Old Oak Common - Queens Park tunnel

In my last post I laid out the Shared Loop option for Old Oak Common. This post expands on that option, so if you haven't read it yet, please do!

Shared Loop option

The previous blog outlines a plan for Old Oak Common that is relatively cheap and far more effective than the 3 current options TfL has presented. The plan developed in three phases, resulting in a final phase that yields much more spare land for development.

This is an updated version of phase 3, with two additional freight lines (to retain freight capacity) and a realignment of the Dudding Hill station (to avoid the tall cranes of the freight depot on the south side of the West Coast Main Line):

The service pattern with phase 3 would be something like:

• 8tph Crossrail from Paddington via Old Oak Common, shared loop and Dudding Hill to Watford
• 2tph Southern from East Croydon via Old Oak Common, shared loop and Dudding Hill to Watford
• 6tph Overground from Clapham Jn via Old Oak Common, shared loop and Dudding Hill to Willesden Jn
• 6tph Overground from Richmond via Dudding Hill to Willesden Jn

The plan specifically acknowledged that the Richmond service could access the Old Oak job market and Crossrail, but not HS2 or the Great West Main Line without a change of trains (simply accomplished at Dudding Hill.

Having visited the area, I now outline an additional scheme, the Queens Park tunnel.

Queens Park tunnel

The Queens Park tunnel is intended to be built after the completion of phase 3 of the Shared Loop option once the site is a growing business district. It involves bringing the Richmond (or Hounslow) services into Old Oak Common station via a new link.

This link would run entirely on viaduct above the initial Old Oak Common station. Once through the station, it would drop down on the north side of the Great West Main Line, next to the canal and under the current West London Line bridge. From there it would slowly descend to a new station at the Kensal Gasworks site. Beyond there, it would run in a short tunnel to surface in the builders merchants yard to the west of Queens Park station.

The Queens Park tunnel scheme fully separates the Bakerloo line and the Overground in the Queens Park area. Only the Bakerloo would serve Kensal Green, Willesden Junction, Harlesden and beyond (Crossrail might be required to takeover the Overground route beyond Harrow and Wealdstone). The Overground would run from Old Oak via Kensal Gasworks to Queens Park, then on to Camden Road (replacing the Overground service to Euston. It is likely that this would save at least 10 minutes on the journey time from Camden Road and beyond to Old Oak, and reduce conflicts on the section of the North London Line via West Hampstead.

The service pattern with the Queens Park tunnel would be something like:

• 8tph Crossrail from Paddington via Old Oak Common, shared loop and Dudding Hill to Watford
• 2tph Southern from East Croydon via Old Oak Common, shared loop and Dudding Hill to Watford
• 6tph Overground from Clapham Jn via Old Oak Common, shared loop and Dudding Hill to Willesden Jn
• 8tph Overground from Richmond via Dudding Hill to Queens Park and Camden Road
• 4tph Overground from Hounslow via Dudding Hill to Willesden Jn

While the gradients in the Queens Park tunnel are definitely fine for passenger services, it is uncertain as to whether freight could use the tunnel. It would however be desirable if freight could use the tunnel, as it would provide a direct link to the South and West without going via Willesden Junction.

Summary

This blog post outlines a development beyond the Shared Loop option - the Queens Park tunnel. It must be emphasised that Shared Loop is highly successful as an option without the tunnel. However, it definitely seems worth investigating it, given the capacity and time saving benefits of an express service to Camden Road and separation of the Bakerloo and Overground.

Old Oak Common - Shared Loop option

A new cost-effective phased option for Old Oak Common. See the Central Viaduct option post for more details on the problems of the site and for a more comprehensive, but expensive, option.

This option makes use of the proposed Crossrail to West Coast Main Line (WCML) link, avoiding building a second sharp curve in the South West of the site (as proposed by TfL's option A).

Phase 1

Phase 1 builds on the planned construction of the Crossrail link from Old Oak Common (main) to the West Coast Main Line. Phase 1 of the TfL element simply adds a new viaduct link from the West London Line to the middle two platforms of Old Oak Common (main). This allows Southern services (green) from East Croydon to Milton Keynes to travel via Old Oak in addition to the Crossrail services to Tring.

(Old Oak Common main station is due to have 8 platforms, 4 for Crossrail and 4 for the fast lines. This plan aims to send 4tph of Southern services via the central 2 of the 4 Crossrail platforms. Crossrail 24tph plus Southern 4tph can be handled on 4 platforms.)

