Because of an article being planned analysing the October 2015 Crossrail 2 consultation, this thread is now locked and it is no longer possible to add comments.
“The ultimate false economy would be to delay decisions on Crossrail 2 in the face of overwhelming evidence that its going to be necessary. Engage in a lot of patch and mend work which will be unavoidable if you don’t do it AND THEN have to put into place a really serious Crossrail style line from the South West into the North East afterwards.”
– Lord Adonis, Transport Committee, May 2013
In February 2013, London First published Crossrail 2: Supporting London’s Growth. The report, which first appeared in provisional form in May last year, was accompanied by a well organised flurry of media activity which included high profile commentary from Lord Adonis and public backing from the Mayor. This ultimately resulted in some relatively in-depth coverage from both the BBC and the Evening Standard.
Interestingly, TfL themselves remained largely apart from the media activity surrounding its launch. By-and-large they appeared as respondents to the report’s conclusions, rather than as promoters. Following its publication, for example, the Financial Times talked to Michèle Dix, Head of Planning at TfL, who almost begrudgingly seemed to admit that TfL had begun thinking similar thoughts to London First. The IET’s coverage quoted her more extensively, and followed similar lines:
Transport for London’s (TfL) planning managing director, Michèle Dix, said: “We welcome London First’s recognition and support for the need of Crossrail 2.
“The capital needs continuous long-term investment in its transport infrastructure to keep pace with London’s increasing population and to support economic growth.
“TfL has been considering the route options for Crossrail 2 in light of this as well as the impact from projects such as the Government’s proposals for (high-speed rail project) HS2.
“We are currently considering two options for the route; we will be developing these options in more detail before carrying out a strategic consultation starting this spring.”
The narrative, at least as far as the mainstream media were concerned, seemed relatively clear:- London’s businesses felt that a new cross London line was vital, and they had a good idea of what form that should take. TfL’s job was now to take their ideas and turn them into reality. This TfL dutifully then did, leading to the publication this month of their public consultation into the route of Crossrail 2, offering two distinctly different proposals for the line.
London and its businesses had led, TfL had followed. It’s a good narrative, but (as is often the case), it isn’t quite the full story.
It’s The Way You Tell ‘Em
As those familiar with London’s various rail schemes will be aware, Crossrail 2 is not a new idea. The Chelsea – Hackney Line has existed as a concept since at least the late forties, when it was considered as part of the process that would eventually lead to the construction of the Victoria Line. The idea then resurfaced in the 1974 London Rail Study, in which both Crossrail and the London Overground also effectively debuted. In fact, a route for “Chelney” (as it has become known to its friends) has been safeguarded for future development, in some form, since the early nineties.
The current safeguarded route
It’s against – and indeed because of – the historical backdrop of this safeguarding that the current flurry of activity around Crossrail 2 takes place because back in 2009, the DfT asked the Mayor (and TfL) to investigate and review the safeguarding for Chelney, indicating that they wished to know within five years whether it should be retained.
The timing of both London First’s report, and now TfL’s consultation, is thus no coincidence. The narrative may be that London’s businesses may have asked for Crossrail 2, but they did so at a time when TfL very much wanted to be asked (and given that they contributed to the technical elements of London First’s report they effectively wrote the question). Indeed thanks to the arrival on the scene of High Speed 2 (HS2), the need for a clear push for Crossrail 2 has become increasingly important, from TfL’s perspective at least. For as both the Mayor and TfL have continually made clear, Euston Underground station is by no means capable of coping with the additional passenger throughput that HS2 would bring. The only way that the additional demand can be met is through bringing additional rail capacity to the station – and that rail capacity can only really come from Crossrail 2.
All this may seem to be splitting hairs – surely its the form the line, not the narrative, takes that really matters? As the battle to build Crossrail proved, however, both will be crucial in getting Crossrail 2 off the drawing board.
The Battle To Meet Demand
Before looking at the specific route proposals, it is worth stopping to consider why a new line is thought necessary at all. On this point the consultation is pretty clear – London’s population is still growing. Not only this, but it is growing faster than previously thought.
London’s population continues to rise and, based on the forecasts used in the work undertaken to date, was expected to have grown by 14% from the 7.8 million forecast for 2011 to 8.9 million by 2031. That increase in population was expected to be accompanied by an increase of 14% in employment. In combination this was expected to lead to some 16% additional trips per day.
With the release of figures from the 2011 census, it became apparent that London’s population had already reached 8.2 million in 2011 and is now expected to grow to between 9.7 and 10 million by 2031, a 9% to 12% increase on the forecasts used to date.
That increase in population brings with it increased demands on London’s transport infrastructure, even before HS2 is factored into the equation. In effect this means that any benefits set to be accrued by the improvements to the Tube network, and the opening of Crossrail, will have been negated by 2031. Indeed in real-terms overcrowding is likely to increase by 10% – with most of that focussed on North/South routes on the Piccadilly, Victoria and Northern Lines.
Overcrowding 2007 – 2031 (forecast)
Following the publication of the consultation, a number of the scheme’s key players, including both Lord Adonis and Michèle Dix, appeared in front of the London Assembly Transport Committee and this was the point that they clearly wished to hammer home – Crossrail 2 is no vanity scheme, it is a vital and near-inevitable requirement of future efforts to relieve pressure on the network. Were it not to be built, it would be necessary to carry out alternate piecemeal mitigating works – such as extending the DLR to either Euston or Victoria – which would provide only a fraction of the relief and connectivity yet still cost upwards of £8bn.
As Lord Adonis eloquently put it:
Doing nothing is not an option. If you don’t do Crossrail 2 then you have to do substantial work on the Overground, particularly in the South East and you have to do something, really significant, to the Tube.
One of the areas that already seems likely to contribute to this overcrowding is the Upper Lea Valley, where considerable growth and development has already begun to take place. It is also the development of this region that contributes greatly to the economic case for the line, something we will explore in more detail when we look at the specifics of the regional option.
Moving on to look at the proposed options in more detail, it is interesting to note that although TfL have only taken two options forward to full consultation, more were considered. Of these only the Metro, Regional and original Safeguarding made it as far as the final report.
A number of variations were considered during the planning process
The Original Safeguarding
As the consultation describes it:
The safeguarded route that was protected in 1991 and 2008 had proposed to take over part of the Central line. This would have entailed converting the Epping branch north of Leyton to Crossrail 2 operation, with all trains south-west of Leyton taking a different alignment and no longer offering a direct service to the City of London. The Central line would still have served the route to Leyton and the Hainault Loop via Newbury Park, where Crossrail 2 would have branched off the existing Central line, and would thereby have doubled the capacity between Leyton and central London. It was also proposed that the route safeguarded in 1991 and 2008 would take over the District line from Parsons Green to Wimbledon. This does relieve some crowding on this stretch of the line but does not address the more significant crowding challenges on National Rail lines from Wimbledon or the Northern line from Tooting.
Given that it did not make the final cut, it is not worth spending too much time on the original safeguarding. The reasons why it didn’t make that cut are given in the consultation’s supporting documents. Since the safeguarding was put in place, relieving the Piccadilly and Victoria lines in the long term has acquired a much greater priority. The existing route would also sever the link between the Epping Branch and the City, with similar results for Wimbledon in the south.
