Elizabeth Line / Crossrail Updates.

[ColinK]

I used the Elizabeth line for the first time to go to the Ally Pally show. What surprised me was just how far it was to walk when changing between it and the Underground, nearly had to stop for butties and a brew.

[MidlandRed]

6 hours ago, Mike_Walker said:

Now that would have been a much better scheme, much better than what we've got.  How was it proposed to reach the GWML from Wembley?  Presumably by a tunnel.

That depends on your point of view - note there is no link to the south east from Whitechapel to Abbey Wood, via Canary Wharf, so in that sense it’s hugely poorer than what we got - in fact looks simply like a cross city link from the GW to the GE. What’s been added presumably covers fundamentally important transport links and travel patterns beyond that initial concept. 
 

The trains look not dissimilar to an AC version of a Networker (as previously featured on the Great Northern) - class 365. 

Edited March 26, 2023 by MidlandRed

[Ron Ron Ron]

TfL now saying that if OOC is going to be a temporary or permanent terminus for HS2, then they’ll need to order more Class 345’s and require more depot capacity to house them.

£££££££££££££££

The new central core stations have been built with passive provision for platform extensions, to handle 11-car trains, if they were ever needed; but it would cost a small fortune to open up and extend those platforms.

Many of the surface stations on the western eastern and south eastern arms, would also require extensions.

 

The bill for delaying Euston HS2 is only going to get bigger.

If it’s cancelled, the alternative could end up costing more.

 

.

[Mike_Walker]

It would have been better in the respect that it would have maintained a basically similar pattern of service on the Western side and the trains would have been more main line than metro - think of them as an updated Networker version of the Thameslink 319s - remember this scheme was being worked up some 35 years ago and had it come to fruition those 341s would probably have been facing retirement today.  Compare today's Thameslink with the Elizabeth Line.  TL is an integrated service not a metro superimposed on a largely rural area.

 

I think the Aylesbury branch was dropped to save costs.  A pity as it could have been useful as would have been including the High Wycombe line, possibly more so than Aylesbury particularly in the light of how usage of that line has exploded since privatisation; there is no reason to doubt that a high frequency Crossrail service to HW would have had a similar effect to Chiltern's offering today.  Plus of course connecting the HW line into Crossrail would have been a simple case of restoring the double track between OOC and Northolt Junction.  I never understood why this wasn't considered by BR.  Perhaps Mike @The Stationmaster can tell us.

 

There was no Abbey Wood branch for the simple reason that the huge redevelopment of Docklands hadn't started and therefore there was no real need for it at that time.  As anyone who watched the recent series The Gold will know, that didn't really get underway until the second half of the eighties.  It is perfectly possible that the original Crossrail concept might have been expanded to include Docklands but not necessarily Abbey Wood.

 

The EL depot at OOC is huge and can more than cope with the fleet.  It only ran out of space when all but a few units were not being used.  In normal times units stable overnight at Maidenhead, Gidea Park and Plumstead in addition to OOC.  The present fleet is large enough to service 24 TPH through the central core which is the maximum that can be handled - that's one train every 2 1/2 minutes - so there would be no point enlarging the fleet.  Yes, there is passive provision in the core for 11 car trains and using that wouldn't be too expensive due to the way they're designed, really a case of bringing them up to service standard and extending the platform edge doors.  The real expense would be in extending the GEML and GWML platforms - virtually every station would be involved and it's not just a case of extending the actual platform; at most signals would need re-siting (expensive in itself) and at many locations major trackwork alterations would be required.  Then there's the small matter of building two new cars per set and inserting them.

 

Delaying any part of HS2 to save costs is a total folly and shows just how short-term any government thinks.  My house needs repairs: I think I'll wait for five years when inflation might be lower and therefore cheaper...  Ha! I think not!  As has been pointed out many times recently, when (if) inflation does drop back to 2% prices will stay at their present level not drop.