Phase 2

Phase 2 builds on phase 1 by constructing a new viaduct across railway lands in the North West of the site. This allows Overground services from Clapham Junction to reach Willesden Junction (two new platforms, north of the Bakerloo ones). This phase allows the existing line in the East to be closed and sold for development:

Phase 3

Phase 3 builds on phase 2 by diverting Overground services from Richmond via the new North Western viaduct. This would be accompanied by a new station in that area to serve the ongoing developments. This phase allows even more existing lines to be closed and sold for development:

Obviously, the final phase does not integrate Richmond services directly with HS2, but it does link it with Crossrail (the Tring services). Linking Richmond into the main Old Oak station would require two more platforms to cope with demand, which is a big ask at this initial stage.

As a final note, all the phases are compatible with extensions to link Old Oak Common to North Acton (and beyond) and to open an Overground route to Brent Cross.

Update 14th October 2014: See the updated phase 3 map here.

Rationale

Section added 28th September 2014.

This option was triggered by the release of the Crossrail to WCML link plans. When you overlay that link and the option A viaduct over Wormwood Scrubs, you have two very similar pieces of infrastructure, just at different levels. The Shared Loop makes no changes to the Crossrail plan save the ability to access the Dudding Hill line in phases 2 and 3 (in reality, some form of grade separation may be needed there).

In terms of vertical alignment, the Shared Loop option involves a simple, low gradient descent from the WLL to the GWML/Crossrail level to use the OOC platforms. This naturally means that it is at the correct level to be able to access the Crossrail WCML link which ends up on a bridge over Victoria Road. From there, the later viaduct runs over the freight depot to Willesden, which probably requires a reconstruction of the Old Oak Common Lane bridge over the WCML (or a higher than originally intended viaduct). I would also note that with increasing land values, the freight depot area could be considered for sale, making that viaduct simper to build (looking forward 10 years).

Finally, a key part of both the Central Viaduct option and this Shared Loop option is the goal of maximising the land available for development. The existing rail lines make the site difficult to access and develop, and fewer rail lines can have a big impact.

Updated plan

Section added 7th December 2014.

I've slightly tweaked the plan to provide more freight capacity, and some more detail. See below:

And some track diagrams:

Summary

This blog outlines an alternate approach to Old Oak Common - the Shared Loop option.

Old Oak Common - Central Viaduct option

Old Oak Common, where the high-speed HS2 railway meets Crossrail, provides a huge opportunity to create a fantastic transport hub. But Tfl, Network Rail and the DfT are missing the opportunity.

Introduction

The site at Old Oak Common, next to Wormwood Scrubs, is planned under by HS2 Ltd to provide a new station linking the high speed line with Crossrail and the GWML (Great Western Main Line) to Reading and beyond. All trains on HS2 and Crossrail are intended to stop, and potentially every train on the GWML as well.

Current HS2 plans include a station at Old Oak Common. There are to be 6 platforms on HS2, deep within a cut-and-cover box, and 8 platforms on the GWML. The eight would be divided into 4 for Crossrail and 4 for the main line:

On the maps, the Central line is in red, the Bakerloo in brown, HS2 in blue, London Overground in orange, Southern services from East Croydon to Watford in green, Crossrail/GWML in black (across the south side of the site) and the WCML (West Coast Main Line) in black (across the north side of the site). Freight lines are shown in black and a narrower. The base map is taken from an official guide to the regeneration and thus shows future buildings, not current buildings.

However, there are no finalised plans for integration of other railway lines in the area. These include the Central line, the Bakerloo line, the Overground line to Richmond and the Overground line to Clapham Junction. To remedy this, TfL have been working on plans to link the new Old Oak Common station to the Overground.

Unfortunately, TfL's plans are very poor.

TfL have proposed a new line along the south side of the site from North Pole Junction to Acton Wells Junction (see this map for junction names). This line would include a new station, "Old Oak South", parallel to the GWML Old Oak Common station, but separated from it by about 100m. There would also be a new "Old Oak West" station, located just north of Acton Wells junction, a good 400m or more from the HS2/Crossrail station. The line also requires a tight curve on a viaduct and some land take from Wormwood Scrubs itself:

This option (known as 8.2) is very poor, for a number of reasons:

• No direct integration with Old Oak Common station itself
• Passengers from Richmond face a 400-500m walk
• Passengers from Clapham Junction face a 100-200m walk
• No integration with the Central line
• Extended journey times
• Land is required from Wormwood Scrubs
• Minimal land is freed up for development

TfL have also put forward a cheap as chips option (known as X) which does not include the southern station and only includes the western station, forcing passengers on the Overground from Clapham to North London to endure a 10 minute longer journey and a reversal of direction. It is so bad its not even worth covering here.