As a side note, the section of the report covering the safeguarded route does include one interesting nugget of information (bolding ours):
The Central line operates a high frequency 30tph peak period service, with 33tph services from the east during the peak hour. The Central line has long suffered from crowding. The opening of Crossrail should provide some relief to the line although crowding is forecast to continue. To help address this, there are future plans to upgrade the Central line before the completion of Crossrail 2 (forecast for around 2030), which will help to relieve the crowding. Those plans are in development as part of the work on a New Tube for London.
LR assumes that “A New Tube for London” is what was previously known as “Deep Tube” – the plan to produce a single, unified, new rolling stock for the Northern, Bakerloo and Central lines. Just as Crossrail 2 has begun to take on its narrative it seems that TfL are positioning their rolling stock programme to do the same, in this case taking a thematic lead from “the New Bus for London.”
Option 1: The Metro Option (Wimbledon to Alexandra Palace) – £9.4bn (£12bn with optimism bias)
Of the two options ultimately taken forward for final consultation the Metro is the smaller in scope, bearing more similarity to both the existing Underground network and DLR than to Crossrail.
Crossrail 2: Metro Option
This option would largely focus on relieving the Victoria Line and the mainline termini of Victoria and Waterloo, with limited relief to Liverpool Street in the east. Initially it had been posited that the Metro option terminate at Clapham Junction in the south, but the additional benefits of serving Tooting Broadway and Wimbledon were ultimately realised.
The line itself would be built with 5.5m metre diameter tunnels and relatively short platforms, and would be served by four-car trains. Assuming technology developed to support it, the intention would be to run up to 40tph.
From the relatively scant coverage this option receives in the consultation, it is clear that the Metro option is pitched as the “budget” version of the scheme. When pushed at the Transport Committee, Dix insisted that it was a genuine option – not something being offered up merely to provide a contrast to the larger option. It was clear, however, that it was the Regional option that was very much preferred by all parties within the room, including Network Rail. Indeed Dix admitted that if the Metro model was pursued, future conversion to a variant of the Regional would likely be an expensive, but ultimately necessary, activity.
Option 2: The Regional Option (Hertford East/Alexandra Palace – Wimbledon and beyond) – £15.7bn (£19.7bn with opimism bias)
The Regional option takes the route of the Metro option as its core, but adds considerable overground mileage on top.
Heading up from the south, trains from Epsom, Surbiton, Kingston, and Twickenham would head underground at a new station at Wimbledon, then follow the route of the Metro option on a newly-bored alignment through Tooting Broadway, Clapham Junction, Kings Road Chelsea, Victoria and Tottenham Court Road (where passive provision for Crossrail 2 is part of the current Crossrail works). It would then head up to a new “Euston St Pancras” station, continuing on to Angel.
At Angel, the line would split into two branches. The western branch would continue north through Dalston Junction (where passive provision again exists), Seven Sisters and Turnpike Lane before terminating at Alexandra Palace.
Meanwhile, the eastern branch would continue in tunnels to Hackney Central and then surface south of Tottenham Hale, close to Coppermill Junction. Here it would join the WAML through which it could continue on to Angel Road, Cheshunt, Broxbourne and Hertford East.
Crossrail 2: Regional Option
The Regional option would very much follow the Crossrail model. It would feature 6.4m diameter tunnels and 250m long platforms. It would have 10 car rolling stock, with the potential to upgrade to 12 car (indeed the consultation even suggests that Crossrail class 345s would be used). 30tph would be the target frequency.
The scope of the regional option is clearly much greater than the Metro, as indeed are the benefits – using DfT methodology the Metro has a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of 1.2:1 whilst the Regional Option has a BCR of 1.8:1. Those ratios rise to 3.5:1 and 4.1:1 respectively, once wider economic benefits are taken into account. For the regional scheme, those wider economic benefits are considerable.
Following the Money
Ultimately, the relative benefits of both options amount to nothing if the funding can’t be found to build them. This is why, as we highlighted at the beginning of this article, Crossrail 2 is as much about the narrative within which it is framed as it is the plans laid down.
It is clear that TfL, London First and indeed Network Rail believe that it is vital that the scheme’s benefit to, and support from, businesses within the Capital is highlighted. What also became clear from the Transport Committee meeting was that all parties involved are being realistic about the amount of support they expect to receive from the DfT itself. As Lord Adonis rather bluntly pointed out:
In my experience the DfT is not very good at thinking more than five years ahead. It thinks in spending review cycles and its officials are deeply reluctant to engage in anything unless their political masters put it firmly on the agenda, which goes well beyond their spending review and possibly the one after. There’s also a strong view in the Department that London has done very well out of investment in recent years, and this is becoming politically contentious.
His comments go some way to explaining why Crossrail 2’s narrative seems set to focus heavily on the higher long-term cost of doing nothing at all. As he continued:
The pragmatic view you have to look at when evaluating projects of this kind is: ‘Is the status quo an option?’ And if its seriously NOT an option, what is the realistic choice you’ve got between different options?
The issue we face as decision makers is not a £12bn scheme or nothing, and that’s £12bn with a very strong economic case behind it and transformational increases in capacity, or a whole lot of patch and mend jobs that are going to be very expensive
It’s a strong argument, but whether it will be strong enough to persuade the Treasury, who will ultimately find themselves footing a considerable percentage of the bill, remains to be seen.
Indeed even should the initial support of the Treasury be secured, it is clear that the experience of Crossrail itself has played a considerable part in the decision by TfL and Crossrail 2’s other backers to try and present the scheme as a business led, and hopefully business funded (at least in part) scheme. For although Crossrail is now forging firmly ahead, it is not so long ago that its fate, and its funding, were very much up in the air.
Lord Adonis, it seems, believes that the fact that the scheme was not solely in the hands of the Treasury financially was a considerable factor in its survival:
I am fairly confident that if Crossrail had been a conventionally funded Treasury scheme it would by now have been cancelled. The reason it proved uncancellable was a combination of the HUGE political authority of the Mayor and the Greater London Authority, PLUS the fact that there was a Partnership Funding Model, including the supplementary business rate raising £4bn of the £16bn and direct contributions by London businesses. Which meant that if the Treasury had tried to cancel it then the FIRST people who would have wanted their money back would have been London businesses directly and indirectly.
The fact that TfL seem so keen to highlight London Business’ role as a wider partner seems to suggest that they at least tacitly agree.
You can find more details about the consultation, and how to take part, on the TfL website here.
The Crossrail 2 Safeguarding Consultation has not gone unnoticed by those living near Wandsworth Common where there are two surface sites outlined. Walking there this weekend I was handed a sheet of A4 paper (full colour print) with various illustrations of current Crossrail worksites containing the threat that ‘Your Common is in danger of looking like the above for a number of years if current plans proceed’.
The leaflet contains the usual hyperbole that you would expect in this sort of thing, but placing one of the sites on a children’s playground, immediately adjacent to a cafe, doesn’t seem like the most thoughtful move. Unless, the intention might be to locate it elsewhere on the Common as a ‘concession’ at some point in the future.
