Less than a year after it opened, another attempt is being proposed to extend the Elizabeth line, this time via a 30-mile loop through parts of Essex and Kent. The proposal, from Thurrock Council, is included in a wider proposal to improve local transport links and could see the two eastern spurs of the Elizabeth line joined in a loop that would run under the Thames.
Elizabeth line map with proposed extension (c) Thurrock Council
The suggested proposal is for the Elizabeth line to take over the existing London Overground line from Romford to Upminster. Then it would take over the existing single-track railway that runs between Upminster and Grays, onto Tilbury.
Then it would pass under the Thames to Gravesend, where it would link in with the already proposed extension between Abbey Wood and Northfleet.
There are however some pretty substantial engineering problems to overcome.
The Elizabeth line trains arrive at Romford station on the north side of the station, but the railway to Upminister is on the south side, so a large flyover would be needed to link the two sides up.
There is enough space to double-track the railway to Upminster, but the single platform Emerson Park station is tiny and would need a considerable rebuild.
At Upminster, the same problem as at Romford exists, in that the Elizabeth line trains would be arriving on the north side of Upminster station and would need a flyover to get to the south side for to run over the C2C line down to Grays.
The two existing stations at Chafford Hundred and Ockendon will need rebuilding, and the plans include a new station at South Ockendon.
Once the extension reaches Tilbury, the intention is that it would dive into a tunnel under the Thames to Gravesend. The difficulty is how to link the tunnel with the railway at Gravesend as the station is in the town centre. The most likely option would be to join the railways to the east of the town where there’s empty land suitable for the tunnel portal.
The most likely option to achieve that though would require the railway to head out of Tilbury to the east and then loop down to the river on the eastern side of the former Tilbury Power Stations.
None of these engineering issues are in the report by Thurrock Council, which is admittedly a very high-level aspiration at this stage, but even at this level of detail, the problems are easy to have identified prior to publication.
If the flyovers weren’t needed, an Elizabeth line extension to Thurrock would be expensive, but affordable if funded by substantial housing along the C2C spur between Grays and Upminster. The need for the flyovers makes it almost certainly unaffordable though.
There’s also the often overlooked issue that alongside the railway track and station upgrades, you need a load more trains, and they’re not cheap. At around £15 million each, you’d likely need an additional 20 trains for the extension, plus the depot so somewhere in the region of £350 million on top of the railway infrastructure upgrades.
That would usually come out in more detailed research into the costs. Thurrock Council will however struggle to pay for the necessary research into the proposal to flesh out the details, having recently filed a Section 114 notice barring any new expenditure after it dropped into a £500 million deficit due to failed investments.
It’s not that there’s a lack of need for transport upgrades, as the railways in/out of London are congested and there’s a lack of capacity at Fenchurch Street station to cope with much more. The area is however unusually lucky in having the north-south line between Grays and Upminster, which needs double tracking, or bypass loops added to increase capacity.
The perennial question is about paying for the upgrade.
Just the Abbey Wood to Northfleet section through Kent has been previously estimated to cost around £3 billion — so doubling it through Essex as well, would likely double the cost again.
A large chunk of the current Elizabeth line was funded by property developments, but the area around this extension is largely already developed with suburban housing, and only about 20 percent passes through land that could be developed if Green Belt objections can be overcome.
The council’s report (pdf) does look at how local transport upgrades could be delivered to make local journeys better, and it would likely be substantially easier to upgrade the existing C2C line into London, than to build a giant 30-mile loop extension of the Elizabeth line.
In addition to all the good reasons you listed, haven’t the council noticed that TFL aren’t fans of circular routes?
First thing that came to mind here, too.
While I was growing up in Upminster there were less grand hopes by the locals for the Upminster -Romford line to be no longer but include more stops so it was a more useful line. This was how it was intended when it was first built – that’s why it has capacity for double track, including double arches on the bridges. I still think it would be useful locally, but would slow down the ELizabeth line which was, I understand, originally imagined as a way to get across town speedily. Haven’t used the line in years myself (don’t live round there any more) but it’s always playing a shall-we-shan’t-we close it game with the rail body. More stations would make it slower but more relevant. Joining it up to the Elizabeth Line would be a nightmare both ends.
Let’s remember: so much land is needed; rail closures more frequent; not to mention capital funding. None of these are cheap to acquire and at this moment, we can only hope that financial struggles are overcome.