A better approach

The challenge of Old Oak Common is threefold:

• Allow London Overground services to serve the main hub station
• Continue to provide rail links for freight
• Open up the site for redevelopment by minimising the railway lines

The first is the obvious one - without a good rail connection into the heart of the hub, millions of potential passengers in South West London and beyond will face a much worse experience accessing HS2 than they should. As a result, many will choose to travel to Euston rather than Old Oak Common, overloading Euston's capacity.

The second point is freight. The Old Oak Common area currently supports many links between the various lines, allowing freight to move around the country. These links need to be protected.

The final point is redevelopment. A key rationale for the site is enabling a major redevelopment of the area. Achieving redevelopment is hampered by the presence of lots of railway lines, each requiring bridges and taking up lots of land.

As such, I propose a solution which tackles the three points above, while also providing a link to the Central line:

The plan consists of the following elements:

• Two new "high-level platforms" at Old Oak Common (one island) located directly above the four Crossrail platform
• Direct access from the Overground platform island to both Crossrail platform islands
• A new line from the Overground Richmond line and the Ealing freight line to the high-level platforms
• A new line from North Acton to the high-level platforms
• A new line from the Overground Clapham line to the high-level platforms
• A new line, the "Central Viaduct", from the high-level platforms to the existing Willesden Junction high-level station
• A new link to allow freight from Clapham to reach the North London Line, also used by Southern services from Clapham to Watford
• A new line from the Central Viaduct to the Dudding Hill freight line (in the top left) with a link to the WCML (mostly built across railway land)

The result is a dramatic improvement in the viability of the rail hub.

Overground services from Clapham would run from Shepherds Bush to Old Oak Common and then on to North Acton. Beyond North Acton there a various options (not discussed in detail here) including High Wycombe, Alperton, Uxbridge and West Ealing.

Overground services from Richmond would run from Acton Central to Old Oak Common and then on to Willesden Junction. Passengers travelling from Clapham to Willesden Junction and beyond would have a simple cross-platform change at Old Oak Common.

Southern services would run via the Central Viaduct without stopping at Old Oak Common.

A new Overground service would be possible from Old Oak Common up the Dudding Hill freight line to Neasden and beyond.

A good set of freight links are provided, including a new one from the Dudding Hill line to the West London Line. However the link from Reading to Euston is lost.

So why do I propose this scheme rather than other possibilities?

The key is that, as shown on the map, a large number of railway lines could be removed entirely, opening up the site for redevelopment. In particular, the eastern side is opened up to Scrubs Lane, and the western side is completely opened up between Old Oak Common Lane and Victoria Road.

All that would remain would be a single central viaduct, designed to handle all north-south traffic. And it is that unifying factor that makes the plan work most effectively.

It is likely that the central viaduct approach is more expensive than TfL's option. However, that extra cost is paid back by the value of the additional land that is made available for development. A cheaper version is also possible if required.

As a final note, if a Crossrail link to the WCML is built, that works fine with this scheme. Southern services would be diverted via the new Crossrail link. In addition, it would be possible for the London Overground Clapham route to run to Watford Junction via the same link.

Summary

I propose a plan for Old Oak Common based around a unifying central viaduct. Such a viaduct allows the replacement of all the north-south lines in the area, making redevelopment much more effective and increasing the land available. It also enables the London Overground to be integrated into the heart of the hub, where it needs to be to be effective. Finally, additional Overground links to North Acton for the Central Line and Neasden for the Jubilee line become possible.

Feel free to comment and ask questions!

Swanlink at Waterloo - photos

This blog expands a little on the Swanlink scheme around Waterloo.

A key part of Swanlink's relatively low cost is using surface access as far as Waterloo. Here I show some pictures that aim to explore that area in more detail:

At the south-west end of Waterloo is Westminster Bridge Road. The road is directly under the station throat. Swanlink proposes to build a new bridge over the road, at least two tracks wide. This requires the demolition of some non-listed commercial properties and relocation of railway equipment.

