampstead.

With better onward connections at blackfriars, it becomes easier to send the sutton loop services to the terminating bay platforms and free up space (remove conflicts) for the thameslink core.

 

[SynthD]

Fenchurch St moves east to a buried stations where tower gateway is

Why bury it, and how much of the approach would you bury? One official idea is to rebuild it where Tower Gateway is, but still on a viaduct.

Fenchurch station and approaches can be turned into part walking and cycling path while still allowing space for some development.

C3 runs alongside the approach and does the job almost perfectly.

IF it was cheaper to do so because it reduced the scope and cost of HS2 euston, the existing shorter distance routes (eg overground and tring) could be diverted into the same tunnel from somewhere near West hampstead.

How does that affect HS2?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I thought the SWML Suburban routes were already accounted for by CR2 if it ever happens. If we're looking at CR3 you'd need to find something else on that side of London. Possibly the Suburban routes on the Windsor lines, but if CR2 has already happened by then the Kingston Loop will be an awkward orphan- particularly if both CR2 and CR3 serve Shepperton (CR2 via Wimbledon, CR3 via Richmond). Kingston rounders would have to continue to run out of Waterloo.
Hounslow rounders could be a CR3 route, but that wouldn't account for the frequency you'd want to be running through the central core section. With 2tph Shepperton via Richmond; and 2tph in each direction round the Hounslow loop that's only 6tph through the core, so you'd need a few other destinations to be included too. Windsor could work, or possibly Kingston terminators- but that restricts formation length. Weybridge would be another option, but as with Windsor you'd struggle with CR3 trains sharing the two track sections with SWR services between Staines and wherever the CR3 portal is.

 

[Transilien]

What about the transfer of metropolitan line trains to this line to allow a more frequent circle and Hammersmith & City line trains and let places like Amersham get a service through to the other side of London.

 

[Uncle Buck]

I can’t see why connecting these two small, fairly self-contained networks at Marylebone and Fenchurch St would ever be a priority over the masses of lines running into London Bridge, Victoria and Waterloo. Would it be possible to add two stations to the existing Elizabeth Line at Marylebone and Limehouse, thereby allowing interchange between a crossrail line and these two networks, rather than build a whole new tunnel?

 

[Basil Jet]

I can’t see why connecting these two small, fairly self-contained networks at Marylebone and Fenchurch St would ever be a priority over the masses of lines running into London Bridge, Victoria and Waterloo. Would it be possible to add two stations to the existing Elizabeth Line at Marylebone and Limehouse, thereby allowing interchange between a crossrail line and these two networks, rather than build a whole new tunnel?

The Liz is rather curved where it passes beneath the Limehouse platforms, so probably not. The Liz is nowhere near Marylebone.

 

[MPW]

Why bury it, and how much of the approach would you bury? One official idea is to rebuild it where Tower Gateway is, but still on a viaduct.

C3 runs alongside the approach and does the job almost perfectly.

How does that affect HS2?

The point of burying it is so that the lines can continue onwards into central london. It also allows for a bit more land available to sell or develop and possibly more direct connection to tower Hill.

I've seen the idea to terminate on viaduct where tower gateway is, which why I see the opportunity to do something more substantial. you're going to have to spend x amount anyway, so the buried section only really costs the additional amount to bury the station less profit from selling off the bits no longer required. Note the distance it would take to get from viaduct to tunnel would mean that sellable would extend even further east towards Shadwell.

Agree C3 is there. The viaduct option would be more of a vanity or tourist draw (with tower of London nearby). But that would also reduce how much cost could be recouped through development. One way to preserve the historic character is to demolish one side of the viaduct, keeping the other facade for the path then reusing the bricks to create a more narrow viaduct.

My comment on Euston shorter routes being diverted is to free up platforms and space on the approaches for HS2 trains at Euston, thereby reducing the size of HS2 Euston required.

As final point, the trains into fenchurch St and Marylebone are about the size of the S7/8 stock, so buried stations wouldn't need to be crossrail size. The line also isn't intended to carry as many passengers due to only having 3 central london stations. So the stations would be substantially cheaper to be build.

 

[Uncle Buck]

The Liz is rather curved where it passes beneath the Limehouse platforms, so probably not. The Liz is nowhere near Marylebone.

I thought it passed sufficiently close to allow some sort of connection to be built. I stand corrected!

 

[LLivery]

There is a proposal that Crossrail 2 would eventually have a Eastern branch from Dalston, but AFIAK never been defined as *where* to after Hackney. I'd do Stratford, Upton Park, Barking and then take over the Rainham loop to Grays. A branch for Barking Riverside and Abbey Wood would also be very good.