 

Regarding the "selling" of HS2 I always point out its about capacity rather than speed and ask objectors if they were building a new road would it be a cart track or a modern dual carriageway?  HS2 is being built to the latest standards as was the new build sections of Crossrail and rightly so.  I find that in the majority of cases they accept the argument often with the caveat: Oh, I hadn't understood that.

[jjb1970]

At the risk of sounding angry and jaded, or even cynical (perish the thought), having just spent a week observing our fearless government in action at a UN agency and being reduced to trying to figure out if I can change my passport to something less embarrassing I really can't be surprised by anything DfT does.

[jjb1970]

In fairness to the Crossrail trains, the problem is not the trains themselves, but how they are deployed. A semantic point maybe, but as metro trains they're excellent, However, they're not really a train I'd want to use for a long-ish jouney.

[Mike_Walker]

2 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

In fairness to the Crossrail trains, the problem is not the trains themselves, but how they are deployed. A semantic point maybe, but as metro trains they're excellent, However, they're not really a train I'd want to use for a long-ish jouney.

Spot on.

[Mike_Walker]

Regarding the new Old Oak Common station; this is another opportunity wasted by short-sighted civil servants and ministers who can't see the bigger picture.  Whilst sitting astride the GWML and above HS2, it is also surrounded by other rail lines.  Two branches of the London Overground network, the West London Line and the Richmond line, pass over at either end of the OOC site and the LU Central Line is close by too.  If stations were provided on these connected to OOC by Travellator-style moving walkways think of the additional connections and travel opportunities that would be opened up.

 

Proposals were put forward by TfL for a LO station(s) whilst Chiltern proposed a two-platform terminal station next to North Acton LU station (beyond the proposed EL turnback sidings) served by trains from the High Wycombe line but both proposals were thrown out without any reasonable consideration by the DfT yet they call it the "OOC Interchange".

 

We are led by Donkeys, I sympathise with @jjb1970 !   Sadly, this incompetence isn't confined to the DfT but seems to extend to every part of government at all levels.  There is a picture in my newspaper today of a box placed over one of Citizen Kahn's new ULEZ cameras emblazoned with the slogan: "Stop electing idiots".  Amen!

[rodent279]

21 minutes ago, Mike_Walker said:

"Stop electing idiots". 

Unfortunately, though I deeply empathise with this sentiment, I don't see any change happening any time soon.

Is it the idiots who are elected, or the idiots who elect them? Maybe a comma inserted between the 2nd and 3rd words would render the phrase more appropriate.

 

(I guess my point is, we are not electing idiots, rather, those being elected are appealing to idiots.)

Edited March 27, 2023 by rodent279

[Michael Hodgson]

Try asking the great unwashed to design a new railway themselves (or a road network for that matter).  They wouldn't agree where it should go to, from, how fast, ticketing or intermediate stops, let alone whether it would also carry freight.  Why should here today/gone tomorrow politicians do any better?

[Ron Ron Ron]

1 hour ago, rodent279 said:

Unfortunately, though I deeply empathise with this sentiment, I don't see any change happening any time soon.

Is it the idiots who are elected, or the idiots who elect them? Maybe a comma inserted between the 2nd and 3rd words would render the phrase more appropriate.

 

(I guess my point is, we are not electing idiots, rather, those being elected are appealing to idiots.)

It’s not entirely down to the politicians.

They are to a large degree, at the mercy of their senior civil servants and the myopic group think that prevails in the corridors of power.

We saw evidence of clueless ministers, hopelessly out of their depth during the pandemic, being rushed or panicked into making decisions and then doubling down on their mistakes, because they feared not looking decisive or competent .

The result being the opposite .

 

A different government coming into power will not change this.

 

 

.

 

Edited March 27, 2023 by Ron Ron Ron

[RJS1977]

20 hours ago, Mike_Walker said:

Now that would have been a much better scheme, much better than what we've got.  How was it proposed to reach the GWML from Wembley?  Presumably by a tunnel.