@JA:
The site may have been selected for any of a number of reasons, such as ready access to useful utilities — the alternative is noisy diesel generators running day and night — or possibly because the council can therefore get a new children’s play area out of the deal. (There are still many older playgrounds that aren’t anywhere near close to modern health and safety standards. By letting Crossrail 2 ‘borrow’ the site, the council can get a free upgrade for said playground, for the price of a year or so’s disruption.)
Another reason is the surrounding roads: you have to get materials in and out of these sites, so you need somewhere that’s readily accessible by HGVs, heavy plant, and machinery. If you’ve seen the Crossrail 1 documentary series (“The Fifteen Billion Pound Railway”) you can’t have missed the footage of massive vehicles, including cranes, having to crawl very carefully down some very narrow streets and past Listed buildings.
Finally, common land can be subject to multiple restrictions on construction and usage. It’s quite possible that the sites selected are among the few legally available options.
The proposed CR2 route was safeguarded today by the SoS:
For all the detailed maps etc. see:
http://crossrail2.co.uk/areas-safeguarded/
http://1267lm2nzpvy44li8s48uorode.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Volume-1-Wimbledon-Chelsea-March-2015.pdf
http://1267lm2nzpvy44li8s48uorode.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Volume-2-Victoria-Hackney-March-2015.pdf
http://1267lm2nzpvy44li8s48uorode.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Volume-3-Shoreditch-Tottenham-Hale-New-Southgate.pdf
http://1267lm2nzpvy44li8s48uorode.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Crossrail-2-Safeguarding-Directions-Schedule-and-Guidance.pdf
&
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media…or-crossrail-2
For the TfL press release and official comments.
Changes during the consultation process
Wimbledon: Darlaston Passage has been removed from the area of surface interest. The new boundary is the edge of Network Rail land.
Wandsworth Common: The two ventilation and emergency access shafts that previously had been sited at Trinity Playing Field and Baskerville Road have been removed. We will still require one or two shafts in the Wandsworth Common area and we will now work with the local community to identify better locations.
King’s Road, Chelsea: The area of surface interest has been reduced to exclude the Emmanuel Kaye Building.
Soho Square: We are now safeguarding the roads around the green space and not the park.
Angel: The Cooperative Bank has been removed and we will be investigating alternative proposals for the layout of Angel station.
Sorry to bring up an old article but I felt the question I wanted to ask would be going too off topic for the sutton tram article. I’m unclear as to whether the crossrail 2 station at Wimbledon would be underground or overground. I just feel that if it were underground it would mean a lot less work would need to be done at Wimbledon station. Could someone please clear this up for me?
This map shows a tunnel portal on the north-east side of Wimbledon. That might clear the matter up as far as “official” plans go, but alternative suggestions have been made, on this site and possibly also elsewhere.
Indeed.
My understanding is that officially the portal is still on the North East of Wimbledon station. However I seem to recall the animated video showed a subterranean Crossrail 2 platform at Wimbledon.
The latest I heard is that the current debate is to whether Wimbledon should have two Crossrail platforms or four but I don’t know if above or below ground is intended. I would presume below ground.
Seems Surrey County Council want Crossrail 2 extended http://www.964eagle.co.uk/news/local-news/1675580/crossrail-2-project-could-include-woking-and-guildford-stations/
If the Wimbledon CR2 station was just two platforms then putting them overground and moving Tramlink underneath or alongside the station would probably be cheaper.
Kingstoncommuter,
I know what Graham H will say about that.
Theban,
I believe that current thinking is that whatever scheme evolves the current plans are that the trams will be moved. Yes I know it seems a waste of £20m for the second tram platform but this will be a drop in the ocean compared to a possible £1 billion to be spent on Wimbledon station alone. The is also the fact that once you have two tram platforms you can demand that in any scheme to move them the must be at least two replacement platforms provided.
Given that trains will still go to Waterloo from Wimbledon and they really would like platform 10 back for the Thameslink Loop I really cannot see how underground platforms for Crossrail 2 are avoidable. Also, given dwell times and the fact that at Wimbledon the routes will start to converge/diverge, I really think you are going to need four platforms. The mistake of sticking to two platforms was made at St Pancras Thameslink. Hopefully they won’t make the same mistake again.
@Theban
Tramlink only uses one platform face (trams are short enough to fit two of them in)
Would it not be possible if CR2 is to go towards Tooting anyway, to use the existing Thameslink track through Haydons Road before digging down to reach Tooting Bdy?
The St Helier line could then be one of the CR2 branches – and of course CR2 would still provide that precious connection to Kings Cross.
How to deal with “Tooting” station (which is actually in Mitcham)? Well, you might be able to fit a 2 tph service in amongst the CR2 services, but as there are already proposals to get trams to Colliers Wood ,extending them up the High Street (whch was a tram route in LCC days) to the bridge carrying the Tooting line (or over the trackbed of the Merton Abbey branch), and then tramifying the line through Tooting to Streatham Common and/or Streatham would be a relatively simple add-on.
@PoP – -:) It’s probably too hot to repeat the arguments about what CR2 is for and anyway, a certain large garden railway beckons….
The Mayor has created a Growth Commission for Crossrail 2 with the aim of pulling together business and political support and maximising development opportunities.
http://www.london.gov.uk/media/mayor-press-releases/2015/07/mayor-announces-creation-of-crossrail-2-growth-commission-as-top
Anyone would think there was a Spending Review and Autumn Statement process under way!
Whether CR2’s platforms at Wimbledon are at-grade or below ground won’t change the fact that the station will need major surgery.
The main buildings are on a massive concrete raft shared with a number of other large buildings, so you can’t just punch a big escalator shaft down under the ground with ease: the raft wasn’t designed for it. You’d also need to provide interchange with the surface platforms too.
Whatever option(s) are chosen, I suspect the station will get a lot more than a cosmetic facelift.
Here is the video showing underground platforms at Wimbledon (and New Southgate?) Pop mentioned:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4t3eC4CZPU
I’ve seen that video – it also shows a train with only three cars (and platform lengths to match) and with only one single-leaf door to each carriage. I would not expect that to be the final design of the trains.
Meanwhile, the “Manchester Evening News” is campaigning for work to begin on Transpennine North Electrification before Crossrail 2.
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/stop-northernpowercut-your-last-chance-9608055
A more subtle way of making the case than some of the letter-writers moaning about investment in the south.
A bit more searching through the MEN website reveals that this
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/stop-northernpowercut-92-per-cent-9577063
is a better summary of their argument
@Alan Griffiths – Manchester has form in this area. At the time ofthe Stansted airport link,Manchester MPs threatened to vote against it unless,they also got their airport link. Ministers were basically sympathetic provided a good case could be made for the Manchester project and muggins was detailed off to meet their consultant and discuss. Alas, the PTE had chosen someone who was, shall we say, politically inept. So far as he was concerned, the case rested on various assumptions which he seemed unwilling or unable to back with evidence/analysis. Despite pretty blatant hints from me as to what was needed, the message failed to get home and I had to report to Ridley that all there was behind the Manchester case was a heap of ifs. Right, he said, we’ll just vote them down, and so he did. I suspect that Osborne is not made of such stern stuff…
@ Alan G Given that Crossrail 2 funding is on basis that Mayor/ TFL raise half the cost. A deal Sir Peter Hendy thought was fair then best tell those in the north to fund half cost of TPE !
