“When I was at school I liked art.” Says Michèle Dix CBE, Managing Director of Crossrail 2, when we ask her how she began her journey to the world of London transport. “I liked drawing, creating stuff and science. And then someone mentioned engineering and I thought ‘well civil engineering actually combines those.’ ”
“So I did civil engineering and liked it.” She explains. “But the bit I liked was actually the transport stuff. I don’t know why! But I just liked transport because it was more people related somehow. So I got interested in the relationship between transport and land use and did a transport and land use Ph.D., which made me more interested. Then I thought… ‘well, I’d better get a job!’ ”
A period at the Greater London Council (GLC) followed, in which Dix found herself involved in policy and scheme work on everything from the Docklands Southern Relief Road to the Fleet line (which would become the Jubilee line, and a whole lot more). The abolition of the GLC in 1986, however, forced a sudden shift from public to private sector.
“Everyone at the GLC hated consultants” Dix says, “So I thought I’d go work for one and see what they’re like… and I really liked it!”
“I stayed there fifteen years and whilst I was there, again, I found myself working on all these projects that were started donkeys years ago – including the East London River Crossing, more work on an area toll congestion charge and then we did the pre-Mayoral work on road tolls – on a central London £5 charge. I did the policy work on that.”
It was that work on the Congestion Charge which would eventually pull her back into the public sector, and into TfL. “When Ken wanted to run with it he said he needed someone to implement it.” Dix explains. “And I thought: ‘Ooh! I would like that!’ So I came back. It’s been really good to do big policy strategic things and specific schemes. I do like this.”
Crossrail Squared
To describe the scheme Dix currently heads simply as ‘big’ would almost be an understatement. Should it go ahead, Crossrail 2 will stretch from north-east to south-west London. Depending on its final route and chosen branches, it could touch places as far apart as Shepperton, Chessington and Epsom in the south, to New Southgate and Broxbourne in the north. In doing so it will provide almost 270,000 new passenger journeys into London in the am peak alone and free up space on National Rail lines, allowing towns and cities like Cambridge, Southampton, Basingstoke, Woking, Guildford and Portsmouth to potentially benefit from more frequent services as well. All this, at an estimated cost of between £27bn and £32bn.
Yet these impressive transport numbers, Dix is quick to point out, aren’t really what the project is about. They are the means to a far more important end – helping tackle one of London’s greatest challenges: population growth.
The proposed route
“As London grows,” she explains, “not only do we need to move people around but we need somewhere for them to live. And we need those houses connected to places where they can work. So the population challenge generates a housing challenge, which generates a transport challenge.”
Crossrail 2, she insists is a critical part of meeting that challenge. Not just because of the transport benefits, but because of what they potentially unlock – not just an opportunity to build 200,000 new homes and to support roughly the same number of new jobs, but also to connect them together.
“Of all the schemes we have looked at it’s going to be the most transformational.” She says. “So if we look at what’s in the [Mayor’s Transport] Strategy to date, we’re addressing issues east-west with Crossrail 1. We’re addressing issues north-south with Thameslink. We’re addressing the issues more broadly across the network by upgrading the Tube and on the National Rail lines [with] longer trains, longer platforms.”
“But if we look across the network there’s a gap” She continues. “In the south-west there’s not a solution that exists for the problems there at present. If we look at the north-east there’s not a solution there for connecting a vast potential housing area to jobs. And if you look at the centre, through which Crossrail 2 would go, then yes, there is increasing capacity being provided through the Tube upgrades, but that is slowly being consumed by the growth.”
“And like it or not,” She says, frankly, “people want to agglomerate around central London and work there. It’s either that we provide for that or we ignore it and ignoring it means we potentially lose that increase in productivity.”
“I tell people that I come from Grimsby.” She says. “There’s loads of homes up there, but no jobs. Without them, what’s the point of building more? You’ve got to get the jobs in! And you could build homes around London in different places but unless they’re linked to the places with jobs then what’s the point?
Dix’s acceptance of the fact that economies of agglomeration – the principle that businesses tend to clump together and benefit from doing so – still draw an enormous number of businesses to central London is refreshing. This isn’t to say that other parts of TfL, or indeed the GLA and the boroughs, don’t accept it. Simply that most discussion is often focused on how to mitigate it as a problem rather than seeing it as something that is, to a certain extent, inevitable.
“Centralisation of employment will happen.” Dix says, matter-of-factly. “Lots of work has been done within TfL and the GLA asking how you can decentralise employment. Can you make the boroughs bigger employment hubs? Can you go back to that metropolitan centre model that disperses some of the employment from the centre to those areas?”
“It didn’t work.” She says, bluntly. “The Outer London Commission went around looking at London,” she says, “looking at how you can get more employment in outer London. Can you get some of the central London employment out there? But it’s about recognising that fewer employers – fewer big employers – want to go there and that you can’t force them.
“They either go to central London or they go to, say, Frankfurt.” She shrugs. “They don’t go to central London and then Croydon.”
This isn’t, she stresses, to say that those areas don’t have options. Simply that those options are more complex than simply shifting businesses outwards.
“It’s interesting to look at Croydon as a model.” She says. “Croydon was a big office hub location and that’s just gradually disappeared. Now, when redeveloping Croydon… well [the borough] have come to the conclusion that it’s got a different function now. It will have office hubs there, but it’s more about leisure and pleasure. You want people living there in the middle – more shops more theatres more culture. More mixed-use development.”
“You need activity in those centres. You need life in those centres. So these mixed use developments seem to be one way forward. But the other thing is that if you’re building houses, for every house you build you generate so many jobs – the teachers, the nurses, the retail people – within the local areas. Of the 200,000 new jobs we’ve identified which Crossrail 2 will support, some 70,000 of them are dispersed. They’re within outer London.”
An old idea
We ask how this apparently modern need to focus on housing meshes with a scheme whose route and safeguarding dates itself back to the early seventies at least.
“Earlier!” She says with a laugh. “Some of the first studies in 1944.”
“Well, 1944 was the first ideas for these Crossrail solutions, then the seventies for further cross-London rail studies.” She explains. “In 1991 Crossrail 2 was then safeguarded as the Chelsea-Hackney line. That was essentially joining the District line to the Central line with a tunnel in the middle, with a station at Chelsea Kings Road and a station in Hackney.”
“But when we came to review the safeguarding in about 2009, when we were doing the Mayor’s Transport Strategy, we looked at what else was going on, what else had been put in place – so the Jubilee Line Extension, further work to the Central line, the East London line work – and recognised that actually there was more of a need to go northwards when you got to Angel than there was necessarily to go eastwards, as quite a lot was being planned out to the east versus a gap to the north.”
“We also reviewed the route through the middle, and whereas the Chelsea-Hackney line went to King’s Cross, we recognised that with HS2 going into Euston – particularly the second phase going up to Manchester and Leeds – you put much more pressure on Euston station and you need much more capacity to disperse those passengers.”
“Similarly when we got to the southern end and were looking at the best route forward, one of our big problems was not only South West Trains being overcrowded, but the Northern line. So we were trying to find a solution to relieve the growing problems on the Northern line, and this meant that we diverted the safeguarding to relieve that as well.”
“Because of that, quite a lot of optioneering was done around what Crossrail 2 should look like.” She says. “What emerged from that in 2013 was a route that is pretty similar to what you see today. Plus the option of just having a metro scheme, which would have run from Wimbledon to New Southgate – or rather Ally Pally [Alexandra Palace] at the time.”
Going public
We point out that the potential routes for Crossrail 2 must have led to considerable work during the public consultation stages, certainly more so than for Crossrail 1.
“Well the overriding public response to those two options was the original scheme.” She says. “Because that would give rise to wider benefits. Certainly affecting a larger group of people beyond London as well as helping London.”
This, she says, then informed the subsequent consultation that took place in 2015. Even here though, the goal was to make clear what was actually up for debate.
“[We wanted] to inform on a preferred scheme that we can – subject to the strategic outline business case being approved in March by the Mayor and Secretary of State – take forward and develop for the Hybrid Bill.” She says. “So narrowing down what the scheme should be.”
“As I say to people though, even if we narrow it down for that position, it doesn’t stop people still objecting to it and raising concerns and thus making changes. Because if someone comes up with something we haven’t thought of then we’d want to make those changes.”
“And ideally” she laughs. “You’d want to make them before you get to the Hybrid Bill!”
No matter how carefully you try to define the debate, public consultations can be hard to do well. We ask how Dix attempted to keep the Crossrail 2 consultations on track.
“[I said] ‘it’s a consultation not a referendum!’ ” She jokes, before admitting that there does seem to be a certain question and answer process down which all major rail consultations inevitably go.
“‘Do you want this shiny tunnel underground?’” She says, describing the first question and answer. “‘Yes we want it!’”
“‘Do you want a shiny tunnel underground that might pop up near you?’” She continues. “‘Yep! We want it!’”
“‘Do you want this shiny tunnel that will pop up near you, but here’s the big hole that needs to be dug to build it?’” She says, with a wry smile. “‘Erm… not so sure of that.’”
“That’s the sort of engagement we’ve had.” She says, honestly. “And quite rightly people don’t want big holes dug near them and all the noise and work that’s associated with that, so we are listening to people’s concerns.”
Dix explains that in an effort to capture those concerns they tried to take things even further than on Crossrail 1 and think a bit more out of the box. They still found, however, that for some people the more traditional approach of large public meetings was still relevant.
“We had these drop-in sessions where people could come to the sessions to talk to staff directly.” She explains. “What we hadn’t planned in 2015 were lots of big public meetings though. We ended up doing them anyway because the people concerned about the scheme wanted them so they could say, in public, that they weren’t happy.”
“But the drop-in sessions were very helpful for individuals because they’d say ‘what does it mean for my house?’ ‘What does it mean for me?’ ‘What do I need to do?’ And that’s not always the sort of thing they’d be asking in a big public meeting. So engaging at that level was important.”
To assist with these very specific queries, the Crossrail 2 team developed a postcode lookup tool that would allow TfL staff and the public to look in close detail at how even individual houses would be affected. Dix explains that she also felt it was important to make sure the staff attending the drop-in sessions weren’t just reading from a script.
“[We were] utilising as many staff from across TfL as possible within those consultations – and Network Rail as well, as obviously we’re doing this with Network Rail – so that it was staff who knew something about the project. Not just nice people saying: ‘Hello! Thank you very much! Take a leaflet!’ And if the staff at the time couldn’t answer the questions we’d take them away and get back to those people about those concerns.”
She comments that it was also important during the consultation process to be honest.
“It takes a little while to respond to people’s concerns, work out whether or not they’re valid and work out whether or not you can do something about that – and not simply push the problem away onto somebody else.”
“No one wants some of these bits of kit that you require.” She says, honestly. “And it’s our job to ensure that we put it in the best place, having heard what people say, but also from a technical point of view. We need to hear what people say, but it’s not a referendum at all!”
Dealing with opposition
As with virtually all railway lines, even in London, Crossrail 2 was always likely to face some opposition. We ask if there were any particularly vocal groups.
“Yes!” She laughs. “But no one’s obstructing the project.”
She points out that in most cases opposition has been largely, and understandably, focused on specific local concerns.
“There’s obviously a Kings Road ‘no to a station’ lobby who are very vocal and very organised in their opposition to having a station there.” She says. “Which is natural! But they don’t want a station. Interestingly, there is now quite a big ‘we want the station’ lobby but they’ve been slow to come to the table. There is a group – particularly of businesses – who want the station because their employees benefit directly. So Kings Road is the biggest area of opposition.”
“There was a big issue over whether the station went to Balham as we had proposed versus Tooting, which we’d previously proposed.” She continues. “But because of the concerns that we had about the geology where Tooting is, and the fact that it would be more disruptive to build – more lorries, bigger holes – we proposed Balham instead because it would give you not as much, but nearly as much, transport benefit and is easy to build and less disruptive.”
“But if we go to Balham we have to have a ventilation shaft on Wandsworth Common.” Dix explains. “If you went to Tooting you wouldn’t. So quite a lot of the responses to the Balham or Tooting issue were actually related to the Wandsworth Common issue.”
“The other big area is Wimbledon. People didn’t like the solution we had for Wimbledon, because it would require taking some – not all – of the existing shopping centre. And even though we had a way of phasing that so that you’d always have retail in the town centre people were not at all happy.”
Crossrail 2 are now looking at ways of avoiding the shopping centre.
“But the question with that is can we avoid disruption to Wimbledon at all?” She says, again highlighting her belief in the need for honest engagement. “The answer is no. You can’t make an omlette without cracking an egg. You’ve got to have some holes somewhere, but it’s about how you can have those holes in the least disruptive of places.”
Dix highlights Tottenham Court Road as another area where there have been objections.
“[It’s over] the Curzon cinema.” She says. “There’s quite a lot of ‘save our Soho’ campaigners who feel that taking the Curzon would affect the nature of Soho.”
There’s also Euston, she continues, where people angry with HS2 are keen to ensure that Crossrail 2 doesn’t have further negative effects.
Working with the boroughs
Consultation, of course, is not just about talking to individuals. We ask Dix what the general reception has been so far among the London boroughs affected. “
All the boroughs along the route are broadly happy with the alignment. Merton want that better Wimbledon solution, obviously.” Dix says, beginning to count off the key players. “Wandsworth have been…”
She pauses.
“Well… they’ve not been ‘definitive’ on the Balham or Tooting problem. But they understand the problems at Tooting and they understand the problems at Balham and the sensitivities of the ventilation shaft. Meanwhile Camden obviously want a better design for Euston.”
“Haringey, Enfield and Barnet are now very concerned that we would chop the New Southgate branch.” She continues, and explains that this was the result of feedback received by Crossrail 2 from the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC).
“One of the recommendations from the NIC was to ask whether there were things that could be done to make the scheme more affordable.” She explains. “And to ask whether you could phase it. So, could you build a certain amount and take some of the branches off and add them at a later date? One branch they’ve suggested we look at is the New Southgate branch: could that be part of a phase 2?” “
And obviously the boroughs affected by that – Haringey, Barnet and Enfield – aren’t very happy about that proposition. They’re lobbying to keep that branch in.”
We ask roughly how much she feels could be saved by taking up such an option.
“It saves about three and a half billion.” Dix says. “But only if you can find a feasible solution for the sidings and the infrastructure maintenance depot that sit at the end of that branch. Because the reason we went to New Southgate in the first place was to reach a place where you could have those facilities. Chop the branch off and you have to find another location.”
“If you can’t find that then it’s not very clever!” She says, smiling. “You might save the money, but by the time you’ve spent money on an alternative site which will be more difficult and expensive, then the savings you make won’t justify the decision.”
“We have to work that through in detail and look long and hard to see if we can find a workable solution though.” She admits, but then points out that a knockon effect of this discussion has been to open up another debate elsewhere.
Go east?
“We do have a little spur that goes off to the east to Hackney,” Dix explains, “and that spur’s always been there, safeguarded, so that if there was a case in the future for an eastern extension we’ve got the ability to do that.”
“But because the NIC talked about potentially deferring the New Southgate branch, then the eastern boroughs have said ‘well, you know, perhaps the second branch should be our branch not the New Southgate branch.’ So the NIC suggested that the pros and cons of each branch coming second should be considered.”
We ask Dix whether she feels there’s likely to be a strong case for doing so.
“We’ve always thought that the case for the eastern branch is not an immediate case, because of the amount of investment going on in the east.” She says. “There may be a case – and we need to do the work to work out whether there’s a business case – for it in the 2040s, but there’s a stronger business case for the New Southgate branch in the 2030s.”
“That’s work we’re having to put into the mix though.” She admits.
The regional effect
We ask whether the complexity of the debate over where Crossrail 2 goes is made harder by the fact that it was the regional model that they opted to push forward.
“It’s resulted in more actors to deal with.” She admits. “But it’s made it better – it will be a better solution.”
“It’s also made it more complicated because of the interfaces with Network Rail and running on the NR tracks with other services.” She says. “As soon as you’ve got an interface between Network Rail and what we call the ‘core’ then you’ve got to build in reliability. You’ve got to build in some sort of buffer system so that the trains coming down from the branches can readily serve the core in a frequent and reliable way.”
We ask her to elaborate on how this is likely to be handled.
“So what we have in the core is we’ve got 30 trains per hour.” Dix says. “And we want to ensure that we can run those 30 trains per hour by having at either end of the core some trains that turn back and feed the core, as well as trains coming in from the branches.“
“So in the south where we’ve got four branches, we’ve got 20 trains on those branches. And then we’ve got ten trains that turn back at Wimbledon so that we get reliability for 30 through the core. So it’s not just a case of four lots of seven and a half, which obviously doesn’t make any sense. It just wouldn’t work. We have to have that slight buffer.”
Crossrail 2’s branches – and their impact on potential reliability – has long been a subject of debate. We ask whether it’s a valid concern.
“If you provide the buffer, and you recognise that the buffer is making sure that you’re getting the right gap between the trains, then it’s doable.” She says, confidently. “But it scares people because they see branches and instantly think ‘what if the signalling doesn’t work? What if this train gets caught behind that train?’ But if we’ve got the right signalling and the buffer in place then we’re confident it’s not a problem.”
“But what we’ve got to do is demonstrate to people that it’s not a problem.”
If it’s proven not to be a problem, we ask, then does she foresee a time when this might lead to more than 30 trains per hour through the core?
“We couldn’t do it within the core.” She says, shaking her head. “I mean, we can make the trains longer – we’re building in 250m platforms – but 30 trains per hour would be the maximum we run through there, because in part that’s determined by the ventilation systems and the safety systems in the sense that we can only have one train in each section controlled by the ventilation shafts.”
“So there’s a structural limitation imposed by that. Similar there’s a limitation imposed by the dwell times at stations. So if you’ve got particularly busy stations then across the whole route you can only have so many trains. So how you design platforms, how you design the ends, the interchange with the other lines is all critical in making sure that dwell time is minimised.”
This doesn’t mean there aren’t any potential capacity improvements on Crossrail 2, she stresses again, just that they’re unlikely to come from running more trains through the core.
“Again, the trains can be longer.” She explains. “You could run more on the branches and certainly you could run more up the upper Lea Valley as we’re assuming currently that you turn so many back at Tottenham Hale. But you can run more up there if you address the issue of the single track.”
“But we are already providing capacity for 270,000 more people in the am peak period.” She says, smiling. “That’s 10% additional peak capacity to the whole of London, which is huge!”
The financial elephant in the room
With the consultation process now largely completed, we ask Dix what she believes is the project’s major obstacle now. Her answer is hardly surprising.
“Agreeing the funding and finance package.” She says, immediately. “Because we – London – are required to find at least half. Indeed we thought we’d found at least half, but then the Chancellor said ‘can you find at bit more?’ ”
“It’s finding that money and finding the revenue streams that provide that money though. And also providing it at a time that helps you pay off the debt that you’re incurring by borrowing the money in the first place. That funding and finance package is critical. Particularly in light of the fact that TfL and the GLA… well, we’ll be taking on a large new debt.”
“So making sure that we’ve got funding streams in place to pay off that debt will be important.” She stresses. “And therefore getting the buy-in from all the people from whom we’re expecting those revenue streams to come from. And we want to try and get more money out of the opportunities for oversite development. So capture that value ourselves for the benefit of the scheme.”
What are some of the funding options she feels are relevant for Crossrail 2? we ask.
“Well there is the Council Tax Precept which was set for the Olympics.” Dix says. “It was the equivalent of £20 a year for a band D property and the last Mayor changed it back down to £8 a year. Now it’s the sort of thing where if you look at what Crossrail 2 does for the whole of London… well it actually does benefit the whole of London. It’s just a shame that [the Precept] was reduced.”
“But this is an opportunity to say that if Crossrail 2 is important for the whole of London – and people thought that the Olympics was important for london – then is £20 on a band D property unaffordable?” She asks. “Could we consider that? Again, that requires Mayoral buy-in and support. And people don’t like taxes. People don’t like setting them. People don’t like requesting contributions. But if we don’t then we won’t be able to fund these things.”
We ask her whether there are other options at capturing land value, beyond simple oversite development.
“The business rate supplement is another.” She says. “But we are also looking at whether or not there are other mechanisms that one could put in place that are more local in relation to the benefits that accrue along the route. Direct and indirect mechanisms.”
“One of the indirect mechanisms that we’ve been arguing with government over is this: All properties along the route will go up in value. We know that because it’s happening with Crossrail 1 as we speak and the thing’s not even finished.”
“And the people who benefit from that are the government.” She continues. “Because as those properties go up in value, and they’re bought and sold, they automatically get an incremental increase in stamp duty.”
“If you’re able to support an additional 200,000 new homes – which is one of the key parts of our case – then you’re also going to get 200,000 homes worth of new stamp duty. All in, that’s 20 billion pounds! The government will get that in its coffers, so we’ve tried to make the argument that can we hypothecate that back to paying for the cost of the scheme.”
“It’s not an argument we’re winning!” She admits, with a laugh, “but it’s that sort of argument that we need to make – or whether there are additional local taxes that need to be considered and applied to the local developments that directly benefit from the scheme.”
“And I think in a world where it’s recognised that the people around these schemes will benefit, it is perhaps reasonable to ask them to pay a little bit more to help pay for it.”
“But that’s down to politicians to decide,” she shrugs. “We’ll generate ideas though and see what the willingness is to implement them.”
Getting political
In addition to finance, there is always the risk on a multi-year (indeed potentially multi-decade) project like Crossrail 2 that politics will lead to scope creep. We ask whether for Dix this is a concern.
“Politicians…” She says, then pauses.
“If there are changes to make, if promises have been made, then it is making sure that the decisions that are made are understood in terms of their financial consequences.” She says firmly. “But if a politician promises something, then there’s a consequence. And it’s making sure that they understand those consequences before anything is promised. Because it might seem like an easy fix to say ‘yes we’ll do that’ but if it’s going to cost a billion more and take a year longer then is that worth it, if who you are appeasing is a few people whose concerns could be addressed in a different way?”
“It’s making sure that those things are fully understood.” She warns.
Once again it becomes clear that from Dix’s perspective politicians are to be listened to in the same way as both the boroughs and public – openly but above all else honestly.
“If, however, decisions are made, cognizant of costs and the time it affects, and politicians are prepared to pay for it… well so be it.”
“But,” she says firmly, “it has to be made quite clear what the impacts of those decisions are.”
Like what you read? You’ll find more in our magazine
Read in-depth articles about the past, present and future of transport in London and beyond. All in a beautifully laid out print magazine that you can read at home, work or on your commute. Buy it now
3 points:
I’ve never believed that any politician would give Crossrail 2 the green light before there are 2 years of CR1 passenger data – irrational but there it is. Which takes us to the point in time where financing of CR2 is going to be rather more expensive than it would have been last week.
Brexit is going to start biting on London’s economy shortly, and most importantly on employment growth. Much too complex to quantify this but it certainly pushes back transport demand.
I must be thick because I’ve never noticed it until now: CR2 will have the effect of emptying out demand for the Bakerloo from the south.
Have there been rumours/talk of politicians asking for route changes to either Crossrail?
How much of a frequency to each branch do we know so far, assuming they start at 24tph and move to the 30tph mentioned here after several years. It sounds like 4tph per southern branch plus 8tph turning at Wimbledon. In the north it would be 8 to Tottenham, 8 to Broxbourne or nearly there and 8 to New Southgate?
I still don’t understand how feeding half of Surrey into the Northern Line at Tooting or Balham is a Good Thing.
Is the central London route, especially the interchange points, now “set in stone” or not?
Without being a crayonista, it is entirely possible that the route chosen is not optimal, & that alternatives are feasible – or is that now too late?
WImbledon:
The layout at rail level is unsatisfactory now, never mind in the future.
I would suggest that levelling the place ( In graduated stages ) would actually be a great improvement for all concerned – eventually.
Ans=XLII
I am horribly afraid that, even though we are expecting CR1 to be full up as soon as through-running at Paddington starts, the political temptation to postpone – which will actually cost more money in the long-term will be very great.
However the proposed Bakerloo extension runs at right-angles to CR2, doesn’t it?
New Southgate, or Potters’ Bar, I wonder …
I’m still at a loss to understand that decision – I would have thought the Hertford (N) branch would have been the better option.
What am I missing?
Timbeau. 2 things.
1) it’s not ‘half of Surrey’
2) imagine the scenario. You live on a Crossrail2 branch in the South West. You want to get to the City or the West End. Your train arrives at Tooting or Balham. Do you:
a) alight, go through the interchange (of unknown length at present), then fight your way on to the Northern line where you are guaranteed not to get a seat, and possibly not get on the first train, for a 22-25 minute trip to the West End or Bank / Moorgate; or,
b) stay on the Crossrail 2 train for the 9 minute trip to Tottenham Court Rd (for the West End), and if you want the City, walk down the steps (short interchange) to CR1 for a 5 minute run to Moorgate / Liverpool St.
Greg – what you are missing is that the slow lines of the ECML are full of trains. To accommodate Crossrail 2 services north of New Southgate (CR2 is on a a completely segregated alignment) you would have to extend the new alignment, or something else would have to give way. That something else would either be Thameslink services or the GN services to the City. Which do you pick?
@Answer=42
I’m not entirely sure how it does free up capacity on the Bakerloo – can you explain?
That being said, if you’re correct in that assertion, that would free up capacity for the further extension of the Bakerloo from Lewisham down to Beckenham Junction and Hayes.
The “Manchester Evening News question” also needs answering.
Which is the demand to begin electrifying Manchester to Leeds before beginning to build Crossrail 2.
@Peewee
CR2 would be likely to free up space at the southern end of the Bakerloo because there would be fewer people using it to get from the South-western lines into the West End or alternatively to go from Waterloo to King’s Cross via the convenient interchange at Oxford Circus.
PWee
SW commuters currently arrive at Waterloo – some change to Bakerloo, others to crush-full Jubilee; or Northern (which has a more complex relation to CR2 – see TimBeau/SFD). With CR2, pax for western West End don’t travel thru Waterloo but change to Victoria or Central lines or indeed CR1.
I would agree with your conclusion but see my points 1 and 2 above.
I see that a mouse beat me to the answer.
Leeds-Manchester should be electrified. There is no rational reason why the two projects should not be simultaneous – they are not linked financially or through engineering.
However, a certain politician deliberately set up this South v North fight for partisan gain.
@Peewee: Go to Waterloo in the morning rush hour…
Extending the Bakerloo to Lewisham will fill it right back up again. 😉
@Alan Griffiths – this is an old Manchester ploy first observed with the Stansted rail link. The short answer technically to MEN is that a maximum of about 3000 pax/hr will save 15-20 min with the Leeds scheme, but 30 000/hr will save around 10 min each on average with CR2. But arithmetic and facts don’t trump envy these days.
Surely Manchester- Leeds electrification must cost small change compared with Crossrail 2.
If 10% as many people each benefit directly by 60% as much then does that mean (very roughly) that £2.25bn is at least politically justified? Second hand trains initially and at a time of necessary renewals would help. Secondary benefits as yet unknown.
If only it was that simple. It is about the same distance as Reading – Paddington.
@Kit Green – size irrelevant; if it were relevant, then we’d spend our time as taxpayers brassing up for many really lousy but very small schemes. Err, maybe we do anyway…. That doesn’t make for vfm however.
SFD
Exactly – which is why I suggested the Hertford N branch, which is not full ….
Does anyone feel this scheme has just got too big and complex. I mean is it a tube or an express crossrail scheme? Seems like it does neither well. Simplicity is always successful (e.g. Victoria) and what chance has the eastern branch really got of going ahead?
Also, £20bn from stamp duty? How did they get to that?! I assume these won’t be affordable houses then. Bit of a depressing vision of expensive urban sprawl and long commutes.
