tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post8145368373718533667..comments2024-02-27T15:51:44.428+00:00Comments on UK Rail: Swanlink - Crossrail for SW LondonStephen Colebournehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01454237967846880639noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-54847774862239753312013-03-23T21:56:55.686+00:002013-03-23T21:56:55.686+00:00Bear in mind that I'm trying to create schemes...Bear in mind that I'm trying to create schemes that are viable from a cost, practicality and engineering basis, given the available public knowledge. There are a lot of possible lines that can be drawn on a map, but without actually visiting sites and understanding the pressures and limitations its easy to get sucked in to suggestions that can't go anywhere.<br /><br />Right now, the Euston slow route is looking like it might receive investment to run into Crossrail 1. That seems reasonable to me, so its not an issue that I see as needing tackling. By contrast, the Waterloo & City is far overcrowded, and so will be Crossrail 1 on opening (due to the Eastern branch problem). Swanlink is a simple, cheap way to solve both, and complementary to Crossrail 2.<br /><br />BTW, major changes to the W&C or Aldwych branch simply aren't going to happen. There is not enough benefit to justify the cost, especially when compared to a line built from scratch (two simple new TBM tunnels rather than scrapping around trying to make old tunnels join up). In general, its better to leave the existing unused/underused infrastructure alone and build new. The exception is the GN&C, which remains a possible alternate eastern end to Swanlink, however achieving that would require closing the GN&C for 12-36 months to effectively rebuild the platforms from scratch, so its far from a cheap or easy option.<br />Stephen Colebournehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01454237967846880639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-42037641772580723722013-03-23T10:44:42.188+00:002013-03-23T10:44:42.188+00:00Stephen
Where's the idea gone since 15 Oct 20...Stephen<br /><br />Where's the idea gone since 15 Oct 2012?<br /><br />Of course, there's been the XR2 study published by London First.<br /><br />XR3 was simply Euston - Kingsway - Aldwych - Waterloo with connections at each end. No details were published when the then Mayor made his remarks.<br /><br />I've suggested that WJ - Euston be changed to Bakerloo working throughout (ie replacing LO) and those trains be diverted under Eversholt St to an Underground Euston (Kingsway Line) platform, thence under Southampton Row, picking up the Aldwych Branch and extending to Waterloo, either reconnecting with the Bakerloo and/or W&C.<br /><br />There's also a XR3a if you will, which simply extends the Aldwych branch to the W&C station, allows W&C trains to be serviced at a depot accessible to the Piccadilly Line, and this releases the present depot for longer platforms. The idea is that the W&C can move to 5-car trains and have the extra train needed. AIUI, some fine tuning at Bank would be involved.<br /><br />ALL new tunnels would incorporate escape walkways. Re-used tunnels remain as is. Aldwych platforms lengthened to the south and escalator connections to Kings College and Temple Circle/District station. Lifts replaced with modern, safe to maintain units. I have more detail re: Kingsway but that's already on District Dave's http://districtdavesforum.co.uk/thread/21591/page/2/euston-local-services-aldwych-waterloo#scrollTo=363434<br /><br />These ideas might be of interest to you. <br /><br />They may have an improved reception in the corridors of power as means to maintain train services while HS2 is accommodated at Euston will be sought.<br /><br />DW down underDW down undernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-76244808380966760602012-10-15T11:20:47.994+01:002012-10-15T11:20:47.994+01:00@Ian, Crossrail 2's core route and Swanlink ar...@Ian, Crossrail 2's core route and Swanlink are complementary. However, CR2's desire to start tunnelling as far south as Raynes Park or beyond is more troublesome (as it makes it very expensive and sucks money away). The full "right" answer in my book would be a no-stations tunnel for the fast trains from Surbiton to Clapham Junction, and then starting CR2 at Clapham Junction. None of which affects Swanlink at all, but is more affordable.<br /><br />In other words, there is no need to amend Swanlink if CR2 is built first, and Swanlink remains relatively cheap due to reuse of the Eastern tunnel portal and short central tunnel.<br />Stephen Colebournehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01454237967846880639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-20164973131370099292012-10-14T19:14:49.939+01:002012-10-14T19:14:49.939+01:00The fifth track just doesn't make sense - the ...The fifth track just doesn't make sense - the crowding created at Waterloo will negate any benefit to passengers of extra and longer trains. Where we differ is the best way to relieve the congestion in the medium term. However, if we make the assumption that Crossrail 2 will be built first for a moment, how would you amend your proposal to allow Swanlink to be added as a Crossrail 1 reliever at a later date? Would it then be any cheaper (in today's money) as some of the infrastructure would already be built?Ian Sergeanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02661031194466299188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-49448069242561392822012-10-04T16:16:25.701+01:002012-10-04T16:16:25.701+01:00Agreed on the analysis. Which is why now is the ri...Agreed on the analysis. Which is why now is the right time to be talking about whether a bigger solution is more effective. I really struggle with the idea that 5 tracks is terribly helpful. Perhaps the rail operators feel it gives them enough, but clearly Waterloo is not a multi storey car park for trains, so ultimately trains that arrive need to leave.