Osborne may be more sympathetic, given where his constituency is!
Of course, electrification does not lead automatically to better services. Throughout the 1980s the ECML had 125mph diesels whilst the WCML had 100mph electrics!
That’s very interesting Graham H, but I think the MEN campaign has focussed on timing, and that is quite well-judged.
The Transpennine North electrification part of Patrick McLoughlin’s “pause” announcement said that the project needed re-scoping, as it would not provide enough capacity and therefore it was pointless to begin electrification until decisions were made on what works to include to further increase capacity. The only work done so far is to a bridge between Leeds and York; electrification as far east as Stalybridge appears to have been quietly removed from NW triangle electrification and returned to TPN.
The upshot of all this could be that the longest delay is to Bedford-Sheffield (East) midland main line electrification, but that might create time for more of the value of the Hitachi trains to be built in the UK.
@Alan Griffiths – I had read your post as implying that the Mancunians were running their usual campaign based on jealousy but if it focusses solely on the timing of the northern works, that will be so much more respectable, intellectually and morally. After all, CR2 is likely to take a timing hit at the next mayoral election so it would seem counterproductive to play silly buggers now, when events will do the job for you.
@Melvyn et al
The WCML and MML electrification and tilting discussion has now run out of relevance, so I am cutting it off and have removed the off-topic comments. LBM
I see from the Standard that the locals are revolting regarding the proposed location of the Crossrail 2 station in Chelsea.
Apparently the location near the Kings Rd will ruin the “village like” character of the area. I assume this is one of those Cotswold villages with streets jammed nose-to-tail with 4x4s.
The campaign is being let by Felicity Kendal who is continuing the tradition of TV light entertainment personalities shaping London transport infrastructure.
@ Reynolds
It seems that Second Home owners everywhere are more articulate and vociferous than locals. Chelsea will be another example, and those who won’t NEED to use it will be the loudest against it. Problem is, ‘celebs’ like Ms Kendall tend to be very well connected. Unfortunately, they will get the best media coverage
On the issue as to whether CR2 platforms will be above or below ground, do we know how CR2 will be powered? Because if it is overheads through the tunnels then Wimbledon will be where services switch back to third rail and I am unsure whether the present surface platforms at Wimbledon have sufficient height clearance at the country end?
Re Theban,
I think that Wimbledon is very much in the still evaluating possible options stage (unlike most of the rest as which is more straight forward) as it isn’t just about CR2 there are lots of other issues to solve (SWML fasts, Thameslink, Trams, District Line) especially to cope with increasing usage.
Putting the portals North East of the station puts the ball in NR’s court to do most of the thinking (and there is plenty to do).
4 Platforms for CR2 would allow more time for AC/DC change over as well as helping with dwell times with lots of interchanging passengers.
But by the time CR2 is finished the 455s will be overdue for retirement and 456s due for retirement. So all the stock would be AC capable even if not fitted out. So there might end up being a mix of electrification on different branches but it would very much depend on what they want to do with AC electrifying the SWML or not.
AC grid feeds should not be an issue.
(And then there is the 5 tracking of the SWML inward to Waterloo to think about as well.)
“Chelsea” CR2 station.
Well, the answer to that is …
“OK you can do without for the next 100 years then, because it’s cheaper & easier for us”
See how you like it?
That sort of campaign is meat & drink to the Treasury.
[ Unlike another “transport” project, that isn’t the so-called “Garden Bridge”.
Oh, & please, don’t follow that one with loadsacomments, it was just a throwaway line …
( Insert sarcastic Smiley here ) ]
I don’t see any need for a station in Chelsea. If you are a public transport user you can use the bus along the King’s Road or walk 15 minutes to your nearest tube station where with a 10 to 30 mins journey you can reach most central London locations. A 45 minute commute door to door is more than acceptable and less than most Londoners. Deleting this station from CR2 and straightening the line between CJ and Vic would save the taxpayers half a billion and all the users who join before CJ 3 mins? each way every day.
Greg > As usual, I see where you are coming from with this, but I was trying to make a point that the minority, the ones who don’t want it (In My Back Yard), are the most vocal. The majority might want it but their voice will not be heard above the media personalities. Your answer would pacify the few, but deprive the many, (“for the next 100 years”).
There is currently an example on another site who has just claimed 9p (yes NINE PENCE) from the Parliamentary Allowances office for a constituency journey in his car 400 yard from his own house. He DROVE the 400 yards and has claimed the money. (Verification will be posted only if required). The point is that this sort of “use the car” mentality thinking IS DYING OUT. The new generations WILL use public transport when these objectors to the Chelsea Crossrail station will be dead. In fact, they’ll probably be dead before Crossrail is built and that could be one of the reasons why they are objecting. Why deprive future generations of a Chelsea CRX station, just because of a few grumpy, wrinkled old thesps?
Re Dan,
What if:
a) the roads (especially Kings Road) are effectively saturated with Buses?
b) you want to reduce the number of people interchanging at near by busy interchanges (Victoria and Clapham Jn) rather than increasing them by not having a station at Chelsea?
It can take 30mins+ to do the journey on bus from Clapham Jn to the proposed site of the Chelsea station alone before you add any other leg of journey on to it…
The traffic channelled across Battersea (and Albert) bridges is unsustainable and needs relief
Also there are 3 hospitals (2 regional /national level specialist) round the corner from the proposed station site with plenty of staff and outpatients.
On the assumption the article in the Standard is reasonably representative of the campaign in Chelsea then yes it is fronted by two actors but apparently has the support of 2,500 local residents. While I understand the comments from various posters I don’t think you can reasonably ignore 2,500 residents regardless of which famous person might be the face of the campaign. If it was 25 people then it might be different. I wonder if this is a different campaign to the previous one that expressed concerns about a CR2 station in West Chelsea destroying an enclave of affordable / social housing there?
http://chelseasociety.org.uk/crossrail-2-debate/
If the residents really don’t want a station in Chelsea then swinging the CR2 route via Battersea Nine Elms would undoubtedly delight Wandsworth Council if Kensington and Chelsea are in “thanks but no thanks” mode. It could also offer a prospect of tying together our favourite disparate, unconnected bits of rail infrastructure in the area. Stratford shows what can happen when you get really good rail connectivity and you have a development area.
@dan
“If you are a public transport user you can use the bus along the King’s Road”
Paying an extra fare for the privilege because we don’t have an integrated transport system
@Walthamstow Writer – RB K & C say on their website that “The Council itself is a strong supporter of Crossrail 2 and has been for many years.” so the residents may have a battle on their hands to convince their own council.
(https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy/consultation-s/crossrail/crossrail-2)
Given that the District (and Circle) will be running out of capacity even after upgrades (trains, signalling) it is worth remembering that a Chelsea Station as proposed would still provide some District and Piccadilly relief that the previous Chelney scheme would have (I would be surprised if the council weren’t aware of this.