@ Greg
I think Michelle Dix answers the question in the interview in the same way she’s putting off both cutting the New Southgate branch & the eastern extension.
Depot space.
If there’s a good site on the Hertford North lines for a depot by all means suggest it at the next consultation but I suspect CR2 & the boroughs are happy as it is.
Plus even though you could run the trains up to Hertford why should you? Commuters can already get to Stratford, the city & kings cross, what would you be adding?
@SFD – while the Northern line will indeed be less comfortable, the Northern line will abe quicker to everywhere along it south of Bank, as well as having better interchange with other lines (esp Bakerloo, Jubilee and DLR that it actually meets, unlike CR2). Its certainly questionable whether it would have people from LB Kingston change onto the Northern line rather than an outright no. The main doubt is that the current plan has most CR2 branches still with Waterloo service that would give an alternative route for the z1 destinations that could be got to by changing to the Northern Line at Balham/Tooting.
As for getting people to change from the Northern onto CR2 in the am peak – that’s clearer: it does naff all for City destinations, and changing at Victoria or Kennington (cross-platform and therefore very much better than a CR2-NL interchange will be – especially if you want to throttle transfer to the NL) are as-quick for West End destinations. There won’t be relief other than passengers arriving at the station where the interchange is getting the choice of routes.
Si. No doubt that for folk joining the Northern line Morden branch, the Northern will be quicker than CR2 to destinations south of Bank. But that’s like saying that the WCML will be quicker than HS2 for London passengers heading anywhere south of Coventry.
My reading of the docs available on line is that for people on the Morden branch (south of Tooting / Balham) who do want to get to the Victoria, Tottenham Court Road or Euston Road areas, CR2 will be considerably quicker than the Northern direct or changing at Stockwell or Kennington as necessary. That’s even allowing for a more convoluted interchange.
I agree that for direct journeys between the Northern south of Balham / Tooting and the city it is unlikely that passengers will want to change twice (on to CR2 then CR1) even if it does save a couple of minutes. As you say, that’s except for passengers at whichever of Balham or Tooting is selected.
However, just taking a proportion of the West End passengers off the Morden Branch should offer significant relief. And with a 1500 capacity train every 2 minutes at Clapham Junction heading to the heart of the West End and beyond, you might expect a number of people in the wider Clapham area who use the northern line (or try to) to switch to CR2 also.
When are they going to provide a rational explanation for the New Southgate branch? The main ‘justification’ put out seems to be that they asked the people in Wood Green / New Southgate if they would like ANOTHER free railway on top of their existing two, and surprise surprise they all said yes! (never mind the people who haven’t got any close railway at all…).
Since when do you build miles of railway just to serve a depot site?
And this line doesn’t serve major new housing areas which is supposed to be the current big thing.
They try to make out that it is needed to ‘relieve’ the GN inners, but conveniently forget to mention that that service was designed for many more peak trains than have used it since the 1980s cuts, PLUS there is now an additional up line Alex P – Fins Pk not there when the more frequent service was run in the late 70s (and there could be an additional down line here as well easily enough).
Plus as long as there is no Hackney CR2 service the Overground trains will still be much more overloaded on the Hackney-Dalston (Highbury) section than on the rest of the route – not very logical.
Is it surprising that the first time CR2 was subjected to independent rational analysis, the result was suggesting eliminating this line?
“this line doesn’t serve major new housing areas”
Untrue, 5000 homes are planned for central Wood Green.
I hope they do simplify the Zig-Zag line, and take out the Balham bulge, and Chelsea too. Then it might actually get built in our lifetimes. The Northern line problem would be better solved with a fresh project. Perhaps a simple direct fast line to the City and Canary Wharf.
Kit Green 16 June 2017 at 16:18
“Surely Manchester- Leeds electrification must cost small change compared with Crossrail 2.”
Quite. I thought the pitch the MEN made, “start our key project before the next big southern one” was quite neatly judged, from their point of view.
However, the situation is still that the previous project was chopped for lack of capacity and the revised one is not yet published. So line speed improvements and electrification as far east as Stalybridge are now part of NW triangle electrification. Bridge raising between Leeds and York is continuing. Its the crucial trains of two cities stretch which is in limbo.
‘“But this is an opportunity to say that if Crossrail 2 is important for the whole of London – and people thought that the Olympics was important for london – then is £20 on a band D property unaffordable?” She asks. “Could we consider that? Again, that requires ‘
Capitalization on london.
But Wood Green already has excellent transport links – the aim of CR2 NE end is supposed to be providing good transport to places currently not having it.
Another question they ignore is what is the purpose of the interchange at New Southgate. If it is intended to stop outer suburban Fast lines trains there, that will reduce line capacity and result in lots of empty seats on these trains between NS and Kings Cross. [Thereby ‘justifying’ CR2 branch on the basis of nothing achieved net]. The local traffic at New Southgate itself will never justify anything (with Arnos Grove as a preferred alternative for large %).
No way would such a massive costly project got this far in the past with so little detailed justification! [Just like HS2 really….].
Of course CR1 was itself designed with little regard for its usefulness to most people in E London…but that’s another subject…….
@ Peter Kay – you seem to wholly unaware of the possible new Opportunity Area just to the south of New Southgate station. This involves the construction of a lot of new housing and decking over part of the A406. There is also other regeneration going at New Southgate now (the old Ladderswood Estate). Haringey Council, as mentioned, have plans to intensify the level of shopping and residential development in the Wood Green area. I would also expect the New Southgate line to have a “pull effect” in terms of redistributing transport demand from Friern Barnet and parts of Finchley into CR2 (assuming bus services were changed in an appropriate way). Whether there is any aspiration to pull in ECML commuters at New Southgate I know not but I can absolutely understand the argument over depot provision that M Dix puts forward. If the planned redevelopment in the Lower Lea Valley moves on apace and other things happen in and around Lea Bridge / Temple Mills then any viable alternative rail depot space will be lost forever.
And I thought part of the reasoning for CR2 was relief of both the Piccadilly and Victoria Lines? Therefore it makes some sense to provide some overlap with those lines to get into part of the catchment area with the highest demand / interchange and to syphon people off.
Interesting article. Seems to be a little bit too much “back slapping” about the consultation process. My limited but relevant experience of it at T Hale was that the people either had not been briefed or were told they couldn’t give any detail as to what was planned. AFAIK there has been no further insight as to what will be done at Tottenham Hale in terms of the station, local impact beyond construction and certainly not how you build STAR and some have space for turning 10 tph.
I note with concern but little surprise that London has been “asked” (told more like) by the Chancellor to raise more money. I note also the interesting council tax precept change left by Mayor Johnson which saddles his successor(s) with a difficult and likely unpopular change. Isn’t politics fun? (rolls eyes) This also reinforces my scepticism about whether CR2 will ever get off the starting blocks. Far too many emerging risks which will undermine the core business case coupled with a weak and indecisive government and likely political turmoil for years to come. You don’t get hybrid bills through Parliament in those circumstances.
I am still not a fan of this enormous scheme. Without rehashing old arguments it still feels the wrong answer to whatever the question is. I also note the interesting remarks from Ms Dix about the practical infrastructure limitations that cap the line’s capacity at 30tph – presumably forever as I can’t see technology suddenly providing a breakthrough on something like ventilation systems. That does beg quite a few questions for me as to what time horizon you are building CR2 for – 100 years, 50 years, 30 years??? If it is a short time period in terms of demand reaching the practical capacity then we have got some other policy issues badly wrong no matter what business might prefer to do in terms of agglomeration benefits. We will be forever building new lines if each new one only last 20 years in terms of the extra capacity it offers. I assume the demand trajectory also includes other generated trips across the network as previously difficult journeys become easier and not just displaced existing trips and those directly linked to new housing near the line.
@WW
infrastructure limitations that cap the line’s capacity at 30tph – presumably forever as I can’t see technology suddenly providing a breakthrough on something like ventilation systems.
Well, maybe not but a little googling shows that there is a lively literature on future-proofing ventilation systems. You have to assume that the financial analysis has demonstrated that additional ventilation ‘big holes’ are not cost-effective on the basis of reasonable growth assumptions. But this should not exclude analysis of the means to provide today for future ventilation improvements.
And for ‘ventilation’, one could substitute any technical capacity constraints.
WW
Maybe.
You raise some very valid points.
But
Something constructive has got to be done about the suburban/interurban overloadings on both the Waterloo S-suburbs & Northern & Eastern Rly approaches, coupled with a continuing increase of demand by commuters from further afield.
CR2 addresses & “solves those problems, by removing the “inners” & funnelling dahn th’ ole.
To mix metaphors enormously,: “If yer know of a better ‘ole, go to it!”
@Greg
Maybe we should all club together and buy WW a box of crayons for his exclusive use. I know very well what he does not like and I’m dying to know what he does, and why.
@SFD – When I say it’s quicker to places from Bank and south to take the NL than changing at TCR – I mean from Kingston, etc. Though the Waterloo residual trains and the Drain would be quicker – hence why they plan on limiting benefits for Surrey and beyond and keeping half of the existing Waterloo services.
Epsom to Bank is 3 minutes quicker via CR2 and NL vs Waterloo and Drain / CR2 and Central. There’s potential that SWT passengers will shift onto the NL to get to the southern half of The City – those for whom a change at TCR to get to Moorgate 10 minutes quicker (though one has to remove interchange time, which will be lengthy at TCR) won’t be worth it.
As for abstraction of passengers through Clapham, from somewhere like South Wimbledon, changing to CR2 at Balham is only 0-2 minutes quicker to Victoria than changing – assuming interchange time is equal. That’s not enough to outweigh the easier change at Stockwell. Northern line passengers won’t be abstracted, even with a 4 minute differential that passengers going Morden – Euston would enjoy (also remember that the station siting is bad due to the need to nominally serve St Pancras). TCR (and I guess the Leicester Square area) is the only zone 1 station on CR2 that is genuinely quicker, with a 7 minute difference over a change at Kennington.
Northern line relief is highly questionable.
@Walthamstow Writer – The key point I responded to on the consultation about the New Southgate branch was bus services. I don’t see New Southgate becoming the rail interchange, Alexandra Palace would be the better rail interchange (assuming the alignment doesn’t make this an epic walk) but with some modest changes to local bus routes and proper bus provision in the rebuilt New Southgate station (which is currently a dreadful mess) the facility would relieve capacity on the Piccadilly line.
Given the length of the stations, Turnpike Lane or Wood Green isn’t as much of a choice as it appears. If Turnpike Lane station had an exit further north (near the “shopping city”) and that had suitable bus provision most of the benefit of a Wood Green (as in Tube station) stop would be achieved. Turnpike lane also has some grass nearby (could be used as a base for station building) so it seems to meet most needs.
@ Peter Kay – As I understand it, the driver for New Southgate is buildability. The massive yards needed for tunneling then can be placed adjacent to the North Circular (just to the east of the current line) where there are various light industrial buildings at present.
There is an area of ex railway land just north of New Southgate station (to the north of Coppetts Grove and west of the A109 ( https://goo.gl/maps/mRT7HTCZMMu ) which is currently builders materials, scrap cars and a skip firm that, with a good deal of digging, would become the railway depot.
Extending new lines any further north is rather more of an undertaking.
A lot of Surrey passengers will choose CR2 over using NL, because the air conditioned trains, with their large cross-section will make for a far more desirable commute, even if it takes 10 minutes longer.
In the past I have chosen the District over the Piccadilly to get from Hammersmith to Kensington because, though considerably quicker the latter was always a scrum. Not a good way to start your day.
Peter Kay 17 June 2017 at 15:42
“CR1 was itself designed with little regard for its usefulness to most people in E London…but that’s another subject…….”
CR1 is of great value to all passengers east of Stratford.
Stratford to Holborn on the Central Line is the longest overcrowded stretch anywhere on the tube.
If green belt restrictions were to be relaxed, the Malden Rushett area would be ripe for housing development and could be served by Chessington South station or a southward extension of the line. There would also be space for a train depot at Chessington South.
Assure you I have plenty of experience of overcrowding between Stratford and Holborn! This is because most peak commuters from the east go to Bank St Pauls Chancery Lane Holborn – areas that CR1 does NOT serve terribly well, so a large % of these people will have to continue using the Central. CR1 will relieve of course by some people walking from Farringdon or Tot Ct Rd instead, also for some a x-plfm i/c at Stratford to CR1 for Moorgate end Liv St stn exit, vice Central to Bank, but not so much as it would if the alignment had been thought of from the start from an east London person’s perspective.
Apart from those for Tot Ct Rd / Bond St / Paddington/ Heathrow (but see below), CR1 does not do a lot (for the cost) even for Shenfield line users. Farringdon is already quickly done from Liv St on uncrowded trains, Ok it will be a few mins faster by CR1 but…….. By missing out Holborn and Oxford Circus, it gives minimal useful forward connections into other underground lines in central London. (Also it was designed with no station at Whitechapel until they were kicked, which would have further minimised its value to east London people at large, notably District line east people; demonstrating that it wasn’t really conceived well from any E London viewpoint).
Contrast the massive benefits to West London GW line people, compared with the current dreadful grind via the Circle or H&C to get to the City, plus very nice i/c to Jubilee at Bond St). But then the W London people will not actually be getting that many CR1 trains………
As for Heathrow it is extraordinary how few trains are proposed … NB also that none of them will come from the Shenfield line so double change needed for Essex people getting off trains at Stratford.
We will not even mention (!) the refusal to provide any trains from Essex to Heathrow, because of the ‘rule’ that has always existed that Crossrail must only be for ‘London’ people, and would we are told collapse if it had longer distance trains involved; but the N-S equivalent, Thameslink, is in contrast dictated by the gods to be for longer-distance people only, won’t (we are assured) collapse with trains coming long distance from all over, and must not be allowed to have the originally expected extra inner stations/inner suburban service. [This is admittedly changing a bit at last now with Reading on CR1 and more talk about London area lines on Thameslink, but too late for people in the east].
Anyway we have got distracted from CR2 and I started it….
What we need from the CR2 promoters is a full lengthy justified published CASE for exactly what they know/think it will achieve for everyone involved, for its great cost. It’s all very well us debating it on this site, but it should be all public. And nobody should be authorising such a project without such a fully argued case.
** There is loads of empty flat space east of the railway around Broxbourne suited to depot.
@Peter Kay – I think you have missed the point of the Elizabeth Line, which is to relieve the Central between Paddington and Liverpool Street. Of course, many people will continue to use the Central but the purpose was not to replace it but to supplement it. In particular, passengers from east of Stratford, who currently have to change to travel beyond LST, will get new through services to many of the major destinations. I really can’t see how you can argue that the line does nothing for Shenfield passengers going to Bond St or TCR; before they always had to change, now they don’t .
I’m not aware of any rule that CR1 was just for Londoners – every variant over the last 30 years has gone beyond the GLC/GLA boundary. As I have explained repeatedly in these columns, the intention was to provide by means of CR1 and TLK a regional express network that put most major settlements within the SE within one interchange of each other.
TLK was always intended to provide longer distance cross-London services; unlike CR1, it wasn’t intended to relieve the existing tube network specially and the inner services that use it don’t have tube like functions.
I would agree with you about CR2 lacking focus, however, It continues to hover on the cusp between being a metro and a middle distance operation and may well compound the problem of trip end distribution on the existing tube network. The lack of CAZ stations at the major destination points coupled with the absence of new CAZ stations is indicative.
This is very revealing interview, which has shed some light on how CR2 has grown from a fairly simple tube line to the many-headed mainline rail hydra it now is! I am completely in agreement with WW that it is the wrong (£30bn!!!) answer to a very ill-defined question, using the alignment of an older proposal with very different aims and objectives that were nevertheless better defined and more likely to be delivered and produce real benefits. It is noteworthy that in the recent Jubilee line article, it was actually prioritised in the first CLR (before Olympia & York muscled their way in) *above* any extension of that line!
I also fundamentally disagree with her assertion that by linking it to the NR network, “it will be a better solution.” Why? Because of what she then goes on to say in the following paragraph:
“It’s also made it more complicated because of the interfaces with Network Rail and running on the NR tracks with other services.” She says. “As soon as you’ve got an interface between Network Rail and what we call the ‘core’ then you’ve got to build in reliability. You’ve got to build in some sort of buffer system so that the trains coming down from the branches can readily serve the core in a frequent and reliable way.”
Yeah…….good luck with that 😈.
Careful, everyone.
Lots of people here are asking for the best, which, as we all know, is the deadly enemy of the “good enough”
What we will get is … nothing at all, whilst the W Anglia & Waterloo services collapse under their own weight.
Re Alan Griffiths 16 June 2017 at 13:04
[Slight diversion form London] You mean electrifying Manchester to Leeds which has already started???
Manchester Victoria (Eastwards for those less familiar with the area) to Staylbridge* (aka NWEP Phase 5 or the western third of the Manchester – Leeds Route) has been going on quietly for a while, with several years of pre-emptive civils works on bridges, viaducts etc. concluding with the final civils works in a 3 week blockade in the last 3 weeks of July and the installation of the national Grid feeder station which will feed both the Transpennine route and the extra juice to run more and longer electric services west of Manchester Victoria.
* The lines runs east of Man Vic till it starts getting a bit hilly east of Staylbridge (on the Eastern edge of Greater Manchester) so the line then heads NE towards Huddersfield and then Leeds.
The actual electrification will take place in 2018 after Manchester Preston and Preston – Blackpool have been completed.
I have wondered from time to time if there may be a cheaper way of linking the SW inners with the W Anglia lines on a more direct line and without trying to do ten other things at the same time. A certain amount of money could be saved by having less tunnelling and fewer stations underground.
(The mods will be pleased to know that I won’t be crayoning out ideas here!)
re answer=42 16 June 2017 at 00:43
Well the data will start flowing in a fortnights time (Mon 3rd July) when the new National Grid feeder at Kensal Green has been switched on allowing a huge increase in the number and length of non-Heathrow electric services on the GWML e.g. Paddington – Maidenhead (currently limited to 3x 8car services and limited acceleration running in total as the existing feeder was just sized for Heathrow electrification in the 1990s). GWR will have about 25x 387 units ready on that morning and a revised timetable so to appears they are ready and prepared to see how much passenger growth they can get…
Hence we get to see and monitor a sparks effect on a main suburban route in London for the first time in while and the first time when there was been lots of data that will also be more accessible with the internet.
We also get to test the provide more carriages and how quickly can they get filled bets that have been predicted and on LR (at least 6-7 years) and elsewhere over the years.
Any bets on the Bakerloo overloading this autumn as result?
Also look out for an additional early September timetable change for the start for electric services to Didcot.
ngh 19 June 2017 at 08:49
Pardon me pointing out that only goes as far east as Stalybridge.
It doesn’t contradict what I write above.
There is still not a detailed project for track works and electrification Stalybridge-Huddersfield-Dewsbury-Leeds.
That’s a rather significant gap (The route my niece uses most weeks!).
Sad Fat Dad said “My reading of the docs available on line is that for people on the Morden branch (south of Tooting / Balham) who do want to get to the Victoria, Tottenham Court Road or Euston Road areas, CR2 will be considerably quicker than the Northern direct or changing at Stockwell or Kennington as necessary”
When I did my analysis [1], the most surprising thing was how this isn’t as clear as you wuold think. My analysis suggests Morden to Victoria saves just 1 or 2 minutes [2] with CR2 at Balham. At Tooting, the saving is 4 to 5 minutes [3]. Tottenham Court Road does see CR2 make time savings, but Euston is only 3 or 4 minutes (CR2 at Balham). And if you compare using CR2 to TCR vs using the Victoria line to Oxford Circus, again you’d find CR2 only saving 3 minutes.
Basically, the Stockwell cross-platform change is really efficient, as is the Victoria line. The Kennington change is efficient, but slower through the West End. (When reading the analysis in the links above, remember to consider walking between different central London stations, as the numbers don’t consider that.)
Others have described the effect on journeys to the City and Wharf. Suffice to say that if you live in Chessington, your fastest route to anywhere south of the Bank of England or London Bridge will be changing from CR2 to the Northern, providing there is space of course.
We’ll see what happens, but I haven’t seen Government give any positive Crossrail 2 signs for a while now. A proper rethink with some simpler objectives might not be a bad idea.
[1] http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/crossrail-2-journey-time-modelling.html
[2] https://github.com/jodastephen/railmodel/blob/master/CR2-SWLondon.md#from-morden-to-victoria-2m-better
[3] https://github.com/jodastephen/railmodel/blob/master/CR2-Tooting-SWLondon.md#from-morden-to-victoria-5m-better
NGH
Except that the NR national tt ( table 117 ) shows no significant overall change at all for the currency of it’s effectiveness, which is 22 May – 8th December.
Are you saying that from about a fortnight’s time said table 117 will be rubbish?
Because inspection shows a lot of “jigging about” of the times, reflecting Maidenhead terminations, but very few extra trains, at all.
Or are you implying longer trains to approx the same schedules?
@ Answer=42. No need for a crayon fund. I’ll be as brief as I can.
1. I preferred the Metro option. I felt it was more flexible, is likely to be cheaper to build and run and serves Zone 1 more effectively (or could be adapted to do so).
2. I am concerned about the issues Graham H has raised such as the impact on tube onward distribution and also the veracity of the impact of HS2 on travel demand at Euston and whether that genuinely justifies the huge proposed CR2 station.
3. I am immensely irritated about the lack of stations in N London even acknowledging the much stated point about the cost of stations.
4. I fully acknowledge that there are issues on SWT / Gtr Anglia routes. However we are not yet running all trains at maximum length and there is obvious scope for some enhancements – esp on the WAML (much debated here and elsewhere).
5. I don’t think Greater London has a properly assessed transport strategy that addresses the roles that all modes of public transport could provide. The contrast with Paris / Ile de France is stark.
I won’t repeat what I’d have said before how CR2 was pulled together and issues over the problems, solution and objectives that CR2 is supposed to resolve / achieve. The Metro option is off the table and that’s that. I remain to be convinced that CR2 is the optimum solution to a set of clearly stated problems and defined objectives.
WW
The contrast with Paris / Ile de France is stark.
Yes
We have CR1 coming on-stream soon & Thameslink (ditto) we are talking about CR2
Paris has so far completed RER lignes: A, B, C, D, E – the last of which terminates in the middle ( G St Lazare )
A has 3-&-2 branches at its ends
B has 2-&2
C has 3-&-4
D has 2
Why are we arguing about this & why is our government, of any political stripe, dragging its’ feet?
Re Alan Griffiths 19 June 2017 at 11:22,
The original point revolved around “to begin” no one said anything about from completing electrification and it has technically begun 😉
NWEP Phase 5 is officially termed “Transpennine Route Electrification (West)”
WW – the trouble with the Metro option is that it incurs all the expensive bits (tunnels and underground stations), but doesn’t provide the benefits of increased capacity on the WA or SW corridors.
And whilst all peak trains are not *yet* running at maximum length, it is fairly close, and they will be in 3 years time, following the Waterloo platform extensions later this year (one hopes!) and new fleets being delivered at both ends through new franchises. Beyond that options are limited to non-existent, the NR route studies are pretty clear on that. I don’t know what the obvious enhancements are on the WAML, but the West Anglia Taskforce studied options last year and reported that Crossrail 2 was the answer.
Ps – just in case anyone was wondering, I haven’t gone hyphen-mad. Evidently the website software has a fondness to help text justification.
Re Greg Tingey @ 16:37
Which is why very few people look at the NR timetables in that format any more! The number of infrastructure works resulting in changes around the country that do not perfectly aligning with the December /May TT changes is rather large. It has been years on Southern and Southeastern since there were only TT changes in May and December (it will be 2019 till that is the case again). The will also have to be some minor tweaks after the summer works at Waterloo, Liverpool Lime Street and London Bridge (Charing Cross Services).
Relatively minor changes in July (there were already pre-emptives ones in May where possible) the biggest difference will be going all EMU inside Maidenhead with much longer trains and so minor time tweaks for example the number of Reading to Paddington stoppers goes down but replaced with Maidenhead – Paddington stoppers with extra stops added to other services to compensate on Reading – Twyford – Maidenhead. There will be another change in September with London – Reading stoppers and the Didcot (slow) services (cut back Oxford services) going over to EMUs too and then everything tidied up a bit in December when it is easier to make bigger changes.
Re Greg Tingey at 18:57
It is worth noting that B & D share a central tunnelled section and twin tracks between Gare du Nord and Challet Les Halles (very similar to Thameslink between Blackfriars and St Pancras) so that is effectively 3 not 4 completed through routes…
Re SFD @ 20:41,
“WW – the trouble with the Metro option is that it incurs all the expensive bits (tunnels and underground stations), but doesn’t provide the benefits of increased capacity on the WA or SW corridors”
Agreed not much point if the passengers from further out can’t get to Tottenham Hale or Wimbledon to access CR2, the knock on reduction in passenger numbers would then means a lower BCR making it harder to justify overall as the above ground regional bit is relatively cheap and provides lots of passengers.
@WW
Thanx for your reply. I will need to think about it.
Crossrail 2 will fail because Michelle Dix and her crew have refused to heed the calls of the National Infrastructure Committee and have ignored the will of the Tory Boroughs.
The National Infrastructure Committee want the scheme slimmed down by circa £4bn. They state that this can be achieved by axing New Southgate Branch and Chelsea. They confirm that New Southgate is not good value for money because it is expensive and delivers relatively few houses. They state that Chelsea is poor value for money because it does not serve a strategic interchange or destination.
Michelle Dix in this article is disingenuous when she states that there are no alternative stabling locations. Firstly because they underestimated the cost of stabling at New Southgate, where costs are escalating due to a need to re-stabling Great Northern trains from there. Secondly, there is plenty of stabling space in Hertfordshire at Broxbourne. Harlow has also offered Council owned land for stabling in Harlow, which is far cheaper to reach with an extension of quad tracking above ground and where significant housing can be delivered.
Crossrail 2 is also making the same mistake as London Overground by not getting the shires on board:
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2017/overgrounded-how-londons-dream-of-rail-devolution-died/
Chris Grayling, the Transport Secretary is MP for Epsom and Ewell in Surrey. Guess what Crossrail 2 did when Surrey County Council stated that one or two of the southern branches are unviable and that trains should serve Leatherhead and Woking, where there would be more demand and more housing delivery? Exactly, they did nothing, and the Transport Secretary would have noted that his local County Council was not happy.
Note, that if Crossrail 2 is extended to Woking, there is no need to butcher Wimbledon for stabling that can be provided around the Woking area with far less opposition.
What happened when Harlow offered stabling space there, which would have allowed Crossrail 2 to remove 4 trains per hour from the mainline, serving Hertford East and removing stopping trains between Broxbourne and Harlow? You guessed it, nothing. They also ignored Broxbourne Council’s request for a new overground station at Turnford and ignored locals in Enfield who want a station at Picketts Lock.
And to continue talking about the eastern branch, when Michelle Dix knows full well that it is completely unviable to build a 13km tunnel from Angel to Barking with a half complement of trains is insane. That link could possibly be justifiable if it were the only tunnel, but not if it has just 15 trains per hour, the link is as long as from Tottenham Hale to Victoria for goodness sakes.
This project would be easy to turn around, but TFL and Crossrail 2 have to get their head out of their London bubble and align the project closer with the needs and desires of the Tory shires, just as Crossrail 1 did when it yielded to Berkshire to serve Reading and when it supported Essex by serving Shenfield.
It is very dissapointing to see this, but wholly avoidable. Its just a shame that Michelle cannot be honest about the issues to London Reconnections. Question is, is she being honest to herself?
P Riddy,
To correct you on just one point, if you don’t mind the facts getting into the way of things, it was the National Infrastructure Commission who asked the Crossrail 2 team what could be pruned/done at a later date to reduce costs significantly. This was all covered in the response to a FOI request from Barnet council (if I recall correctly). It was actually the Crossrail 2 themselves who “volunteered” cutting the New Southgate branch – with massive caveats. Basically, it is the only option that can be added later and still provide many of the benefits of the scheme.