<br /><br />I'm also surprised that we've not seen any evidence of a comparison with a no-station tunnel from Surbiton to east of Clapham Junction. I suspect that the cost would be similar to the fifth track, but the result would be an order of magnitude more effective.Stephen Colebournehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01454237967846880639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-76324959638381492342012-10-03T08:44:33.232+01:002012-10-03T08:44:33.232+01:00Network Rail currently seem to be working on their...Network Rail currently seem to be working on their fifth track proposal from Surbiton together with platform extension at Waterloo made possible by widening the approach bridge over Westminster Bridge Road. Add in the works to allow use of the International platforms and I get the feeling that the plan for Waterloo's capacity problems consists of several modest improvements (modest when compared with new tunnels) added on one by one. The recent government electrification proposals plus a western approach to Heathrow all look to be favouring the throw-away line in the London & SE RUS where Paddington or Crossrail trains could run to Basingstoke, so providing relief to the SW mainline, at least for a few more years. That would allow CR2 to do the basic job of relieving the Victoria Line and not have to pick up Waterloo bound traffic too. While none of this physically prevents Swanlink from being built, I suspect that its value as a Waterloo reliever won't be seen to be attractive. Fandroidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03964148187520689788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-19961637651613668922012-09-16T22:20:09.414+01:002012-09-16T22:20:09.414+01:00The plan as written would take some current fasts ...The plan as written would take some current fasts from Surbiton and put them on the slow lines, justified by the savings of time at Waterloo. However two more tracks from Surbiton would be the ideal solution,but they could be tunnels to Clapham Junction with no stations to reduce costs.<br /><br />The biggest problem Swanlink has is that the Victoria line is in such need of relief. Hence the CR2 talk.Stephen Colebournehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01454237967846880639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-42587234892413214862012-09-14T13:32:41.246+01:002012-09-14T13:32:41.246+01:00Hi Stephen, your Swanlink proposal seems so sens...Hi Stephen, your Swanlink proposal seems so sensibly brilliant that I wonder if there are any hints that transport planners are taking it seriously? There was recently a report on CR2 routes that didn't seem to acknowledge your ideas at all. I personally don't travel to Stansted anymore (from Basingstoke), but the viability of that airport would be significantly increased if getting between Waterloo and Liverpool Street were made a lot simpler than it currently is. <br /><br />The London & SE RUS suggested a tunnel or extra line from Surbiton inwards. Does your proposal (which makes much better use of the existing slow lines from Wimbledon) also effectively increase capacity from Surbiton? <br /> Fandroidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-12833882756608277752012-07-07T01:00:10.557+01:002012-07-07T01:00:10.557+01:00I assume CR3 is intended to be for SE London, not ...I assume CR3 is intended to be for SE London, not SW London. In all cases, the key is to look for possible tunnel portal sites. For SE London, the earliest is probably the Bermondsey/Deptford area, making that another big project.<br /><br />I don't believe any more tube size tunnels make sense (look at a 6ft9 person on a tube train, as average heights get taller, plus tube tunnels are not much cheaper now). Once you are at full size trains, it might as well connect to an existing surface route. So, I'd make CR2 have a portal at Clapham Junction and take over the Victoria slows on the Crystal Palace and Selhurst routes. Cheap, as it has a minimal central tunnel. That said, taking it via Clapham Common to Streatham might be an option, to help with the Northern line crowding.