Moving north-west along the south side of the station the Swanlink project would remove the taxi road completely, lowering this to ground level or slightly below. The Spur Road ramp from Baylis Road would be redeveloped to replace the facilities lost underneath the current taxi road (such as deliveries and Waterloo & City line access). The taxi road (which is about 5m above ground level) is shown here:

East of the station a row of non-listed commercial buildings would be taken:

This provides access to the Waterloo (Cornwall Road) bus garage which would be the tunnel portal site:

Finding a route from there to Blackfriars Road through Southwark station will not be easy, especially given some buildings which are likely to have piled foundations. A tight curve may be needed, but speeds can be relatively low just outside Waterloo. The proposed Bankside station would use this land on Blackfriars Road:

Overall, the route on the map has been chosen to avoid tall buildings, but without detailed sub-surface maps it is impossible to confirm the route. Finding a route for tunnelling in London is hard!

Swanlink - Crossrail for SW London

This is the third blog in a series of three on Crossrail, the major new rail tunnel running under London. The first and second entries were written to set the scene for this entry, which focuses on solving the major problem of Crossrail - two eastern branches - with the Swanlink proposal.

Low frequency branches

The big problem with Crossrail is not that there are two eastern branches, but that the dividing point of those branches is so close to central London. This means that of the 24tph serving the central section from Paddington to Whitechapel, only half can continue to Stratford and half to Canary Wharf. However, there is clearly demand at both Stratford and Canary Wharf for all 24tph to go there.

The official response to this appears to be threefold. Firstly, that the capacity of each train is large, secondly that the trains can be lengthened by 2 carriages, and thirdly to design the signalling for future running of 30tph. The first and second points are fine, but miss the fact that trains of similar size already run via Stratford and are already full when running at a higher frequency. The third point would still only provide 15tph down each branch, but more importantly removes resilience from the network meaning worse recovery from incidents.

So, I've looked at what is needed to fix the problem, making the Crossrail investment dramatically more effective to the whole of London.

Proposal: Swanlink

This proposal is designed to solve multiple problems with London's rail network in a single hit. As such, it should have a good rate of return.

Clearly, the only way to solve the eastern branch problem is to run a full 24tph service on each branch, to at least Stratford and Canary Wharf. Simple logic therefore requires some new tunnelling from the Stepney Green junction to provide the necessary tracks. But the question is where should they go?

At this point, I switch to the recent London & South East RUS, which identifies capacity shortfalls in the railways around London:

With respect to longer distance services the RUS therefore notes that a significant peak capacity gap may arise, with a forecast shortfall in capacity for some 7,000 passengers in the busiest peak hour; this figure includes capacity required on today’s already overcrowded trains, along with the 3,500 resulting from future growth.....

An alternative way to increase capacity on the route would be to increase the number of tracks from the Surbiton area to central London from four to six, but this is only realistically achievable by means of tunnelling over a long distance. Such a tunnel would need to fit into a cross-industry strategy for future underground lines in the capital in general. The RUS has therefore worked closely with Transport for London to identify a variant of the currently safeguarded Crossrail line 2 route, and this forms Option F7 in this RUS.

Clearly, the SWML (South West Main Line) has serious capacity issues and Crossrail 2 is being mentioned as a solution. But looking at the problems with Crossrail 1 as I have done above, its clear that the SWML can be relieved at a lower cost by reusing part of Crossrail 1 being built now.

The Swanlink proposal connects the SWML to the Stratford branch of Crossrail.

The principle is to acknowledge that Crossrail 1 is actually "one and a half crossrails". By building the aditional "half a crossrail" linking to the SWML, it is converted to 2 independent Crossrail lines each with 24tph - one from west of Paddington to Canary Wharf and Abbey Wood ("Wharflink"), and one from the SWML to Stratford and Shenfield ("Swanlink" - South West ANglia).

Swanlink detail

The junction at Stepney Green is to the east of Whitechapel so thats where the proposal must start. The first point to note is that there will need to be an interchange between Wharflink and Swanlink. The second point to note is that many commuters will want to travel from Stratford to Canary Wharf, changing at Whitechapel (it will be faster than changing to the Jubilee line at Stratford). As such, an interchange at Whitechapel makes sense. This should be designed so that passengers can easily travel from Stratford to Canary Wharf and vice versa. This requires a same-level interchange between passengers travelling west on Swanlink and east on Wharflink, and vice versa. The best design for this station is to place the two new platforms directly beneath the platforms being built now, reusing all of the surface access facilities.