And … Crossrail 2 aren’t really keen on the eastbound branch as they want a maximum of two in north London. It was the National Infrastructure Committee (i.e. Lord Adonis) who, having got some leverage into the New Southgate branch not being a priority, then suggested that the eastern branch would be a good idea at a later date for the regeneration of the Thames Estuary – I think this is one of their pet schemes.
If you disagree with the scheme and want to fire salvos then at least choose the correct target before firing. Also don’t dismiss future demand (due to housing etc) just because it isn’t existing demand.
Sad Fat Dad,
Ps – just in case anyone was wondering, I haven’t gone hyphen-mad. Evidently the website software has a fondness to help text justification
Just of the strange issues we have had with the website revamp. Initially, it varied considerably depending on the browser used. John Bull has fixed excessive hyphening on Microsoft Edge.
It doesn’t seem excessive to me. Perhaps a screen capture and details of browser and operating system used might help us see if there is still a serious problem.
Greg Tingey and ngh,
How often are we going to have the RER branches argument and the necessary rebuttal? It is almost as bad as the repeated “Tooting will add to the Northern lines problems and not reduce them” argument that appears every time Crossrail 2 is mentioned.
All doubters,
Whatever some of us may think of some of the details of Crossrail 2 (without access to the data that the Crossrail 2 team has), the time to argue about the route, or what sort of scheme it should be, is surely long gone.
Any prevarication now will surely be used as an excuse by politicians to delay the project. Meanwhile the HS2 train is coming from the North of England. We need to make sure that by the time it arrives at Euston there is sufficient means to disperse the passengers. Arguing over tweaking to eliminate perceived imperfections may produce small benefits (but probably not) will surely take away focus from the important objective of supporting HS2 by the time it is fully open.
@PoP – sorry to rain on the parade, but – we have rehearsed many times before in these columns the relevance of HS2 to CR2, which is at best very small and more likely trivial in terms of added volume. Basically, HS2 cannot physically bring more than about 20 000pax/hr, many of whom will be existing punters, so we are looking to disperse probably no more than (extreme case) about 10-15 ooo pax/hr amongst multiple tube lines which will be offering upwards of 150 000 pax/hr capacity, bus services offering upwards of 5000 pax hr, cabs offering a few hundred an hour, and foot – infinitely extensible. Sure,many of these modes will be full (ish) from people coming from elsewhere but then, so will CR2.
As to the good being the enemy of the best, the answer to this Cornfordian point lies in the joke about the man who had only one match and struck it to see whether it was a good one. In any case, I detect no appetite or ability to finance CR2 within the foreseeable future for a whole variety of financial and political reasons, and one might reasonably hope that the “pause” of what looks to be a decade or two will allow time for reflexion and reconsideration. No doubt, the nature of the problems to be solved will have changed, too, by then.
ngh 19 June 2017 at 20:30
Re Alan Griffiths 19 June 2017 at 11:22,
“to begin” east of Stalybridge!
NR intend to send their proposals of DfT later this year.
[This appears to be approaching its end point. LBM]
Graham H,
Perhaps I too am guilty about repeating old arguments. To some extent I agree with what you say but in that case why bother having Crossrail 2 serving Euston at all? It was not part of the original pre-HS2 plan. Crossrail 2 would have taken a much more sensible direct route to King’s Cross.
I really can’t see it being other than embarrassing if HS2 is fully open and Crossrail 2 is still under construction. This does raise the argument, that I almost hesitate to raise, in that if HS2 doesn’t need Crossrail 2 for the first few years of being fully open, why does it need it for later years? And if the Crossrail 2 scheme is not critical to HS2 then why would a delay of year or so actually matter?
@ P.Riddy
I’ve always been confused by Harlow council’s response to Crossrail 2. One of the benefits of CR2 is an increase in the number of fast services from Harlow to London as the slows which currently limit the West Anglia Main Line are transferred to the CR2 lines.
Harlow council seem to want more slow services which due to the 2 track section from there to Broxbourne would still limit the number of fasts. Now whilst some Harlow commuters may need intermediate stations, surely the vast majority use Tottenham Hale & Liverpool Street?
Yes you could avoid this by 4 tracking through Roydon (an engineering challenge through a marshland nature reserve) to serve Harlow & gain access to some more depot space which might be cheaper than tunnelling to New Southgate. However, you’d still need to ensure enough new depot space to take all the New Southgate trains plus the extra needed to account for the journey time from Broxbourne to Harlow. TfL probably aren’t being too trusting of councils offering land having suffered from the Metropolitan extension mess.
All of this still probably wouldn’t allow any more houses to be built in the Lea/Stort valley than the original CR2 plan provides for either.
Again as previously commented read the Harringey & Barnet council plans for Wood Green & New Southgate regeneration before writing off housing potential on the branch.
@PoP – I fear you may be making my arguments for me….
I entirely agree, of course, that “something needs to be done” with both the WA and – perhaps even more urgently – the SW inners, but whether it is a good plan to try and link their resolutions is questionable, particularly if it relies on a set of awkward compromises. Throw in a compromise relief to the Northern and you have a proper camelopard. A good start might be to map just where people wish to go (which isn’t TCR!) and start from that. I didn’t see any of that in the CR2 consultation documentation. where much was taken for granted. [Sorry, I see I may have inadvertently invited in a tsunami of crayonistas who have been patiently sharpening their Faeber Castell finest in recent months. so, for the avoidance of doubt, I will not offer my own solution, merely a rational approach].
Graham H,
I agree with you that people probably don’t particularly wish to go to Tottenham Court Road – though they might well want to use the southern entrance on Shaftesbury Avenue which is in an area devoid of adequate tube access – there are the stations in the vicinity but they are hopelessly overcrowded.
However, many people probably do wish to have a station that interchanges with Crossrail 1 and probably don’t care where it is. Given that Crossrail 1 is practically built and has a station at Tottenham Court Road that will have spare capacity and has passive provision for Crossrail 2, I think it is far to late to question whether or not this was the right choice.
Remember Tottenham Court Road has been the preferred station since the early 1970s when the Chelsea-Hackney line was expected to be built in a few years from then.
We can reignite the “should Crossrail 2 solve almost everything but be suboptimal” v “should Crossrail 2 do a specific task and do it well” argument but I would argue now is not the time for procrastination in which case, as famously said, you leave with nothing.
@ Pedantic of Purley 20 June 2017 at 09:30
Any prevarication now will surely be used as an excuse by politicians to delay the project
Did you mean prevarication or procrastination?
@PoP – I could hardly dissent from the need for an interchange with CR1 but to have that as the only station within the Circle Line is remarkable given that pretty well all the major traffic generators are well within the Circle, and that TCR serves none of them. Routeings via either the City or the West End would have avoided this solecism. From this armchair, it does seem that the lure of HS2 has distorted things to the disadvantage of the many.
The Wood Green development plans do not need Crossrail 2. Higher frequency Picadilly Line from resignalling could boost Picadilly to 36tph at a lower cost with far reaching benefits for a wider area. That is anger reason why New Southgate is poor value for money.
Harlow are seeking quad tracking to them, which is far cheaper that a tunnel to New Southgate and it would deliver considerable housing alongside more than doubling capacity it’s to Stansted and Cambridge.
More importantly, with Hertfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Surrey satisfied, so goes the transport secretary and treasury funding.
Graham H,
On the subject of routeing Crossrail 2, in principle, I agree entirely that a more westerly route should have been considered within the Circle line. I sure I wrote a comment to that effect a couple or so years ago. The Oxford Circus area was the obvious place for the Crossrail 1/2 interchange. As it would turn out, it would have avoided the ridiculous bend to accommodate Euston.
Against the idea of Crossrail 2 having gone further west is the argument that you are just duplicating the Victoria line with the Victoria line express route. Furthermore, Oxford Circus is on TfL’s long wishlist of stations for expansion and it could be that an enlarged station together with Crossrail 1 is perfectly adequate provision for the area for the foreseeable future.
I don’t think I could argue sensibly one way or another without having masses of relevant data to look at and the ability to interpret it.
Despite all this, we are where we are and I don’t think at this stage it helps to think of what could have been.
Whilst the lack of stations inside the Circle line is disappointing, geographically, once you go north to south not east to west, the number that is sensibly possible is limited. By having an extended double-ended station at Tottenham Court Road you effectively have two localised areas that have improved transport provision.
John U.K.
I meant prevarication though procrastination would convey almost the same feeling. Or rather, prevarication by others arguing about the route will give the politicians an excuse to procrastinate.
@Graham H
” to have that as the only station within the Circle Line is remarkable given that pretty well all the major traffic generators are well within the Circle, and that TCR serves none of them”
TCR may not currently be a major traffic generator, but put CR2 that way, along with the soon to open CR1 it will soon be.
@ Greg on 19 June 2017 at 16:37
The few Maidenhead Reading services that change at the beginning of July are only in the shoulder peaks, and are denoted by notes A and B on certain pages.
What generally happens is that a through train becomes a Maidenhead starter or terminator, and the Maidenhead – Reading leg will be covered by some sort of DMU working.
The necessary info is there, but the GWR timetable is much clearer because it helpfully adds an electrification flash at the column heads on the dated trains
@Graham H:
“Faeber Castell”
I’m not sure where that first e has come from. It’s Faber Castell, no umlaut (as a look at http://www.faber-castell.de will show).
@Dan – well plans for the area round TCR don’t envisage it becoming the next Canary Wharf,much of Belgravia is listed, the BM isn’t going away, and I imagine that redeveloping Theatreland would cause an outcry. So, No. For TCR to equal the City,or the West End, you’d be hard put to find the space…
PoP: “This does raise the argument, that I almost hesitate to raise, in that if HS2 doesn’t need Crossrail 2 for the first few years of being fully open, why does it need it for later years?”
The simple logic is that for Phases 1 and 2A if HS2 (to Lichfield/Crewe respectively) all one is doing is replacing some Pendolinos (and their passengers) going into the classic side of Euston with high speed trains going into the HS2 side, and then backfilling with some local services on the classic WCML. This means that there’s not going to a sudden surge of passengers pouring into Euston from Day 1 of HS2 – it’ll largely happen organically over a number of years as initally passenger demand will just be spread over more services than today. Not an awful lot different to if HS2 were not to happen at all and growth could somehow be accommodated in the existing WCML.
Phase 2B is a different kettle of fish, where overnight a huge chunk of Yorkshire/East Midlands/North East passengers who currently arrive into King’s Cross and St Pancras will one day all start turning up on additional trains at Euston, with a big jump in passengers the station needs to handle and disperse virtually overnight.
@P.Riddy
“They state that Chelsea is poor value for money because it does not serve a strategic interchange or destination.”
Er, you do realise that King’s Road is the major shopping/commercial area in Chelsea, and is currently devoid of direct rail access (unless you prefer a long walk or bus journey from Sloane Square or Imperial Wharf)? Yes, we’re all well aware of the local NIMBYists who want no station in their backyard, but a close look at their objections shows just how downright irrational (bordering on snobbery) they are.
@Graham H/PoP……I think we should be wary of the ‘something must be done….here’s something….let’s do it!’ mentality when it comes to big, expensive transport projects. If any resulting delay (due to politics or finances) results in a much better, more rational solution overall delivered at a later date, then I think that might be for the best.
@PoP “Against the idea of Crossrail 2 having gone further west is the argument that you are just duplicating the Victoria line with the Victoria line express route.”
But wasn’t that one of the major justifications for the original Chelsey tube proposal……to provide some much needed relief for the Victoria line?
@Ianno – wearily, The capacity of HS2 is designed to accommodate 18 tph (yes, I know the LGV’s claim 24 tph but in practice, it’s closer to 22 tph and that over short periods) Even if every train was full, that won’t be much above 20k/pax/hr regardless of where they have come from.
Re Anonymously,
The aim was to relieve but not duplicate exactly (also applies to the Southern end of the Northern line etc.).
The various things I have said are stating things said by the National Infrastructure Commission, Surrey County Council, Hertfordshire County Council and Broxbourne Council.
These are not opinions. Please read their various documents before slighting me for repeating these things. They are all available on Google.
Read London Reconnection’s article on why TFL was refused London Overground devolution by Chris Grayling’s, MP for Epsom and Ewell in Surrey due to adverse impact on transport from the shires and understand that Surrey is dissatisfied with the scheme and had much better plans. Surrey County Council knows better what Surrey needs than does TFL and TFL needs to doff its hat to the Counties when it is building in their patch or it will simply not get funding from DfT. Same for Hertfordshire.
P. Riddy,
Presumably this is the same Hertfordshire that did such a sterling and successful job in getting the Croxley Rail Link built?
Graham H: Do you think TCR will be the London version of Dovey Junction then; no one wants to go there, but it’s handy to change trains at?
Pleased to see the general drift moving more towards agreeing the criticism of CR2’s conspicuous lack of detailed justifications on some rather major aspects…
[Before I shut up entirely on CR1, I would note that Graham H’s riposte seems to be based on his having entirely misread my statement that it does nothing much for E London users APART FROM those for Tot Ct Rd and Bond St [and of course Paddn], as my having said that it did nothing for those from E London going TO Tot Ct Rd and Bond St…….]
[Having been a E London Central line person myself at the time I am perfectly well aware of the origins of CR1 as ‘desperate need for Central line relief’.
What I was saying was that the route and stations chosen did less for Central line relief Stratford to Holborn than might have been achieved.]
@Peter Kay – Yes; sorry!
@AL -not quite! Although I like the idea of walking through a reedy estuary to reach Centre Point. Maybe more like Three Cocks?
@PoP/Greg – I quite understand the point that the good is the enemy of the best, but if we are, as seems very likely indeed, going to have a “pause”, there is every reason to use that time constructively. The alternative is that, like Chelsea-Hackney, we keep producing the increasingly out-of-date scheme in various guises for 60 years – I can’t think of a better way of undermining the credibility of the planning process. When we get the go-ahead, we need to make sure that we have the most uptodate project possible.
@AL/Graham H…..Isn’t Trent Junction a more appropriate comparison? 😉
@P.Riddy…..I’m well aware of the recommendations of the NIC, and have read all of the discussions regarding this on LR in the past. My point (apologies if this wasn’t made clear) was that this was just *their opinion* at the end of the day, seemingly based on a determination to get the damned thing built by making it more affordable and cutting out any ‘controversial’ parts.
@Anonymously – at the risk of getting shot, maybe Riccarton – a colleague (sadly deceased this month) was part of the clearup team after the line shut; the station accounts book showed that in all the decades it had been open, receipts had totalled £185…
More generally, and back on topic, I do wonder what the NIC is for, other than to give a collection of armchair generals afeeling of selfimportance – does it have an independent analysis capability superior to the professionals in the field? No. Does it have long term experience and wisdom to challenge entrenched views? No, it’s composed of amateurs. (And don’t think that Adonis is anything more than a jobbing historian turned junior minister for a few years – his major publication is “Making the House of lords work” – a study of the Victorian Lords. It’s a lobby group.
@Graham H: From this armchair, it does seem that the lure of HS2 has distorted things to the disadvantage of the many
I don’t think you can really blame HS2 for the lack of central London stations on the Crossrail 2 route – the original Chelsea-Hackney proposals (pp. 29, 32) that led to the safeguarding of the route only had one more station – Piccadilly Circus. But my understanding was that in the early 90s it was realised that there was only room to fit tube-size platforms at Piccadilly Circus, not mainline sized. So the only effect of HS2 on Crossrail 2’s routing has been the shifting of the King’s Cross station in the direction of Euston.
we keep producing the increasingly out-of-date scheme in various guises for 60 years – I can’t think of a better way of undermining the credibility of the planning process.
On the other hand, continually changing long-term plans is also a good way of undermining the credibility of the planning process, since it makes any kind of long term land-use planning impossible. No-one knows where the transport will be, so development doesn’t happen, so it is hard to make a transport business case, so schemes are abandoned and a new round of planning is done…Clearly, not a bad outcome for those ideologically opposed to state planning, but meanwhile some of London’s peer cities manage to maintain a 30-year planning horizon that gives investment certainty.
what the NIC is for
Creating a bipartisan consensus on investment priorities that ensures schemes can survive changes of government. Hence the politically astute choice of Adonis.
@IanJ – I was well aware of the recent history of PIccadilly Circus – that wouldn’t have necessarily been the only choice had a different routeing been adopted – but I didn’t wish to indulge the crayonista tendency.
I fear we must dsagree about wanting to fight yesterday’s wars. To note: I am not advocating continual revision, merely a periodic update. I’m afraid the London of 2017 is so removed from the London of 1950, in spatial planning terms that a change is inevitable. CR2 is probably not radical enough – two of today’s solutions to today’s problems joined up by a chunk of yesterday, perhaps. (See my first point).
As to the NIC, you will have noticed that advocates of a bipartisan approach in many politically contentious fields tend to demand that they be taken out of the political debate and left to experts. Adonis may be a moderate politician but he is not an expert planner; he is a jobbing historian – and an interesting one at that – turned politician, not a professional. Some other NIC members do have expertise in the financial field (and one in the modelling of, err, the highspeed rail market), but those are not the issues arising from the selection of any eastern branch of CR2.
Re P.Riddy @ 19:41
“The various things I have said are stating things said by the National Infrastructure Commission, Surrey County Council, Hertfordshire County Council and Broxbourne Council.”
Stated an a selected given point in time…
Surrey County Council’s Woking type suggestions dated from when they didn’t have a full detailed understanding of the CR2 plans such as stopping metro type service and that released capacity would increase the number of Semi-Fast Waterloo-Woking type services. SCC changed their views after finding out more hence I believe you are being slightly selective in your choice of “council” etc. view points to fit your thinking.
Re: P.Riddy (earlier):
“Crossrail 2 is also making the same mistake as London Overground by not getting the shires on board”
London Overground (during the previous Mayor’s tenure) absolutely did have the one shire critical to their first step – Kent for SouthEastern Metro – on board. See public statements from Paul Carter.
There was a framework agreed to cover the governance issues – which of course abound in the opposite direction with the current single franchise covering both Metro and so-called long distance services.
Whilst the final presented business case was not framed in the best way, it was partisan politics that killed it. Nothing else. To the long-term detriment of travellers in the SouthEastern Metro area.
(aside)
I’m still waiting to get sucked off the platform by the turbulence caused by the trains that I’m told travel fast through Dartford.
@Graham H (re using the pause constructively):
this is how we end up with “why not serve Old Street, rather than Angel between Dalston and Euston” stuff that sees a growth area or capacity gap and joins the dots with their ‘Inchworm’ (that less-bright-than-lime green colour) crayons with little thought of alignment. Certainly it was what the lobby group who came up with the revised Chelney scheme did a few years ago.
I’m highly surprised that there hasn’t been an article written somewhere by someone pushing for CR2’s Lea Valley branch to have a Stratford (International?) sag (cf Balham bulge), removing the need for separate STAR services, serving Hackney proper as well as the lower Lea Valley growth area, and providing extra capacity on the Stratford-Zone 1 capacity gap.
Yes, TfL did analysis on the existing proposed route and went for a mix of the best performing options, but it seems to be that join the dots attitude to cover as many dots as possible. It is the revision during the last pause that has made the scheme plagued with “the good being the enemy of great” as it moved from the (still viable, and performed highly on the analysis) Chelney approach of doing three specific things very well (District line relief in SW/W London, Victoria line relief in Central London and Central line relief in NE/E London) to doing 8 different things on a sliding scale from ‘sort of’ to ‘very well’ (Northern line relief through Clapham, NR relief on inner routes through Finsbury Park, distribution of HS2 passengers across Central London, Victoria line relief in Central London, Piccadilly line relief in N London, solving the SW Metro capacity gap issues, Victoria line relief in N/NE London, serving the Lea Valley with lots of trains in the hope that there’s high density redevelopment of the bits that aren’t protected and/or wet).
@ P Riddy 20/6 0839 – You are making a lot of very “firm” statements about what Ms Dix has or has not done. How do you know? Do you attend all the meeting she sits in? Do you have access to all of CR2’s communications with stakeholders? To be frank none of us know how these contentious and difficult debates are being handled and what commitments, concerns, “bribes” etc have been put on the table, taken off the table or left there. I think it is naive to expect a summarised and inevitably high level discussion with this blog to cover any contentious issue in any detail at all. Given the CR2 business case is with the government and an awful lot hinges on that and the wider state of the Govt itself there is not a hope that Ms Dix would say anything publicly that would undermine the current process with DfT / Treasury.
It’s good to get the interview but let’s not run away with ourselves as to what Ms Dix, TfL, the DfT or any other stakeholder has *definitely* done. To suggest that TfL has run away on its own and not worked “hand in glove” with the DfT on a major scheme like this ignores the reality of the sponsorship structure. All manner of things may change for a very wide variety of reasons. We must wait to see what the next steps are.
For those who may be interested there are a fair few pages in the Draft Mayor’s Transport Strategy about CR2. I have not read these yet as I’ve been digging around on bus matters. Nonetheless the draft MTS is specifically demonstrating how and where enhanced housing development fits in with CR2.
One small snippet is that the MTS states that the Mayor is looking to change some of the planning parameters governing industrial land in the Lower Lea Valley. The MTS also calls for an acceleration of government plans to four track the Lea Valley line as soon as possible. Looks to me like an intensification of housing development is being considered and they need a vastly better stopping rail service in the Lea Valley even more CR2 might come along. It may also be a nod to a potential delay to CR2 itself or a move to tilt the balance of developer contributions / govt spending so govt provides some CR2 related infrastructure early. As an aside it is worth noting that the plans for Meridian Water and the rebuilt Northumberland Park station all cater for a 4 track alignment and 4 platforms. Obviously it would be stupid not to have such provision but stranger things have happened!
https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/policy/mayors-transport-strategy/
for those who may be interested in the CR2 stuff. Even from a quick skim quite a lot of interesting ideas and policies but I will say no more so as not to undermine any future articles that the Editor may be plotting. I will pre-empt the Moderators and say that comments specifically on the MTS should await whatever articles emerge from the Editor’s keyboard.
ngh@ 08:11 replying to P.Riddy yesterday — I thought I’d have a look for the latest views from Surrey CC and it appears to be a letter from the Leader of the Council to the Chancellor in March 2017 stating: “I urge you to make a firm commitment on Crossrail 2 in the spring Budget …. It has the enthusiastic support of people and businesses in Surrey and beyond – and would be an investment in the economic future of the whole country too.”
Given how long anything takes to get built (Thameslink 2000 ring any bells?), any plan is likely be sub-optimal by the time it’s delivered (and most likely even before the shovels hit the ground), simply due to passage of time. So at what point do you stop?
However, given that both the West Anglia and South Western routes urgently need spades in the ground, it should still progress. Given the experience of recent projects, it will probably fill up within 10 years anyway.
@SHLR – Yes, it may well fill quickly. Let me introduce you to the concept in known in transport planning circles as the “soggy trench” – it fills with water because the land is pretty thoroughly waterlogged but it doesn’t drain the fields.
Si describes, pretty accurately, I think, the process by which any scheme becomes a Christmas tree on which gifts for everyone are hung, and as a result becomes suboptimal. The time of pausing is an opportunity to cleanse the project; the problem is that, of course, no one will admit it and further baubles are then hung on the tree in the hope (vain) that that will suddenly tip the balance of acceptibility. So do it now!
@A-mous/P.Riddy – I know Peter Martin (Chairman SCC, also my local county councillor) fairly well and often have discussions with him on county spending. Surrey have no money for anything new for the foreseeable future because of the extension of the London Discount Multipliers to the richer authorities surrounding the GLA. Words are, of course, cheap and Surrey can urge the DfT to find the cash all they like but they have no money themselves. Other authorities may be expected to be similarly strapped.
People here are claiming that I cannot speak for meetings had. This is irrelevant. The fact is that TfL’s response to requests for amendments from Surrey and NIC was to not provide any but instead submit a new business case.
Some here claim that the nic is irrelevant that it is just a point of view, but the fact is that The Treasury set them up to advise and their viewpoint is taken seriously by decision makers. To suggest otherwise is absurd.
It is reasonable to suggest that had Crossrail 2 removed Chelsea and delayed New Southgate, alongside commissioning a report to consider proposals from Surrey and Hertfordshire for a Phase 2, that this scheme may well have been granted already, forming part of today’s Queen’s Speech.
On many matters, writers here are correct on industry and technical things, but this is where the rail industry and Westminster coincide, and where London and the Shires collide, and I believe that Crossrail 2 has failed to manage the politics appropriately.
@P.Riddy – I fear it is naive to think that just because a body has been set up by the Treasury doesn’t mean that it is there to have its views taken seriously. I can assure you from my time advising Ministers that bodies are often set up to avoid doing things or even to provide a “private” opposition to some other body (in this case, perhaps, infrastructure planners); this gives the Treasury room for manoeuvre. Not “absurd” but the rough and tumble of real politics, I fear.
The reason you heard nothing about CR2 in today’s Queen’s Speech is that there is no money for it. The question as to whether it did or did not take in amendments suggested by various local authorities is totally irrelevant – unless the said Local authorities were willing to brass up, the government would pay little or no attention to their demands. (it is, of course, extraordinarily easy to spend other people’s money…)
You have only to look at the government’s response to BML2 and the Marshlink electrification to see good examples of both my points in action. I would add that I have been party to these ploys myself in the past – successfully, as it turned out: we “persuaded” Kings Lynn to cough up several hundred thousand for the electrification, for example.
You are right, tho’, that the promoters of CR2 haven’t been very clever politically.
@ P Riddy – so, in essence, you are claiming a superior knowledge of politics and “believe” that if only TfL had “obeyed” the demands of two neighbouring Home Counties authorities, some snobs in Chelsea, the NIC and ignored three London local authorities and all the related practical issues that all would be fine and dandy with CR2? You provide no evidence to support your belief but we’re just supposed to accept it are we? When are you being appointed as Ms Dix’s successor? Oh and a nice back handed compliment there to those of us who write and comment here and to Ms Dix herself.
Yes, Walthamstow, that is what I am claiming. I am claiming that a failure to provide amendments to satisfy the stated aims of the National Infrastructure Committee alongside failing to even pay lip service to the Tory Shires resulted in this administration not wishing to engage, because all they saw was belligerence, as TFL often behaves.
Happy for you to have an alternative point of view, express it, but it is not fair to slap me down if you cannot find any evidence to refute my point of view other than throwing around insults and making inane comments about the “irrelevance” of major Tory shires, to a Tory administration, one of which the Transport Minister has is constituency within.
Please, if you have anything to add, please add it, but I don’t see anybody else coming up with an good reason why central government have gone cold on the project.
P.Riddy: “I don’t see anybody else coming up with a good reason why central government have gone cold on the project.”
You must have missed Graham H’s comment at 1631. It’s cash, and absence thereof.
As an aside, how do you know that TfL haven’t proposed the changes recommended by the NIC?
@P.Riddy
As the commentators in this discussion are long term contributors, we are familiar with their professional expertise or background. So we take it their comments as read. However the onus is then on a new commentator to provide some facts to back up their opinions when challenged.
My own perspective is that several explanations have been provided by commentators as to what the central government have gone cold on the project. The one that makes most sense to me is that the current General Election and possible minority government have focused the current Cabinet’s focus on essential issues, hence excluding recent public mention of the Crossrail 2 file.
Whilst the posts here on this topic have not all been without slight, we do try to maintain the focus on the discussion and the facts that support them, as much as this is possible. In this regard you are correct in that the level of commentary is slipping somewhat.
Our role as moderators is to ensure discussion here does not fall into personal attacks or insults. Everyone please note that we mods will be keeping a keen eye out for insulting language.