 

I would have thought by using the New North Main Line (i.e. the ex GWR main line to Birmigham via High Wycombe)

[Mike_Walker]

Just now, RJS1977 said:

 

I would have thought by using the New North Main Line (i.e. the ex GWR main line to Birmigham via High Wycombe)

But the BR leaflet Mike posted showed the Amersham line.

[Ron Ron Ron]

10 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

 

I would have thought by using the New North Main Line (i.e. the ex GWR main line to Birmigham via High Wycombe)

 

9 minutes ago, Mike_Walker said:

But the BR leaflet Mike posted showed the Amersham line.

None of it matters.

That scheme is long dead and there’s no point in even discussing it, as it serves no purpose and there are no useful lessons to be learnt.

We are where we are and only the future matters.

[The Stationmaster]

An interesting point about the XR network map from back then is what it doesn't show and why it doesn't show it.  High Wycombe is not included if you look carefully and the route to aylesbury is via Wembley Park and over the MET north of there including the Chesham branch.  Thus - as already questioned above - there would need to be a link from south Of Wembley Park, using the existlng curve at Neasden presumably and then addng a new curve off the North (South onto the Western in the vicinity of the western end of Old Oak Common to get to the Old Oak Common area.

 

I never heard if that was, or wasn't, in mind but you'll see from my comments regarding the April 1993 meeting that the Aykesbury route was  apparently becoming regarded as something for a later addition rather than inclusion from Day One.   But note carefully what was basically intended there as Crossrail would takeover from the BR Marylebone -Aylesbury service and the Met northwards from Wembley Park - so Chesham no longer Met but served by Crossrail.  And note too that the High Wycombe line was omitted from Crossrail although why was never explained to me or mentioned at any meetings. 

 

But spoken about - although not very loudly  - was the likely revival of the earlier scheme to close Marylebone and transfer the Wycombe - High Wycombe etc route  to a service from Paddington - which the 1967 Paddington area resignalling had been specifically planned to cater for.   High Wycombe/Princes Risborough mightd then have stood out as a candidate for later inclusion in Crossrail but whether that was in mind or not I don't know.  However the dream of closing Marylebone and selling the whole site for development was one that had been long seen as a potential major source of funds for BR.  Diverting GWML local services east of Reading to Crossrail would have meant that  Paddington could have easily handled Wycombe Line trains.

 

Thus overall the 'western' element of the scheme was very different from what has now emerged and in many respects was probably a lot better founded with direct access to the city restored to trains from the GWML  (reflecting in many respects the original post-war plan of doing so by means of Crossrail instead of by restoring the previous route over the Circle Line).   Docklands of course wasn't evena pipe dream so the scheme basically followed the original idea of linking the eastern side to the western side and using decent quality through trains to do it - a very different starting point from what has now emerged as basically an expansion outwards of TfL trains.

 

Would rge 341s - with their Networker arentage - have ridden any better than the 345s?  Probably.  i noticed yesterday, albeit only over 5 miles, that 345 riding at speed is beginning to compare poorly with 387 Electrostar riding even on plain line.   And I can't really work out or understand why that is the case.

[MidlandRed]

I know people in this thread have referred to Thameslink once or twice. Those trains ride pretty well in my view but the seats start to get uncomfortable after 40 mins or so. Therefore if you want to travel all the way from London Bridge to Peterborough or Bedford it won’t be terribly comfortable and definitely less so than the 387s (or even 365s) (low density trains) which the 700s replaced. However the network is undeniably helpful providing many travel opportunities than were not available hitherto.

 

Is this simply the same case with the 345s and the previous GE suburban and GW suburban. Perhaps the GW had interim 387s - the GE had 315s all along!! 

 

I have to disagree with @The Stationmaster regarding Docklands - this was well underway by the 90s though the Jubilee Line (as well as DLR) provided many travel opportunities, completion of which probably post dated the early 90s BR thinking for Crossrail. Do people living near the GWML not travel to Docklands and thus benefit from not having to put up with the crush load on the Jubilee line in the peak? I suspect the BR people of the early 90s had less interest in such things than TfL does now. 
 