The next point to note is that most travellers from the Shenfield/Stratford route currently travel to Liverpool Street. As such, removing their ability to travel to the Liverpool Street area is unacceptable. Thus the Swanlink route needs to run to Liverpool Street. Two more underground platforms will be needed, again directly underneath those being built now reusing the surface facilities. This time, the same-level interchange must be between passengers travelling east on Wharflink to east on Swanlink, and vice versa.

The combination of these two interchanges allows a passenger to change to the other line in any direction without needing to use any stairs, escalators or lifts. This saves time for commuters, building the business case.

After Moorgate, the proposed route takes a sharp turn under Guildhall to a station underneath Queen Street north of Southwark Bridge ("Queen Street" station). This would serve the western side of the city including Cheapside, Queen Victoria Street and Mansion House. Options exist to link this station to Mansion House, Bank and Cannon Street tube stations, but modelling would be needed to determine which if any makes sense. As this section is mostly under streets it should avoid foundations.

After Queen Street, the line would turn under the Thames to reach a new station under, or just to the east of, Blackfriars Road ("Bankside" station). This station would be linked with Blackfraiars Thameslink station (at the new Bankside entrance) thus provding another key link as at Farringdon. Land is currently available south of Southwark Street to assist building work here. This station may be able to link to Southwark tube station, but this may be of limited value. From there, the line would turn towards Waterloo.

The key to the affordability of the proposal is at Waterloo. South of the station there is a taxi road at the same level as the station itself. I propose replacing this with a new through platform. My analysis suggests that the limitation of 1 in 30 for gradient means that the line would need to go under Waterloo Road, not over it, so the new platforms would be at ground level. The tunnel portal would be on the site of the Cornwall Road bus garage requiring limited demolition of 2 or 3 non-listed commercial buildings. From there it routes to the "Bankside" station described above. West of Waterloo, a new bridge over the A23 would be needed to clear the Waterloo station throat and link to the existing SWML Wimbledon slow lines, again taking 3 to 5 non-listed buildings.

The advantage of this route is that the line requires an absolute bare minimum of tunnelling, probably with just one TBM drive for each running tunnel. The platforms at Waterloo would be above ground aiding access and construction. And the route serves two stations providing good access to Bankside (where large developments are proposed) and the western City area. The problems lie with the steepness of the grdients and navigating through the maze of underground tunnels, notably at Southwark tube station.

If the City route is not possible, then there is an alternate alignment, with a single station lying between St.Pauls and Blackfriars (see map). If it is not possible to build the Waterloo surface station, then a longer tunnel would be needed with a portal potentially as far out as Clapham Junction.

Benefits

Swanlink dramatically takes the benefits of Crossrail to a whole new level. Pasengers from the entire South West corner of London would be linked in with big journey time savings.

Services would run from the existing Wimbledon slow lines (including Guildford, Epsom, Hampton Court, Chessington & Shepperton) through to Shenfield. It is intended that some Woking semi-fast services would move to Swanlink, freeing up the SWML fast lines as needed by the RUS mentioned above. (The Woking semi-fasts would stop more often than now, but they would gain time not having to wait for a platform at Waterloo, and in journey times beyond Waterloo.)

By itself, linking Wimbledon to Stratford is of limited value to commuters (although it would boost travel to Westfield Stratford City). The bigger benefit is for SWML commuters to reach the City and Canary Wharf directly. City commuters currently change at Waterloo to the Waterloo & City line, the 521 bus or a bike. They would now be able to travel directly to the City without changing, perhaps saving 20 minutes or more in each direction at peak time. Commuters to Canary Wharf from the SWML currently take the Jubilee line, whereas with Swanlink they would simply change at Liverpool Street (on the same-level) to access the 24tph Wharflink service, again with a big saving of time and hassle. Its important to note that the journey from Waterloo to the north and east sides of the City are very difficult today, so there is a big benefit there too. Finally, Stratford/Shenfield line passengers get much better access to the South Bank.

Estimated journey times
Journey*	Now (off-peak, TfL website)	With Swanlink	Saving
Wimbledon to Liverpool Street	39	22	17
Wimbledon to Stratford	50	30	20
Wimbledon to Canary Wharf	39	31	8
Wimbledon to Hackney	57	35	22
Wimbledon to Hoxton	51	32	19
Wimbledon to Woolwich	51	38	13

* Note that Wimbledon is used as the base location, but journey time savings apply over the entire suburban route network via Wimbledon.

Clearly these new links would greatly relieve the Waterloo & City line and the Jubilee line. Given the queue for the Waterloo & City (and crush conditions), this is a very good thing.