Long Branch Mike
@ SFD & P. Riddy
Admittedly I’ve not found a mention that TfL/Mayor have taken aboard the NIC recommendations in the draft transport strategy, just a section in the focus on Crossrail 2 that states the NIC support the project whole heartedly.
Certainly all the 2041 route maps have the New Southgate branch included (going via Wood Green for what that’s worth) which probably doesn’t quite fit with it being part of a 2nd phase.
The other clear reason why the Government has gone cold on CR2 is the perceived need to give some greater priority to areas outside London, particularly in the North. Even if money was available, there is no way that CR2 could be approved without a lot more financial commitment to infrastructure schemes in the North coming first.
SAD FAT DAD, yes, my comments refer to cash. The £4.5bn NIC stated needs to be chopped out, and they very clearly state in their report that removing New Southgate and Chelsea. TFL, in their “wisdom” submitted a revised business case, when the fact is that there is not the cash, as you said.
This links in well with HS3, because this level of savings would contribute significantly towards the cost of HS3! Regarding spending money elsewhere, that applies not only to London but also to the Shires, and Surrey is very influential in Westminster. Much of the civil service likely live there along with the Transport Minister.
But everybody else is correct that there are lots of reasons, i.e. election, brexit, etc. etc. but I simply maintain that presenting a new business case rather than chopping out expensive parts the scheme that central government consider bad value for money is the principle feather that broke the camel’s back. People are correct in saying that we will probably never know for sure and the debate will go on, but you may notice that I am very upset about the way this is going. Very disappointed that its not going forward. I tend to agree with ANSWER=42, that they will be waiting for 2yrs operating figures from Crossrail 1, in which case implementation is pushed out to around 2035, which is a crying shame.
P.Riddy: but presumably you don’t know what was in the revised business case. Presumably very few people do. And presumably those that do know won’t be publicising it. So we don’t know whether Chelsea or New Southgate (or any other bits) are in or out.
Presumably (again) we will all find out as and when an announcement on the business case is made by the Secretary of State and/or the Mayor.
Meanwhile there is no point slating TfL or others on the basis that they haven’t followed NIC advice if “we” don’t know.
@P.Riddy – actually, the money saved (if money were saved) on CR2 would come from a different pot to the HS3 pot. In fact, of course, neither pot yet exists and so there can be no saving from one to transfer to the other. In any case, moving money from an LA – financed scheme (assumed to be a mixture of locally-raised cash and local borrowing) to a nationalised industry such as NR to pay for HS3 which would be met by borrowing that scored for public expenditure purposes as central government spending, is a very rare thing. -And quite tricky as it tends to pass between different departments’ budgets with a certain amount of financial “friction” therefore.
Although the country may seem to be slipping into a third world coma just at the moment, I do not think you have a shred of evidence to support your suggestion that most of the civil service live in Surrey and even if they did, they are not so corrupt as to bend the country’s finances to suit their own needs. In any case, money for local government is distributed by standard formula, much to Ministers’ chagrin.
I really don’t believe that you add value to the debate about CR2 by inventing what these days is called “fake news” or suppositious “fact”.
@P Riddy – I take your point that, of itself, the New Southgate branch adds little opportunity for new housing without wholesale demolition in the surrounding area it does allow a new depot to be created. The land is currently not in use for railway purposes. There are two other existing depots further towards London (one near Alexandra Palace, the other near Hornsey) but just to the north of New Southgate is a (comparatively rare) depot opportunity.
As a user of New Southgate station currently, personally I would get little to no benefits from CR2 as the Moorgate / Kings Cross service is OK but I do see the sense in tunnelling from approximately where the North Circular crosses the East Coast Main Line.
@Graham H: advocates of a bipartisan approach in many politically contentious fields tend to demand that they be taken out of the political debate and left to experts
That would of course be a foolish thing to argue: decisions on how and where to spend public money are inescapably political and rightly made by politicians who are accountable to the electorate. But long term transport planning (as opposed, say, to the question of the best way of running the transport system) is not party politically contentious these days. All the major parties are committed to the idea of public investment in infrastructure to support jobs and housing: all have dissenters on the fringes with regards to particular projects (eg. HS2) but there are more differences within the parties than between them in terms of their basic wishlist. Hence a bipartisan (indeed tripartisan) approach should be possible (and it should be possible for a Labour mayor to cooperate with a Conservative government and vice versa).
unless the said Local authorities were willing to brass up
The GLA is one local authority willing to brass up to the tune of at least half the cost. The point of the letters from the surrounding Shires will have been to neutralise the governance issue that some commenters here seem exercised by but has not been raised by any of the authorities involved.
As for why there has been ominous silence, the government seem to be either a) playing hardball to get an even higher proportion, or b) really are skint and nothing will move them anyway, so there would be no point chopping bits off the scheme just to placate them.
Just to complicate things, the DUP are said to be demanding £1 billion extra for Northern Ireland infrastructure. Under the Barnett formula that would mean the Treasury would then have to stump up something like an extra £28 billion for England…
SAD FAT DAD: Indeed, you are correct that the new business case possibly does have options to “delay” New Southgate, etc.
Regarding making New Southgate stack up, I do believe it could, if Crossrail 2 took over the slow tracks to Welwyn Garden City. Existing 2tph Moorgate services could be re-allocated to Enfield Chase, boosting that line and you could start off with 12tph to New Southgate, 6tph to Welwyn, with potential to boost Welwyn over time. However, this requires a relaxation of Greenbelt rules and new towns at existing stops, but Welwyn and Hatfield are capable of intensification.
I do believe that the stabling benefits of New Southgate are well over-played. It is clear in my mind that there is enough space at Broxbourne, Hoddesdon and Harlow for stabling. The Local Authorities will give their right hand to give space and planning permission.
Along the Broxbourne route there is also potential for a turnback facility north of Tottenham Hale comprising a reinstatement of the spur from Angel Road to Edmonton Green that could potentially run through a re-built shopping centre a Edmonton Green through a viaduct, potentially linking to Enfield Town.
We start off with 24tph, which can run all the way to Angel Road. Circa 20,000 new homes are planned for Angel Road and Northumberland Park.
– Six trains per hour turn-back at Edmonton Green or continue to Enfield Town instead of turning back at Tottenham Hale. Edmonton Green shopping centre is comprehensively rebuilt.
– Six trains per hour to Hertford East, providing 50% service increase, also removing 4tph from the mainline to be re-allocated to Cambridge or Stansted.
– Twelve trains per hour to Harlow, again removing stopping trains from the mainline to boost Cambridge and Stansted.
This doesn’t account for the 4 to 6tph from Stratford and the additional 4tph from 30tph through the core. Additional trains can turn-back at Tottenham Hale, boost an Edmonton / Enfield Town spur.
There is also potential for some trains to swap onto the mainline here to, for example, serve Stansted Airport.
All of this is to demonstrate that the Broxbourne Branch can do a lot more, without any need for expensive tunnelling. However, if New Southgate is axed, I do believe that a station is required at Stoke Newington for a West Anglia suburban interchange to make up for lost interchange at Seven Sisters, to ease the Victoria Line there. This would be costly but could replace the proposed station at Angel, that duplicates Northern Line interchange at Euston / Kings Cross / St Pancras.
Likewise, the southern branches look a lot more interesting if Woking is served, providing more relief to Waterloo than the existing proposal, the potential to shift stabling away from Wimbledon and facilitate significant additional provision of housing.
@ P. Riddy
Your making a classic crayonista mistake of basing your assumptions for your drawings on the train service as is now. Don’t forget that the future network pattern on the East Coast commuter slows will be enhanced by both Thameslink & Moorgate enhancements (including a 2nd Gordon Hill turn back). Your CR2 scheme would eat into that capacity upgrade which will be completed prior to CR2.
A spur through Edmonton Green just to provide a potential turn back? Really? Sigh.
@IanJ – For the avoidance of doubt, I should perhaps have stressed that it was the willingness, or not, of *non-*GLA authorities to brass up. The GLA has, as you remark, a good and patient track record in funding out of county services. (It may be just a “governance” issue but it’s very like leaving the bar when it’s your round. Shires are very happy to spend someone else’s money silently. Gorreros all…)
P.Riddy. I didn’t say that the business case did have options to delay or omit New Southgate etc. What I said was that we commenters on this site simply don’t know, and won’t for a while.
I also find it fascinating that any one individual can feel qualified to suggest that their ideas are far better than those of an organisation that has spent hundreds of person-years of effort, and many millions of pounds, studying the technical, environmental, economic, political and financial implications of no doubt hundreds of different options before proposing one of them to Government.
@P.Riddy – you use the phrase “I do believe ” repeatedly, followed by a proposal for something. Can you help us by explaining the basis of your belief? Can you tell us why you believe that some areas and not others need the levels of service you specify? If you can’t, then you leave us relying on your unsupported judgement. Now, why should we do that?
A good example of this is the assertion that serving Woking by CR2 would facilitate the move of the Wimbledon depot further out. Do you actually know how short of convenient flat development land Woking is? Here’s a clue: the inspectors examining the Local Plans for Guildford and Waverley have been asking these authorities to identify ways of helping Woking to accommodate their projected population. But perhaps you didn’t need this info before offering an opinion?
Right I’ve done some digging. I can’t see that TfL or CR2 have published the Strategic Outline Business Case that the DfT are currently considered. Therefore as SFD said we cannot know, unless we are part of the CR2 / TfL senior mangement or City Hall politicians, what precisely is in the case. The NIC proposed that the business case included *options* about cost savings, programme phasing and also examined the “value” of particular stations. Again as the document has not been made public we do not know what options and proposals are in the plan.
It is entirely standard practice that the “public face” of a project, for example as set out in the new draft Mayor’s Transport Strategy, remains as previously made public via the consultation process. None of this negates the possibility of optioneering being within the document submitted to the DfT. My experience of working on documentation that ended up going to government is that those in charge are acutely aware of what their obligations are, especially in relation to third party bodies, and ensure that these are met within whatever is submitted. The only exception will be if an interim agreement has been reached on contentious points or government has agreed to a rephasing of submissions – for example, to allow for more analysis or research to support the final decision process. This tends to apply in more dynamic circumstances but I still believe that TfL / CR2 will have done the right thing in taking due heed of the NIC’s recommendations.
It is also worth noting that the draft MTS seemingly postpones consideration of a CR2 eastern branch until the 2030-2040 time period (p272 of the MTS).
And, that, I think, is that as far as CR2 is concerned, from me.
I can’t stand the way you use a capital letter in the middle of so many sentences. says, not Says, please! Throughout this piece.
City AM have published on this subject, emphasising one of our concerns, that the problem is politics.
[Moderator’s note: This post is rather longer than our normal preference. It can remain because your proposal has faced a number of criticisms here, and you are answering them. However, I would ask anyone responding to be sparing with their comments, and ask P.Riddy to be concise in replying to any such responses. We would prefer to allow the conversation to move on to other aspects of the article and the underlying situation. Malcolm]
Snowy, I am proposing removing New Southgate, explaining an alternative that could have made it better, but the turnback at Gordon Hill and proposed grade separated junction at the Stevenage approach are required for additional capacity rather than being eaten into and would have to happen in parallel, but this would add additional capacity to a line swiftly hitting capacity limits.
Turnback at Angel Road rather than Tottenham Hale, in my opinion is necessary if Broxbourne is the only northern branch, because you do not want turnback at Tottenham Hale, missing Northumberland Park and Angel Road where about 20,000 new homes are planned between them, and Angel Road will be a very important station for Waltham Forest and the west, being sited on the A406 for passengers from all directions. There is space for a turnback here, and a clear stretch of land that was a railway headed straight to Edmonton Green where you have 5,000 new homes planned at Edmonton Heartlands plus a 15 hectare shopping centre with a precedent for tall buildings desperate for re-construction. A viaduct through, across Fore Street could hook up to the congested route to Enfield Town and Southbury Loop, solving capacity issues on the West Anglia suburban routes. Cheshunt presently has 2tph via Southbury and 4tph to Enfield Town with few options for upgrade. Note, Southbury is a 100 hectare site of low rise warehouses that could have a new town of around 30,000 homes.
What is crayonista is Crossrail 2’s present proposal of £3.5bn for a tunnel to New Southgate and possibly £20bn tunnel from Angel to Barking for up to a maximum of 15tph to C2C lines.
Walthamstow Writer, we know what the proposed cost cuttings are, so it is clear that there is debate to be had, because it is all set out by the NIC, who despite what everybody says about being irrelevant did form the basis for needing a new business case. We know that they want to get rid of New Southgate, Chelsea and possibly Angel Station, that one or two of the southern branches are poor value for money vs Woking, and it is known that there is no intention to construct the eastern branch immediately. This was stated long ago.
Once you then put all the stabling at Broxbourne or beyond it becomes impossible to then re-allocate to an eastern Branch because as soon as you start asking that question, you cannot justify a tunnel from Angel to Barking unless it is a high capacity new Crossrail project altogether, yet Crossrail 2 will only provide it 15tph, with that requiring the re-allocation of trains from Tottenham Hale that by this time will be full.
As such, the eastern branch would become Crossrail 3 or should be forgotten about entirely, because a 12 mile tunnel from Angel to Barking for 15tph simply doesn’t stack up.
When it really fails to stack up is when you compare it with the opportunities the Broxbourne Branch provides. You pay £50m for a turnback at Angel Road, boost that to a £350m viaduct through Edmonton Green to create 10,000 homes and a new shopping centre at Edmonton Green, resolve Enfield Town and serve the Southbury Loop where 30,000 homes can be constructed at Southbury. Add £1bn to quad track to Broxbourne, add £100m for a grade separated junction to remove Hertford East trains from the mainline and a further £500m to extend to Harlow, and a further £1bn to extend to Stansted. All of this is a pittance compared with a low capacity £20bn plus tunnel from Angel to Barking delivering just 15tph. The business case shifts yet further when you add the cost of providing a new stabling yard east of Barking and just try re-allocating trains from Tottenham Hale to Barking that are full already.
Dix alluded to the potential of the Broxbourne Branch when she stated “certainly you could run more up the upper Lea Valley as we’re assuming currently that you turn so many back at Tottenham Hale. But you can run more up there if you address the issue of the single track.” – clearly angling for money for quad tracking and possibly more.
As such, the debate would have the centre around how do you make the Broxbourne Branch work. Others may come to totally different conclusions as to how you do that, but my proposals are based upon historic alignments that still exist (Angel Road to Edmonton Green), existing proposals (Quad track to Broxbourne) (Broxbourne to Harlow), and obvious spurs (Hertford East), bus clear sources of funding (Stansted Airport). None of this is wild imagination, it simply what the branch facilitates.
To Malcolm and the Mods: I know you want the conversation to move on but, for the record, four tracking from Coppermill Junction to Broxbourne has always been a cornerstone of the Crossrail 2 proposals… and extending CR2 to Harlow and Hertford East has been looked at and, as Snowy said earlier, decided against because why would anyone want an all-stations stopper rather than a fast train that stops at Tottenham Hale with an easy interchange to CR2?
If the New Southgate branch is cancelled or postponed then there may be options to run more services up the Broxbourne branch but, personally, can’t see Stansted Airport paying for anything and, even if forced to, would think they’re priority would be journey time improvements for Stansted Express services rather than CR2.
This is how people think when it comes to new rail connections: Not following conversation but why can’t they use great northern tunnels from Essex road, that’s near angel to . It makes a lot of the necessary connections. Also, Ally Pally to fortis green would be great. #the proposals that will never happen.
@ P Riddy – you are taking “suggestions” from the NIC and turning them into demands from the NIC. That is not how I read their report. At the same time as you say they are demanding these cuts and changes the NIC wholly endorsed and supported CR2. Surely all the NIC are doing is pointing out how you get through the approval stage and secure finance so the entire project proceeds, possibly in a longer phased programme? Hence all the stuff about getting proper support and agreement around extra housing – this ensures the benefit side of the equation is on firm ground. If the NIC thought CR2 was so poor that it required all the changes you assert then why on earth has the project got this far – with the backing of Lord Adonis in his previous role (long before the NIC was formalised)?
Can we draw a line under this never ending debate? You dislike / disagree with TfL and their scope of CR2. Fine. I don’t think CR2 makes much sense either. However endless posts from you or I or anyone else on here won’t change their view. We are not getting anywhere fruitful or enlightened by saying the same thing repeatedly. It is for the DfT to make the next move. Can we just wait to see what they do?
Attempting to be brief, the claim that taking trains north of Broxbourne will be unpopular because they stop at all stations is wildly off the mark. There are existing, well used, all stations services already including Cambridge trains that only skip stations between Cheshunt and Tottenham Hale and Hertford East trains already stop all stations except Angel Road and Northumberland Park.
A-MOUS, There should not be any concern about people not desiring stopping services through central London. The main function of quad tracking, taking in the Hertford East Branch and providing a Harlow or Stansted connect service is to release significant mainline capacity for Stansted, Cambridge and beyond and to allow more long distance trains to run fast and semi-fast. The provision of a high frequency, metro stopping service is almost secondary, as with HS2, its all about capacity. People will also opt for a seat in an air conditioned train into the West End rather than jostle for standing room in a sweaty tube and will forgoe a 10min addition to their journey that will likely be complemented by not having to interchange.
Walthamstow Writer, you state correctly that I perceive the NIC requirements to be demands. I believe that this is in part due to a pressing need to fund HS3. Lets agree to disagree on that point and see if history will tell us whether Crossrail 2 can belligerently push on regardless of the desires of the Treasury, DfT and the Tory Shires. Time will tell. We have both shared our opinions and now is time to go to the Bookies.
Update via City AM, who HAVE read the 49 page business case.
http://www.cityam.com/267134/whitehall-feud-over-crossrail-2-ministers-push-back-against
A senior government source told City A.M.: “TfL isn’t putting any money in”, and instead wants the government “to front all the cost”, with TfL then paying it back down the line.
A DfT spokesperson said: “As with all transport scheme proposals a thorough analysis is being carried out by the department to ensure it is a robust scheme. This includes examining whether the National Infrastructure Commission’s detailed recommendations on the scheme have been met. These considerations and further discussions are part of a normal ongoing process.”
NOTE, the DfT spokesman did not seek to discover whether the NIC’s recommendations had been considered, and you only require one to meet demands. TfL does not seem to understand that “recommendations” is the DfT’s code for “demands”. It is the polite, diplomatic language of Whitehall that covers a wolf in sheep’s clothing, for a wolf who is in control, who can spend this money on other things thank you very much, and which does not require a forked tongue to assert itself.
It also appears clear from this article that I was correct that this is purely a business case that does not provide any amendments, simply seeking to plug the funding gap. Certainly, with that limited number of pages, it could not express finance plus alternative routing proposals. Read between the lines when the DfT spokesperson stated that “One of the things” they are looking at is whether NIC recommendations have been met means that this is the ONLY thing in the situation where TfL is not putting up more of its own cash to plug the gap.
So it appears to be a stand-off, with TfL belligerently holding ground, and the DfT sitting back in its chair pondering other schemes this cash can be spent on, not caring to spend any further time trying to convince a Labour mayor to amend the scheme to their desires.
PRiddy
So, you are actually suggesting that this is purely down to a clash of, erm, err … “personalities”, namely C Grayling & S Khan?
Shudder
@P.Riddy – as I explained earlier, what we are seeing here is the NIC being used as an excuse for delay. If you actually read and understand the language used, it doesn’t mean that the DfT will insist on whatever changes the NIC want, merely checking that they are there. The press report doesn’t go on to say what, if anything, the DfT will do if the NIC changes aren’t there. Finding someone who disagrees with a proposal you want to shoot down or delay and then working a press campaign to promote them from “opponents” to “some people have argued against”..’ to “people” and finally, via ” it can equally be argued that…” to the new orthodoxy. Job done. In this case, the NIC is the catspaw. If they didn’t exist, my former colleagues would have just as well found some other candidate for promotion.
It is perhaps a serious mistake on TfL’s part not to realise the need to anticipate and neutralise in advance this sort of campaign of rubbishing. They and LU have had enough experience of this with CR1, after all.
You must understand that press reports are not to be taken at their face value and rarely tell the whole story. The choice of wording, especially from government sources, is always to be examined carefully. In the case you quote, what do you think the phrase about not putting any money into the scheme upfront actually means? Anything from “the entire thing will be funded by TfL borrowing” to “we’ll pay for it by hypothecated local tax receipts”. Like all great showmen, the government never tells.
P. Riddy. Please be assured that the business case for a £30bn+ project is somewhat longer than 49 pages.
As an aside, three quick questions re your desire to extend the 4 tracking further north.
1) How many additional trains into London would 4 tracking between Broxbourne and Harlow (or even Bishops Stortford) enable?
2) you catch a putative Crossrail 2 train from Harlow calling at all stations to central London. How many fast trains would overtake it, and get to Tottenham Hale / Central London earlier, having been able to leave Harlow later?
3) Luton is a similar time from central London to Harlow (noting that it is a further distance). What percentage of passengers from Luton catch an all stations Thameslink train to central London, and what percentage catch a fast Thameslink or non-stop East Midlands train?
Answers to these may help you to arrive at the conclusion that TfL (and Hertfordshire) appear to have reached.
The southern section needs to reduce the amount of branches, what operations want is a simple tube style operations, as what TfL are already doing with CR1. If CR2 continues with four branches on the southern reaches, it would be an operational nightmare for the team writing the timetables…
SAD FAT DAD : “How many additional trains into London would 4 tracking between Broxbourne and Harlow (or even Bishops Stortford) enable?”
Reaching Harlow only removes Roydon from the mainline, which is not a mega gain, but Cambridge and Bishop Stortford trains will no longer need to stop there, and the additional capacity will drive significant house building in Harlow, particularly if you reach Harlow Mill. Harlow Council have offered land for stabling, which solves the need to go to New Southgate and crucially, it is over £3bn less to quad track to stabling at Harlow than to tunnel for the same at New Southgate! That is the main benefit, stabling, house building, which is what the NIC want to hear, alongside additional capacity.
– Being overtaken by express trains is irrelevant if it is a Stansted Express that no longer calls at Harlow, or if your journey begins at Harlow Mill or Roydon. Furthermore, Crossrail 2 to Harlow, by removing Roydon and Broxbourne from the mainline and by boosting the number of fast trains (from absorbing Hertford East services) means that you will get your metro service plus additional semi-fast services at Harlow Town for Liverpool Street. It is also possible that you will be happy for a slightly longer journey if your end destination is the West End or south London. Why save 10 to 15mins to jostle for standing space on the Victoria Line or Crossrail 2 train at Tottenham Hale when you can have a seat all the way in an air conditioned train?!
– Furthermore, Crossrail 2 trains will be TFL fares. They will be cheaper than the fast mainline services. Many people take coaches in from Medway to save a couple of thousand per year.
– Reaching Harlow means passing the Hertford East junction. If Crossrail 2 absorbs Hertford East trains, that is 4tph off the mainline, which is equal to the full present complement of Stansted Express. With this you can boost Stansted Express from 4 to 6tph and boost Cambridge from 2 to 4tph. Not insubstantial. Note that Hertford East trains stop all stations except Angel Road, Northumberland Park and Clapton, so you clear the mainline to facilitate faster runnings for long distance trains also. Hertford East branch can also be boosted to at least 6tph.
– Harlow is of course another step towards a Stansted Connect service.
– I cannot believe I am hearing crazy analogies against metro services on a rail enthusiast website. All stations trains to Luton are very popular! Try finding a seat on one at peak before claiming that they are an example of why Crossrail 2 should not go to Harlow. This would be like saying “Look how slow District Line trains are vs C2C” or “why take a stopping service on Jubilee Line when you can skip stations on Metropolitan”. Yes, but both services have different purposes, work in tandem to boost capacity for each other, and are full to the brim! I cannot believe that we are debating here whether Metro services work or not. Try taking the contradictory argument about whether we should tear up existing metro services and you find a better conclusion.
In reality, TFL didn’t go with Harlow, because New Southgate is a long developed idea and Harlow wasn’t on the radar. They will only go for Harlow if forced by the NIC to seek stabling elsewhere. Hertfordshire and Harlow, I assure you, are very eager to see Crossrail 2 in Harlow, just as Berkshire is delighted to have Crossrail 1 at Reading and Maidenhead and TFL are looking to boost Reading services to 4tph, which will likely rise further over time as it becomes full to bursting.
Roydon station is a listed building, IIRC.
@P.Riddy – I find that housebuilders are simple folk. Their only interest is in the headine fastest journey to X (usually a carefully chosen central London X); I have yet to see any (and I am going through the developers’ applications to build on new sites in my village as we correspond) mention anything other than the proximity to the nearest train (ugh) station regardless of capacity – which is certainly an issue out here in Surrey. Four tracking or not will be a technical issue so far as they are concerned and certainly won’t swing it as to whether to build or not.
Indeed, the capacity of the transport system (road and rail) is a matter excluded from the definition of the sustainability of development sites set out in NPPG16 and the subsequent case law. You and I may think this is a foolish thing but it is a measure of the government’s determination not to be deflected from its housing targets. Harlow or wherever will get their allocated extra houses regardless of whether the railway can cope, whether stabling is sited there, or any other railway-related factors. (As to roads, they’ll be lucky to get made-up estate roads…)
I would be surprised if the NIC concerned itself with such operational detail as stabling matters – it hasn’t anywhere else such as CR1 or TLK – do you have some evidence?
P. Riddy. Sorry but your logic is flawed. and you didn’t answer the questions. So I will do them for you.
Number of extra trains: nil. For example the Stansted branch is at capacity, so no more trains there until a second tunnel is built. In the peak Hertford E trains to Liverpool St are route via Seven Sisters, so taking them to Crossrail 2 release no main line paths.
Number of fast trains that will overtake: 2. Harlow, Broxbourne etc would be rather upset if removal of its fast services and/or direct links to Stansted and Cambridge were the price of Crossrail2.
% of central London passengers on all stations services from Luton? Less than 5%. I see them every morning, and *always* get a seat if I catch one in preference to a fast service. They don’t get full until much closer to London. Generally people prefer to stand for 20-25 mins than sit for 35-40. Same applies at Croydon, Woking, Reading, Watford, Stevenage, Shenfield, and Sevenoaks. Harlow is no different.
SAD FAT DAD: It is not reasonable to suggest that delivering a Crossrail service to Harlow or Stansted cannot occur because there will be winners and losers. The fact is, West Anglia requires more capacity to serve stations closer to London and requires a rationalisation of services to let it better serve Stansted, Cambridgeshire, Kings Lynn and beyond.
Graham H. I do not need to present evidence about the NIC’s discussion about stabling, because the topic is very clear cut. Crossrail 2’s final defence of New Southgate branch is that it is required to provide stabling. At a £3.5bn price tag that argument is unsustainable. Harlow Council HAS offered land there for stabling, and it will not cost a fraction of reaching New Southgate to extend quad tracking 9 miles above ground to reach new stabling in Harlow.
GRAHAM H: Your argument about house builders not caring much about transport regarding housing is salient. The main reason it is being pursued is because the rail line requires financing and stamp duty from new homes is seen as one of the major sources of funding. Meanwhile, it is Central Government that is under pressure to deliver houses for votes.
That said, government can control supply in these locations through targeted Greenbelt releases. One of the few planning restrictions under the control of Westminster and not local government. Along the Lea Valley, that will be one of the bitter pills for locals to consume. Whereas you have the Lea Valley Regional Park to the east of the line, farm-land to the west of it will likely be lost. This is not an overly posh area, and could be seen as a way to satisfy the house builders seeking Greenbelt evaluation to avoid Greenbelt releases is more sensitive, politically active areas.
If the Greenbelt was less precious elsewhere, you would have seen Crossrail 2 propose to reach Welwyn Garden City, but it would be far more difficult to consume countryside in that part of Hertfordshire.