<br /><br />In an ideal world, we'd have tube-like for zones 1-4 and mainline-like for zones 4+, but the separation required to achieve this is beyond us at this point, so everything is a compromise. I don't see Tooting on CR2 happening myself.Stephen Colebournehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01454237967846880639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-41263755948138416222012-07-06T14:02:29.350+01:002012-07-06T14:02:29.350+01:00What impact does the rumoured - whispered in someo...What impact does the rumoured - whispered in someones ear level - Crossrail 3 have, Euston to Waterloo? <br /><br />I like your proposal solving the very very old problem of Waterloo to the city. I don't like Crossrail 2 as anything bigger than a tube line. Crossrail 2 would be a great tube line, as heavyrail stopping mid-distance commuters in Tooting or Alexandra Palace it seems nuts.bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14506002599317131053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-90546751079871772602012-05-24T12:17:57.974+01:002012-05-24T12:17:57.974+01:00Once Cross Rail is built Moorgate and Liverpool St...Once Cross Rail is built Moorgate and Liverpool St become one linked station on the underground map in the same way that Bank and Monument are. So going their instead of Liverpool St. isn't a major issue.<br /><br />Moorgate would need to be rebuilt to move the NC platforms west and down next to the Northern Line. However, whilst this work is on going NC trains could still run to Old St. which is only a short walk away.<br /><br />Agree that platform lengths are an issue on the NC, however, I think this could be countered by turning half the lines down through Putney over to a dedicated metro service. My thinking was that it would surface somewhere between Waterloo and Queens town rd and then take over two of the four lines down towards Barnes. <br /><br />Some services could split off and turn back from East Putney. From Barnes it could take over one of the two branches to Witton Junction. From there, their is space to four track the line to a new terminal platforms at a rebuilt Feltam station and the old Feltham goods yard could be turned in to a tran depot. <br /><br />I think the Richmond branch is the one to go for, due to freight use of the Hounslow branch. May also be posible to then merge in the District line trains in at Richmond and also extend these down to Feltham to preserve the connection to the Reading and Windsor services which would now all run via Hounslow as 10 car trains. Where as the Richmond service would become high frequency 7 car metro service.<br /><br />At the other end from Finsbury Park reestablish the line to High Gate where it would split to run to Muswell Hill and East Finchley. From there, their should be space to four track to Finchley Central and then split off to Mill Hill East, where their is space to build a new depot for this end of the line. Long term build north from here and create a new suburb of affordable homes.<br /><br />I'd call the line the Feltham and High Gate railway, or Felgate Line for short.<br /><br />Meanwhile the spare west side capacity on Cross Rail would be much better used by diverting the WCML slow lines at Old Oak Common. This means the full length of the Cross Rail tunnel gets fully used and frees up space at Euston for HS2.djbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08312540456445825117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-17138944063311309012012-05-01T00:14:08.918+01:002012-05-01T00:14:08.918+01:00The Northern City and re-using the Stratford porta...The Northern City and re-using the Stratford portal are roughly equal in financial respects IMO. The Northern City isn't a simple solution, because the platforms aren't long enough to match the Waterloo line trains (soon to be 10 car), and because of Moorgate. As such, you'd need to close the Northern City and "knock it about" (like the East London Line). That routing also fails to link Waterloo and Liverpool Street termini (a major gap for longer distance non-commuting UK rail travel), although Moorgate is actually walkable to Liverpool Street (but non Londoners don't know that...).<br /><br />I do agree that the Finsbury Park area needs new capacity as well though. In fact, if this scheme were progressed, it would be worth considering whether an alternative tunnelling strategy could be used - a single bore from Waterloo to Moorgate divided into four parts by concrete (for fire regs), allowing 2 tracks Waterloo to Northern City and 2 tracks Waterloo to Stratford!Stephen Colebournehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01454237967846880639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-11448756494768107592012-04-30T22:55:33.787+01:002012-04-30T22:55:33.787+01:00Would tunnelling from Waterloo to Moorgate with in...Would tunnelling from Waterloo to Moorgate with interchanges at Blackfriars and St.Pauls provide much of the same advantages at a much lower cost? North of Moorgate you could take over the North city line and extend it into the Northern Heights to High Gate to take passengers off the Northern Line and provide much need extra capacity in that part of town as well.djbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08312540456445825117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-32595102304538793012012-02-03T12:50:41.334+00:002012-02-03T12:50:41.334+00:00Lemmo,