Walking distances from proposed Chelsea Station to other stations near by:
South Ken ~800m [Circle, District, Piccadilly]
Gloucester Road ~1100m [Circle, District, Piccadilly]
Sloane Square ~1100m [Circle, District]
Imperial Wharf ~1400m [Overground, Southern]
Earls Court ~1100m [District, Piccadilly]
Fulham Broadway ~1600m [District]
West Brompton ~2000m [District, Overground, Southern]
Reynolds 953 21 July 2015 at 08:46
“I see from the Standard that the locals are revolting regarding the proposed location of the Crossrail 2 station in Chelsea.”
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/felicity-kendal-and-trevor-eve-join-fight-to-stop-crossrail-station-on-kings-road-10401341.html
I imagine that, even now, there is someone at the “Manchester Evening News” working out how for that £1bn would go in electrifying towards Leeds.
Re Alan Grifiths,
The money isn’t that useful if you don’t have the trained people and equipment to do it…
Yesterday’s select committee hearing was quite interesting.
I don’t think a Crossrail station should be forced down the throats of RBKC residents. In fact, given RBKC’s long history of opposition to any public transport or cycling improvements on their patch, I think it should be stripped of its territory north of Holland Park Avenue, with the remainder walled-off with no public transport provision. That would certainly cut down road congestion, ease overcrowding at stations, and not to mention do wonders for journey times on the SSR and Piccadilly Line.
ngh 21 July 2015 at 16:16
“The money isn’t that useful if you don’t have the trained people and equipment to do it…”
Don’t doubt that for a minute
1) thus perish all those who believe all markets are simple and perfect
2) That’s why I think the MEN campaign for Transpennine north electrification to begin before Crossrail 2 is well-judged
@strpahan
“not to mention do wonders for journey times on the SSR and Piccadilly Line.”
It would make interchange between the branches of the District interesting if it ran non-stop between Victoria and West Kensington (pardoxically in the LBH&F) and between Bayswater and Fulham Broadway
@ngh The south end of the Albert Bridge is at the centre of a 1.4km radius hole in the network of tube/rail stations in London – the largest within Zone 1. The Fire station site would reduce the radius to about 1km, and the centre to the middle of Battersea Park
@timbeau: Gloucester Road, Earl’s Court or South Kensington could potentially operate as direct border crossings – much like Friedrichstrasse during the partition of Berlin…
It seems these people prefer to use route 19 bus from Chelsea to Islington, Angel than faster journey Crossrail 2 will offer . I wonder how many of these protesters actually use buses ?
I wonder how much of this opposition comes from same people who opposed the WEZ which was just seeing the benefit of less traffic on streets like Kings Road and Kensington High Street and thus encouraging cycling in what had been traffic clogged streets.
Another post which listed closest stations showed how this area is a desert in provision of rail transport and given the way today’s generation puts more importance to transport links than car use and thus choose East London over West London because of its better public transport .
Oddly as the saying goes ” what you never had you never miss” and yet despite all its funding and delays it now seems that citizens of Edinburgh have taken to trams now they are running !
@Melvyn
“citizens of Edinburgh have taken to trams now they are running ”
I don’t think there was ever any doubt that trams would be nice to have back in Edinburgh. Many things would be nice to have if you could just wave a magic wand and have it installed overnight. It was the protracted birth pains that made them wonder whether it would all be worth it (and if it would ever be complete!). But now it’s there, it would be cutting off your nose to spite your face not to make use of it.
NIMBŶ in Chelsea has a rather different connotation:
Not In My Basement, Yah.
@ timbeau, “citizens of Edinburgh have taken to trams now they are running ” Indeed. I was in Edinburgh for a six nations rugby game earlier this year and got the tram out to Murrayfield. The locals have now learned to get on an east-bound tram then stay on at the St Andrews Square terminus where the tram stops and heads back west to Murrayfield.
As a result, the tram was so full only a few people could get on at the terminus and nobody could get on for the journey out to Murrayfield!
If you live in that part of Chelsea then the likelihood is that you moved there knowing that is was not served by rail and if you did want to be in a rail served community you have the means to move. Where as if you live in Old Kent Road it is likely that you are not there by choice so would welcome infrastructure that will result in investment in that area (until the rent/house prices go through the roof). So let’s leave the good folk of lower King’s Road alone and save a penny or two, as that’s the way they like it.
@straphan – maybe the disused crossings into Pimlico could be brought back into use?
“Passport to Pimlico” anyone?
Someone wants to turn CR2 into TL2 (or are they looking sideways at Reading?). NCE reports that Surrey County Council are launching a study into the feasibility of extending CR2 to Woking and Guildford.
@ Fandroid – yes the SCC aspiration featured on BBC local news this lunchtime. There was the inevitable voxpop with local people and business people who were generally supportive of the lastest mantra “invest more in infrastructure”. One rather well to do chap seemed happy with SWT and didn’t want taxpayers money wasted on CR2. The only sensible thing said was by the BBC reporter who made the point that CR2 trains would have to fight for space on congested tracks once on the surface and that if there was disruption then CR2 wouldn’t be a magic solution. CR2 trains would be as stuck as anyone else’s trains. I fear we are about to have a repeat of the “Crossrail” vs “Superlink” argument from the early 2000s.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4096667.stm if anyone needs a reminder!
@WW. Are yes, Superlink. I downloaded the maps for that. Very pretty they are too. But come to think of it, didn’t they suggest some far-fetched notion of connecting the WCML to Crossrail?
If the reinstatement of a cheap surface station on the Overground at Chelsea was not considered worthwhile, how can an expensive underground one be justified ?
A great pity with CR2 seems to be the complete lack of any attempt to start it immediately after CR1 in order to reuse all the experienced personnel, established supply chain, equipment etc etc.
@ Fandroid
BBC South last night said Woking OR Guildford, not “and”. Why this matters is that they plan (on their map briefly shewn on BBC) a bifurcation somewhere (couldn’t see where, but it looked to be near Wisley Common) rather than a single line route.
@Castlebar
Are they proposing another line between London and Guildford then? I though the idea of CR2 was to maximise the use existing of suburban feeds by providing tunnels under inner London, not building brand new branch lines across leafy Surrey?
“Woking and Guildford” could be read as following the main line to Guildford (which goes through Woking) or as following the main line as far as Woking and the “New Line” (which branches off at Surbiton) to Guildford (or indeed the third route, via Leatherhead).
“Woking or Guildford” could also be read as following one of the routes to Guildford or, as an alternative, only to Woking.
@ timbeau
From the map it would seem so. It makes no sense to me but I’m only reporting what was briefly displayed on BBC South. If you have various arms or branches of a trunk route all over the place, the service is going to be completely diluted on those arms. No point in building special new lines for CR2 for a 2tph service. If it went to Woking, then Guildford, it would perhaps make much more sense, but the map definitely showed a split and thus you would end up with a 50% diluted service coupled with a massive increase in cost. As I say, this was how Surrey C.C’s proposal was reported, and I don’t know if it is anyone else’s idea but theirs
@ Castlebar – short article and video from Surrey CC about the study they’ve commissioned.
http://news.surreycc.gov.uk/2015/07/17/study-looks-at-extending-crossrail-2-further-into-surrey/
Thank you W.W.