– I see the Harlow conurbation being expanded to consume Roydon, expanding in all directions especially around Harlow Mil if Crossrail 2 reaches it. Harlow Council will be happy to do that.
– Land between the A10 and West Anglia Mainline from Waltham Cross to Hoddesdon will likely get redeveloped, and some. Broxbourne is desperate to be considered a part of London and will likely be happy with gentrification and house building.
@P.Riddy – I fear you have been misinformed. Even as I write, I am pondering how much of my village’s Green Belt should be released for new housing, this decision (which would normally have been taken at district level) having been – in a cowardly fashion – pushed off to the parishes. Whatever the Parish Council decides will, no doubt, produce a stream of bricks through windows.
In the UK, with minor exceptions, tax receipts are not hypothecated and railway expansion is certainly not financed by tax receipts but by borrowing. It would in theiry be possible to use Community Infrastructure Levy to fund new railways, but the receipts from that (a percentage levied on new house sales) are too small to make a big difference; for example, in my neck of the woods, the proposed new village at Dunsfold – 3500 houses – might just raise £35m in CIL money – less than half what is needed to reopen the railway line to Guildford. The developers,if given the goahead, will still build the houses, railway or no railway arguing its down to the luckless buyers to check first- an attitude reflected precisely in the comment of one wellknown local developer, who, when it was pointed out that he had just built some flats in the flood plain at Farnham,merely shrugged and said it was none of his concern. (To mention cladding and plastic would be simple indecent – but pertinent).
Indeed Graham. NIC have stated what they think central government can fund through borrowing. Crossrail 2 need to cut out Chelsea and New Southgate to gain their support. NIC did not make their recommendations without speaking to the Treasury. Nonetheless some of the borrowing is intended to be squared with stamp duty receipts and the will be a steady cash flow from items such as Mayoral CIL, etc. So it’s not entirely borrowing, but mainly borrowing.
Update from City AM:
The business case:
– Opted for Wood Green (As said, DfT will likely want that scrapped.
– Removed Chelsea, Kings Road.
– Opted for Tooting Broadway, now there’s a surprise (I was looking forward to a Balham interchange for Croydon.
http://www.cityam.com/267275/crossrail-2-route-shake-up-transport-londons-business-case
Re P.Riddy,
“- Opted for Tooting Broadway, now there’s a surprise (I was looking forward to a Balham interchange for Croydon.”
You’ll get an even better interchange for Croydon at Clapham Junction…
And no real surprise if you really understand what is going on:
1. Upon further detailed investigation the cost of Tooting is lower that worst case scenario that was previously used due to poor geology.
2. Balham provides less benefit (especially with duplication) so a worse business case. The surface access to Balham (e.g. by bus) is significantly worse than Tooting (low railway bridges and narrow streets being major issues) so potential passengers can’t actually get to the station in large enough numbers.
“– Removed Chelsea, Kings Road.”
Tunnel alignment is also potentially moved so it doesn’t even go under Kings Road any more.
New Southgate /Wood Green Etc. The issues is cashflow not cost hence the focus on delay to change the expenditure profile…
I read delay to mean cancel, because if you “delay” New Southgate, the stabling that would have been provided there HAS to be reprovisioned at Broxbourne or Harlow.
Thus, the action of delay negates the main benefit of New Southgate because by default, its stabling function is now elsewhere.
Plus, it will be operationally tricky to serve New Southgate with a frequent, early morning service if it’s trains have to head from Broxbourne early morning to serve New Southgate.
Not sure since when it became British culture to save face by calling a cancellation a delay, but that is what it is.
Hence, my scenarios of Angel Rd or Edmonton Green turn back, Hertfford East absorption and Harlow or Stansted Connect come into play alongside a better case for serving Stoke Newington instead of Angel.
I don’t think they want to cancel it completly. Otherwise the whole thing needs to start from beginning again. Better to let it just twist in the wind. Each side can blame the other. Mr Khan has made no friends, it can probably limp on till Mr Kahn leaves or there is a new PM and Cabinet. So who knows when that is these days.
But the end of Austerity politics means the open pits of health, social care and education will be having their very sharp elbows out and Londoners are toxic these days.
I wonder if they could build the whole thing in Belfast, to please the DUP?
London Travelwatch have also commented on this, pushing for a go-ahead, a.s.a.p.
From City AM…..’Those opposing the station however, including actress Felicity Kendal and broadcaster Loyd Grossman, were concerned about the disruption it would bring, and worried it would wreck the intimate village atmosphere of Chelsea.’
Intimate village atmosphere??? The brazen snobbery of people who won’t even be alive by the time it opens 😡.
This whole project has become a huge mess (due to an apparent desire to make it ‘all things to all people’), and I sincerely hope someone does the decent thing and puts it out of its misery to go back to the drawing board and come up with something eminently more sensible.
*Goes to wall to bang head into a coma*.
@Anonymously: “Intimate village atmosphere” brings to mind the bit in the Princess Bride about “inconceivable”:
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
One of its major problems with Crossrail 2 is it having to serve HS2, because it avoids The City, just as its being packed out with skyscrapers, plus the conflicting need of easing the northern line and Waterloo.
Trying to solve all these issues with two Crossrail schemes would be more rational, and more problems could be solved, albeit more expensive.
Shame that nobody has admitted that the eastern branch to Barking via Hackney Central is in-fact Crossrail 3, because you simply cannot justify tunelling circa 13 miles to Barking without a full Crossrail complement of circa 24tph. 12tph simply cannot break even for that amount of tunnel and these trains will already have been allocated to Tottenham and will be full already so could not be re-allocated at a later date.
With a long term plan for a Crossrail 2 and Crossrail 3, we could have a more rational approach to solving all the problems that Crossrail 2 attempts to resolve over a longer period of time. One could serve HS2 and Tottenham Court Road, whilst the other serves the City (Old Street, Moorgate / Bank, City Thameslink) and southern end of the West End (Charring Cross / Trafalgar Square).
One could absorb metro trains from Waterloo, whilst the other could absorb metro trains from Victoria.
Either done over a longer period of time or, done more or less together if we re-allocated … [Brexit debate topic remove. For explanation see Greg T and Graham H’s comments. LBM]
@Anonymously – how could anyone not agree with you (apart from those inhabitants of K&C who would never deign to use the Underground). For once, i agree with P.Riddy, this scheme has become a terrible mixture of several schemes that are really directed at several problems and whose conflation merely leads to – frankly – absurd compromises. Not only do these compromises damage the prospects of CR2 but they undermine attempts to expand the network rationally and with good vfm. Of course, we need further crossrail-like schemes, each directed at a specific problem. We can argue all day as to what might be CR3 and CR4 in terms of the order in which they are built – doesn’t really matter. The key thing is not to bring the whole development process crashing to a halt because of a lack of care. . The “pause”/”delay” or whatever you call it, is a robust excuse for putting down this unhappy creature and going back to the drawing board…
(I know what the problem is – we saw it with CR1 – it is those who should know better going round saying “If we don’t get this, however bad it may be, we’ll never get CR3 etc”. I am a great fan of the late FM Cornford, but he had his tongue very firmly in his cheek when he satirised the best is the enemy of the good argument .).
BTW, I am sorry to see that the HS2 argument is still raising its ugly head. I won’t bore everyone again by explaining that the extra traffic brought by HS2 is a mere drop in the ocean of demand and capacity at Euston. It appeals to those who love CR2 and HS2 but not to the numerate. Even TfL admit that.
BBTW, I’m truly sorry to see that the Brexit debate is spilling over to this site. If it does, I will gladly leave.
“combined EU / foreign aid budgets“… let’s not go there. This is a transport site, and commentors are free to advocate spending sums of money on transport investment. There will be different views on whether such sums are available, and that’s fine. But shopping lists of what other non-transport things the UK might stop doing to make more money available for transport are a political digression too far, and any future mention of such shopping lists will be removed without warning.
Graham H
Can I second your last -with a modifer?
Unless really, directly relevant to the “job in hand”, can we ask the moderators to ban all & any mention of the B-word in these pages?
we’ve got enough problems as it is …
[Agreed, and well put! LBM]
@Graham H…..(On knees)….Please don’t go! We need your decades worth of civil service transport experience to enlighten us all 😉.
Perhaps we should have an unwritten rule when commenting that we don’t hypothecate money from other departmental budgets to fund our pet/crayonistic transport projects, lest it gets too political for comfort?
@Malcolm/Anonymously – I was simply depressed by a rerun here of the Brexit debate, its non-facts, prejudices, vitriol and stupidity. (Note -I am not taking sides here, both sides guilty) There are plenty of websites for that, where trolls can play. It is,in fact, quite possible – and extremely useful – for us to debate the case for a project and the ways of financing it without having to say that the NHS or whatever should be raided,
I am genuinely touched by people’s support. No,Really.
A forlorn cry into the wilderness – if only we had a proper strategic view as to what the tube, DLR and rail networks were for and how they should be developed over a 20-30 year horizon. All we ever get is a current “shopping list” with a couple of “we might like this” items tagged on the bottom. The short sightedness is really depressing given what the long term historical trend tells us about London, its economy and transport demand. Even when you get a dip for a few years it always bounces back and we find ourselves caught out and not able to cope.
WW there was a TFL report about what they want to do by 2050, a six part series of articles here on it including Briantist’s map. I use that map to work out what is (with hope) happening in the long term.
@Toby – there was indeed a mayoral “strategy” produced by the last Mayor and there was at least one article on this site about it. It was unclear at the time whether it was a mere political soufle designed to satisfy a short term PR need or a serious attempt to suggest some lines of development – and yes, Briantist had great fun producing a map. It is even less clear now whether the thing hasn’t joined that groaning shelf of reports and studies into the future, gathering dust in the fading memories of the likes of Lord Dawlish and others. Shouldn’t think the current Mayor has the slightest interest in any efletus of his predecessors, though… F&F as the civil service clerks used to say (File and Forget)
P RIDDY 01JUL
I am the first to admit that I come from a position of some ignorance on London matters and don’t post much for that reason, however I do agree with Mr Riddy that Crossrail 2 has been twisted to achieve many ends poorly instead of achieving a lesser number of goals well and having a Crossrail 3 fill in the missing bits in a sensible manner, presumably a reduced Crossrail 2 would cost less and may be thus earlier in commencement. And yes Crossrail 3 will be delayed but must come eventually from (potential) passenger pressure as the commuting burden increases. I do realise the costs are very substantial but the costs in total may be less than CR 2 in its present form and CR3. and further than perhaps being cheaper filling in the missing bits from a revised CR2 on a more rational basis both revised CR2 and CR3 being more efficient and rational in layout
@Graham Ah thats a shame. There are so many minor delays now I would understand the end date being put back to 2060 and a couple of partisan pork barrel projects swapped.
https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/policy/mayors-transport-strategy/?cid=mayors-transport-strategy
This transport strategy wants more journeys by public transport/walk/bike than there are journeys of any type now. That is almost entirely going to come from public transport rather than people living nearer work and able to walk/bike. CS2 and more are exactly that.
@Toby – I am a firm believer that transport is the servant, not the driver of land use planning, and what has been missing from successive mayoral “visions” is what the future shape of London might be. Call me cynical – Opposition cries of “No!” – but over the last couple of decades, any mayoral views on land use tend to have been a surprise (OOC anyone?) or the result of good luck (Lea valley?) in a world where rationally, you’d be looking at such things as brownfield opportunities (rather than wait for them to come to you),age of housing stock, changing retail patterns, and so on.
@Alan Overall – Quite right : there are obvious problems with the WAGN Inners and the SW inners (but also the GE Inners) but they need – as you imply – different approaches and may be different solutions. In particular, these solutions don’t exist in a vacuum. This is CR2’s great fault: it assumes that the great bulk of the end distribution from the line can rely on the rest of the transport system (sc LU) to do that for them. It can’t, for all the reasons discussed here before, and it isn’t therefore a satisfactory project. In a rational world, for example, you’d arrange for CR2 to serve at least one of the three major traffic destinations in London (my bet would be either (1) Bond Street /Oxford Circus) or(2) S Paul’s /Bank – either positions you well to go NE and SW); to miss all three requires – err,something – of a high order….
@Graham H
I think it is a bit too simplistic to say that transport is the servant of land use planning and not the master. There are many illustrations as to how transport drives land use planning. One of the most obvious is Metroland. At least as powerful is the example of Hinchley Wood station on the Cobham line to Guildford. Neither LSWR or SR wanted a station at Hinchley Wood but a local developer, GT Crouch, did. He gave the land and £2,500 to SR to provide the station and, in addition, agreed to take out £500 of SR stock which would be forfeited if 100 homes had not been built within a mile of the station within 2 years of opening – he didn’t lose his stock.
Roads, equally, have driven land use planning in various ways – usually centralising development and driving it to places with lower land and labour costs. A good illustration is the M4 and Courage Breweries. Courage used to have 4 breweries in the South East – 2 in central London, one in Reading and one in Alton. Following the opening of the M4 they closed all four of their breweries and concentrated brewing at one mega-brewery just outside Reading, notwithstanding that 85% of the brewery’s output went back into London. Without the M4 that just wouldn’t have been possible.
Yes, in principle, transport is the servant of land use planning but ignoring the powerful driver that transport provides – whether intentionally or unintentionally – on land use planning has caused far too many development problems for the UK.
@quinlet -I wouldn’t dissent from that; perhaps I should have put it more strongly to point the finger at (a) the “build it and they will come” school, and (b) the “build it because we can” school. In principle, tho’, I stick to the proposition that it is far better for master planning to be led by land use considerations.
Should transport only go to existing major transport destinations on London, as GH argues? While in most cases this is sensible, I think the case for doing this in central London is not as clear-cut as claimed. I would argue that in London there is a case of spreading people out slightly (but not too much), by having new transport links going through the edge and not the centre of the existing major destinations. This would allow the employment centres to expand horizontally rather than vertically.
In any case, any new transport hub in central London is quickly going to create a great deal of employment nearby.
@Aneconspeaks
There is some substantial research which shows that people’s jobs in central London are disproportionately close to the terminus which serves their home station. Thus people who work in the City are more likely to live in Essex or Kent (or North East/South East London) and those who work in the West End are more likely to work in West/North West London/Berkshire/Buckinghamshire. Emphasis, of course, on ‘more likely’ as this is by no means an absolute rule.
In this context, the development of HS1 with its terminus at St Pancras must have been a bit of a risk, given that Kentish Men (and Men of Kent) are more likely to work in the City, for which St Pancras is inconvenient. As it turns out, there wasn’t a problem. Partly this must be because the research dates back to the 1980s and people have become more willing to transfer since then. But also gives some support to the ‘build it and they will come’ argument. Certainly the redevelopment of the Kings Cross Goods Yard would have been slower without the addition of Thameslink and HS1 to St Pancras.
Pace Graham H, here’s another example of transport driving development.
@aneconspeaks – all the forecasts show that the agglomeration effect will enhance the attraction of the three existing major centres (Oxford St, the City, and the Wharf), and the current evidence shows that despite good transport links,many previously important centres (eg Kensington, Ealing, TCR, the Strand,) have been unable to hold their own against these poles. And some well served nodes have never taken off in quite the same way -eg Kings cross, the Elephant, or Holborn.; the reasons for this are many, but have much to do with the underlying structure of the area, socially and physically.You can certainly try and “drag” these major centres outwards, but you still meanwhile have a problem needing a solution now, and a looming unmanageable problem a decade or so away. A highly relevant case study could be made of the area surrounding TCR station itself – excellent transport connexions for many decades, yet the only new commercial structure of any size has been Centre Point, which remains in lonely isolation surrounded by the same footage of commercial floor space as was there in 1920 (even if the occupants of the shops and offices have changed in some cases).
Even if you could spread the concentration (and I agree with you that that is going to have to happen at some stage as the key tube stations at the key nodes get overloaded), CR2,with its single station within the Circle line is not going to help; as noted, it merely overloads the existing tube system serving the major destinations.
I suspect the point is that for any “offloading” to work, you have to put new stations in areas which are not as easily reached as existing nodal points, although whether that would actually lead to a shift in development or merely bring these more isolated areas more into play, is unclear. (In a rare moment of crayonism, I have pointed out previously that the least well served areas in the CAZ form a convenient line between (Chelsea), Belgravia, Mayfair, Fitzrovia and Mount Pleasant…) CR2 adds absolutely nothing to the existing tube network in central London.
Graham: A small secondary point to your observations. It’s not just ” the key tube stations at the key nodes get overloaded”. If it was, that could be solved by giving the said stations more platforms and access tunnels, which, while costly, would be cheaper than a brand new railway line.
But there seems to be rule of thumb developing which says that a single underground station should not be allowed to grow above a certain size. This is because of perceptions that beyond that size, it would be “too big to fail”, or too big to manage in an emergency. Arguably some stations, like KXSTP for example, are close to or beyond that limit already.
@Malcolm – you cannot really give existing stations more platforms on the same lines for the obvious operational reasons, and giving them more platforms on new lines would simply bring in more passengers. Even expanding access passages isn’t exactly cheap – remember, Victoria upgrade will have cost the thick end of £1/2 bn. You could actually buy a new station (or two) for that…
I’m not sure either about your developing rule. The problem with KXSTP (Euston((TLK) seems to be one of complexity as much as size.
You could put platforms on both sides of a line. New platforms on new lines is more what I am talking about though, and arguably, complexity is a more-or-less inevitable consequence of sheer size. (Subject to historical constraints, anyway; I suppose an enormous underground station could be designed very simply by starting with a clean sheet of paper, but that’s not where we are).
@Graham H: A highly relevant case study could be made of the area surrounding TCR station itself – excellent transport connexions for many decades, yet the only new commercial structure of any size has been Centre Point
But isn’t this partly a result of planning blight – big chunks of the area faced demolition for Crossrail since at least the late 80s* – and the area has been dominated by station construction for a decade. Now that Crossrail is nearly finished, the substantial oversite development is going ahead.
* And in the decades before that, government restrictions on new office building in the West End didn’t help. Famously the developers of Centre Point also kept it empty for years to maximise their capital gain, which wouldn’t have done much to encourage agglomeration in the area.
And … talking of upgrades & expansions:
Holborn Upgrade plans proposed – via Ian Visits.
But, given the often desperate crowding there, waiting another 9 years seems a very long time, to me.
@IanJ – well, all was quiet, very quiet,round Centre Point for the generation between it being first let and the start of the Crossrail works, even tho’ the Northern and Central plied their steady trade throughout. And although there is obvious overstation development to come, I don’t see much evidence of other buildings being pulled down. Indeed, all the shopping still seems stuck in that twilight zone east of the Oxford Circus M&S, comprising tawdry souvenir shops and the fag end of the rag trade. Not good indicators of a vibrant growing economy. (Further east still, there’s all those speciality shops such as Greg’s beloved swordstick emporium, the book shop specialising in mad titles, and so on, and whilst we would all miss them,they don’t actually give the impression of being about to take off commercially).
I suspect the actuality is very much case by case and one needs to understand such effects as listing, land ownership, presence or absence of anchor activities (the ref to M&S was deliberate), and so on. Victoria Street would be an interesting alternative case study – why should a street whose transport infrastructure didn’t change for 40 years and which was characterised by tatty shops and ByeloRussian municipal architecture suddenly take off commercially?
@Malcolm – yes,I wondered if you meant separate boarding and loading platforms. Although that reduces dwell times and therefore increases capacity,even then there is a limit to what can be done. The main immediate issue seems to be the capacity of an escalator – 1800 pax/hr; you can go on adding more escalators for a bit – banks of three, doubleending stations, and so on, but eventually you do get to the point where the trains cannot bring in the punters fast enough even if they empty completely at a specific station. Long before then, the station (and the streets around it) have been overwhelmed. You will also have spent billions…
@ Toby 0937 2/7 – I see Graham H has provided an erudite and succinct reply which I endorse. The 2050 document was a load of “flim flam” as far as I could see. Nice on paper but no commitment to it. The fact very little of it has survived into the new draft Mayor’s Transport Strategy says it all.
Graham has also gone on to state other things in later posts about central area access and onward distribution which I also agree with. More Crossrail lines are all very well but the lack of any demonstrable strategy for the Tube, beyond line upgrades, is depressing. It’s as if someone has decided there is no further role for the Tube network other than what it does today. That just feels like utter rubbish to me and is contrary to what is happening across the world where cities are more than happy to build and extend Metro lines. Paris has 5 RER lines but is continuing to extend its Metro network and also create new suburban orbital Metro lines.
I second WWs view 100%. A recent visit to Copenhagen and use of their newish Metro (which felt more like a very advanced underground DLR than a regular Tube line!) shows just how far heavy-rail metro technology has progressed, and it is a crying shame that something along those lines isn’t proposed in London (which hasn’t had a brand new Tube line since the Jubilee in ’79….the Unmentionable Line doesn’t count 😛).
Why is it now so fashionable to rely exclusively on heavy rail solutions that link into the NR network (with all the attendant complications and ‘scope-creep’ this brings)? It can’t purely be about higher nominal capacity (a theory which will be put to the test once CR1 opens 😈), can it? For the £30 billion now budgeted for CR2, one could build one or more advanced tube lines similar to the Copenhagen Metro that perform a few objectives very well, rather than one mega scheme like CR2 that tries to perform very many objectives and ends up doing none particularly well.
That’s not to say that a properly planned CR2 scheme *in addition* to other schemes could play a useful role….its just that the current plans aren’t the answer 😔.
Anonymously & WW
People forget that the Paris Metro has a much larger internal gauge than the deep=level tubes – approximately slightly larger than DLR, but fractionally smaller than our SSL ( A purely personal appraisal I may say ).
But, if you were to build a new metro in London, you can’t semi-cut-&-cover it like the Paris one – there’s nowhere to put it.
So you have to go deep, so you might as well go for “mainline” gauge & bigger carrying-capacity. ( I think ) – so – not so muich “fashion” a an unfortunate necessity. Maybe.
Also, Paris has inner-orbital trams, that were packed when I saw & rode on them last month …[Minor snip PoP]
@ Greg – obviously there are practical issues. My concern was rather more one of strategy and vision and the lack thereof when compared to other places. I am not aware that Paris is using cut and cover for any of its RER and Metro extensions – I think they are bored as they would be in London. I am also sure that Paris has faced and will continue to face similar issues about “congestion” below ground and how they build their new infrastructure be it for transport or utility services. And yes those orbital tram services are fantastic and rightly very popular and we have no vision to achieve the same sort of thing in London despite there being endless opportunities for such services.
Reflecting further on what aneconspeaks and WW have said recently, I wonder if we shouldn’t begin to think in terms of “peak city”. There are clearly tradeoffs between the amount of movement generated by a quantum of floorspace and the amount of transport infrastructure required to shift it, and there may well be a point at which the transport system cannot find enough room to deal with the consequences of that amount of floorspace. We aren’t there yet in London but indicators (even if informal) such as the previously unheard of phenomenon of pedestrian congestion, the ever slowing speed of road traffic, and problem of finding road space for different classes of traffic are straws in the wind.
Logically, the answer is to allow London to spread but that isn’t going to happen (much). Meanwhile, and this is what so strongly underlies WW’s point, the population growth of London within the GLA continues unabated . Any number of CR-type schemes have little relevance to this issue and that is why a programme of metro schemes is desirable if we are to avoid “peak city” problems before long.
Graham H
… such as the previously unheard of phenomenon of pedestrian congestion,
Err, no.
Old London Bridge had this problem, really seriously – it could take something like an hour to cross at “peak” times – IIRC that’s why they got rid of the houses on it (!)
I am told that pedestrian flow arounf the Bank intersection has improved markedly, as of the latest changes & that it’s affected the parallel streets as well.
@GT….Don’t you mean the ‘newer’ Old London Bridge (the one built in the 19th Century that was dismantled in the late 60s and flogged off to a gullible American who thought he was buying Tower Bridge 😄)?
@WW….Well, Tramlink with one change does allow you to get from SE to SW London (sort of), plus we have the Overground ‘Orbital’, so it’s not all bad. But yes….Paris (and European cities more generally) seem to do public transport infrastructure rather better than we or other Anglosphere cities* manage to do.
*With the possible exception of Melbourne.
@Graham H…..If the economy slows down or even goes into reverse, then population pressures in London may ease, giving us all a little breathing space to figure out what we really want in terms of transport infrastructure.
Whether such a slowdown is desirable al all from a societal point of view is probably not for discussion here, though…..
Anonymously,
No, I am pretty sure Greg means the really old London Bridge built in the original location before the King William Street was built and when Borough High St did not have a slight bend at the junction of Tooley St. It was practically the only place to cross the Thames without going way upstream or paying to cross using a ferry – hence the proliferate number of watermen (ferrymen).
There weren’t many Thames bridges as the Thames was quite wide. It took Bazalgette and his plans for reclaiming the foreshore for a sewer at Embankment (which had the fortuitous side effect of providing a route for the District Railway) that really enabled an era of bridge building to commence.
In the days before Lambeth Bridge, the present-day approach road wasn’t called Horseferry Road arbitrarily. There is also a less well-known Horseferry Road in Limehouse.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/London-bridge-1682.jpg/850px-London-bridge-1682.jpg.
[A woodcut of London Bridge with shops and houses on’t, 1682. LBM]
L-J & PoP
Yes, the really old “original” i.e. early medieval London Bridge, first constructed approx 1209, after a succession of timber ones from Roman times until then,
The Bridge Estates – the income from the City’s rents on those long-ago houses & shops still pays for a lot, including vital parts of London’s road infrastructure.
Wiki about the Bridge.
@ PoP – well I’ve just had a “duh!” moment. It had never ever twigged in my head that there was a “horse ferry” where Horseferry Rd led to the river. I’ve never researched London’s bridges so don’t know their history. One of the reasons why LR is so good – you get these historical gems chucked into the conversation.
@ Anonymously 17.43 No, Melbourne doesn’t do public transport infrastructure better than other Anglosphere cities. The one advantage it has is that is has retained almost all of its historic tramway system. But this system is mostly radial and contains significant amounts of street running where vehicular traffic interferes with the trams.
The rail system there is totally radial meaning that orbital journeys around the large metropolitan area are far easier by road. A new metro line is under construction but it only gives new access to the central business district. Nothing like Paris’s orbital metro is planned.
Melbourne suffers just like London and other Anglosphere cities in that public transport demand there is growing very rapidly and that there was a hiatus in building and investment in the mid and latter parts of the 20th century.
@WW/Greg T – Westminster Bridge didn’t actually open until 1750;there was no bridge upstream of London Bridge until you reached Kingston (Putney from 1729). I can’t find any pictures of the Lambeth horse ferry but I’ve always imagined it was like those shown in paintings by Dutch masters such as Ruysdael with foot passengers crowded into a small boat just about capable of taking the odd head of cattle.
On the corner of Bear Gardens and Bankside there used to be (and might still be) a waterman’s seat built into the side of the building…
@SHLR – 🙂 I must go and look at/for it!.
@SH(LR)
I cannot see it having survived the rebuilding.
https://goo.gl/maps/cA5PB91eSJs
Wathamstow Writer,
There is a ridiculous episode of Time Team where they examine the foreshore near Lambeth Bridge for evidence of a crossing. They come to the conclusion that there must have been a ferry there and quite a substantial one. They then come to the further conclusion it must have been capable of carrying horses as there would have been a need for this and other crossings did not appear to be sufficiently substantial to support a ferry service suitable for a horse crossing. All this is presented as if it were not previously known and they were discovering something new. The name of the road wasn’t mentioned. I mean, it is not as if the history of London is well documented!
@PoP 🙂 A brief consultation with Vol 6 of the Pevsner for London would have told them all they “discovered” – the ferry existed from the C16 to the C19, certainly conveyed horses, and the tolls were received by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the gateway to whose palace lies, of course, directly opposite the end of Horseferry Road. [Cost of purchasing a Pevsner? c£35. Cost of TT episode? £35k?]