Figure 20.1 Onward modes of AM peak Nation...Lemmo,<br /><br />Figure 20.1 Onward modes of AM peak National Rail arrivals at Waterloo station by final trip destination<br /><br />The distribution map, with little pie charts, 1 per grid square.<br /><br />Page 132 on my pdf reader, not 136 as I stated earlier. Woops.Paulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-11793228366365211362012-01-19T18:38:13.757+00:002012-01-19T18:38:13.757+00:00Anecdotal evidence... The member of staff I spoke ...Anecdotal evidence... The member of staff I spoke to at Waterloo by the W&C line entrance said that the queue to get onto the platform was normally 5 minutes, but when the Jubilee was down it became 15+ minutes. Make of that what you can!Stephen Colebournehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01454237967846880639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-53022390139438194112012-01-19T13:17:50.534+00:002012-01-19T13:17:50.534+00:00Hello Paul, thanks for flagging this report, very...Hello Paul, thanks for flagging this report, very interesting. You say that p136 refers to Canary Wharf being a significant onward destination for Waterloo commuters. I cannot find that in the report. The only termini I can find that have a significant Canary Wharf flow are London Bridge and, surprisingly, Marylebone.<br /><br />I would be very interested to see any stats showing where Canary Wharf / Docklands commuters come from. Has TfL done a survey?<br /><br />cheers :)Lemmonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-87123167372810426302012-01-09T23:21:07.224+00:002012-01-09T23:21:07.224+00:00Paul, thanks for the comment and the link to an in...Paul, thanks for the comment and the link to an interesting report. There is probably a role for both CR2 and Swanlink, but I'd choose Swanlink first (with HS2 the problem child pushing for CR2).Stephen Colebournehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01454237967846880639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-50094353502960796822012-01-07T22:17:20.806+00:002012-01-07T22:17:20.806+00:00Hi Stephen,
Just a few general observations from ...Hi Stephen,<br /><br />Just a few general observations from a Surbiton (outer London) resident. I think this scheme sounds great, and is much more attractive than the current Crossrail 2 (option 2) suggestion.<br /><br />I'm acutely aware of the forthcoming capacity gap on the SWML. Pricing people off the trains at peak times, as suggested in the RUS, simply won't work because the vast majority of commuters will have to be at their offices at a set time. <br /><br />I don't know if you were aware of it at the time of your proposal, but TfL recently produced a Central London Rail Termini Report (Sep 2011). It is accessible at http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/central_london_rail_termini_report.pdf<br /><br />The report shows that Surbiton and Wimbledon are in the top 5 stations delivering commuters to any mainline terminals in Central London, and that Waterloo itself is the busiest station.<br /><br />Outer South West London (Kingston/Surbiton) has no other means of accessing central London. If the trains are full before they arrive here, the consequences are dire. A notional 1 hour rush hour commute by train & tube to the city would probably take well over 2 hours by bus. <br /><br />Doing nothing, or prevaricating as per CR1 is clearly not an option. The second CR2 proposal , joining the SWML to the WAML is designed as a solution. Yes, it adds capacity, but not to where it's needed, ie where existing SWML users commute to at peak times. <br /><br />On page 136 of TfL's Central London Rail Termini Report, a distribution map clearly illustrates that most SWML users commute to the City and Holborn - hence the appalling queues for the buses and WCL. A fair proportion also go on to Canary Wharf. In contrast, very few go to Chelsea, Tottenham Court Road or Euston, ie where CR2 is proposed to go to.<br /><br />What's the point of supposedly providing relief to SWML if most SWML users will continue on to Waterloo, and continue to endure pathetic onward links to their true destinations. <br /><br />Swanlink in contrast would deliver new capacity, and within walking distance of where peak commuters actually want to go to. It seems a much more sensible solution to the forthcoming capacity crunch that South West London is now threatened by.Paulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-32632608313948148372011-10-13T17:47:08.076+01:002011-10-13T17:47:08.076+01:00@Jamesup, I considered a variety of routes, but th...@Jamesup, I considered a variety of routes, but this seemed clearly the best to me. Onward transport from Waterloo to the City is a major problem. SW London to the West End is always going to be better served by a line starting from Clapham Junction, but that is a lot longer and a lot more expensive. Swanlink is a line for austerity. (BTW, passengers from SW London already change onto the Victoria/Bakerloo/Northern so this scheme doesn't make that crowding worse)<br /><br />Agreed on the principle of getting people to destinations without using the tube, but lets not try to make every new line solve every problem! Doing that is why infrastructure projects take so long... Thanks for the comment.Stephen Colebournehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01454237967846880639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-83297216747242473942011-10-13T14:20:13.663+01:002011-10-13T14:20:13.663+01:00I agree with your analysis of the problem, and agr...I agree with your analysis of the problem, and agree that quading the cross-rail core is a good solution, but split so far east will force one of two things: large numbers using the northern/bakerloo to access the west end (overcrowding) or people doubling back at the first point of convergence. <br /><br />If the SW route left further west, it would allow the core principle of crossrail (get people within walking distance so they don't use the tube) to be more effectively realised.jamesuphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16185079628536532270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-32721297611701695362011-10-11T11:29:57.844+01:002011-10-11T11:29:57.844+01:00I've clarified the blog (and walked the area t...I've clarified the blog (and walked the area this morning taking photos). The aim is to rapidly descend after the A23 (height 5m), have platforms at ground level, and then go under Waterloo Road (possibly with the road slightly raised, with an option to use some of the land from the low-rise demolished buildings on the east side of Waterloo Road). I know the gradients are tight but I think it is just possible. Once beyond Waterloo Road, gradients are less of an issue.