Ideas for 'Railway M25'?

[The Ham]

Southend - Chelmsford - Stansted Airport - Stevenage - Luton - Aylesbury - Reading - Aldershot - Guildford - Gatwick Airport - Tonbridge - Maidstone - Chatham

If you bypass Aldershot by using the North Downs line you remove the need for a reverse.

 

[AndyLandy]

A damn site more than you'd think...

Tottenham Court Road, Bond Street, Paddington Vent Shafts, etc etc.

Fair points there. I think the point I was trying (rather badly) to make is that whilst Crossrail tunneling is going to be expensive, it's still a darn sight cheaper than attempting to demolish large chunks of central London to run a surface railway from East to West would be.

18th Century??????

Sorry, that's me being an idiot. I meant 19th Century/1800s. Don't mind me!

 

[MarkyT]

A 'railway equivalent of the M25' makes little sense, as most truly 'cross London' journeys (i.e. directly across the centre, e.g N - S, or E - W) will always be quicker via the Centre, something that could never be the case for similar road journeys without new inner city motorways (which even if possible would likely be just as congested as the M25 much of the time anyway). Cross London will become even easier in the future with the improved cross London links provided by Thameslink and Crossrail.

I think there IS scope, however, for improved connections between major centres on adjacent main radial routes especially to the north of London. Much of the former Southern main line network is already well connected by interchange at Clapham, Waterloo East, London Bridge, as well some orbital links further out such as Reading - Guildford - Gatwick which also plugs in to GW main line services. E-W rail will provide some useful cross connectivity in future, but I don't think it can or needs to be run as part of a continuous circle or near circle service around the capital. Better to concentrate on a number of key point to point links between existing large centres and interchanges. With HS2 serving both Euston (hopefully with a pedestrian travelator link to KX/ST. P) and the proposed interchange at Old Oak, a huge amount of additional connectivity might be opened up between the lines to the north and south of London too. I would also like to see GW main line services diverted into Euston (as originally planned by Brunel!) via the new tunnels as well, providing a single interchange from the west to The Continent, Kent, East Coast, Midland, Thameslink, etc.

 

[Ivo]

If you bypass Aldershot by using the North Downs line you remove the need for a reverse.

This idea was based on a completely new alignment. Quite simply, the existing North Downs line is inadequate for an M25-esque route. You will have noticed the inclusion of several other points south of the Thames that would require a reversal at present also.

In other words, not going to happen. Sorry...

 

[The Ham]

A 'railway equivalent of the M25' makes little sense, as most truly 'cross London' journeys (i.e. directly across the centre, e.g N - S, or E - W) will always be quicker via the Centre, something that could never be the case for similar road journeys without new inner city motorways (which even if possible would likely be just as congested as the M25 much of the time anyway). Cross London will become even easier in the future with the improved cross London links provided by Thameslink and Crossrail.

A M25 like railway line does make sense, as from one side of London to the other it is quicker but there are many points around the circle where it is a shorter distance to travel around the edge than in and then back out again. It may even be faster as the circular route could require no change and/or could be run on higher speed lines.

Not only that, but because the demand is less that it could also be cheaper. For instance a train from Farnborough to Gatwick (off peak) is £13.40 via Guildford, whilst it's £17.50 via Clapham Junction, a saving of £4.10 (23%) even though the travel time is about the same.

If you take Oxford as your start point it is quicker not to go into central London (even allowing for the user being able to use Crossrail it is unlikely that it would be faster) and it would be £10 (29%) cheaper via Guildford.

Given the train fair from Bletchley to Gatwick via London is the same as the fair from Oxford to Gatwick via Guildford the current change point (off peak) is somewhere along the proposed East West Rial link.

However try it peak hours and it is likely to be cheaper (but slower) to travel via Guildford (once East West is running) from Bedford than it is to go via London. As the Peak hour price for Oxford to Gatwick is £32.50 and Bedford to Bletchley is £9.80 (a total of £42.30), whilst the Bedford fair via London is £55.10 meaning unless the peak hour train fair from Bletchley to Oxford is more than £12.80 than the circular route will be cheaper (even with split tickets on a route where it is unlikely to be cheaper) even though the service is cross London.

Aligned with that is there may well become a point where the across London routes are unable to cope with the number of passengers changing in central London to undertake such movements as well as all the movements which are required for intra London travel.

 

[AndyLandy]

The question is "what are you trying to achieve?"

Alternatives to crossing London would be great for long-distance Intercity journeys where a change in the capital can easily add an hour to your end-to-end journey time, but if changing to slower services doesn't improve that, what's the advantage?

If I'm travelling my usual route of Southampton to Hartford via London, it's possible to avoid central London and the tube by changing at Clapham Junction and Watford Junction, but since the train service between CLJ and WFJ takes about 40m on the direct Southern service and about an hour with LO, changing at Willesden Junction, there's no gain there. Indeed, you start to lose flexibility, since there are more services from Euston/Waterloo than there are from the two Junctions.

 

[tbtc]

A 'railway equivalent of the M25' makes little sense, as most truly 'cross London' journeys (i.e. directly across the centre, e.g N - S, or E - W) will always be quicker via the Centre, something that could never be the case for similar road journeys

True.

There's certainly scope for more routes through London (maybe not via the *centre*, but using things like the WLL), there's scope for providing better links to "hub" places around the South East - Gatwick, Reading etc. I can't see any logic in a "circular" service though. People use trains to get from A to B, not to go round in circles.

 

[mr_jrt]

This is a old favourite chestnut of mine I've mused over a few times over the years.

I think I worked out that with a timetable and station spacing based upon Rickmansworth to St Albans via Watford Junction (roughly 15 minutes between radials and stations underground-style every 3-4 minutes), then a journey via an orbital line would be quicker than going via the centre for anything shorter than a direct line across (i.e. a semicircle), or something similar (IIRC, I used a journey from Rickmansworth to Hertford as my example, so 15 minutes x 4 = ~1 hour / ~20 stations via an orbital vs. 2:09 via the current radials). Damn sight quicker than the current road options, be they car or bus though. Aside from the horrific expensive of building it all, the secondary sticking point would be getting the faster radial services to stop at the interchanges.

East West Rail aside, it would perhaps also be a good option for moving freight off the NLL so tph could be increased there.