But but but……
One is academic and the other is entertainment.
My guess on cost of Time Team if made now is £65k per hour so a 50 minute episode (the remaining time is commercials and trailers) would be £55k.
One reason for the dearth of bridges pre-eighteenth century is that the river was a faster and more efficient means of transport than travelling by land anyway – if you wanted to go any distance (and bearing in mind the city was much wider East-West than North-South, probably exactly because of the river), you were better off going by boat if you could afford it – the major obstacle being London Bridge itself, where the constriction to the river’s flow created dangerous currents that caused many deaths.
@anonymously: Melbourne’s tunnel builders have visited London specifically to see how Crossrail is being built and learn from TfL’s success.
@ Graham H – I’ve just looked at the range of Pevsner books. Arrrrgh! So many interesting things are covered but they’re so expensive I can’t afford to buy them new – second hand might be an option. Looks like a visit to the RIBA library is in order as a first step.
@WW – Somewhere on Amazon marketplace, you can usually find the latest volumes new for under £30. And I guess there is a flourishing secondhand market. Beware buying the “middle series ” in which Pevsner collaborated with various people;the detail is a lot less than the volumes published after Pevsner’s death,although they are cheaper and some are still the latest available (about 2/3 have been superseded by the latest series so far – London completely so) . There are a very few volumes in the “early series” which Pevsner wrote on his own; these are distinctly short of coverage – the whole of Middlesex (!) was a single paperback the size of the average Penguin, who indeed published them.
@Kit Green – interesting! Thanks
@Ian J – and there wasn’t really much need to cross the river anyway as settlements were limited to a thin strip on the river bank plus some tiny inland settlements such as Kennington as recently as 1800.
@Kit Green, Graham H: Actually it has! If you move a tiny bit to the right, you’ll see a stone bit in the side of restaurant. That’s it…..
@Graham H – there’s an indistinct picture of the ferry here
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-london/vol23/plate-64,
and some more text about it here
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-london/vol23/pp118-121.
@Jim -thank you for these references – I suspected that the Survey of London would have something to say, but I don’t own the early volumes, alas. The Kip print and the other references suggest that the ferry could convey not just horses, but also coaches and wagons.
Tottenham Court Road and the Eastern End of Oxford Street is now the centre for an accelarating construction boom. But it has been occuring at the edges inwards as Crossrail construction comes to a close.
Of course the area has mixed fortunes over the years, and the main roads acting as boundaries of different communities. Bloomsbury, Soho, Fitzrovia and Covent Garden.
The most infamous was wiped out by post development, that being St Giles once one of the cities most infamous rookeries. Both Covent Garden and Soho of course have been on a relentless trajectory of gentrification since the 1980’s. These neighbourhoods were never the top rent areas for prime new office buildings except for those louche new media companies that grew like topsy in 20th Century, no doubt attracted to home of the West End theatre trade.
Crossrail has caused tremendous blight since the late eighties, but the eventual contionus pressure for new central London rail capacity seeing a major station here caused a few long term property owners to slowly build blocks of land in the area. Derwent being the most prolific in Fitrovia, buying small building by small building , slowly assembling large redevelopment sites.
In the mean time instead of spending big on refurbishing these small buildings or new small buildings they were let out on lowish rents on short term leases. This helped fuel the growth of small new media companies in the area as, helped boosting these areas and sowing the seeds for their own creative destruction.
There has been massive redevelopments in the last five years. For example the multi coloured Google building in St Giles on the edge of Covent Garden on Shaftesbury avenue. On Oxford street first Primark arrived in a massive new store, swallowing the Old Virgin Megastore plus surroounding buildings and since then a whole series of new 6 to 7storey office buildings have opened or are under construction with 20,000 to 30,000 sq ft retail units opening on basement to 1st floor levels. Already a big Zara has opened and other soon follow. Most of the buildings between the new Dean street entrance and the original station are bieing redeveloped. There soon wont be any tat shops as all the old leases will be terminated and new shiny stores in their place.
There are several new large buildings North of Oxford street and the same process has begun at the Southern End of Tottenham Court Road, nearly all the old electronic stores will be soon gone. It will be the Northern end of Charing cross road that falls to the cranes last but there won’t be many original buildings left North of Cambridge circus. a 5 to 10 million sq ft of trading space seems a conservative estimate within a quarter of a mile of the Station. The streets near Tottenham Court Road station will no longer be a strangely tatty part of the West End.
An interesting piece of physical evidence for the horse ferry was an early 18th C saltglaze stoneware tankard made at the Fulham Pottery with the incised inscription “The White Hart at the Horseferry Westminster” or words to that effect (I don’t have the archaeological report to hand). This may have been the pub recorded at 1 Grosvenor Road (formerly Millbank Row).
@Graham H if we were approaching “peak city” I would expect to see e.g. a slowdown in economic growth in London; if anything the opposite seems to be happening. Compared with say Tokyo, it looks to me like there’s plenty of scope for greater density in London before the problems become insoluble – of course transport, land and everything else will continue to get more expensive, but as long as the value of agglomeration outpaces that the city can and should continue to grow.
@lmm – I hope was careful not to suggest that peak city was imminent, tho’ I’m not sure that we would get too much notice – economic perturbations have a habit, like the graphs that sometimes illustrate them, of turning sharply.
I ought also to pick up on that word “should”. There is a longstanding debate as to the optimum size for cities in terms of economic efficiency. The current academic conclusion is that Germany has it about right and that megacities like London and Paris have passed the point at which the continuous extension of the periphery can be served by everlengthening services and utilities. Another – not necessarily conflicting – school of thought suggests that the optimum efficient disposition is a grid of nodes and therefore the Randstad is a Good Thing.
When I remarked that transport should be led by land use planning, I would have been better to explain more fully that a rational master plan would start from the land uses desired, the densities, the social mix, and then plan transport around that. I didn’t mean that transport can’t attract development; patently that’s untrue – sometimes. Whether development can be stimulated by transport alone, is doubtful, however, as the TCR example flogged to death here illustrates. What we need to escape from, however, is the “build it and they will come” and “soggy trench ” syndromes. Better to be told what land use is to be supported in those circumstances.
@lmm, Graham H
I just came across this review on the ideal size for a city, among other scale issues, covered in Scale: The Universal Laws of Life and Death in Organisms, Cities and Companies by Geoffrey West. I’ve not read the book, as it was only published about six weeks ago, but I will be getting it from my library.
lmm :”but as long as … the city can and should continue to grow”
“Can” I would grant, but I’d quibble with the “and should”. Allowing the city to grow as long as certain conditions apply is an unregulated free market approach. But sometimes the market is, and should be, regulated. Society may choose to set a limit on density (long before the problems become insoluble) because of a range of external issues (such as quality of life, disaster-proof-ness etc) which are not properly captured by the economics.
I have just seen this. It refers to an agreement between Messrs Grayling & Khan. I wonder when we will see something substantive.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/transport-secretary-chris-grayling-gives-backing-to-crossrail-2-a3594416.html
Re Nameless,
One does wonder how much head banging Treasury had to do behind the scenes to get them to play nicely…
I’m sure Sir Humphrey has been very busy!
According to The Guardian it’s going down well in Manchester. I do feel the timing could have been handled a little more delicately.
@ Ngh – why do you imagine the Treasury have been “banging heads”? Perhaps it’s just me but I don’t see this “announcement” as a step forward. It looks to me that it’s been put out to try to calm jitters over the Summer holiday period given various interested parties were making a lot of noise about CR2 proceeding. The DfT will want that lobbying noise switched off for as long as possible. There is no commitment to do anything substantive. All Mr Grayling has done is send the Mayor away with some “homework” to come up with a funding package that involves TfL raising revenue themselves and not resorting to borrowing. Note also the remark in the official announcement about “an affordable scheme” and wishing to use the next possible (but not guaranteed) phase of consultation to “improve the route” and “clarify the position around the safeguarded route”.
Call me a cynic but looks like a veiled demand to cut costs further, step away from trying to preserve the entire scheme and remove concerns about blight and disruption in some parts of London (not mentioning Chelsea or Wimbledon). The consultation will not happen unless the funding question is resolved. It looks to me like Grayling forcing the Mayor to scrap his fares freeze and resume inflation plus fare increases and / or take the axe to more of what TfL does to get the cost base down to create a flow of money from existing income. Note that there is zero mention about the possible use of a “land value capture” tax mechanism which Grayling was thought to favour. I assume the weakness of the government has put paid to any prospect of such a measure getting through the House.
Despite all the fine words it looks like party politics at its worst to me with Grayling continuing to act in a way that “shows who’s boss” in the Govt vs City Hall relationship. I would like to be proved wrong but I’m not holding my breath for the next round of consultation.
@WW
Whilst I agree this is not the Entente Cordiale, Sadiq has allowed the issuing of a joint statement, so it is an uneasy truce. Grayling clearly wants the costs to the DfT minimised, which is understandable, but he is talking about another consultation. Assuming London can find the funding, the consultation must not allow the nimbies in Chelsea and Wimbledon to win. A station in Chelsea is for the nurses and others who work there, not for those who live there and drive tractors. The alternative in Wimbledon seems much more expensive (a tunnel), and TfL must stand firm and Labour must accept that target 86 with a majority of 5622 will be lost. Labour target 134 (Chelsea and Fulham) is irrelevant, and TfL should be told to act accordingly and act on behalf of Londoners not the locals.
Is there likely to be a Crossrail 2 Bill in this Parliament?
I would have thought not.
@ Ian S – I understand your basic point but did the Mayor have any option? He does not have the final say here. Mr Grayling does. If we recall the context here it was that the DfT had been asked to approve the Strategic Business Case. Not a word about that in this announcement. Instead the DfT have sent the Mayor away with more work to do on three fronts – “funding”, “affordability” and “confirming scope”. Clearly they’re all related.
This announcement also hands the baton back to TfL and means people can stop criticising the DfT over their “lack of progress”. There is no progress here. There is no commitment to anything. It has cost Mr Grayling nothing to say what he said. This is all classic delaying tactic stuff. I am sure Mr Grayling will enjoy his Summer holiday break while those on the CR2 project team will be kept busy.
But there is a cost to Grayling of making this statement – the matter of the ferment in the North who have taken the statement to mean that London, again, gets investment and not the North. Grayling could just say that it’s another two Labour Mayors making a noise and write them off in partisan mode, but this would undermine the Government’s whole stated commitment to the North. To get over this Grayling will need to announce something for the North which is over and above what has already been promised. Either an acceleration or a specific commitment to something like Trans-Pennine electrification and/or Manchester Piccadilly enlargement (both now in doubt).
@Quinlet: I think it was probably the best in terms of timing, there are now 6 weeks for the noise to die down again…
From reading the commentary, a lot of people seem not to have read the statement fully before launching into the usual “London is getting it all” diatribe. What seems to have been missed is that a) London is going to have to save up to pay for at least half it, and b) that the DfT isn’t committing any funds to it at this stage.
So I read that as: “Not going to get built while I’m transport secretary”….
Does someone on here have an expert opinion on bi-mode trains (in general, not only the Hitachi trains on order for InterCity routes)?
I ask for two reasons
1) New franchise document for East Midlands asserts, citing no evidence, that they are so good they make electrification north of Kettering redundant.
2) Chris Grayling was in Manchester and commented that electrifying the TransPennine North main line was looking difficult and parts might be left out. Leader column of “Manchester Evening News” once again incandescent enough to melt the Aluminium skin off a composite material.
Alan Griffiths,
This is verging on getting way off topic but I can see there is just about some relevance to the north v south argument which is relevant to Crossrail 2.
My unhelpful comment is that clearly the government think it is perfectly acceptable for future generations of rail passengers to be subject to diesel particulates from new diesel trains whereas it will not acceptable for road users to be subjected to diesel particulates from new diesel cars.
@ Quinlet – if we look at Mr Grayling’s “achievements” to date I don’t think he cares one jot what the consequences of his statements and policies are. I don’t even think he cares very much about any consequences for him or his constituency of Epsom. He’s the SoS for Transport and been a minister for years. No sign of dear old Epsom gaining Oyster acceptance despite it being perfectly feasible given SWT franchise has been retendered and GTR is under direct DfT control. Any financial aspects could have resolved ages ago. Instead nothing happens despite a long standing local campaign for Oyster ticketing on rail services locally.
I understand the point you make but I have long been very sceptical about these supposed additional regional “agendas” that the Government claims to have. They have no substance. I do not and never have denied that there are good strategic reasons for transport investment across the country. However. nowhere else has the scale of demand that London and the South East has. Nowhere else has the same scale of economic underpinning by rail transport that London has and nowhere else is asked to cough up at least 50% of the cost of a scheme costing multi billion pounds. This is why the regional “whining” of “wah wah wah London got the money again” sticks in my throat – especially when we haven’t got a penny in respect of building CR2.
WW that is as it may be, and I don’t necessarily disagree, but the northern city region mayors are using this, by some ‘misrepresentation’ as I would see it, or at the very least being economical with the truth, to indulge in some heavy government bashing “Anti-north” as they say the DfT is prepared to invest in CR2 but has not promised anything for NPR (significant east west rail improvements from Liverpool – Hull / Newcastle) yet. Not surprising as TfN (transport for the North) have not laid any real proposals down, but since when has that worried politicians trying to be opportunistic. But they can justifiably say government is willing to invest 15billion in CR2 and so far little in the north.
If the government wants to win the next GE then they will need some Northern seats back (and not lose more in London). They will therefore need to be seen to as a minimum be investing in both. To give full green light to CR2 without doing the same to something similar up north will be exploited by the opposition probably to quite good effect.
For a couple of examples:
https://www.ippr.org/news-and-media/comment/it-s-time-for-crossrail-north
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/25/north-crossrail-conservative-northern-rail-chris-grayling
PoP refers to passengers being subject to diesel particulates.
But it’s not just passengers – these particulates are discharged into the atmosphere and affect everyone.
But I do acknowledge that tolerating use of diesel engines for trains (where there is a perfectly good working alternative available right now) yet banning their use in road vehicles (where the alternatives are not yet up to speed) is ludicrously inconsistent.
Malcolm, I suspect that even by 2040 there would still be many miles of track unelectrified even if the current schemes were going vaguely to budget and plan, which they manifestly are not, spectacularly so in some places so diesel would still be around. And I suspect that you reduce pollution much better by, if you can, stopping road vehicules than trains. What would be less polluting, 40 people driving 40 miles in 40 cars or driving a few miles to a station then all getting a diesel train?
None of which has anything to do with CR2, so I’d better stop!
WW
I think the issue is the perception rather than the reality. Grayling has achieved the rather dubious distinction of having irritated the North (by being seen to be favourable to Crossrail 2 while cancelling electrification outside London) as well as having irritated London (by making a statement which, as you rightly say, commits not a penny or any other tangible support). You would expect an able politician to have been able to avoid doing both simultaneously. As Wilde might have said, to upset half the country might be considered an accident, but to upset both sides of the country is careless.
Air Pollution mitigation:
Today announcement(s) is/are just phase 1 of the governments response with more to policy announcements to follow next year.
Only the simple / easy announcements have been made so far, the harder / more expensive ones will start appearing next year (e.g. potentially banning wood burning stoves with changes to the clean air act.)
It is worth remembering that rail diesel emissions in London will fall to circa a quarter of their 2015 level in 2021/22 without any new Government initiatives. Hence it will be far easier to make gains in other areas for while.
CvM (ex CdB) 26 July 2017 at 19:00
” I suspect that you reduce pollution much better by, if you can, stopping road vehicules than trains. ”
I thought that, until I saw a pollution map of west London. Worse along the Great Western Main Line than along the A4, M4 or A40.
@Quinlet – 🙂 In fact, a perfect example of “if you have nothing to say, say nothing”.. .
@CDB
If the government wants to win the next GE then they will need some Northern seats back
To get back to the sustainable 2015 position, the government need 13 seats. Even looking at those of the top 20 Tory targets in the North, we only have Crewe and Nantwich, Barrow and Furness, Keighley, Bishop Auckland, Colne Valley, Stockton South, and Westmorland and Lonsdale. Of those, only Crewe and Nantwich would be considered to be influenced by investment in the railway alone. Although it creates a lot of noise when railway investment appears to disfavour the North, its impact is not that great because a) fewer people commute by train in The North; b) the marginals are largely either rural or isolated and thus even less likely to commute by train.
CvM (ex CdB) 26 July 2017 at 16:26
” If the government wants to win the next GE then they will need some Northern seats back (and not lose more in London) ”
Which may be why the distant “Bolton West” electrification between Wigan and Bolton has not been axed.
@ CVM – yes politicians will make a “noise” and Labour ones will obviously wish to discredit a Tory government. However I really dislike the ever louder, almost sectarian, North against London siren cries we hear more and more. They do everyone a discredit and I say that as a born and bred Geordie. The government have not said they will fork out £15bn for CR2. There is no commitment to anything, not even the next stage of consultation. As you rightly point out there is nothing about Trans Pennine electrification because TfN haven’t made their mind up. Therefore not everything is off the table (yet). If nothing else the government are clearly in a complete shambles given the mess they’ve created over this and then the ludicrous timing of the air quality policies which are in sharp contradiction with the DfT’s rail and road policies. You’d almost think that government departments don’t talk to one another. 😉
‘Transport for London warns Crossrail 2 could be delayed by decade’:
https://www.ft.com/content/a1257c0a-a4f2-11e7-b797-b61809486fe2
@ answer=42 4 October 2017 at 07:42
‘Transport for London warns Crossrail 2 could be delayed by decade’:
https://www.ft.com/content/a1257c0a-a4f2-11e7-b797…
Appears to be behind a paywall 🙁
Also reported mentioned here:
https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/markets/sectors/rail/crossrail-2-tfl-weighs-up-delaying-parts-of-31bn-line/10024001.article
There doesn’t seem to be much detail around, but it seems that the FT has seen a business case which puts forward a staged option which would delay completion of the full line by about a decade. I can’t access it at the moment but they also reported the updated cost being over £40bn for the staged option.
The FT article doesn’t say a huge amount to be honest. It repeats the well known problems of raising the finance and the apparent lack of desire on the part of the government to provide any. It also says that TfL’s apparent approach to using future revenues to fund borrowing is not considered to be credible. Furthermore by the early 2020s TfL will be very close to “maxing out” its ability to borrow so no headroom there either. There is also reference to TfL providing £10bn, the govt £22.bbn capital grant and an “equity” investment of £12.7bn. TfL would borrow to “buy out” the £12,7bn govt stake in the 2030s. The interesting aspect here is the total is now at £45bn under this option – far higher than previously quoted project costs.
There is also apparently a business case which sets out a case for “doing a Crossrail 1” of an extended construction period and longer phased opening to try to get the annual spend profile down. I can’t see that being very popular if it means localities have to endure disruption and noise for longer periods. It also won’t do much for the benefits side of the business case as it pushes them much further into the future. The other significant risk is that if the funding and procurement authority is also phased then later sections may never happen if any of the funders “catches a financial cold” in later years. Apparently TfL are working on an updated case to submit to Government as to how the £10bn would be funded.
Now if only we had not had a 4 years fares freeze with all the consequences that has for TfL’s borrowing we might be in slightly more positive territory here. I stress “might” as I still think Grayling would be blocking progress anyway. None of this changes my view that CR2 isn’t happening any time soon. I do wonder if Grayling is deliberately holding off to the next Mayoral election in 2020. This gives the Tories a chance to rip Khan’s management of TfL’s finances to shreds and saying he hasn’t delivered CR2. Of course *their* Mayoral candidate will magically be able to get agreement to CR2 from the Govt (assuming it’s still there). Good old playground politics of the worst kind but the sort Grayling seems to favour.
WW
Your last paragraph … yes – unfortunately.
Imagine my surprise. I’m still baffled how anyone in the North (or elsewhere) interpreted the last Grayling statement as being actively supportive of CR2…
No one actually reads any letter linked to an article. It’s read the Headline and the spin line of the article and off they go about London taking all the money.
I can spend weeks arguing with people about HS2, but all have read is the Mail or Telegrapgh as their source of info, no one has read any of the publicly posted background documents. It’s hundreds of pages long, the prefer to read a news article that plays to peoples prejudices about large government spending.
John
I believe that you can register to read a limited number of FT articles per month. But WW has given a good synopsis.
Crossrail 2 delayed by a decade?
Isn’t Crossrail 1 over 50 years late?
@Kit Green: I have a Crossrail mug, with the picture of a Networker on it in NSE colours… Probably quite rare…
@WW. The “£45bn” quoted costs includes inflation, previously quoted costs did not. If the scheme gets delayed, clearly it would cost more at the time of delivery.
Meanwhile in Paris….
Is there a cost estimate for the normal construction timetable vs the extended one (45bn) to see how much the difference is?
CVM – don’t have the figures but the extended construction timeline would cost substantially more yet paradoxically become more affordable as the cost per year is less… The elephant gets bigger but is eaten in smaller bites.
@CVM – and then there’s the effect of discounting
For some time I’ve been looking at the London employment statistics in https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/
The official labour market statistics website.
Specifically, I’m looking at the series ‘workforce jobs by industry (SIC 2007) – seasonally adjusted’ for Greater London. This data series is quarterly.
The June 2017 data is now online and it shows an increase of 1.0% over the same period a year earlier. This is the slowest growth rate for some time. To be precise, the last time the growth rate was lower than this was June 2011.
If we can forecast that slowing or negative London employment growth will be with us for some time, the implications for CR2, both directly through transport demand and the fares-box, and indirectly through tax take from London businesses, are serious.
A-mous 6 October 2017 at 14:28
” the extended construction timeline would cost substantially more yet paradoxically become more affordable as the cost per year is less… ”
That’s a very negative way to look at the costs of a big project. Doing it and paying for it can be arranged over different timescales; if that wasn’t true, nothing big could ever be built.
The latest passenger statistics (see -http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/25719/passenger-rail-usage-2017-18-q1.pdf ) are worrying, however in the light of the post by Answer-42 on6 October, there is an obvious connection.
This could give Government the reason to do nothing on CR2 as they will simply say that the new Thameslink routes and CR1 which aren’t yet operational will take up the demand and that CR2 can wait and be kept on the back burner for at least 10 years, by which time the impact of Brexit will be known and new infrastructure can then be planned.
@Roger Sewell: Shades of the argument the Treasury made in the early 1990s, the last time central London employment went backwards, which they used as justification for killing off the first version of Crossrail. Few now would argue that that was a wise decision.
@Alan Griffiths – stating that CR2 would become more affordable if construction timelines were extended isn’t “very negative” – it was an attempt to explain why CR2 may take longer and/or be phased, even if that makes the headline cost ‘more expensive’.
@A-mous -and indeed,in appraisal terms, it might well make it cheaper.
For those who are clearly not addicted to reading TfL committee papers as I am then may I present this
https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/pic-20171013-agenda-item15.pdf
It is on CR2 and goes to the Programmes and Investment Cttee this week. In broad terms it sets out the backdrop of how we’ve got to where we are. In short the general election delayed things by many months. It then explains govt have not yet seen fit to sign off the business case due to concerns over the funding package and the cost.
It confirms elements of the FT article in that TfL have submitted a revised business case with a longer, phased construction process. It also says another funding package is expected to do to the relevant DfT Committee in “early October”. The expectation is that something may be said in late Nov (Budget time). TfL clearly want the go ahead to allow safeguarding to be both finalised and amended (for the new bits of route) ASAP and then to proceed with a hybrid bill by 2020.
You know my views about the likelihood of all this so I won’t repeat them. All eyes on the Budget and the no doubt ever more shrill and strident lobbying voices in the run up to the Budget. 😉
It seems TfL have come up with a new plan, as predicted, and are now submitting to DfT.
http://www.cityam.com/275224/london-mayor-confident-crossrail-2s-revised-funding-plans
For any unable to follow link the most important part seems to be:
“Transport for London’s commissioner Mike Brown told City A.M. today that the Crossrail 2 team has assessed how to phase the project in order to meet the government’s request.
He said: “We’ve looked at the way you construct this, so what cash you have to spend at different stages of construction to ensure that you don’t have to pay everything upfront for the whole scheme all at once. So what you do is you pay enough money to get certain sections of it delivered first of all, and then you pay some more further on.”
“If logic prevails, then they should give us the green light to start going through the parliamentary process for approval to get this thing open by the 2030s when it’s needed,” Brown added.
A DfT spokesperson said: “We need to ensure the public gets an affordable scheme that is fair to the UK taxpayer, and this includes developing and agreeing a funding package which works for both London and the rest of the country.
“A thorough analysis of the business case and TfL’s updated funding plan is being carried out by the department to ensure Crossrail 2 is a robust scheme, as with all transport proposals.”
I see the DfT used a snowy late Friday afternoon to announce further Crossrail 2 funding, presumably with the transpennine upgrade funding to avoid complaints about London centric spending!
Of course the funding is for yet another financial review which, having read enough of Graham H’s posts over the years, perhaps gives me a cynical view when reading between the lines of a government press release – ‘lockstep’?
Thus I suspect the purpose of this review is to help prolong the pre-construction phase & presumably end up increasing the squeeze on TfL finances.
@ Snowy – I fear we will see the transport equivalent of the “dead parrot sketch” with regards to CR2 within 18 months. It simply isn’t going to happen.
@Snowy: the Independent Affordability Review had already been announced at the beginning of the year – the real news from the press release seems to be, firstly that the terms of reference must have finally been agreed with TfL (not that these are stated but from the language of the press release a focus on a) descoping the project to make it cheaper*, and b) finding ways of making those who benefit from it pay for it).
Secondly the choice of chair for the review – Mike Gerrard. Curiously the press release mentions his previous job as chief executive of the Thames Tideway tunnel but not his current slightly more controversial job – chair of the Project Coordination Board for Heathrow Airport expansion.
For an insight into Mike Gerrard’s thinking see this article in the Evening Standard. He is very pro long term infrastructure investment and critical of public sector accounting rules that put private sector loans onto the public sector balance sheet. Some hints there about how Crossrail 2 could end up being funded. He was also a member of the Hansford Review into ways of allowing third party investment in Network Rail infrastructure.
* Something that has been in the works for a while – the National Infrastructure Commission dropped a big hint that the Wood Green branch should get dropped for example, and why would you spend half a billion giving Chelsea a station it doesn’t want?
Re Ian J,
On the funding issue they need to act fairly quickly as lots of developments along the route could happen shortly without any funding capture for CR2. See Wandsworth as case study in trying to get things approved quickly so they get a decent amount of S106 and some social housing without any CR2 contributions which would put several spanners in the works. I would expect the review to come back with recommendations for much lower affordable housing levels in new developments to make the economic stack up for developers especially as the Far East Buy-to-Let market for new build flats seem to have evapourated somewhat in the last year.
Ian J
giving Chelsea a station it doesn’t want?
Correction …
It’s almost certain most of the residents & potential users ( Hint: The Hospital ) of a Chelsea station actually do want it.
But there are one or two very high-profile NIMBYS who probably never use horrible public transport around there & don’t see why the masses should be allowed to have a benefit they don’t want ….
I presume Greg means that they (the NIMBYs) don’t want.
For the sake of accuracy (and to be slightly less emotive) concerning the objections of the Aged Luvvies and possibly nimbys, the reason they say they don’t want a station was because it would change the character of the area and make it less special – a sort of enclave near the centre of London. Obviously less special for them rather than people who might in future actually be able to more easily visit.
@PoP: With the way retailing is going, I’m sure many of them will want the station.
As for the “village atmosphere”, nothing is better at ruining that than nose to tail Chelsea Tractors, belching out fumes!
I meant: “With the way retailing is going, I’m sure many of the retailers will want the station.”