The map shewn on BBC South last night is not the one on this video. Also he talks in the video about some sort of “loop” service, but I do not have time now to view this again tonight.
@WW, Castlebar
The key phrases in the video are about stretching Crossrail 2, and cross-border infrastructure. However you choose to interpret those, it sounds like a Reading vs Maidenhead type of debate on where trains end, and a desire for a TfL commitment to offer mainstream Surrey something permanent, not just terminate Crossrail 2 on Surrey’s edges. So Surrey wants to ‘buy in’ to Crossrail 2.
Given that 6-tracking is on the cards between Wimbledon and New Malden even if not Surbiton, something may prove possible, but the extent to which Crossrail 2’s vital intra-London capacity relief function can be compromised by a higher proportion of Surrey passengers will be an interesting judgment call!
All this has also to be taken in the context about TfL potentially desiring a larger say on SWT (or 2017 successor) inner services, where Surrey CC will also have views as the local transport planning authority. Overall, this represents the start of a discussion process, let alone negotiations at this stage, and certainly not a hard and fast set of decisions.
The link provided by @WW is from Surrey County Council’s own news sheet. There it says ‘Woking and Guildford’. As for the BBC, never doubt the capacity of any journo to do apparently minor changes which shift the meaning a lot. The councillor’s statement on the video mentioned Oxshott, so the New Guildford Line looks to be within the study as well as the main line (note that he was standing at Hampton Court station- so the implicit message may be – ‘not here, there!’)
@ JR – just one thing to add to your remarks. This approach by Surrey CC is interesting when you set it in the context of recent discussions with Assembly Members about rail devolution. SCC were represented there and weren’t hostile to TfL’s ambitions but did lay down the gauntlet about working as a partner and in collaboration rather than being “dictated” to. The way the eventual report and recommendations are received by TfL and City Hall will be part of testing how far partnership and collaboration goes.
Clearly we have a long way to go before anything meaningful emerges but there is obviously a tactical issue for TfL if it concedes a cross Surrey borders link that inevitable pressure to serve Stansted and elsewhere will emerge. There will also be potential political conflict about serving Surrey if the much requested by London AMs “eastern branch” doesn’t materialise. Isn’t politics great?
Given where the branch lines end, isn’t ” a cross Surrey borders link ” inevitable?
It wouldn’t be the first time the Press have got it wrong – remember the mad maps when the “T-Cup” was first mooted?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3140/2942754141_ef9eb1baba_o.jpg
The councillor clearly says “Woking via Walton and Weybridge” (which is the SWML) and “Guildford via Oxshott and Horsley” (the “New Line” – built 1885).
Whether the good folk of Surrey actually want to exchange their non-stop run from Surbiton to Waterloo for a service that calls at Wimbledon, Tooting, Clapham Junction, and Chelsea before getting to central London is an interesting question. I would have thought they would prefer to get the locals from Chessington and Twickenham out of their way instead.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b062hv8h/south-today-21072015
Starts at 2:30. The map shows the Guildford/Woking routes diverging at Surbiton, which supports the conclusion I drew earlier
@WW
I agree with those thoughts of yours!
This is the start of bartering in a ‘south western’ rather than eastern political market, ultimately. And there will be the eastern one to handle as well…
London’s neighbouring counties may be valued as CR2 supporters, to ensure CR2 succeeds in securing funding despite any anti-London spend arguments from further distances.
@ JR – and having some Home Counties support will do TfL / CR2 no harm given the political complexion is pretty much Blue matching that currently in charge in Whitehall.
The key gain for Surrey (outside M25) was always going to be more capacity on the SWML with 5+ tracking Surbiton to Waterloo creating more space for fast and semi fast services. But a lot of what is need to maximise the gain from that isn’t in scope for CR2 (for example grade seperation at Woking) or being explcitily publicly defined.
The interesting bit for me on the SCC website is this:
Which is probably a bit closer to reality in terms of what they will probably actually get. (more semi-fasts to Waterloo)
@castlebar
“Also he talks in the video about some sort of “loop” service”
I don’t think so – are you mishearing “…….a ROUTE to Guildford via Oxshott…..”
Sorry, the BBC linkie seems to have expired after only 24 hours
WW: “I don’t think you can reasonably ignore 2,500 residents…”
Stations aren’t always built for the residents of the local area. None of the London termini are there for the benefit of the people who live locally to them, nor are the majority of stations in zone 1 (even though people do actually live near them they aren’t in the majority of pax).
Creating services to take people to hospitals, etc. is a ‘good thing’, imho.
@ Alison W – understand your point but I think we’ve moved on from the 1880s or early 1900s when mass demolition was accepted with little argument in the name of transport development. People in those areas may well have been seriously disadvantaged but had no real voice. We have moved on somewhat since those days and residents do have a voice. Given Chelsea has seemingly survived without a tube station for eons does it really need Crossrail 2? Looking at usage data over the years for bus routes in the area then there is no great surging of demand in recent years, more a modest decline. That’s aggregate usage and I don’t have stop level data so treat my comment with due caution. As you say there are hospitals in the area but again the question comes back to is there sufficient transport demand to warrant a spend of several hundred million for a CR2 station? I’d be interested to see the numbers / logic that support the provision of a Chelsea station.
The Network Rail Wessex Rail Study on capacity expansion was published recently and it reveals some assumptions abut future service levels.
[QUOTE]5.3.7 Network Rail is currently working closely with Transport for
London (TfL) on early development proposals for Crossrail 2.
This would be a new rail link connecting South West London and North East London, previously known as the Chelsea / Hackney Line. The “Regional Option” for Crossrail 2 that this study puts forward as a choice for funders, connects into the national rail network in the Wimbledon and Tottenham Hale areas, providing onward suburban
services to Surrey and Hertfordshire.
The project is at an early stage of development and the final route alignment and proposed timetable are still being developed.
5.3.8 Crossrail 2 has been assessed as a choice for funders in this Route Study as it will support the achievement of both Main Slow Line and Main Fast Line capacity. This means that conditional outputs for both Main Suburban and Main Line service levels can be addressed through the implementation of this scheme.
The impact of Crossrail 2 on Main Line services is more fully addressed in Section 5.4. As well as capacity conditional outputs, Crossrail 2 will also meet connectivity conditional outputs for locations on the Main Suburban network, see Section 5.5.
5.3.9 The Crossrail 2 infrastructure proposals to support the new cross-London service include a tunnel portal in the Wimbledon area connecting to the central tunnel section and a six-track layout between New Malden and Wimbledon that would require
significant works at Raynes Park.
5.3.10 The proposal has been assessed and would allow for the following re-ordering of services:
• The proposed six-track formation between New Malden and Wimbledon would allow most Crossrail 2 services to be segregated from Main Suburban services between these points.
