Elizabeth Line / Crossrail Updates.

[woodenhead]

Still think they could have retained the Factory and turntables of the old OO    

[phil-b259]

This would have allowed (very easily, from the concept drawings at least) for extension of Crossrail services further east in the future if required.

 

 

I'm afraid that you, like many others are under the false impression that the North Kent line has spare capacity to cope with the 12tph (and TfL will not settle for anything less than 6tph by the way) Crossrail services in addition to SE services (particularly east of Slade Green)

 

As such if Crossrail is ever extended from Abbey Wood in future, be assured that 4 tracking of the current North Kent line will be required. Therefore Keeping Crossrail completely separate from SE services in that respect makes sense and any extension has no need to interfere with the operational railway and can be built as a stand alone enterprise.

 

Also there is the little matter that Crossrail infrastructure between Royal Oak and Pudding Mill Lane / Abbey Wood is owned by TfL and nothing to do with Network Rail. Signalling, track, OHL and the faulting / maintenance thereof is entirely up to TfL to organise - which they can contract out to whoever they please. Keeping Crossrail totally separate at Abbey Wood makes things easy with this as there is no need for TfL contractors to encroach on NR land and vi-s-versa.

[roythebus]

Attention, warning! My sister-in-law and niece have been accepted by Crossrail for working in the signal/control centre! Both have started training already.

[iands]

Attention, warning! My sister-in-law and niece have been accepted by Crossrail for working in the signal/control centre! Both have started training already.

 

Is that the Crossrail (TfL) one at Romford ROC?

 

Regards, Ian.

[jim.snowdon]

According to NR, as from yesterday (10th) the stations on the Great Western as far as Taplow, except for Slough, were transferred to TfL. Doubtless we will see the signs changed a good deal faster than the station rebuilds that appear to have stalled completely.

 

It is also confirmed that TfL will take over the Heathrow Connect services in May 2018, using the class 345 stock, running in and out of Paddington.

 

Jim

[metropolitan cammell]

To add to the above post the station staff at taplow where wearing tfl uniforms already.

[Ron Ron Ron]

Paddington Crossrail station street level entrance (Eastbourne Terrace).

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SouthernMafia]

New trackwork has appeared for the Crossrail Jnc and turnback sidings on maps:

 

[royaloak]

New trackwork has appeared for the Crossrail Jnc and turnback sidings on maps:

 

20171227_144854-1024x576.jpg

If on line 6 must remember to turn right at SN112.

If on line 6 must remember to turn right at SN112.

If on line 6 must remember to turn right at SN112.

If on line 6 must remember to turn right at SN112.

If on line 6 must remember to turn right at SN112.

If on line 6 must remember to turn right at SN112.

If on line 6 must remember to turn right at SN112.

If on line 6 must remember to turn right at SN112.

 

Yep. I think I have got that! 

[caradoc]

Don't you fancy a bit of unplanned road learning to Stratford then ?!

[royaloak]

Don't you fancy a bit of unplanned road learning to Stratford then ?!

Hell yeah, but I dont fancy the paperwork afterwards! 

 

They have no sense of humour. 

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Interesting that the signal diagram still refers to it as Crossrail, rather than the Lizzie Line.

[Titan]

Interesting that the signal diagram still refers to it as Crossrail, rather than the Lizzie Line.

 

I suspect there was so much reference to Crossrail before they called it the Elizabeth line, that to update all the paperwork/diagrams/etc already issued would have been impossible. Anything new would have to be consistent with the previous terminology, so I suspect it will be the Elizabeth line only to the general public, and to everyone else forever known as Crossrail.

[phil-b259]

Interesting that the signal diagram still refers to it as Crossrail, rather than the Lizzie Line.

 

As I understand it the infrastructure is still refereed to as 'Crossrail' - precisely for the reasons stated by Titan. Whether it will remain so in future years is unknown, but changing things like actual track designations on signalling systems etc is NOT cheap or easy to do. This is why we have ended up with lots of 'Platform 0's appearing in recent years as it is a lot easier to add to whats there than re-do everything and renumber the existing platforms.

 

The 'Elizabeth Line' branding is a much later creation of the TfL marketing department who (in keeping with its glorified tube train style rolling stock) wished to give it a name like the Tube system. Said name also provides a better 'fit' within the TfL empire, particularly as TfL are using the opening if the Elizabeth line to do some fairly radical alterations to bus provision in the central area. It also provides clarity as TfL are actively campaigning for a second Crossrail line to be built on a SW / NE axis - and if that comes to pass then having two TfL services called 'Crossrail' could be confusing.