@ Ngh – if the recommendation is for less affordable housing in developments close to CR2 then that’s another excuse for a political row between City Hall and Government. I can’t see the Mayor endorsing the loss of “affordable” housing given he is struggling to meet his manifesto pledge and wants anything that is on TfL property / land to meet his affordability targets. I also thought that City Hall was seeking to continue the CR1 levy as an ongoing funding source – that should stop trickery by local councils – or have things moved on on this issue?
The phrase “those who stand to benefit from new infrastructure contribute to funding it” in the press release could cover developers and ways of making them pay (and not necessarily just developments along the route), but the beneficiaries are arguably also land owners in general (ie. a levy on rates like Crossrail – but maybe not just business rates?), and passengers (those who use the line, but also those who use other lines that are less congested as a result of it) – setting up another argument over fares policy?
On the other hand, even though the review is fairly transparently a way of delaying a funding decision by another year or so, a focus on affordability is a positive sign for the project – if you intend to cancel a project, you don’t try to make it cheaper first, because that undermines the case for cancelling it.
With the recent problems plaguing Crossrail 1, does anyone know if there’s been any knock on effects to the development of CR2? There has been a deafening silence about Crossrail 2 coming from TfL lately
@MT, no doubt there are no formal knock on effects in terms of such things as design and planning, but in terms of softer matters, there are many good reasons why you will hear little about CR2 in the short term:
– Money is getting tighter by the minute
– Reputation
– Serious doubts (which the Treasury will use to play hard ball) about whether present commuting patterns are set to continue
– HS2 becoming flakier
– Politics
Individually, factors which could be the kiss of death; collectively…
@ MT – Crossrail 2 has been mentioned in a couple of London Assembly sessions. The first key issue is that the loans to cover the cost overrun to CR1 is being repaid via the Crossrail levy and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) revenues. This means the revenues from those sources will be used for about 10 years (I think) longer than planned. The Mayor had decreed that those levies would remain but would part fund Crossrail 2. The need to cover CR1 cost overruns means a delay to CR2 using them. As the government have demanded that London covers costs as they incurred this must mean a delay to the construction start date.
On being asked about the progress of planning and the placing of a hybrid bill for CR2 the deputy Mayor for Transport, Heidi Alexander, was very clear that the paralysis in parliament made it impossible for a bill to be deposited this year. Given the parlous mess the country is in I’d be sceptical about a bill reaching parliament in 2020 but that’s just me. Heidi also said that while work was continuing they need the review of CR2 to conclude so that route safeguarding could be renewed this year. If the safeguarding is not renewed then I’d suggest that the project is dead. While the Deputy Mayor was trying not to be too doom laden it was clear from her body language that she was not at all confident about progress with CR2. If you believe the gossip on social media the DfT is rather paralysed at the moment as the SoS is obsessed with the “B word” and other policy decisions are not being made. Like Graham H I think the prospects for CR2 are extremely poor because the money simply isn’t there and there is no political support for it in the DfT.
I’ve been reading Michael Schabas‘s excellent book- The Railway Metropolis, which gives an in-depth history of rail planning in London since the 1980s. What was the reasons for not building the “North-South Crossrail” or the “East-South” Crossrail (which seems like a better alternative to Crossrail 2), as proposed in the 1989 Central London Route Study?
@WW well thanks for that thorough update. Looks like Balhamites will be able to keep their Waitrose after all in that case-(a source of near hysteria during the 2016 consultation)
@MT – perhaps have a chat with yourself in the mirror to find out why major rail schemes didn’t progress under *your* government? 😛 With the Major administration from 1992 it was all about destroying British Rail and thus the planning capability was destroyed. LT was under DfT direct control until after 2000 and that also stopped planning on new lines. There was no appetite to spend money on London’s public transport system – everything limped along from year to year because there was no secure long term funding programme. This stopped line upgrades and sensible planning and asset replacement / renewal.
To be frank it was only when 30+ people were burnt to death at Kings Cross in late 1987 that the government panicked and threw money at LT to deal with the worst shortcomings and cover the recommendations from the subsequent Fennel Report. It is worth remembering that only when Kings Cross station modernisaton completed a few years ago that the last of those recommendations was actually closed out.
Beyond the post Kings Cross panic it was only when some semblance of democratic Londonwide government was restored in 2000 that there was some basis for larger schemes to be developed, funded and delivered. I appreciate we got the Jubilee Line Extension and its tortured history and development is recorded elsewhere on this blog across several detailed articles. Even now there is not a proper structure in place that brings rational planning to the main line rail network which is why getting any form of Crossrail scheme going is a nightmare. When you put in a particularly partisan and non commital person as Secretary of State for Transport then not very much is going to happen in any proactive sense apart from strikes to try to break union power. That seems to be the only active DfT policy so far as rail is concerned because, of course, the DfT aren’t responsible for the railways according to the man in charge. (rolls eyes).
I think this country is actually incapable of organising itself to plan and run railways properly. It’s been a mess ever since we invented them and politicians started interferring. It is only decent professionals in the industry that make the railways actually work day to day.
@MT: Surely given the title of the book you’re reading it should include that? No?
Crossrail was pushed by Canary Wharf through the ‘newish’ Mayor’s office during a financial services bubble.
London Overground was started by the International Olympic Committee’s requirements for adequate transport infrastructure.
Integrated Transport Planning has been an ambition of discourse since post-war reconstruction but rarely seen partly due to 2 party reversals of policy.
As mentioned TfL funding renewal of the existing system will be a struggle for the next two decades. Any future cross London link with a fresh name using any suitable safeguarding is for the second half of the 21st century.
Smaller local projects are more likely of alliances between councils/developers/TfL/DfT/corporations.
@WW After KingsX the failures under Railtrack added to impetus for investment.
@WW: I think you’re being blinkered in limiting yourself to transport projects as something that politicians in this country manage to cock up on an epic scale. We are two and a half years into something else and it would appear to many that there isn’t even an inkling of a plan yet…
@WW and others – it is actually quite difficult of think of a major (or even minor) project which was the outcome of a considered long term plan since the Victoria Line. Everything else has been the subject of political interference by people who have quite other agendas or has been a bit of sticking plaster applied in a hurry.
@Graham H
Jubilee Stage 1 – although the extension was hijacked.
One could also argue that the connection of the Northern City to the Great Northern mainline at Finsbury Park was the final culmination of two different long-mothballed projects – one in 1904 and the other in 1940.
Amazing how often the Northern Heights scheme pops up in discussions here.
The 1976 connection is mostly fulfilment of original 1904 plans, but arguably it does incorporate a short length of line which also appeared in the 1940 scheme (Drayton Park to Finsbury Park high level and vice-versa).
@Aleks
“London Overground was started by the International Olympic Committee’s requirements for adequate transport infrastructure.”
This is not correct. The East London Line Group was formed in 1990 by East London boroughs, developers and sub-regional partnerships focused on social and economic renewal for East London. The Group worked with London Underground, its parent London Regional Transport and Dept of Transport to extend the East London Line north and south to help regenerte East London. Ultimately the goal was to takeover underutilised inner London lines to create an ‘Outer Circle’ railway, which did indeed occur. London’s 2012 Olympics was a beneficiary of this initiative, and ensured that extensions were approved and funded in time for the Games.
This is described in more detail in Jonathan Roberts’ An Enduring Legacy – East London Line Group 1990-2010.
@timbeau – the interesting and probably now unanswerable question about the Jubilee Line is whether, knowing as we do now, that the JLE was to be added on to Stage 1, you would have built stage 1 in its present form. Obviously, you would not have built from Green Park to Charing Cross, and stage 1 was never intended to be more than just that – a part of a whole, so the whole Fleet Line saga – as discussed so often here – is not really a very good example of a project built as planned.
@WW/SH- As far as I know Thatcher herself had no direct say over which specific Crossrail line to build, that was up to London Transport. It did mention the Chelsea to Hackney was preffered over North-South Crossrail, but wasn’t too sure why that was. It seems like a better scheme to replace CR2-a simple Battersea to Camden tunnel (although nowadays the northern portal would probably have to be near Finsbury Park), with only three underground stations at Vic-TCR-Eus, would probably be a hell of a lot cheaper than the CR2 sprawl that we have now.
If no new lines are built whatsoever, what will happen to the Victoria Line for the next 30 years? It’s unbearable now as it is.
@ SHLR – for once I was trying to remain on topic. That other thing you obliquely reference is just making me very cross at the moment. Believe me you don’t want me ranting about it on here.
@ Aleks – I think your view about the creation of London Overground is wrong. It was clearly a political aspiration long before the Mayoralty was created. I used to “doodle” (as you do) about plans for a better orbital railway and was approached by consultants working for various London Boroughs to share my ideas. There were political demands for better services on London rail lines for decades and Ken Livingstone was astute enough to spot that a sensible bit of investment and local control would be likely to be popular. He was able to convince the Labour government to devolve control and provide money. The one point I would agree with you on is that the Olympics provided impetus and money to *upgrade* parts of the Overground, principally the North London Line. It also did the same for parts of the DLR network.
@ MT – it’s very clear that Mrs T set a broad agenda across government as to what was and was not acceptable. Large scale public investment was not exactly her preference nor was trusting public bodies like British Rail or London Transport. There have been many articles and comments on this blog that show what her influence was plus those of ministers who were strong supporters of hers. She was also very “hands on” and “detailed focussed” so I’m sure she will have expressed her opinion about a costly and disruptive scheme like Crossrail.
I won’t go back round my views about CR2 as I’ve bored everyone already. While we can’t predict the future I am not confident about CR2. We also have no effective strategy for the tube network other than just doing enough to keep it safe and dealing with the very worst aspects of asset decay. There’s no vision beyond that. No concept of a programme of expansion and proper upgrades. With that as the backdrop for the next 25 years or so then the simple answer is that the Vic Line will carry on being extremely busy / “unbearable” for a very long time. The same applies on the rest of the network barring some modest improvements on the Sub Surface network. We are just repeating what has gone on for decades with the tube network – 30 years of rot and stasis then a brief 10 year positive window in which improvements are made. We are now heading back into a 30 year period of rot because the money has gone and we have an utterly stupid political backdrop in the country at large with added “anti London” sentiment. That bodes *very* badly for the tube network.
WW
We also have no effective strategy for the tube network other than just doing enough to keep it safe and dealing with the very worst aspects of asset decay. There’s no vision beyond that. No concept of a programme of expansion and proper upgrades.
Back to the period 1970 – 1987, in other words?
NOT a pretty picture.
To say there is no strategy for the Underground rather depends on if you take a narrow, silo-based view or consider London’s rail network as a whole. Crossrail, when it eventually opens, will have a significant impact on the Underground. CR2, if that happens, will also have a very significant impact on the Underground. History has shown that, at least for the last 50 years out so, that London can’t cope with building more than one major new underground line at once and the planning and funding process now takes decades.
Having said that, we do have a plan for the Bakerloo line extension, if you want one which is Underground specific and there is a programme for new deep level trains. No doubt fully automatic operation will also appear at some stage, providing there is a Mayor willing to take on the industrial relations issues associated with that.
@ Quinlet – I take your point but I was taking a narrow point of view about the Tube. I know it’s a bit of an “old saw” on here but contrast London with Paris. Paris is perfectly capable of building tram lines, tram route extensions, Metro extensions, Metro upgrades and RER extensions *all at the same time*. I appreciate the politics, funding and planning are different but I find the UK’s record to be beyond lamentable when it comes to expanding public transport capacity.
We quite clearly can do multiple large scale transport projects at the same time – have we not just built most of Crossrail, upgraded Thameslink and are building the NLE? It just needs proper planning and good project management. It’s also perfectly possible elsewhere – there have been major rail and tram upgrades / extensions in Manchester undertaken concurrently. I am afraid I just don’t accept this “one project at a time” argument which has almost become folklore rather than being dismissed as a palpable load of nonsense as it should be. We are supposed to be a major world economy with properly developed legal and governmental processes with access to key skills in our labour force. Of course we should be able to undertake multiple transport (or other) projects at the same time. We don’t seem to struggle with chucking up office blocks all over the City when we want to.
The Bakerloo Line extension has been “on the stocks” for decades and, IMO, is very unlikely to happen. The money’s not there and yet again it finds itself not at the head of the queue for major investment funding. It would have been built 10 times over if it was in Paris.
The Paris example is instructive – the early Metro was designed holistically, (as was the RER) with several lines being built concurrently. Unlike the situation in London, where each project is considered in isolation, and so has to attempt to solve all existing problems, ending up as the proverbial “jack of all trades” as providing sub-optimal solutions to all of those problems. (and reducing the BCR of the next project to be considered, because some of it has, albeit not very well, been alleviated by the previous project)
It is also instructive to look at our European neighbours to see what they have done with high speed rail and compare it with HS2. In particular Spain has built 1900 miles of High speed rail in a couple of decades. Now they were starting from a lower base, but they had a vision and strategy, and are delivering on it.
I don’t know what the differences are in this country, and why we struggle, but our approach of mega-projects that take decades to approve and build, and are then late and over-budget doesn’t seem to be working.
@ Jimbo
The Spain HSR example is particularly interesting, as they started with a goal of every provincial capital being 4 hours from Madrid and 6.5 hours from Barcelona (from memory), and then designed a network based on those goals.
I wonder what difference a plan based on every location in London being x minutes from Charing Cross or wherever would do to planning? Or some other logic-based planning goal… It would certainly encourage more joined-up thinking than the current ideas based on what’s next and who is shouting loudest.
@herned/Jimbo Of course, in a Cartesian world, a hierarchical approach makes sense, but not in any pragmatic or business sense. If you want to see the downside of all this, you merely have to look at the fruits of the Plan Freycinet, waves 2 and 3, Wave 1, c1870, linked all French departmental capitals to Paris, Wave 2 dealt with the cantons, and wave 3, the communes . Every line had to receive a standard 3 tpd. For waves 2 and 3, hardly anything survived the last war… [And a study of the current French bus timetables – difficult, I know – shows that not only have all the otherwise delightful tortillards completely vanished, but so, too have virtually all bus services outside the conurbations. And the reason for this is that none of them, whether rail, or road based, could cover any serious part of their costs, The French (and Spaniards) are now discovering that they cannot afford their TGV networks either – and in France, the TGV network has already cannibalised the SNCF’s ability to provide services between major provincial cities.
A hierarchical approach is in may ways the antithesis of planning. Evidence-based, problem-solving planning provides not only robust projects but also ensures that if subsidy is required there is an intellectual basis for doing so.
Sorry, Newton wins over Descartes…
Graham: My recent investigations of French bus services showed that the minimal service provided to one particular town was doggedly determined to provide access to adjacent places in the same département while ignoring the much shorter link across the border to somewhere more useful (and rail-served). Not as bad, though, as the similar refusal to let emergency ambulances cross the same border (instead requiring patient trans-shipment in a lay-by).
@Malcolm 🙂
The Swiss may be able to beat that, however: A headline in the Aigle weekly newspaper some years ago read (I translate) “Vaudois coach company falls into Valaisian hands” and at least one Cabinet d’ aisance I found in Fribourg was divided into quite separate French and German entrances… [Nor did it stop at linguistics: in the C18, Kanton Glarus offered two separate postbus networks – one for the protestants, and one for the Catholics]. I hope there are no lessons there for the UK in the future.
Graham H
Actually, a minor version of that used to happen here.
Styal used to get about 3 trains a day, though only 1.3 km outside the Greater Manchester boundary, It now gets an hourly service, after years of protest. Penkridge used to be similar, but now also get a train an hour ….
@ Graham H
That is no doubt true when taken to it’s full conclusion. However I guess where I was coming from was more thinking about it from the ‘what is the point of the rail network’ or ‘what are we hoping to achieve’, rather than ‘what’s the next project we have promised’ approach.
Crossrail 2 would not be many people’s ideal answer to the problems it is trying to solve, and in my opinion that is because it is trying to solve too many at once. Having any sort of proper network plan (and most obviously a long-term source of funding) might lead to more optimal solutions
Herned has hit the nail on the head. CR2 is trying to do too much; and given the state of things, it seems unlikely it will ever happen in its bloated current form. At least in our lifetime. So maybe plans for a simpler, more affordable Metro line should be dusted off – not tube size but standard trains of moderate length. (With consequentially cheaper stations, and little National Rail surface line cost.) It would not be able to solve all the problems of crowding, but could be targeted at the main headaches. A shuttle that could be extended would be better than nothing, which is what we’ll get if CR2 is the option.
@Herned – I wholly agree with you (not a popular view of CR2, I know…). It may be helpful for a wider readership if one doesn’t approach it from a philosophical (or even anti-philosophical) way, but looks at the way in which schemes are generated and then selected. In the Cartesian model, schemes are generated in relation to a master plan, and their evaluation is determined by the extent to which they deliver on that master plan; this is the Parisian approach, where RATP/Ile de France are slowly chugging their way through a master plan drawn up in the ’80s. In the pragmatic version, schemes are (mostly) generated in relation to observed or predicted need, but sometimes (eg BLX and NLX) in relation to an opportunity that has been spotted and is then evaluated along the same lines as the problem-solving approach. The disadvantage of this approach is obviously ensuring that the totality of the newly enhanced network is optimal.
A while back now, the Treasury latched on to this latter issue, having been provoked by Metrolink with seemingly endless random additions to their network. A study was commissioned into the whole issue of scheme generation, and several consultancy consortia had a hard time trying to find a method pinning the question down. [Cynics might say it wasn’t in their interest anyway]. The Treasury, however, didn’t find any response satisfactory – I suspect that what they really wanted was a study that dished the dirt on GMPTA, and none of my consortia or our competitors could think of a way of doing that – it would have been more in the realms of political journalism than logical and scientific
analysis.
@Alex McKenna – I also agree with that. As with HS2, there will be winners and losers with CR2 in its present form – and as with HS2, there are many more losers than its promoters are prepared to admit. It is far from clear what problems it will solve, and there is a case for arguing that some problems will be made worse (eg the extra load on parts of the LU network acting as end distributor for the CrossRail2 scheme – something that is very much less of an issue for the Elizabeth Line which – as intended – parallels the existing Central Line.
Graham H
Except that, like the overloading on the Central Line, hopefully to be relieved by Crossrail …
The SW-NE sections of both the “Picc” & the “Vic” lines are seriously wedged …
And, sooner than later ( I think ) both Waterloo & Liverpool St will fill up to capacity – the latter is practically there already on the old “Northern & Eastern” lines as it is.
[ I think Waterloo will take longer, because of the re-opened extra platforms on the Windsor side – there the pinch-point is going to be the 7-track section through Queenstown Road. ]
@Greg
The re-opened platforms 21-24 at Waterloo, and the extensions to platforms 1-4 to allow ten-car trains, have not been accompanied by any significant changes to handle passengers before and after their journeys. There are no more entrances, Tube lines, or buses to take the extra people.
Ddspite many of the platforms now extending almost as far as Westminster Bridge Road, an opportunity was missed to combine the platform extensions (on both sides) with a new entrance and concourse at the Country end of the station, (cf Blackfriars, City TL, Paddington ) which would be a much shorter walk to work both for DfT officials and for MPs with constituencies in the SWR hinterland.
@Greg T – The question is whether CR2 is the best way of dealing with either of these problems, and whether it can then also provide a solution to the Victoria Line etc. I’m not sure what the collective noun is for a large number of compromises (farrago? potpourri?) but it would seem to apply here.
@timbeau – and doubly irritating as there is already a subway at about the right point. BTW amazingly few DfT officials live in SWland these days and those MPs who do tend to get chauffered up the A3 (or never set foot in their constituencies – not that I’m naming names here, of course).
I have to agree that there is no real proactive plan. The last real network-wide plan was the New Works Programme. We desperately need something like that again rather than reactive -line-by-line projects. CR2 might be a victim of current financial and political winds, but it’s £32bn price tag has always been alarming. The objective should have been VL and station relief within realistically available funds.
I don’t think we can let London politicians off the hook either. BJ and now SK have not shown any real long-term vision for the city’s transport situation. Khan especially has been a pretty much a tactical mayor. The financial situation is becoming dire and yet still we don’t have City Hill pushing the hard button on free U-18 bus travel, the 60+ oyster card, on re-expanding the CC and whatever else.
@ Greg etc.
Indeed, the lines into Waterloo and Liverpool street are very busy/full. But sending them to Tottenham Court Road is surely not anyone’s preference!
@Herned – not everyone, certainly, but judging by the number of people piling on to the Northern Line at Waterloo, the Central Line at Liverpool Street, and the Victoria Line at Seven Sisters, Tottenham Hale and Vauxhall, CR2 would hardly be a white elephant either. And there would still be some services to Waterloo from SWR-land, and to Liverpool Street from the Lea Valley, for those whose destinations are in those areas.
@timbeau It’s not clear that all those SW punters are going to TCR as a final destination, and the Elizabeth Line is supposed to take a high proportion of the Central’s load boarding at LST. If those people aren’t going to TCR as a final destination, then CR2 will rely on the existing tube network to provide the last mile or two, for which there is no relief. BTW, some lines in SWland are supposed to lose their Waterloo services altogether.
That seems to be the messy thing about XR2, as it stands. Working as a collector/distributor for the Lea Valley network, but hitting it just that far enough out that trains, and train paths, will still be required on what is the current Overground network to serve remaining stations on the lines into Liverpool Street. Hardly seems optimal, even if does provide a quicker journey between Hackney and Kings Cross.
Liverpool street will still have to devote platform time to urban/suburban trains that might otherwise be more useful for services from further out such a Stanstead/Hertford/Cambridge, but yet these inner services will still provide a poor or at least sub-optimal service to stations like Cambridge Heath, and Clapton.
Not to mention the confusing future state of play as to 4-tracking the line via Tottenham Hale. Will platforms really be necessary or possible on all four lines?
Absolutely agree that there has to be some vague overarching plan or direction. Its not enough to want devolution of train services if beyond much needed refurbishment and new trains you are still ultimately constrained in the service you can provide by other services outside ones’ remit that must coexist.
I’ve often though that the one direction that should be aimed for, long term, is that devolution combined with new infrastructure should eventually segregate as much of the London suburban services as possible from longer distance ones. The New Works Programme did so for the Central, Northern, and latterly the Met, Crossrail achieves a similar service linking GE and GW, and that really only leaves the Lea Valley lines as the major suburban network to the north, before the tangled mess of southern lines has to be addressed.
@Graham H
“BTW, some lines in SWland are supposed to lose their Waterloo services altogether.”
Quite so – but such things have happened before – I remember from colleagues living in the Barnet area complaining that their direct services to Farringdon had been diverted to Moorgate. And connections between XR2 and SWR will be available at Wimbledon, if that is preferred.
“If those people aren’t going to TCR as a final destination, then CR2 will rely on the existing tube network to provide the last mile or two, for which there is no relief. ”
As most of them do from Waterloo. And they won’t all be changing at TCR – there will be three XR2 stations in Zone 1, between them providing one-change connections to all but a handful* of the other Zone 1 stations. That’s the point of RER / S-Bahn systems, to distribute the passengers over several central stations instead of concentrating them at one – although I would have had it call at (some of) Sloane Square, Hyde Park Corner, Marble Arch, Regents Park, Goodge Street, Russell Square and Angel instead of creating monster interchanges (aka single points of failure)
The need for CR2 to relieve overcrowding on the Picc & Vic lines overlooks planned 60% service uplift on the Picc (36tph, now 24tph, and longer walk-thru trains). Current funding only provides for train replacement to 27tph, so balance of project could delay need for CR2. The Vic could presumably also benefit from similar new trains, adapted to the larger and straighter tunnels of the line to provide 12%+ capacity upgrade rather than their half-life overhaul in 10 years time.
@Taz
Isn’t the 2009 stock on the Victoria Line built to the maximum size its larger and straighter tunnels will accommodate?
@timbeau – the fact that some punters have lost out before is hardly a justification for making some others do so in the future.
However, I’m with you entirely on the need for more CR2 zone I stations – under current plans, as you say 3 zone 1 stations replace, err, three zone 1 stations. [Yes. I’m aware of the Piccadilly problem]. But then, CR2 would be a very different animal – which is my basic point: combining a metro with an RER poses all sorts of compromises, physically, operationally, commercially. CR2 seems to almost wilfully maximise these compromises. Bluntly, it merely shifts the point at which the national rail network dumps its load on LU from one not very important end destination to another.
2009TS has eight cars built to the maximum cross section for the Vic line, but the walk-thru trains will have more cars of shorter length in a train, meaning less overhang on corners and permitting a larger cross section. Capacity will also increase with standing room where inter-car wasted space currently.
Without wishing to get the crayons out, it would seem to me that the solution to Waterloo overcrowding is to send the trains directly to where the passengers want to go (primarily City and Docklands… equally for the Lee Valley. And then build the metro version of CR2 to relieve the Picc and Vic lines
Paradoxically, the wider straighter tunnels on the Vic have actually made things worse. Because they tempted the 2009 trains’ specifiers into ordering trains which cannot be cascaded onto any other line, so, in the absence of MMTs (magic money trees), the Vic is likely to be last in the queue for benefiting from the walk-through “revolution” (possibly too strong a word anyway).
The 1983TS on the Jubilee line were unsuitable elsewhere, and withdrawn after as little as 12 years.
@Herned – there used to be a wistful faction within NSE Planning circles that would have preferred the Crossrail 1 money to be spent on an LST-WAT via Bank routeing instead – not least because the flows were very much better balanced than LST-Western options. But I always stamped firmly on crayons, even then, and beyond pondering where on earth you could portal east of Clapham and inquiring how stable “tipped” embankments had become after 150 years, nothing was done.
@ Graham H
Yes I can see how that would work sensibly. Re the portal, I would suggest that it is possible to find a suitable location, knock everything down, rebuild etc. and have a considerable amount of change from £30bn
@ Graham H
You really ought to write a book on your days at NSE, how I would love to read it. Funny you said that, I’m writing an alternate history timeline over on a popular althistory forum about what would happen to BR if it wasn’t privatised, so that could be an interesting idea to take up.
There would have to be a portal site somewhere, as the “North-South” Corssrail proposal in the 1989 CLRS seemed to suggest a portal in Battersea-now built over of course, so nowadays I would of presumed a portal would be the strip of land where the Costa Coffe warehouse near Pouparts Junction.
@MT – 🙂 I’d placed a small bet on the site of the present carriage washing plant, so, much the same. As I recall, the criterion really was to find sufficient width to accommodate 6 running lines plus any extra width for flying/burrowing junctions. This becomes really tricky the nearer you get to Queenstown Road. The point about tipped embankments is that the early Victorians didn’t consolidate their earthworks and so digging into old embankments risks a certain amount of instability, although the passage of the train service does tend, of course, to consolidate the soil eventually (as with the GC London extension, where they ran the freight for some weeks before opening the passenger service of that very reason).
On the prospective evolution of BR, I think you would have seen the development of O4Q principles further, with each subsector controlling its infrastructure, but heads would have been knocked together if there was any sign of competition between the subsectors, fares would have continued their move towards market-oriented offers but nothing like we see today, some attempt would have been made coordinate timetables, and above all, there would have been a determined move to centralised planning within each sector – NSE first, followed by IC with RR trailing well behind. Some further RR subsectors would almost certainly have moved to IC – the Alphaline services, for example. The PTEs were poised to take a much larger role, and probably also the devolved governments. This might have left a conundrum as to what to do with the rump of RR – this was a perpetual problem because of the structure of local government finance. [I may have mentioned the alternative we developed as a cockshy in DTp at the time when privatisation first reared its ugly head, which still left us with an incoherent raft of lines in Lincs, the West Country and the NW].
@Herned – yes, probably significantly cheaper than what we are now being offered, but then we’d probably have also required Hackney-Chelsea in some form. (On the other hand, the benefits….)