 

[john allan]

I can’t see why connecting these two small, fairly self-contained networks at Marylebone and Fenchurch St would ever be a priority over the masses of lines running into London Bridge, Victoria and Waterloo. Would it be possible to add two stations to the existing Elizabeth Line at Marylebone and Limehouse, thereby allowing interchange between a crossrail line and these two networks, rather than build a whole new tunnel?

The best interchanges are where trains from separate lines merge on to one track. Like when c2c divert fenchurch trains to Liverpool street via Stratford. You step off the C2C train at Stratford and wait on the same platform for the next Elisabeth line train to Terminal 5.

 

[Crithylum]

The best interchanges are where trains from separate lines merge on to one track. Like when c2c divert fenchurch trains to Liverpool street via Stratford. You step off the C2C train at Stratford and wait on the same platform for the next Elisabeth line train to Terminal 5.

Sharing platforms is a timetabling and service reliability disaster in waiting on a high frequency line. Although it works when there are no other options, it should be avoided if at all possible. Cross-platform interchanges however are very useful and don't have the same issues, however Stratford already has Elizabeth-Central cross platform, so adding more cross platforms would require a massive rebuild + platforms on both sides of train.

However, they avoided a cross-platform at Abbey Wood, which would've been far simpler than any possible cross-platforms that would be useful on this line. It's a shame that they didn't go for the Victoria line philosophy of cross-platforms where possible.

 

[Basil Jet]

Would it be possible to add two stations to the existing Elizabeth Line at Marylebone and Limehouse, thereby allowing interchange between a crossrail line and these two networks, rather than build a whole new tunnel?

I forgot to add, the Shenfield branch runs along under the C2C for about half a mile in the Burdett Road / Bow Common Lane area, and both lines are perfectly straight to allow a C2C / Liz interchange to be built here.

 

[Bald Rick]

Crossrail 2 looked at various places for a portal on the South West side, and there‘s a reason it settled on Wimbledon. That reason being anywhere closer to Central London was impractical and/or cost more overall.

There is a proposal that Crossrail 2 would eventually have a Eastern branch from Dalston, but AFIAK never been defined as *where* to after Hackney.

Stratford area, eventually, but unlikely in my view.

 

[LLivery]

Stratford area, eventually, but unlikely in my view.

The XR2 project itself or the Eastern branch? As it's going, I'd be amazed if anything gets built

 

[Bringback309s]

Great thoughts everyone. My thinking was to remedy any potential FST problems in the future, and give South West commuters a direct service to the city wothout needing a tube (primarily the W&C). As the Elizabeth line and Thameslink have shown, without terminating trains in a central London location where the process of getting them out again can be time consuming, two platforms can handle 24tph in each direction, so looking at that with overlapping commuter services from Surrey and Essex there would be quite a capacity upgrade. Keep FST as well means even more capacity potential. I've always thought it's a shame the liz line wasn't two lines in each direction, with a commuter intensive service as it is now, and something more Thameslink style such as Ipswich to Oxford, with commuters from further afield getting a direct service to the city, Canary Wharf and Heathrow, the C2C and West Anglia also linked in.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Briantist/Brian Butterworth made this 2050 map from a series of London Reconnection posts on the local government plans. This has a Crossrail 3 from Rainham via Barking, Canary Wharf, London Bridge, Waterloo, Clapham Junction to Wimbledon and Twickenham. It wouldn't relieve much if it was above ground at Barking or Clapham. This does avoid the lack of space issue in central London that you have with almost any other pair of lines, eg Tring, Aylesbury, Harlow, Orpington.

Ah I remember this map. The future was yesterday.

 

[cle]

I had always thought Tring was a better contender. Both routes are wired, and 12 cars, and heavy peak flows.

As for Central London stops, after whatever Fenchurch St underground equivalent is (links with other stations and a rename) - I would do City Thameslink (extend E/W towards St Pauls, connect if possible) and Euston only. I think Holborn would not cope, good as it would be.

And on the NW side, you'd need more services to balance out, especially if Fenchurch St was closed entirely. Works at Watford Junction to expand capacity (not easy) and Hemel's 5 platform would be required. You might think about more regular calls at Wembley Central and even Queens Park (platforms needed), when post HS2 the inner WCML can all become a little more semi-fast. Wembley and QP would provide far more demand off and counter-peak than many places. Watford has a good amount of employers too.

On the eastern side, explore Barking Riverside 2tph, or a more metro service to Grays (with a Beam Park) - as again, in counter peaks, more inners would be needed to turn units quicker, and also because the outer places have more traditional, directional flows.