[brenn]

As I understand it the infrastructure is still refereed to as 'Crossrail' - precisely for the reasons stated by Titan. Whether it will remain so in future years is unknown, but changing things like actual track designations on signalling systems etc is NOT cheap or easy to do. This is why we have ended up with lots of 'Platform 0's appearing in recent years as it is a lot easier to add to whats there than re-do everything and renumber the existing platforms.

 

The 'Elizabeth Line' branding is a much later creation of the TfL marketing department who (in keeping with its glorified tube train style rolling stock) wished to give it a name like the Tube system. Said name also provides a better 'fit' within the TfL empire, particularly as TfL are using the opening if the Elizabeth line to do some fairly radical alterations to bus provision in the central area. It also provides clarity as TfL are actively campaigning for a second Crossrail line to be built on a SW / NE axis - and if that comes to pass then having two TfL services called 'Crossrail' could be confusing.

Where is this 2nd route plan for? is there a map or link on the net please.

[jamie92208]

Where is this 2nd route plan for? is there a map or link on the net please.

It may have been tweaked recently but this shows it.

 

http://crossrail2.co.uk/route/route-map/

 

Jamie

[brenn]

It may have been tweaked recently but this shows it.

 

http://crossrail2.co.uk/route/route-map/

 

Jamie

Thanks James

 

That never going to get the funding...it's a wish list of conections

 

Hackney has needed a tube link but this plans seems to be a rehash of a 1930s tube plan. I can't see the point of a linking Hackney central as that could be extended to Stratford to link with Cross rail 1 anyway.

If this link as supposed increase North/South then run the tunneled section thought the City,Southwark,Lambeth and on to Croydon,,,,Gatwick with links off to Clapham Junction which will gain access to all the SW routes.

I can't see the point of Chelsea but i think this has more to to with the development that have sprung up there like weeds in recent years, Dalston is the same.

 

This like the the tube plans in the 1930s won't get the green light from the Treasury 

[Glorious NSE]

Thanks James

 

That never going to get the funding...it's a wish list of conections

 

Hackney has needed a tube link but this plans seems to be a rehash of a 1930s tube plan. I can't see the point of a linking Hackney central as that could be extended to Stratford to link with Cross rail 1 anyway.

If this link as supposed increase North/South then run the tunneled section thought the City,Southwark,Lambeth and on to Croydon,,,,Gatwick with links off to Clapham Junction which will gain access to all the SW routes.

I can't see the point of Chelsea but i think this has more to to with the development that have sprung up there like weeds in recent years, Dalston is the same.

 

This like the the tube plans in the 1930s won't get the green light from the Treasury 

Prime purpose is to relieve pressure in certain specific places, so Euston is high on the agenda to cope with HS2 increased loads, Victoria has been overcrowded for a while now, the SWML/Waterloo approaches are at capacity limits hence the takeover of SWML suburban routes and so on.

 

Gatwick-Croydon-City is already part of a cross London route!

 

Ref 'Kings Road' - as somebody who used to live at the Worlds End, there's a surprisingly big chunk of London in the area which is effectively bus-only in terms of public transport at the moment, that neatly fills the gap.

 

(The area has more options than when I lived there thanks to the WLL developments, but other than that is basically unchanged...)

 

 

 

[jonny777]

Will this be called the Queen Camilla Line?

[Edwin_m]

Thanks James

 

That never going to get the funding...it's a wish list of conections

 

Hackney has needed a tube link but this plans seems to be a rehash of a 1930s tube plan. I can't see the point of a linking Hackney central as that could be extended to Stratford to link with Cross rail 1 anyway.

If this link as supposed increase North/South then run the tunneled section thought the City,Southwark,Lambeth and on to Croydon,,,,Gatwick with links off to Clapham Junction which will gain access to all the SW routes.

I can't see the point of Chelsea but i think this has more to to with the development that have sprung up there like weeds in recent years, Dalston is the same.

 

This like the the tube plans in the 1930s won't get the green light from the Treasury 

 

It is a re-hash of something called the Chelsea-Hackney line but connected to the national network at both ends and built to similar standards to Crossrail, so many longer-distance commuters don't have to change to the Tube and the trains they ride on don't have to spend time turning back at a London terminus.  Both reduce pressure on the termini which are probably the most difficult places to provide extra capacity.  The route has been protected for many years and when TfL started getting interested again six or seven years ago they changed it to serve Euston (for HS2) but also ran a study and consultation on what type of service it should be.  The Crossrail model won out over the main alternative which was a higher-capacity version of the DLR (or an automated Tube line, depending how you look at it) but would have been confined to the underground section instead of running through onto existing surface lines.  