Im afraid I’m too remote from it to understand the machinations of the Berkshire commuter but I’m guessing, as with some bits of Thameslink, the longer distance commuters are intended to use ‘semi fasts’ (I.e 387s on GWML as per 360s on MML and semi fasts beyond Shenfield in Essex) - beyond that, where available, longer distance trains such as GWR and EC trains. 
 

The Thameslink service at London Bridge is astonishing to be honest - as is the Elizabeth Line through the central core. 
 

As stated earlier in this thread, we are where we are - not entirely sure how we can discuss theoretical alterations whilst focussing on a network which is 30 odd years out of date and ignores such matters as Docklands and E London, which generate huge amounts of traffic some of which overloads the Jubilee Line. Also if anyone has tried to board a Javelin travelling out of London in the evening peak at Stratford International, they will see the pressure of this as it’s often physically impossible to board the train, such is the demand from both St Pancras and Stratford International.

 

The comments about Marylebone are interesting. Would Paddington and its approaches accommodate Marylebone’s modern day traffic as well as its own modern day traffic plus the Elizabeth Line as implemented? 
 

Sorry if I’m overlooking things here, I’m sure people will point them out. My fear is people are focussing on certain elements of the outer reaches of the GW route and not the broader picture. 

Edited March 29, 2023 by MidlandRed

[Mike_Walker]

8 hours ago, MidlandRed said:

The comments about Marylebone are interesting. Would Paddington and its approaches accommodate Marylebone’s modern day traffic as well as its own modern day traffic plus the Elizabeth Line as implemented? 

Probably not but then BR were working on the service they provided on the HW line which, even after the Total Route Modernisation of the early nineties, was a shadow of what Chiltern offers today.

 

As mentioned earlier, whilst there are many who travel from the west to The City and Docklands, there are as many, if not more, who travel on to other destinations in London whose commute has been rendered worse by the arrival of the EL which is not the case on the east side where things have been improved.

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

10 hours ago, MidlandRed said:

I know people in this thread have referred to Thameslink once or twice. Those trains ride pretty well in my view but the seats start to get uncomfortable after 40 mins or so. Therefore if you want to travel all the way from London Bridge to Peterborough or Bedford it won’t be terribly comfortable and definitely less so than the 387s (or even 365s) (low density trains) which the 700s replaced. However the network is undeniably helpful providing many travel opportunities than were not available hitherto.

 

Is this simply the same case with the 345s and the previous GE suburban and GW suburban. Perhaps the GW had interim 387s - the GE had 315s all along!! 

 

I have to disagree with @The Stationmaster regarding Docklands - this was well underway by the 90s though the Jubilee Line (as well as DLR) provided many travel opportunities, completion of which probably post dated the early 90s BR thinking for Crossrail. Do people living near the GWML not travel to Docklands and thus benefit from not having to put up with the crush load on the Jubilee line in the peak? I suspect the BR people of the early 90s had less interest in such things than TfL does now. 
 

Im afraid I’m too remote from it to understand the machinations of the Berkshire commuter but I’m guessing, as with some bits of Thameslink, the longer distance commuters are intended to use ‘semi fasts’ (I.e 387s on GWML as per 360s on MML and semi fasts beyond Shenfield in Essex) - beyond that, where available, longer distance trains such as GWR and EC trains. 
 

The Thameslink service at London Bridge is astonishing to be honest - as is the Elizabeth Line through the central core. 
 

As stated earlier in this thread, we are where we are - not entirely sure how we can discuss theoretical alterations whilst focussing on a network which is 30 odd years out of date and ignores such matters as Docklands and E London, which generate huge amounts of traffic some of which overloads the Jubilee Line. Also if anyone has tried to board a Javelin travelling out of London in the evening peak at Stratford International, they will see the pressure of this as it’s often physically impossible to board the train, such is the demand from both St Pancras and Stratford International.

 

The comments about Marylebone are interesting. Would Paddington and its approaches accommodate Marylebone’s modern day traffic as well as its own modern day traffic plus the Elizabeth Line as implemented? 
 