<br /><br />Agreed on the other buses, queues and routing via Waterloo bridge. Thanks for the commentStephen Colebournehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01454237967846880639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-72553456633312278122011-10-11T11:16:19.242+01:002011-10-11T11:16:19.242+01:00Not sure I understand your propsoed arrangments at...Not sure I understand your propsoed arrangments at Waterloo - in your comment above you say the platforms are to be at ground level, but in he original article you say they are to be at the same level as the existing main line station, which is well above ground level. <br />Is the line to cross above or below Waterloo Road? Either way, you will need a very steep incline at some point.<br /><br />By the way, the 521 is not the only, or even the quickest, bus route from Waterloo to the City. Routes 4, 26, 76, 172 and 341 also connect them (and all have horrendous queues!) Unfortunately, they all take the circuitous route via Waterloo Bridge and Fleet Street - the 76 used to take a more direct route via Blackfriars Bridge, but has not done so for several decades.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-60158453284831454032011-10-10T18:06:11.882+01:002011-10-10T18:06:11.882+01:00As I said in the blog, ideally the portal would be...As I said in the blog, ideally the portal would be just east of Waterloo, using the Cornwall Road bus garage, with the Waterloo station platforms at ground level. If this isn't feasible, the next logical site is probably on railway land at Clapham Junction. And yes, the two new running tunnels would be from Stepney Green to Waterloo, which is about the same as the longest tunnels being driven for Crossrail 1. The Crossrail 1 design already provides a cross-platform interchange, so all that is needed is two more platforms to the same design vertically below.<br /><br />Beyond Stratford, the line currently deals with about 18tph in the peak. There might need to be a turnback location east of Stratford, although I would look at the Woodgrange Park/Barking branch as being simple, desirable and low cost.<br /><br />Crossrail 1 has central London station costs at about £300m, and total tunnelling costs of about £1500m. Thus, I get an estimate of £2bn for stations and tunnels, plus £2bn for fit-out and other costs. Its cheaper if done as a follow-on to Crossrail (with enabling works now). BTW, Paddington station came in 40% under budget, so there may be some "spare" money.<br /><br />Also, if the choice is between a £15bn Crossrail 2 and £4bn Swanlink, which would you choose? (yes, I'd like both, but.....)<br /><br />Crossrail 1 does have protected extensions to Reading in the west and Gravesend in the east. I've seen no evidence of core extensions being protected or planned for other than Crossrail 2.<br /><br />Thanks for commenting!Stephen Colebournehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01454237967846880639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-9882831591075395562011-10-10T17:15:28.152+01:002011-10-10T17:15:28.152+01:00This all sounds terrific - however, I'm INCRED...This all sounds terrific - however, I'm INCREDIBLY sceptical that £4bn is even close to how much this would cost.<br /><br />Is there space for a portal in the approach to Waterloo? Where would you put it?<br /><br />Also, you're not just getting from St Pauls to Waterloo, you're basically having to tunnel from Waterloo to past Whitechapel with the central portion being 4 tracked and with those tracks being merged to give cross-platform interchange.<br /><br />Also, would the tracks from Stratford to Shenfield be capable of dealing with 24 trains per hour? Remember that once you get past Stratford, the infrastructure is not going to be massively different to how it is now, and I would be surprised if they would cope without upgrades to signalling (etc) which would add more cost.<br /><br />And even if it did cost "only" another £4bn, it would still be £4bn too much at the moment - any small saving is being made (eg, moving back the date of delivery by 12 months) so I doubt anyone would be looking to dramatically increase scope. Are any future branches from the core 'protected'? Or are just extensions protected?<br /><br />Aside from the obvious problems with adding in a new branch like this, there are obvious merits to the idea, such as removing the need to merge two lines onto the same central core which is likely to lead to problems in the future.Phil Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03623688442468301629noreply@blogger.com