* The portal east of Clapham was important to pick up both the Windsors and the Kingston roundabouts.
@ Graham,
Very interesting. I thought RR would eventually splinter away. Anyway, I’ll post a link to my timeline at the bottom in case you or anyone is interested in reading it.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/thatcher-survives-so-does-british-rail.433521/
Is the never ending growth in numbers commuting into London actually going to happen?
After all with technology, a lot of people don’t NEED to come in to work, and as a result especially with longer distance commuters, many are working from home for at least one day a week, which is having a definite impact on rail passenger numbers.
Graham H @ 23 January 2019 at 14:50
“a wistful faction within NSE Planning circles that would have preferred the Crossrail 1 money to be spent on an LST-WAT via Bank routeing instead ”
That could be Crossrail 3 (or 4).
@Mikey C – people have been saying that for decades – ever since teleconferencing was invented in fact. And it clearly does make a marginal difference; nevertheless, CLE continues to go up and down with the economy – and therefore, long term, mainly up. It’s an interesting question – as yet unanswered – as to what technology would actually lead to a radical change.
For my company, remote working is extensive but it has meant they can recruit more people with the existing office space. So over a week just as many people travel into central London, but the flows are less consistent and fewer people have season tickets. If you analyse flows on a Friday, you will see fewer people traveling, but more people travel on a Thursday, so no difference overall. This means you have to be in the office really early on Thursday to get a desk !!
Mikey C,
People have been making that point for years. Unfortunately they always only tell one side of the story. It is true it is having a direct impact on passenger numbers but not in the way you think. This is the latest understanding from a number of sources.
There is definitely a trend away from commuting on Fridays. Very often around a 20% drop is quoted. Conversely, there is also a huge flow into London on Friday evenings as people go out. This clashes with the outward flow and means that much of the infrastructure (passageways, escalators etc.) are just as busy, if not busier, as at other times of the week.
An emerging problem (especially but not only on South Western Railway) is of a slightly less busy Monday and a busier mid-week especially on Wednesdays and Thursdays. It is getting to the point where the working timetable might have to be slightly different on these days. One possible outcome is shorter trains on Mondays and Fridays to give more opportunity for maintenance so that as many carriages as possible can be put into service on Wednesdays and Thursdays. This though has other impacts e.g. platform length and power supply.
A corollary of your assertion is that people move out of London to commute for two or three days a week. This is happening and some for quite long distances. This is probably exacerbated by people planning where to retire, moving now and and commuting into London for the remaining few years. So people commuting from the Isle of Wight is no longer the exception. The consequence of this is more rail miles travelled not less. This feature has made the case for Croydon Area Remodelling Scheme stronger as the ‘do nothing’ option really doesn’t allow for this and any alternative based on increasing just the inner suburban services won’t work.
Another factor is that as people commute less they tend to make alternative journeys. Either to visit customers at their site if in work time or to make leisure journeys at other times. Teleconferencing is never as effective as face-to-face. This is especially so when it comes to family reunions.
Crossrail 2 is largely about longer distance travel. The idea is it frees off existing suburban slots by means of cross-London journeys (which also benefits suburban commuters) so that more longer trains can be provided from places like Woking, Winchester and Ipswich.
The other, related, problem of course is that it makes passenger flows less predictable, and thus it is harder to determine where rolling stock is best placed on any given day.
wrt to Fridays; I have long since noticed that Fridays generally seem to be either comparatively light on people, or comparatively heavy, but rarely typical (as compared to mon-thu).
If more home working will exasperate this problem then I can only imagine the headaches it will give the planners.
Interesting that POP makes the point that varying demand can economically be met by varying train length, when, it seems, all new trains are being built fixed length.
(Another example of progress being the last thing we need (things are bad enough already)).
Alan Griffiths
The post-War plans envisaged a route from just outside Marylebone to approix Lewisham – which would also have been configured for freight, diverted off the LNW ( I think – have to look that up )
PoP
Yes, well, Thursdays in the evening on the tube, it’s really wedged in places – late-night shopping as well ….
RogerB,
The comment about train length was made in the context of South Western Railway. As you suggest, further afield and longer term this becomes less of an option. So the only real alternative is PIXC busters* for a couple of days a week which also becomes dependent on being able to get more-or-less the full fleet out for a couple of days a week which in turn is dependent on a suitable maintenance programme.
*PIXC busters. PIXC=passengers in excess of capacity [beyond which a breach of franchise conditions kicks in]. Originally for trains to avoid that breach but sometimes used for any train not really fitting nicely into the timetable but run for the sole purpose of dealing with number of people travelling at a particular times. Normally just a single run in the peak of a train made available by adjusting maintenance schedule.
Greg Tingey,
Yes, Thursday is not a quiet evening!
Back on topic-ish, I am sure the original business case won’t stack up as quite as well as when originally proposed but Thursday and Friday nights plus what can be more-or-less a peak service throughout Saturday daytime (as on the Piccadilly line and not far short on Saturday afternoons on the Victoria line) I suspect the business case would actually be better in that respect.
@PoP /Greg T – is any evening inbound quiet these days? (I used to be astonished even 10 years ago when leaving a client in Kew, the inbound evening trains were always well over full to standing on any weekday. There are two (many more actually) issues with pixie busters – these days , the diagramming of sets has become extraordinarily tight to get each back to depot (the result of less than daily programming for maintenance); adding additional constraints will almost certainly lead to a demand for further sets just beyond the buster itself. And secondly, having a single set bought solely for a single (two, if you are lucky) trip on perhaps less than five days a week, tends to undermine the business case for the service provision. It also leads inevitably to sharp questions about the cost of loading standards.
Graham H,
is any evening inbound quiet these days?
Sundays?
There is a lot of inward evening travel compared to 20-30 years ago. But it does rise steadily through the week with a jump on Thursday. Originally ascribed to late night shopping , it is nowadays probably more correctly ascribed to people not working the following day and deciding ‘the weekend starts now’.
@PoP – I wasn’t certain about Sundays as it’s rarely a day when I have to travel to town. Casual observation for peak inbound traffic suggested a high proportion of clubbers and others going for a night out. (Tho’ I’m reliably informed that there is an early evening traffic of London clubbers out to places like Guildford in search of cheaper refreshment). That seems to confirm your “Thursday is the new Friday” assumption.
I do wonder how well the railways are measuring loadings. I hope they are not placing any credence on whatever it is that drives these displays
https://twitter.com/tlrailuk/status/971659467271131137
images?q=tbn:ANd9GcStIWFsLyZ_idF7HAmc-1wJ0zACO3FeRcI2hQT-GCvfvOJZBv7k
These consistently under-estimate the number of people on board. The 707 I was on yesterday evening, on leaving Waterloo, was showing four green coaches and one yellow in my half of the train (you get no information about the other unit), implying at least some seats available in all carriages, despite the fact, as you can see right down the unit, it was obvious that the unit was standing room only, and indeed remained so until New Malden. I am told that these displays are driven by the same systems that control the air conditioning (which would explain a lot) and estimate the braking force required (which is a little worrying!)
My Second link didn’t seem to work – try this
https://www.flickr.com/photos/wltmauc/35801271314
On the subject of changing travel patterns, I note that falling season ticket sales is always presented as some kind of disaster for the railways. But surely, since season tickets are in fact heavily discounted*, a fall in their sales could equate to a _rise_ in revenue, even in the case of a modest drop in passenger journeys/numbers.
Or is this potential benefit offset by even discounted season tickets bringing in more revenue than whatever is bought instead?
*Yes, I know the correct word is “commuted”.
PS: I see that Christian Wolmar is predicting disaster in his 2019 crystal ball gazing. As he seems to have done every year.
@Balthazar
Even if the revenue raised from the extra daily tickets is exactly the same as the revenue lost in season ticket sales, (which is unlikely, because anyone for whom the difference is zero would choose the season ticket for convenience) it would cause a cash-flow problem for the railway, as they would get it trickling in over the year instead of all paid up-front.
There is also the extra cost of extra ticket machines (or booking office staff) and of printing tickets (albeit that is less than it used to be because of Oyster, contactless etc).
There is also the age factor – with the ever-rising retirement age, more and more over-60s in London are still working, and taking up space on rush-hour public transport, without having to pay.
Timbeau, you would be surprised how many people on the national network in London have swapped from a ‘convenient’ paper season to even more convenient daily contactless payment, even though it might cost them more. It also has the added advantage for the customer of not paying up front.
Re cash flow for the railway businesses, given that the railway works on 4 weekly accounting periods, the move away from seasons is only an issue for seasons of longer than 1 month, and then only if season ticket renewals are not spread approximately evenly over the year.
Even then, reducing long period season tickets is actually helpful to the TOCs in cash flow, as income more closely aligns with expenditure over the course of the year. There are some TOCs today with large numbers of high value Annual season ticket holders who renew just before the fare rises at New Year. The TOCs have to arrange a short term bond to protect that money for future expenditure: both for themselves, and in the event that the franchise changes hands (for any reason). And arranging bonds costs money, so with fewer season tickets that cost also gets smaller.
Re SFD,
I don’t think I would be surprised…
Currently about 63% of GB railway journeys go through TfL/Oyster ticketing systems and about 38% of all National Rail journeys use TfL/Oyster ticketing systems in some way. Both particularly the latter will grow when Crossrail happens on the western side. the Monthly growth rate of Oyster / contractless are phenomenal.
DfT seems to be heading towards concluding that smart ticketing in the former NSE land is “Oyster” rather than ITSO and backing “Oyster” will see rapid growth continued as TOC efforts just don’t cut the mustard.
Re train release for maintenance, the original Crossrail, or CR1(1), planned to shorten all trains after the evening peak, saving the purchase of additional trains to cover.
The Central line operated a different service for late night shopping until the general boost to all off-peak services. Night tube lines operate a different service on Fridays which merges into the weekend.
@PoP
Interesting. It’s certainly more complicated for planners when compared to the “old days” when “everyone” commuted in 5 days a week in the morning, then went home again in the evening!
Part of the problem if that everyone wants to work from home on Monday or Friday
to extend the weekendrather than working from home midweek. Maybe if this becomes very common, they’ll start charging higher amounts for Tuesday to Thursday travel than for Monday and Friday to try and persuade a few people to not travel on those days…@mikey C – I am sure you are right about operators wishing to price up where they can – they already do this by time of day and day of the week on IC services, of course. Whether this is a good thing or not on public interest or transport planning grounds is a different issue. [It is also a nice question as to whether operators aren’t shooting themselves in the foot by such fine mesh pricing – they are certainly undermining the case for subsidy by doing so.]
@Timbeau wrote “anyone for whom the difference is zero would choose the season ticket for convenience”.
A colleague comes into our central London office (via Thameslink, so you know how painful that is) from out of London all five working days a week, rather than working at home one day a week, because there is no saving on the fare. So Thameslink carries her for 10 journeys rather than eight for no extra revenue.
And, from observation, colleagues who do work from home don’t always choose Monday or Friday — Wednesdays are quite common.
Re: AlanBG – isn’t that example looking at it the wrong way round? Your colleague uses capacity on the railway for 16 single journeys per week, but pays the railway what it has budgeted for providing for 20. So the average fare per actual passenger journey is higher.
But the current situation appears to be falling season ticket sales (so emphatically not your colleague’s example) but rising passenger numbers – and my question is: does this mean that as well as more passengers paying fares, the average fare is also higher?
Which would seem to be double-positive for “the railway” and in direct contradiction of those who present falling season ticket sales as a disaster.
Oops – sorry: misread AlanBG’s post. But my question stands.
Any thoughts over the Taxpayers Alliance proposals for the re-routing of Crossrail 2 via Clerkenwell and Earlsfield?
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/taxpayersalliance/pages/16568/attachments/original/1558024555/Crossrail_2_can_value_for_money_be_improved.pdf
Margret Thatcher @ 26 May 2019 at 13:22
“Any thoughts”
Its cheaper to build a project that delivers less results.
True, but in the case of Crossrail 2, it has a huge price while causing more problems; (loss of direct trains to Waterloo, relying on the Northern Line for SW access to the City etc). I’m sure for less, or even the same amount of money currently projected for CR2, you can devise a plan with more results than the current proposal.
What’s interesting here is the Taxpayers’ Alliance making some kind of case for public transport. Never known this before.
Hackneyite
They live in relatively properous outer commutersville … & the horrendous & unsolvable problem of traffic-congestion has finally ( How many years after “Buchanan” ? ) penetrated, to the extent that Public (rail) transport is seen to be necessary if they are to get to their high-paying “employments” in town … & come home in the evning, after a drinkie or two, as well ….
As you don’t say, but do imply, a very interesting straw in the wind.
Trying to keep this comment as apolitical issues as I can.
But for the benefit of those not already aware, this organisation refuses to discuss who funds it or disclose who decides what issues it makes pronouncements on.
Always worth pondering what their real agenda might be when they wade into something.
Island Dweller
The Wiki entry on the “Taxpayers Alliance” is … interesting. Especially given tonight’s election results.
I suspect Taxpayers’ Alliance will next campaign to abolish VAT on crayons.
Actually, much of this looks quite sensible. The problem with British infrastructure projects has always been the lack of a holistic approach, and the resulting attempt to use whatever is the one project on the table to solve everybody’s problems, resulting in an over-ambitious plan which goes over-budget and under-achieves. Crossrail 1, for all its current woes, did remain focussed on the basic idea and refused all the siren calls for extension to Tring, Ebbsfleet etc, – at least until the basic system is bedded in and we see if there is any spare capacity.
The Taxpayers’ Alliance has proposed several simplifications:
1. abandonment of the spur to Turnpike Lane and New Southgate. These areas already have more direct services to the West End and Victoria via Finsbury Park, or using the cross-platform interchange at Highbury & Islington. Extending from Broxbourne to Harlow using existing infrastructure not only improves connectivity, but would greatly relieve the Central Line as so many people from eastern Essex currently railhead to Epping.
2. omitting Euston St Cross – the way to relieve an area is not to feed yet more traffic into it but to bypass it. The area is already served by seven Underground lines (counting both branches of the Northern) and Thameslink, making the network as a whole very vulnerable to the area as a potential “single point of failure” should anything go wrong there. One of the reasons it is so busy is because so many people have no choice but to interchange there. (XR2, as proposed, would exacerbate this problem as Euston St Cross would be the only interchange it has with the H&C, Metropolitan, Northern, Piccadilly, Thameslink. For similar reasons I don’t think Option B (Farringdon) would be appropriate – putting Thameslink and both Crossrails in one basket is asking for trouble.
Option A (Clerkenwell) fills a poorly served area of London, and makes use of the passive provision at Tottenham Court Road, and Option C (Moorgate, City Thameslink, Piccadilly Circus) improves connectivity (in particular giving the Bakerloo and Piccadilly Lines a connection to Crossrail 2 that they lacks in XR1). Both replace the triple interchange at Farringdon with a distribution over three stations – Farringdon/Clerkenwell/TCR or Farringdon/Moorgate/CityTL.
3. Chelsea. If the locals really want to remain a public transport “desert” (and they may change their minds when the charges on Chelsea Tractors really start to bite) a routing via Battersea, replacing both NR stations, might be possible. This would improve capacity on both Southern and SWR by eliminating two relatively-little used stops. It could also save the cost of further extending the Northern Line Extension. providing interchange thtaxtr
4. The Balham Bulge (successor to the Tooting T–). Pointless, and counterproductive as it will feed all the Surrey commuters heading for the City into the already-overcrowded southern end of the Northern Line. And it would deprive Earlsfield, currently SWR’s ninth busiest station (placed between Woking and Southampton Central) of up to 75% of its service (the nearest alternative is Haydon’s Road, which has what is, for Zone 3, essentially a skeleton service of 2 tph).
For the matter of that, if we are going to Balham, why not continue to Tooting Station (which is actually in Mitcham!) and save on some infrastructure costs by taking over the line from there to Wimbledon line. (There are several options for the St Helier line, all of them better than the circuitous and infrequent service to London it currently endures)
5. This ties in neatly with the TPA’s proposals for Wimbledon – of course XR2 should use the existing platforms – currently platforms 6 and 7 are unused, and have to be fenced off to protect the vulnerable from the non-stop trains that pass through. An underpass for through traffic seems the obvious solution.
The TPA’s proposal for differential charging would almost certainly be both a political and a PR disaster – it is already inequitable that the Lea Valley and SW London already pay higher fares to reach central London than on other lines (due to paying TOC rates, no concessionary fares before 0930, etc), and the fares freeze on TfL services has increased this differential over the past few years. Continuing this unjust “TOC-tax” even when under TfL control could not be justified. And how would it be enforced? – barrier lines at interchange stations would be needed, leading to congestion, and as they would be underground they would have to be permanently staffed, raising the cost even further.
I will say little of the more Crayonistic proposals on page 40 onwards except to suggest a relief “bypass” of Kings Cross serving Angel, Clerkenwell, Russell Square, Goodge St, Marble Arch, Knightsbridge, Sloane Square and Chelsea would solve some of the issues. (If longer trains are envisaged, doubling up some of the stations, e.g Angel/Clerkenwell, Russell Square/Goodge Street) would be possible
Timbeau
if we are going to Balham
Gateway to the Sarf …
Sorry, couldn’t resist it!
More seriously, the TPA proposals are very much a Curate’s Egg “On the contrary, I assure you, some parts are delicious!” … And some are not.
Nonetheless, it’s worthy of some consideration, given their previous anti-public-transport record ( maybe)
As much as we might worry about these right-wing-funded pressure groups, the Tax Payers Alliance, so ironically called, has some fresh ideas. They have thrown a bucket of cold water over the whole stalled project. As things stand, CR2 can’t happen as it is currently planned, and the only hope will be a severely cut-down version. Their plan does sacrifice some untouchable stops, like Euston/StP, Angel and even TCR in one version, but we have to think the unthinkable or the whole thing will just be kicked into the same long grass where sits the Bakerloo Extension.
Re Alex McKenna,
Is it really stalled though?
One of the issues raised previously was that the annual spend was too high to do everything at once hence the suggestion of phasing options. (New Southgate being the more obvious one flagged up).
Another issue is that the potential GLA funding mechanism has got diverted for several years to pay for CR1 over runs hence no big rush…
Look out for the October spending round.
Most of the TPA analysis and alternatives have been lifted from other sources including discussions on LR (including early Bakerloo extension alternatives)
The cost of the alternatives (e.g. Wimbledon fast tunnels) actually turns out to be much higher than the promoters quote when investigated to the same level of detail as official proposals, hence many of the savings claimed by TPA are far lower, non existing at or even negative upon detailed analysis.
TPA also haven’t looked at passenger numbers or flows in detail just headline TfL future crowding estimates so there is no deep understand of raw passenger numbers or interchange issues (Farringdon is no chance because it couldn’t cope with interchange volumes overall).
The employment density metrics they use are high level and slightly dubious as Victoria isn’t high employment density because thy include the Palace and Parks as “Victoria”.
The TPA work won’t stand up to proper analysis as it is no more detailed than back of the envelope.
@ngh
I cannot believe that diverting the SWML fast lines through a Wimbledon diveunder, releasing platforms 6 and 7 for XR2, would be more expensive than building an entire station under the existing one. It might also avoid the cost of replacing the Wimbledon flyover, which I read somewhere is approaching the end of its design life.
Re Timbeau,
The geography, geology and deep foundations are unhelpful. – It isn’t a diveunder it is very long tunnels with tricky mouths
But the official CR2 plan isn’t build a new underground station as such (TPA haven’t realised this)
1. Remove Tram to upstairs at street level on the opposite of the road.
2. Remove part of shopping centre (plenty of vacant units adjacent to P10)
3. Dig deep trench so CR2 tracks are ~4m below current track level to make grade separation and tunnel gradient easier.
TPA haven’t realised the grade separation of slow and Crossrail2 tracks required to make reusing the existing fast platforms.
The TPA proposal in addition to re using 6+7 also involves (as there are 4 CR platforms)
1. Remove Tram to upstairs at street level on the opposite of the road.
2. Remove part of shopping centre but one track and platform width less than official proposal. but makes the remaining bits of shops on that side unusable.
And the cost of deep tunnels that aren’t CR2 ones.
The existing platform widths will also struggle to cope with interchange volumes.
So not that much difference in cost???
The TPA have several proposed options for how long the Wimbledon fast tunnels are if routeing via Tooting or Earlsfield
The author doesn’t even have reasonable railway knowledge as embankments and cutting are referred to as “verges” which might cost a lot (uncosted) to allow more tracks.
@Timbeau- interesting.
If the whole point of CR2 is to help with HS2 demand at Euston, would an OOC-Bond Street-Victoria tunnel be of any greater benefit?
@Margret Thatcher – HS2 is merely one amongst many factors that have focussed on CR2 serving KXSP. In practice, as I fear I have remarked many times before here, the extra load generated by HS2 is, frankly, fairly trivial – a theoretical max pax of 18000/hr, but in practice very much less and with numbers down to perhaps 5-6000/hr for the West End, which is what CR2 is supposed to relieve. Given the existence of 2 tube lines going that way already, the extra load is perhaps the equivalent of a couple of full trains/hr – about a year or two’s growth at current rates. That’s not to say the CR2 wouldn’t help but if it was built, as it serves the core West End mainly by transferring people to the Central, it may be simply undoing some of the good done by CR1. [There will now follow a short pause during which it will be possible to hear once more about the way in which “MidTown” is the destination of the future.]
Far more relief can be generated by considering the original Hackney- Chelsea routeing, or some variant, and by considering some of the more obvious gaps in the present network – Mount Pleasant, Fitzrovia, Mayfair, Belgravia, for example.
@GRAHAM H
Once Crossrail 1 is up and running, I would have thought there is a simple way to deal with Mount Pleasant, which is to pop a new stop on the existing Met/Circle line that is already passing there?
@Brian Butterworth – Possibly, although whether the loss of capacity from inserting an extra stop acceptable is debatable. I say possibly because this has been suggested from time to time but there appear to be physical difficulties in fitting the platforms around the flyunder without a good deal of track slewing and earthworks/property demolition. (There is also a point here about enabling any putative “Hackney- Chelsea route” which doesn’t call at KXSP to interchange with the Circle and doesn’t overload Farringdon. Maybe that isn’t really essential).
Interesting that they comment on most of the route in London apart from the inner northern section between ~Angel and Tottenham. Because of how the project has developed and evolved from a Metro line to a cross city mainline link, it would prove reasonable to consider this section with equal skepticism as the other lengths of the project.
The function of this corridor would be to connect the project to a destination at its northern end; however, unlike at the southern end where a (sub)set of the SW inners is captured, the northern end has only managed two targets; somewhere to take advantage of a possible future Lea Valley four tracking (good luck with the passive provision), and the expensive underground recreation of the Palace Gates branch.
From the Chelney proposal, an interchange survived at Essex Road, but has long since been deleted. TfL made tentative suggestions for future additional stations at either Stoke Newington or Clapton in the 2014 consultation, but given the extraordinary pressure the project is under to cut costs, these must surely be considered by this point fantasy.
What I don’t understand is why this particular bit of imprecise corridor duplication is considered necessary, especially by tunnel. By lopping off the northern extreme of just one of the Lea Valley routes, you leave everything south of Tottenham Hale – including what is now the Overground service – still running into Liverpool Street. Liverpool Street still remains rather chocked with trains from inner suburbs. Conversely, with potentially only a single northern branch initially, XR2 would find itself in a similar position to XR1 – too many trains from one direction to find a destination at the other.
This article from City Metric gives a breakdown of some of the myriad variations of this project over the years:
https://www.citymetric.com/transport/mapped-crossrail-2-and-century-failing-bring-london-s-tube-network-hackney-1596
In it is contained a scheme doodled up about a decade ago by TfL: (‘Cross-London regional rail – option 11’). This scheme would link the SW inners with the West Anglia inners service group, achieving the full set by connecting far further south at presumably a point adjacent to Bishopsgate goods yard.
If there are persistent doubts in some quarters as to the routing in central London, perhaps this scheme might be worth revisiting. The savings in cost of a Tottenham Hale – Angel tunnel would surely be huge, even if a shorter tunnel between Coppermill Junction and Hackney Downs proves desirable to separate fasts and slows.
As long as XR2 remains expensive it is unlikely to occur. It is fascinating that the TRA of all groups is now making suggestions, as others have also stated.
The underlying problem(s) still remain, however in that the lines approaching Waterloo & Liverpool St (NE rather than E ) are filling right up & need relief & throughput …..
Paris now has 4 or 5 RER’s – & even when CrossLiz opens, we will have 2 …..
Re Ben,
Part of the problem is that with cost savings there are also benefit (and revenue) reductions, which TPA and other don’t tend to look at, there is a danger you get substantially worse BCR very quickly with just few cost cuts.
The impact of relief of existing services off the CR2 network also needs to be taken account of and this rarely seem to be done in discussion on alternatives, if they doesn’t happen then the benefits are reduced.
Most of the issue of CR2 capacity imbalance without the Southgate branch can be handled for the first few years with a reduction in services turning back at Wimbledon and terminating a few extra at Tottenham Hale and then possibly adding a cheap turn back siding between the Crossrail tracks a few stations up WAML (e.g. to Meridian Water at least) to turn back a few more there.
The Seven Sisters CR2 station will empty out the a good number of the Western LO services south of there, while only 1 Lea Valley branch is directly adopted the western group is indirectly too .
@NGH
The Centre Court shopping centre may be struggling at the moment, but if Wimbledon is to become the new Stratford, Centre Court will be the new Westfield, so it seems short-sighted to demolish half of it.
The trackbed west of Wimbledon appears to be designed for more than four tracks – look at the bridge abutments over West Barnes Lane, for example, and there is already a proposal to six-track this section.
There also seems to be plenty of space in the Durnsford Road area for a portal for the diveunder. This could be kept further to the north of the emerging XR2 tracks. As for grade separation, I don’t see the problem – the XR2 portal would lie between the existing slow lines and the tracks merge with the slows west of the station – with space for a turnback siding if the diveunder is made a bit longer.
Re Timbeau,
But there is the change from paired by use to paired by direction at the flyover which complicates things considerably and it needs to happen some where in the greater Wimbledon area if not a the current location which complicates things if it happens elsewhere given the amount of grade separation and segregation needed overall to make things work (reliably) at the desired tph especially if things go wrong to the west so 100% CR2 turnback at Wimbledon is required.
If Centre Court (my nearest “Shopping Centre”) is to become the new Westfield it will need demolition and complete rebuild. It is also minuscule and the local retail space outside the centre is far cheaper and stores outside are doing far better. (Other nearby centres are also struggling e.g. Southside and then the new Wandsworth Brewery commercial space across the road there is extremely vacant.) Kingston seem to be doing far far better still.
Several of the remaining shops there are already announced as awaiting closing soon (e.g. Debenhams).
@Ngh
Changing from paired by use to paired by direction can be achieved using the diveunder – the fast would tracks go into tunnel on the north side of the slows somewhere near Durnsford Road, and emerge between the slows somewhere West of Wimbledon. The XR2 portal would be easy of Wimbledon station, in the gap between the slows left by the fast tracks.
Of course, if XR2 runs via Earlsfield, the diveunder could start nearer Clapham Junction and XR2 use the existing trackbed.
Greg Tingey 6 June 2019 at 08:16
“lines approaching Waterloo & Liverpool St (NE rather than E ) are filling right up & need relief”
I recall attending a “West Anglia Routes” meeting in Parliament. Everybody was more than a bit shocked when the Network Rail man said “the railway is full but the trains are not” so investment priorities were elsewhere.
But that was a point that no-one could instantly answer.
If they are taking their data from the displays on the 707s purporting to show how full the carriages are, they might well believe the trains are carrying round fresh air. It is galling to be standing on a crush-loaded carriage and seeing a display saying there are plenty of seats available.