Sorry if I’m overlooking things here, I’m sure people will point them out. My fear is people are focussing on certain elements of the outer reaches of the GW route and not the broader picture. 

The interesting thing about the Western side which is rather different from the Shenfield section is there has been an improvement in the quality of passenger accommodation with each successive arrival of new trains.  The Pressed Steel units provided toilets on every train worked by multiple units - albeit only available to one coach until they were gangwayed.  An improvement on what had gone before plus they were lighter and brighter inside.  The Turbos provided toilets on all trains, including the branches previously worked by bubble cars, and much more comfortable seating than the Pressed Steel sets plus they ride better.  The 387s, hard seats aside, have maintained the internal facilities plus introducing tables or fold down 'ledges' which can be used fora laptop or a book etc.  They offer better lighting than the Turbos plus they have reduced some journey times because of better acceleration and higher speed and their riding is pretty good even over pointwork.  

 

In contras to all of this progress the 345s are a big step backwards.  Sideways facing seats haven't been seen on Thames Valley trains - and then mainly on the branches - for just over 60 years and they are clearly not popular judging  where most people sit if they have a choice when boarding.  They lack toilets - which are used on the 387s - and have no luggage racks let alone anywhere to plonk your laptop plus their draught exclusion around the doors is very limited and ineffective.  Their riding has never been as good at the 387s and in my (limited) experience seems to be deteriorating (limited because whenever possible I avoid using them and wait for a 387).  Thus after three generations of progress the 4th generation takes us back over 60 years apart from their better internal lighting and speed while at the same time accompanied by higher fares..

 

Access to the Canary Wharf area is an area involving conflicts of choice.  If I were commuting to that area my quickest journey time would be GWR 387 to./from Paddington and change there to the Liz Line.  The same applies for a journey to, say Liverpool St for an onward train although at present I would make the simple change at Ealing Broadway but that will have to be Paddington in the new timetable.  

 

I know only of one person who has said he would probably use the Liz Line all the way to Canary Wharf because it would save him changing trains once he was on it.   It does of course all depend how you value various aspects in the mix of your commuting journey.  When I lived in Reading and last worked in London I had the choice of two different routes - one required me to simply join a train and travel on it to the station within very short walking distance of my office.  The other involved changing to the Bakerloo Line at Paddington and using it to my destination - again with a short walk once I'd got off it.  I valued my time so usually I took the much quicker route, even though it meant I had to use the Bakerloo Line (or the diversionary UndergrounD route when the Bakerloo was closed for an extended period for major engineering work).  Occasionally I came home the slower way, and had a late dinner once I got home.  

 

Route choice will, in my experience, always be subject to all sorts of influences and decision factors.  And one of those with the Liz Line is the very long walking distances to get to where you want to be at some stations.  That too will affect choice fpr some people.

 

The question of change in travek habits si one where those f us beyind housing developers have yet to see what will happen.  New blocks of flats at Hayes and Southall could well bring in people who are lured by the journeys offered by Liz Line.  but further out the picture will, i think be more mixed v because while estate agents etc go on about it comparing a 345 with an IET or 387 from Reading to London sounds like no contest to me.  The same applies, to a slightly lesser extent from Twyford and Maidenhead and there it will come to down to journey time & comfort versus the perception of the inconvenience, or otherwise, of having to change at Paddington. There is no difference between modes in the fares from these three stations or Slough.  Once the timetable change is in place Slough will provide something of a 'proof' one way or the other especially if the GWR 387s continue to load heavily from there.

 

 

 

[DY444]

13 hours ago, MidlandRed said:

I know people in this thread have referred to Thameslink once or twice. Those trains ride pretty well in my view but the seats start to get uncomfortable after 40 mins or so. 

 

[I realise this is going OT]  I generally use TL on the southern side but I find the 700s have a very peculiar rolling motion which I really don't like at all and don't recall ever having experienced on any stock before.