Finally, the plan permits 24tph between the City and both Stratford and Canary Wharf, a key design goal itself, reducing the inevitable overcrowding that will occur when Crossrail opens. Beyond those two stations there is no need for 24tph. Therefore, investment could be made to add new branches - to Barking, Upminster, Brimsdown or Chingford beyond Stratford, and to Dagenham/Grays or Thamesmead/Grays beyond Canary Wharf. These would be independent investments and are not included in the Swanlink case presented here.

Financials

The cost of Swanlink can be roughly estimated by comparison to Crossrail. That project has a budget of about £15bn. Swanlink is probably between a quarter and a third the size of Crossrail. It would have less initial setup costs (as it would follow on from Crossrail's up front investment), and also re-uses facilities at Liverpool Street and Whitechapel. The relatively short tunnel and surface station at Waterloo help keep costs down. An initial estimate suggests a figure around £4bn.

The quantifiable benefits arise mainly from journey time reduction, which would be considerable given current change to the crowded Waterloo & City line, 521 bus or Jubilee line. Further benefits accrue from the Wider Economic Benefits regime (Moving to more productive jobs, agglomeration effects, etc). Serving the Nine Elms regeneration area is clearly a huge boost.

Direct revenue can also be raised. The proposal also serves some London boroughs currently paying the lower levels of the Mayor's Crossrail Levy - increasing this to the higher level would also directly raise cash.

Swanlink also reduces the pressure on the SWML outlined in the London & South East RUS which advocated building Crossrail 2. Since Crossrail 2 (Clapham - Hackney) would be a £15bn+ project, and Swanlink is a £4bn project, so there is clearly a saving to be priced into the business case. Potentially, that £11bn difference is enough to justify Swanlink by itself. In addition, 5 terminus platforms at Waterloo are freed up, which can be used by other services, reducing the need to invest in bringing the Eurostar platforms back into use for SWML services, another saving that can be factored in.

Overall, I'm confident that the CBR for Swanlink would be good.

Summary

Swanlink is a logical extension to the current Crossrail scheme that suffers from having two eastern branches which divide too close to the City. By linking Stratford eastern branch and the RUS identified gap on the SWML a coherent transport solution is obtained. By reusing the Stratford tunnel and portal large cost savings are obtained, ideal in the age of austerity. The benefits to South West London are huge, with the Stratford/Shenfield and Canary Wharf/Abbey Wood lines also benefiting from more frequent services.

I hope that readers use their imagination and see how this investment makes sense and could really make Crossrail shine! There really is no cheaper way to get a second Crossrail line in London.

If you back the proposal, or have any other opinions, why not leave a comment!

Crossrail, east of Whitechapel

This is the second blog in a series of three on Crossrail, the major new rail tunnel running under London. The last entry focussed on the route West of Paddington, while here I'll focus on the two Eastern branches. The final entry will examine the central section and put forward a new proposal to improve the return on Crossrail dramatically.

The two eastern branches divide at Stepney Green, east of Whitechapel, where a shaft is being dug to allow access. The north-east branch goes to Shenfield and the south-east branch to Abbey Wood.

Shenfield branch

The Shenfield branch is designed to improve capacity and quality for the line that currently runs from Liverpool Street to Shenfield. Trains exit the central tunnel at Pudding Mill west of Stratford and then run on the slow line, leaving the fast line for services from Southend, Chelmsford and Colchester.

The slow line consists of existing stations spaced in a very similar way to tube lines. As such, it is clear that the plan for this branch is to operate it very like the District line to Upminster, or the Central to Epping. Although not 100% clear, it appears that the plan is to operate all services as "all stations" to Shenfield.

The Shenfield branch is due to operate at 12tph in the peak and 8tph off-peak. This is one train every 5 minutes in the peak, and one train every 7.5 minutes off-peak. Unfortunately, the route from Shenfield to London already has 15tph in the busiest peak hour. The current plan is for the additional "residual" 3 or 4tph to continue to run terminating in the main Liverpool Street station as they do now. This is undesirable as it means some platforms at congested Liverpool Street still have to be reserved for the local services. Off-peak, the current service is 6tph, so 8tph would be a welcome enhancement.