• Inwards of Wimbledon a large proportion of existing Slow Line services would become Crossrail 2 services and therefore be routed into the central tunnel section at Wimbledon. This would release capacity on the Slow Lines inwards of Wimbledon and
platform capacity at London Waterloo
• The capacity released on the Slow Line and at London Waterloo
can then be used by the six to seven trains per hour which currently join the Fast Line inwards of Surbiton. If these were to remain as 10-car outer suburban services then no platform works would be required but if they were to be 12-car services then
platform extension works may be required.
5.3.11 The current Crossrail 2 timetable proposals provide a minimum four trains per hour during peak hours at all stations beyond Wimbledon that Crossrail 2 serves and interchange opportunities at both Wimbledon and Clapham Junction.
5.3.12 In terms of the number of suburban services it is currently envisaged that there would be 8 residual London Waterloo services, 10 Crossrail 2 services starting at Wimbledon (and straight into the tunnel) and 20 Crossrail 2 services from locations on the Main Suburban network.
5.3.13 It is currently proposed that Crossrail 2 would operate with 10-car rolling stock of standard 20 metre car length. It is likely that the core tunnelled section would be constructed with passive provision to lengthen trains to operate with 12-car stock when
appropriate.
5.3.14 Existing journey times to key destinations could be significantly improved by Crossrail 2 services. For example, journey times from Kingston to Tottenham Court Road could potentially be reduced from the current 45 minute journey by up to 15 minutes.[/QUOTE]
Interesting – and for the first time we see a potential service pattern
“In terms of the number of suburban services it is currently
envisaged that there would be 8 residual London Waterloo services,
10 Crossrail 2 services starting at Wimbledon (and straight into the
tunnel) and 20 Crossrail 2 services from locations on the Main
Suburban network.” As it says elsewhere that all CR2 branches will have at least 4tph that limits the number of potential branches to five.
I noticed in the Standard yesterday some Surrey councillor wanted CR2 to come further out – but I’m not sure his constituents would thank him for replacing the non-stop dash from Surbiton to Waterloo by an all-stations-via-Tooting crawl.
Re Rational Plan,
Good spot I had forgotten it was out this week.
Re Timbeau,
Agreed – I don’t think that councillor has understood that CR2 is an all stops service, he presumably thinks that there would be the equivalent of something similar to the current semi-fasts so that CR2 didn’t stop between Surbiton and Victoria…
The Surrey CC has been interested in CR2 for few months and I suspect they will might see something via Epsom
Some new items and some old:
30 tph from the start is interesting.
10tph terminating and reversing at Wimbledon presumably means:
4 CR2 platforms (2 islands?)
10tph = Lots of expected passengers transferring to/from CR2 @ Wimbledon (and possibly also every 3rd train through the core is quieter to help clear the passengers in the peak.) Lots of transferring passengers possibly means more services (fast and semi fast) stopping at Wimbledon to encourage them to change there rather than Clapham Jn. If so this means BIG works at Wimbledon as that points to up 12 NR platforms (4 fast, 2 Slow, 2 Thameslink, 4CR2) and well as Tramlink and District.
4tph & 5 branches and 8 residual stoppers* isn’t new but this is just another confirmation.
*I believe the original comments on the subject of 8tph residual were along the line of don’t live in Earlsfield – the solution to which is 12 car… (Just outside a potential Mayor’s constituency…)
8tph Residual stoppers:
Presumably the 2tph might be the Dorking – Epsom – Wimbledon with some skip stops (The 2tph Guildford all stops via Leatherhead & Epsom are ideal for transfer to CR2 as it is all stops).
Chessington Branch possibly 0tph residual if it has 4tph CR2.
Guildford via Oxshott – currently a mix of slows (non stop) and fast line running between Surbiton and Wimbledon and currently 3tph in peak hour so plenty of residual and new Waterloo services on the slows.
Which leaves another 4tph – possibly 2tph Kingston (Loop) and 2 other destinations tph?
12 platforms for Network Rail points to a major rebuild that makes Reading station’s remodelling look like minor cosmetic surgery.
I look forward to the construction photos with eager anticipation.
ngh has picked up a key point – 30 tph potentially from the start of Crossrail 2 services, not 24 tph as with Crossrail 1. This has implications at the other end of Crossrail 2 as well, and might fuel some boroughs’ desire for a third branch to East London. It might also imply that Crossrail 1’s 24 tph could have a shortish life before 30 tph came along there. Goodness knows where that leaves the effective capacities on the GW relief and GE slow lines for other trains (especially the GW reliefs).
Milton Clevedon,
I rather wonder if the Crossrail 2 team are hoping that Crossrail 1 will run a more intensive service before too long just so that they are confident it can be done – and more to the point – they can give a strong indication that it is feasible.
The impression I am getting is that Crossrail 2 will be a much bigger beast than Crossrail 1. Crossrail 1 basically plugs in to a fairly obvious gap between east and west and joins up some lines leaving opportunities for enhancement using train paths vacated by Crossrail 1 (more into Liverpool St than Paddington).
Crossrail 2 seems to be part of a major restructuring of the service into Waterloo which involves considerable infrastructure enhancements well beyond the London boundary. It will also indirectly affect rail passengers all over South West England. Particularly noticeable is the proposal for six tracks from Wimbledon to New Malden with two tracks “almost” dedicated to Crossrail 2.
It is a pity we don’t have a corresponding up-to-date Route Study for the lines coming out of the northern Crossrail 2 portals so that we can see the complete picture.
I had a quick read 30min skim read of the report after writing the comment above.
1. Reads like a wish list made in haste that will be revisited when the items at the top have been done or started (Very few BCRs calculated only 4 in total)
2. NR seem desperate to avoid lengthening suburban platforms from 10 car to 12 car so the simplest way to do this is to suggest CR2 runs at 30tph rather than 24tph and not have more than 20-tph on NR turf… i.e. TfL’s problem
3. The housing growth figure in each of Surrey councils easily puts Bromley to shame (see Bakerloo Extension discussions).
4. The franchise holder need to invest in more rolling stock (and 3+2 seating in 444s). There is plenty of franchise holder problem not ours guv’ in the report.
5. Strong big ticket priority list:
CP6
Woking flyover (BCR 4.36)
Basingstoke flyover
Waterloo – Clapham Jn part 2
AC electrification Basingrad – Salisbury & Basingrad – Southampton (both routes)
Clapham Jn P0 rebuild
CP7 & beyond
CR2
Clapham Jn P7&8 rebuild (aligns with CR2 changes)
Heathrow Southern Access
AC electrification North Downs
6. Reading between the lines going from 10 suburban to 12car and ETCS would give a massive boost to pull out of hat at some point in the future (not solutions themselves).
Re PoP,
“It is a pity we don’t have a corresponding up-to-date Route Study for the lines coming out of the northern Crossrail 2 portals so that we can see the complete picture.”