[009 micro modeller]

6 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

In contras to all of this progress the 345s are a big step backwards.  Sideways facing seats haven't been seen on Thames Valley trains - and then mainly on the branches - for just over 60 years and they are clearly not popular judging  where most people sit if they have a choice when boarding.  They lack toilets - which are used on the 387s - and have no luggage racks let alone anywhere to plonk your laptop plus their draught exclusion around the doors is very limited and ineffective.  Their riding has never been as good at the 387s and in my (limited) experience seems to be deteriorating (limited because whenever possible I avoid using them and wait for a 387).  Thus after three generations of progress the 4th generation takes us back over 60 years apart from their better internal lighting and speed while at the same time accompanied by higher fares..

This seems slightly similar to the Thameslink experience; the issue there seems to be that the trains have to be (north to south) firstly a sort of regional express/commuter train from Peterborough/Bedford/Cambridge to St Pancras/King’s Cross, then a metro through the core, and finally a South London suburban service. The compromise means they’re not the best for longer routes, but are good at fitting standing passengers in. Having commuted on 387s and 700s (depending on what is used for that particular service on the day) the 387s have much more comfortable seats but are much worse when standing, because of the narrow gangway connections and relative lack of space around the doorways. The Elizabeth Line is possibly the same sort of thing but with more of the ‘metro’ aspect.

 

6 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

I know only of one person who has said he would probably use the Liz Line all the way to Canary Wharf because it would save him changing trains once he was on it.   It does of course all depend how you value various aspects in the mix of your commuting journey.  When I lived in Reading and last worked in London I had the choice of two different routes - one required me to simply join a train and travel on it to the station within very short walking distance of my office.  The other involved changing to the Bakerloo Line at Paddington and using it to my destination - again with a short walk once I'd got off it.  I valued my time so usually I took the much quicker route, even though it meant I had to use the Bakerloo Line (or the diversionary UndergrounD route when the Bakerloo was closed for an extended period for major engineering work).  Occasionally I came home the slower way, and had a late dinner once I got home.  

I did a journey on the Elizabeth Line the other day. Only from Farringdon to Paddington but then got off to catch a GWR train to a destination beyond Reading. However, even if I was only going to Reading I think I’d probably have changed at Paddington as it is so much quicker (unless for some reason there were no fast trains to Reading at the time I wanted to travel). Similarly Farringdon to Leeds (for instance) most people wouldn’t stay on Thameslink until Peterborough before changing, they’d change at King’s Cross. I might just stay on Thameslink if I was only going from Farringdon to Peterborough but a lot of them are limited stop anyway and with cheaper/more flexible tickets than other ECML operators on the same route, which perhaps doesn’t apply so much to the Elizabeth Line case.

 

In a similar vein, does anyone actually stay on the GN inner suburban all the way from Moorgate to Letchworth via Hertford, rather than changing at Finsbury Park?

[phil-b259]

On 26/03/2023 at 21:18, lmsforever said:

Why was the line to Aylesbury dropped ?

(1) Tunnelling from Old Oak to Neasden / Wembley would have been expensive and there were no rich developers willing to pay huge contributions on the Aylesbury branch (unlike the situation with Canary Wharf on the Abbey Wood branch

 

(2) TfL didn’t want to lose out on potential revenue (they gain considerably with the Elizabeth line being a takeover of National rail services)

 

(3) Running on to the met line either need dual voltage trains or huge amounts of cash putting OLE (while still keeping the DC kit for Underground trains.

Edited March 29, 2023 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

On 27/03/2023 at 12:47, RJS1977 said:

 

I would have thought by using the New North Main Line (i.e. the ex GWR main line to Birmigham via High Wycombe)

If Crossrail used this then it would run into the same sort of pathing problems (but worse) it has on the GWML

 

Once the line from Marylebone has joined you are trying to mix a frequent metro and a long distance service on the same tracks - that just doesn’t work - and a few passing loops don’t help!

 

In effect you would be limiting Crossrail to a mere 2/ 3tph - and given Crossrail would have also had to finance overhead electrification of the route it’s pretty obvious the numbers simply don’t stack up.