So, clearly the 12tph service is insufficient for the demands of the Shenfield route, however the situation is worse than that. Crossrail will be the fastest way to travel from Stratford to the West End, thus demand from Stratford in is likely to be higher than 12tph can handle. Many commuters from further out (Chelmsford, Colchester, Wickford, Epping, etc) are likely to want to change onto Crossrail at Stratford in order to avoid the change onto the Central line at Liverpool Street. This will place a lot of pressure on the service. Retention of the remaining services terminating at Liverpool Street shows that demand on this route is already high, so it seems unlikely that 12tph will be enough.

There is also difficulty with the timetable detail. The current peak timetable mixes services starting from Ilford, Gidea Park and Shenfield, with some of those from further out skipping some of the stations close to London. These commuters will probably want to keep this, but with no passing loops, it will be tricky. It may be that the service becomes tube-like "all stations" once Crossrail starts.

Looking at extensions, with the limitation of 12tph in the peak, I don't believe that it is feasible to servce any more destinations. Were the service receiving all 24tph from the central tunnel there might be more possibilities, but as it stands, Shenfield is all that is possible, and even that is troublesome.

In summary, the Shenfield branch is simple, self-contained and about the right length. The main problem is that there needs to be 24tph between Stratford and the City, and probably 18tph beyond that, yet only 12tph will be available. The "residual" Liverpool Street service is also a bit of a mess.

Abbey Wood branch

The prime reason for the Abbey Wood branch is to serve Canary Wharf. It is likely that the scheme only got political/business/financial support by routing via Canary Wharf. That said, it is certainly the case that Canary Wharf could do with another transport link. The Jubilee Line upgrade has shown how fragile transport to the area is and how the DLR cannot cope on its own. Once Canary Wharf was served, the line needed to terminate somewhere, and Abbey Wood was the option chosen.

Abbey Wood itself is effectively a convenient end-point however, rather than a true destination. It is basically a housing area, including access to Thamesmead area which has no rail access at all. Early planning did not terminate the line at Abbey Wood, instead it was intended to continue via Dartford to Ebbsfleet, see this 2002 pdf map. An extension from Abbey Wood to Dartford and Gravesend is still officially considered possible in the future.

The choice of Abbey Wood does have benefits to the services into Charing Cross and Cannon Street too. Some passengers will now travel via Crossrail rather than the existing route. This will provide some welcome relief on those lines. It should also have a effect on the DLR, as passengers switch from DLR to Crossrail.

The Canary Wharf station is being built in the dock just to the north of the main towers. This approach is perhaps the only possible option given the depth of foundations of the skyscrapers.

However, as with the Shenfield branch, the Abbey Wood branch will only be receiving 12tph - one train every five minutes. Given the crush on the Jubilee Line and DLR today, and massive growth in new buildings in the area it seems likely that 12tph simply won't be enough between Canary Wharf and the City. Beyond Canary Wharf to Abbey Wood the 12tph service will probably be enough.

Looking at extensions, the line to Dartford does make sense to be converted to Crossrail. In my opinion, other services should then terminate at Abbey Wood, such that only Crossrail serves the line between Abbey Wood and Dartford. If regeneration at Ebbsfleet takes off, then I think serving there rather than Gravesend would be the best choice.

In summary, the Abbey Wood branch exists to servce Canary Wharf and provide a useful link to the south east corner of London. The destination of Abbey Wood is clearly a cost-saving exercise as opposed to the more suitable destinations of Dartford and Ebbsfleet/Gravesend. As with the Shenfield branch, the main problem is that there needs to be 24tph between Canary Wharf and the City, but only 12tph are being provided.

Summary

The eastern side of Crossrail is a fudge. The two branches are fine in isolation, but trying to serve both will result in a lower quality railway and overcrowding. In the next blog I'll look at the choices for solving the problem of two eastern branches.

Comments welcome!

Crossrail, west of Paddington

Crossrail is the major new rail tunnel running under London. Services are currently projected to run from Maidenhead in the West to Shenfield and Abbey Wood in the East. The central core tunnel runs from just west of Paddington to Stepney Green in the east where it splits in two, with one tunnel continuing to the Pudding Mill for Stratford and Shenfield. The other tunnel goes via Canary Wharf to Woolwich for Abbey Wood.

This is a key investment in the rail capacity of London and essential for its future prosperity. Overall, it is fantastic to see it being built, but I do have some comments on the details. In this blog I'll focus on the line west of Paddington.