It would be good for the area if it were to happen.
However as you say very early stages and we know Thurrock are considered for the worst council in the country for good reasons!
And of course TfL “don’t do trains with toilets” which operators like c2c, Thameslink etc do on sections of route where this proposal is going. I’m not saying many will go say Tilbury to Maidenhead or Heathrow but many likely to be with the need for more accessibility.
And… the C2C (north side of the Thames) and Southeastern (south side) lines are third-rail power whilst the Liz is overhead AC, so if you could get the trains down the Romford-Upminster push-pull (unsignalled) section they wouldn’t be able to travel over the C2C lines because only the Thameslink (class “700”) and HS1 Javelin (class “395”) trains can change power systems.
I don’t think it’s possible for trains to safely have both overhead and third-rail power systems, thus the changeovers at Farringdon/Ashford International and Ebbsfleet International.
So, several more £bilions for a new fleet of Class 345 with dual-power systems.
Being a frequent traveller on C2C, I can assure you that their trains are all powered via an overhead supply.
As for the whole idea, it’s a bit early for an April Fool!
Also, class London Overground class 313 can change power systems too. But certainly not the Liz Line trains.
The main point of Class 345 is not to have expensive redundant dual power rather one efficient power system from end to end, including the tunnels. Long service life remaining so lots to do before any change. They don’t belong to TfL, even if they liked this loop.
I suspect the council didn’t think this through…
It would be nice and it would be good if we could Expand the Elizabeth Line even a little bit more in the future. Maybe they could plan to Expand it to Henley on Thames in the future. Or maybe Lewisham. Or maybe Chelmsford as well for some sort of Convenience as well.
Put the crayons away please Thurrock!
What next send Lizzie to Ashford and then it’ll be an easy job to send her to Paris and Amsterdam!
@John Simmons
My error, I’ve mixed up the C2C line with the District Line, haven’t it?
The C2C is interesting that it unique in having zero interconnects with any other National Rail line.
C2C runs a decent service to Stratford and Liverpool Street at the weekends. It also shares track with London Overground in the Barking area.
You would need a flyover if you took *out* the flyover at Ilford, and the GEML ran via the Electrics and the Liz Line ran on the GEML track. You could then extend the Liz Line to Southend too. And use the Existing Platform 4 and 5 at Shenfield for Colchester bound routes.
A light-rail Essex-Kent Metro linking into existing rail services would be a far more affordable solution, even given the expense of a tunnel under the Thames.
Another solution could be a network of busways, taking over one of the two Dartford Tunnels for its exclusive use.
Does the Elizabeth line have the capacity to cope with more traphic?
Madness I say. And even madder to pay people to suggest such things.
Fix the interchange between Ebbsfleet and Northfleet, add a domestic station on HS1 for the Javalins at Rainham (Essex) and you get pretty much all the benefits for no cost. And its still too expensive to be worthwhile.
there was meant to be a station at rainham when it was built but to many people opposed it so they moved it ebbfleet
Can’t they work it without flyovers ? Only asking
Depends what other trains you’d like to cancel. Otherwise, no.
I often use the push-and-pull Emerson Park line and live alongside it. I think it would be much better if it was a tram line that allows you to walk down it.
I can’t imagine there’s enough space to expand the track 2 ways or create bridges either way. Both of these changes would cause too much caos
Does the Elizabeth line have the capacity to cope with more traphic?
@Ian yes, the Elizabeth line does have capacity to cope with more traffic. Not sure what “traphic” is 😊
Total non starter due to the lack of capacity on crossrail’s north eastern branch which already has too much demand for the core.
Improving C2C’s access to town starts (one day, in the distant future) with a new tunnel, maybe from east of Bromley-by-bow, then along the route of the unbuilt fleet line.
We all know this won’t happen. With local elections around the corner this strikes me as noise to get local councillors elected.
Above 51% chance of a new eastern station in east Gravesend.
Linked to significant regeneration (informally being discussed at a major level).
Cross Thames services, Crossrail services, along with existing services, being accommodated.
Gravesend’s current station is way too small and congested.
Although a new build station to the east, would add an additional 2 minutes upon a Gravesend journey time, it would resolve many existing issues and lay a foundation for future growth locally and regionally.