 

Widening to 3 / 4 tracks would help increase service levels - but would probably cost even more than widening the GWML to 6 tracks as you can’t make use of so much redundant railway land. 

[Northmoor]

49 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

(3) Running on to the met line either need dual voltage trains or huge amounts of cash putting OLE (while still keeping the DC kit for Underground trains.

I'd assumed that 1990s Crossrail would have replaced the Met services North of Moor Park, but making the 25kV and 4th rail LU systems compatible/non-interfering over the route South of there would be quite some technical challenge.  It would also mean complete resignalling, remember that as far as the sidings North of Amersham is LU infrastructure (Chiltern's fleets are tripcock-fitted to allow them over this stretch).

[The Stationmaster]

On 29/03/2023 at 21:14, Northmoor said:

I'd assumed that 1990s Crossrail would have replaced the Met services North of Moor Park, but making the 25kV and 4th rail LU systems compatible/non-interfering over the route South of there would be quite some technical challenge.  It would also mean complete resignalling, remember that as far as the sidings North of Amersham is LU infrastructure (Chiltern's fleets are tripcock-fitted to allow them over this stretch).

More or less the case.  But why would LUL 3rd/4th rail be retained?   BTW 25kv overhead powered trains do of course seem to have run quite happily next to LUL trains running parallel to the WCML. The plan could simply have altered the Met north of Moor Park towards Rickmansworth by transferring it to Crossrail operation (which - don't forget was joint BR/LUL) and then onward to Aylesbury by taking out the Marylebone service by transferring it to  Crossrail.  There would no doubt have been an interchange between the Met route (now solely to Watford) and. Crossrail somewhere north of Neasden.

 

Line capacity aside there was a ready made link - requiring only a new curve at Old Oak Common  between there and Neasden and of course a revived connection onto the non-electrified BR lines at Neasden.  So no tunnelling (and I doubt umpteen folk then living in the area would have been so vociferous about tunnelling as there has  been with HS 2).  Once beyond Acton Wells the existing route was not anything like heavily used but the situation at Acton Wells would have been complicated to say the least.

 

Putting all of this together it is no wonder that the financial case for this branch of the early '90s Crossrail was not good even taking into account the money which would have been raised by sale of the Marylebone site.   There were of course sufficient running lines available at that time to keep Aylesbury line Crossrail trains clear of Reading line trains, and the High Wycombe services transferred from Marylebone and running to/from Paddington, but it would have involved potential junction conflicts where the two Crossrail routes came together prior to entering the tunnel.  i remember somebody remarking at the time that the E&C Lines  flyover between Ladbroke Grove and Old oak was the wrong way round although it would obviously have kept all the ECS trains clear of both Crossrail routes in the position it already occupied.

 

But don't forget ths plan was very much the extension of existing services, but with better rolling stock and electrified, on the Reading/Aylesbury side of London through to the eastern side plus additional trans on the central section to meet LULs remit there.  Thus the essence of that plan was very different from what TfL alone has done in recent years and - as has been pointed out - this never happened.  So, among other things,  BR no longer exists, Marylebone is still open, Met trains still go to Chesham, Crossrail trains are now glorified underground trains rather than what was intended back then, and so on.  The world has changed

[Northmoor]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

Met trains still go to Chesham

Interesting point; with TfL's current financial pressures, Chesham would likely be peak hours only were it not for their politically boisterous electorate.  The branch is dead for most of the day.

 

Another thought about Crossrail services to the Chilterns is, would the locals have wanted such a service, encouraging even more potential commuters from the area?  I suspect that the demand created for further housing would have been resisted as equally loudly as the protests against HS2, unlike the Thames Valley there is virtually no brownfield land so new housing would be greenfield development.  They don't want more development in the Chilterns or indeed anything that might impact on their affluence, much of which is based on astronomical house values.  Without the increased population and housing to feed growth in journeys, Crossrail to Amersham and Aylesbury might have been quite a loss-maker.