Heathrow and Reading

The project is described by the London & SE RUS:

5.4.3 There will be 24 Crossrail trains in the highpeak hour across the capital between Paddington and Whitechapel. Beyond this Central London section, 12 of these will replace most inner services on the Great Eastern Main Line (GEML) and 10 will replace most inner services (including Heathrow Connect) on the Great Western Main Line (GWML) route. There will also be 12 trains in the high-peak hour via a new cross-river tunnel route to Abbey Wood via Canary Wharf. It can be seen from the above that 14 of the 24 peak Crossrail trains will run no further west than sidings just outside Paddington.

The RUS then goes on to discuss whether the unused 14tph in the west could be better utilised. It proposes to rebalance the GWML (Great West Main Line) to have 20tph on the fast lines from Reading to Paddington and 16tph on the slow lines running to Crossrail. The fast line service of 20tph would be

• 10tph inter-city, from places such as Exeter, Bristol and Cardiff
• 6tph outer-SE, from places such as Oxford and Newbury
• 4tph Reading express, peak-time capacity providers from Reading and Maidenhead, with alternate stops at Twyford and Slough (running on the slow line until Maidenhead or Slough, then on the fast lines)

while the slow line service of 16tph would be:

• 4tph to Reading, stopping at some but not all stations
• 2tph to Slough, stopping at some but not all stations
• 10tph to Heathrow, stopping at some but not all stations

This means that Greenford, Henley and Twyford would have no through services to London, and the Heathrow Express service would only run off-peak.

Overall, this is an excellent starting point to discuss the London based GWML services. It makes far better use of Crossrail (which is otherwise very under-used in the west), and links in Heathrow to a much more appropriate level. The committed scheme of terminating 14tph just west of Paddington is patently barmy.

Would I change anything from the RUS plan?

Firstly, I believe that the Heathrow service should run into Crossrail all-day, and the Heathrow Express shuld cease to exist in its present form. This will require negotiations with BAA, but the benefits are clear, with Crossrail providing a much wider range of destinations and at significantly better quality than the Picadilly line.

Secondly, I dislike the "skip-stop" nature of the slow line proposals, which will make it hard to predict which stations any given train stops at, making moving between outer London stations rather difficult. What I would like to see is some detailed analysis on whether some sections of 6 tracks could be provided on the GWML. These would allow fast trains to overtake slow ones and provide a more traditional service, such as 4tph all stations to Slough, 4tph fast to Slough then all stations, 4tph Heathrow express and 4tph Heathrow slow.

Link to Watford?

The GWML proposals above take 16tph of the 24tph from peak-hour Crossrail, but the RUS also outlines a proposal for the other 8tph. It proposes a new link in the Old Oak Common area to the WCML (West Coast Main Line) allowing the slow line services from Tring and Watford to run onto Crossrail. The RUS makes no detailed service proposals. A key point is that this provides spare capacity at Euston to assist with the rebuild for HS2.

Sidestepping my views on HS2 for a minute, the WCML link makes some sense. The GWML and WCML are very close at that point, and geographically, WCML passengers are in fact entering London from the west, not the north west. Given a free hand, I would have preferred to see the High Wycombe, Aylesbury or Hounslow routes developed, but if HS2 continues as is, then I have to support the WCML link proposal.

The exact choice of routing is interesting however. The proposal suggests 8tph in peak and 6tph off-peak. In addition to the Watford to Tring section which should be served, it is important not to forget the London Overground all stops service from Harrow & Wealdstone to Watford which shares tracks with the Bakerloo from Harrow to Queens Park. This service runs 3tph, and could potentially be transferred to Crossrail. However, this would require additional investment in junctions and electrification. As such, it is likely that these services will be unable to be picked up.

I also note that in my opinion, the Old Oak Common interchange would be key. Stratford is a classic example of getting it wrong. The HS1 station is disconnected from the main station, requiring an expensive DLR extension to connect it up, making it highly inconvenient for interchange. It is vital that the Old Oak Common station is properly designed and planned to integrate the HS2 platforms, GWML platforms and the WCML platforms. They must be a single integrated station, not overly spread out - the passenger must come first.

Summary

The committed Crossrail service in the west is essentially incomplete. It runs to Maidenhead, when Reading is more natural and probably cheaper. It only sends 4tph to Heathrow, which makes no sense. And it only sends 10tph beyond Paddington, which is a huge waste of the central tunnel. The RUS proposals for peak of 8tph to Watford and 16tph to Heathrow/Reading make a lot more sense, although I would prefer to see new sections of 6 tracks on the GWML to allow a more standard split of services. I would also prefer to see the Heathrow Express scrapped entirely in favour of services through Crossrail.

Comments welcome on the Crossrail line west of Paddington!