 

Thameslink is already providing extra capacity on the City-Croydon-Gatwick corridor, and it wouldn't be cost-effective to build a long branch tunnel to Wimbledon and then only use half its capacity because it shares a central section with another branch (the same criticism could be levelled at Crossrail but the branches in question are that much shorter).  

[brenn]

Prime purpose is to relieve pressure in certain specific places, so Euston is high on the agenda to cope with HS2 increased loads, Victoria has been overcrowded for a while now, the SWML/Waterloo approaches are at capacity limits hence the takeover of SWML suburban routes and so on.

 

Gatwick-Croydon-City is already part of a cross London route!

 

Ref 'Kings Road' - as somebody who used to live at the Worlds End, there's a surprisingly big chunk of London in the area which is effectively bus-only in terms of public transport at the moment, that neatly fills the gap.

 

(The area has more options than when I lived there thanks to the WLL developments, but other than that is basically unchanged...)

 

 

 

I agree with your basic points there are large parts of NW that have been poorly served by rail and the southern regions been over capacity for decades, but this is a matter of politics not need, which is why it'll never get the go ahead in it's present form.

As I said the Chelsea-Hackney tube line was planned in the 1930 and WW2 put pay to that, but i would suggest that a brand new tube line between the two would make better sense, indeed the plans included interchange at KX/Euston. You are right there is a huge hole re: Ally pally area but I can't see the present plan get the nod from them Government of the day. If we are to spend money on another infrastructure project in London it should be a full on tube line to ease congestion especially as cars are being slowly banned/priced out of the central area.

 

If this get built I have no argument with it but my central point remains that each time London gets a slice of the Government capital expenditure a howl goes up from other area of the country, which is not unreasonable IMHO. I can remember crossrail being mooted by the Thatcher Government in the 80s and look how long this has taken to come to completion, Crossrail 2 will be the same. A tube line is the better option both in cost and is more likely to get the go ahead.

[D854_Tiger]

Will this be called the Queen Camilla Line?

 

What happened to the Edward Line and the George Line, I would like to know, and that other one the Abdication Line.

[jim.snowdon]

The 'Elizabeth Line' branding is a much later creation of the TfL marketing department who (in keeping with its glorified tube train style rolling stock) wished to give it a name like the Tube system. Said name also provides a better 'fit' within the TfL empire, particularly as TfL are using the opening if the Elizabeth line to do some fairly radical alterations to bus provision in the central area. It also provides clarity as TfL are actively campaigning for a second Crossrail line to be built on a SW / NE axis - and if that comes to pass then having two TfL services called 'Crossrail' could be confusing.

Paris gets on qute happily with RER Lines A-D, and Line E coming along.

 

I'm sure we could manage just as well with Crossrail 1, 2 3, etc, even if TfL's publicity department might not.

 

Jim

[phil-b259]

 

This like the the tube plans in the 1930s won't get the green light from the Treasury 

 

It has a better chance than most as it can already fulfil a number of key objectives which there are no easy solutions to, including:-

 

(i) Provide extra capacity on the SWML - Inwards of Raynes Park there is zero room to expand the number of trains from what is currently provided

(ii) Provide extra capacity on the Lea Valley route (again Tottenham - Liverpool Street is pretty rammed and even CR1 will not release that many train paths into the terminus)

(iii) relief to the Northern, Victoria and Piccadilly lines which are full to bursting at peak times

(iii) Distribute passengers from CR2 at Euston.

(iV) Provide easy access to the transport hub that is Kings Cross / St Pancras from the SWML.

 

The other factor is that as with CR1, a large proportion of the funding (50% at least) has to come from London itself via Council tax precepts and business levies. While this makes things better in money terms for the Treasury, it also makes the project almost impossible to cancel once parliamentary authorisation has been granted. We know that there were serious moves by the Treasury to try and 'pause' Crossrail 1 at the height of the financial crisis a decade ago - yet the spectate of the Government having to compensate hundreds of businesses, not to mention voters was enough to prevent the plug being pulled.

[Edwin_m]

What happened to the Edward Line and the George Line, I would like to know, and that other one the Abdication Line.

 

They should name parts of the Overground after Edward, George and Henry.  That way they have lots of numbers to play with for the different services that use them.  So from Liverpool Street Chingford could be Henry I, Cheshunt Henry II etc.  

 

When they finally get their upgrade to Camden Town and split the Northern into Edgware to Battersea and High Barnet to Morden* there are at least plenty of divorced royal couples to choose from when naming the two parts.  

 

*Or it may be the other way round - who gets custody of the Edgware is always a prime cause of dispute.