The final Anglia one should be out in few weeks…
rational Plan/ngh
10tph reversing @ ( near to ) Wimbledon? That’s utterly Upney & extremely wasteful in operating terms – even worse than the Padders reversals in CR1 ( Which won’t last -as admitted by a Crossrail offical to our letcture a couple of weeks back … )
MC
It might also imply that Crossrail 1’s 24 tph could have a shortish life before 30 tph came along there…
They will be the Trings’ I suppose, plus the extras going through to Ebbsfleet … ( ? ! )
PoP
Won’t just be a major restructuring of the Waterloo services, if it takes all the Hertford Easts & Stortford stoppers, will it?
ngh
AC electrification Basingrad – Salisbury & Basingrad – Southampton (both routes)
Forget it.
I suspect that part of Sir Peter H’s recommendations for NR will be: “Stick with two systems & dual-voltage” – as it’s easier & saves £Humungous ( possible exception – voltage changeover at Basingrad for Salisbury & Reading) – i.e. all new electrification is 25kV AC
And lastly, from yesterday’s Evening Standard
Osborne hints very strongly that he is going to approve CR2.
This guvmint has until 2020 … CR2 bill passed by 2018, with construction starting almost immediately – before the next election?
A distinct possibility.
Re Greg,
Reading – Basingrad will soon be 25kv and Reading – Southampton (both routes) is going to need to be to deal with the volume of containers from Southampton – Midlands and North. The 3rd rail can’t supply the juice for a potential 80+tpd 775m container trains. The alternative is to widen the A34 and A43 From Southampton via Reading & Oxford to Northampton by a lane, 25KV OHLE is therefore very cheap!!!
The North Downs is heading for 25KV OHLE as well (10mins time saving Guildford – Redhill per stopping train).
The revised electrification RUS will be out soonish.
The performance of the 159s on the SWML will become an issue in CP7.
For general interest (or not)
The reference to Olympicopolis by George Osbourne in the Evening Standard article linked to by Greg refers to the idea of a cultural area of museums around the Olympic Park and is a reference to Albertopolis. This was expanded on in a Times article last month which I linked to in the latest DLR article but unfortunately needs a subscription. However a search of the term reveals various other references e.g. this one from the Evening Standard a couple of years ago.
Wimbledon
The Final NR Sussex study wants 2 “Thameslink” platforms at Wimbledon
Re Greg 20tph West of Wimbledon is probably near the limit of what could be done with integrating 5 branches with any of the proposed track layouts and retaining as many Waterloo services as possible. You also need some empty space on the trains through the tunnelled section (so max wait in the worst case 6minutes i.e. every 3rd train).
Greg,
If your read the Route Study in full you will realise that, as with Paddington on Crossrail 1, there will be absolutely nowhere that those 10tph turnback trains at Wimbledon can go (well not true -we could send them down the Wimbledon Loop, ha ha). Given the demand on the District Line from Wimbledon, those 10tph could be invaluable in at least enabling District line trains to leave Wimbledon nearly empty. They many even cause some District line users from Wimbledon Park and Southfields to make their journey via Wimbledon. This would solve one of the major problems of a future SSR timetable which is how to serve Wimbledon adequately whilst trying to keep a regular fixed timetable as much as possible. Also the Wimbledon starters would help reassure people considering changing at Clapham Junction to CR2 that it is worth doing so because they will, at least, be able to board one of the first three trains that arrives.
ngh:
Why is North Downs heading for 25KV OHLE when about 50 per cent of the route, including all junctions and major stations, are 3rd rail already?
Agree about 159s on the SWML though
@Peter R/ngh
North Downs at 25kV does seem an odd idea for the reasons you say. The route study suggests there would be some marginal time savings using ac instead of dc, but the cost of signal immunisation on ac/dc territory, the potential operating difficulties – if either electric system falls over, some of the trains will be stuck and they will hold up the others – and the initial cost of bridge /tunnel enlargement must make this more expensive. Of the 52 mile route, the first seven miles to Wokingham, the last eight miles from Reigate, and seven miles in the middle from Ash to Shalford Junction are already electrified on dc. This leaves 12 miles between Wokingham and Ash, and 17 miles from Shalford Junction to Reigate.
Which is cheaper, electrifying 52 miles on ac, (including the complex layouts at Guildford, Redhill and Gatwick) or electrifying 30 miles on dc? The line was built by the South Eastern Railway, – not noted for generous clearances. Enlarging the tunnels south of Guildford would require a long term closure of the Portsmouth Direct line – to no obvious benefit of its vociferous army of commuters (Put-upon of Petersfield, Harrassed of Haslemere and their ilk)
To the argument that it should be 25kV because the line is operated by GW who have no dc units, it is only necessary to point out that the line is only operated from Reading depot in the first place because the Southern had no suitable diesel units once the “Tadpoles” were withdrawn (admittedly the term “suitable” in relation to the tadpoles is arguable!) If the line were electrified at dc, the line would be a good fit with SWT, with which it shares much track and several stations.
@pop
“there will be absolutely nowhere that those 10tph turnback trains at Wimbledon can go (well not true -we could send them down the Wimbledon Loop, ha ha).”
Why is that such a silly idea?
– it frees up a platform at Wimbledon – two if you can oust Tramlink
– it reduces the number of people interchanging at Wimbledon (most passengers off the St Helier line change to SWT or the District)
– it allows 4tph Thameslink to Sutton via Mitcham Junction
– CR2 construction costs could be reduced by moving the tunnel portal to east of Haydons Road.
I appreciate that the eggs to be cracked to make this particular omelette are:
1. terminal arrangements at Sutton
2. how to provide a service to Tooting station (half a mile from Tooting Bdy).
3. journeys from Wimbledon to Streatham and beyond, although this would still be possible via Sutton or Mitcham Junction.
@timbeau
You might (just might) see North Downs AC as a prelude to a London-avoiding freight route from the Chunnel, if there’s any business left after the events at Calais. I know it’s constantly been thought of and rejected, but that’s if all the cost has to be allocated to a freight scheme, rather then being shared.
@ngh/PoP
“It is a pity we don’t have a corresponding up-to-date Route Study for the lines coming out of the northern Crossrail 2 portals so that we can see the complete picture.”
Well the recent launch meeting of the West Anglia Task Force on 8th September makes it clear that there is a strong stakeholder desire to get 4-tracking along the Lee Valley before Crossrail, and there is some ministerial interest as well, see the attached link to a supporting statement from Boris: http://www.livewirecampaign.co.uk/t/index.cfm?fuseaction=t.c&bi=96938&ai=2992&ii=25933&ui=9893078&uk=LWCPN%2DUR%2D348460905&r=57337329&h=0&u=http%3A%2F%2Flscc%2Eco%2Fboris%2Dbacks%2Dwest%2Danglia%2Dtaskforce%2F
I believe we are expecting a statement from the Chancellor about Crossrail 2, in his 25th November Comprehensive Spending Review, while what the revised and final Anglia Route Study says in a few weeks time may also be important. The draft ARS was widely castigated as being too limited in vision for the growth expectations in the Lee Valley and the wider London Stansted Cambridge Corridor.
Re Timbeau and Peter R,
Not entirely sure but all new big schemes look like being 25kv OHLE
(F)GW will have dual voltage 387s (387/3?) operating on batteries for the electrified sections on the North Downs in few years. Hence gradual electrification is a possibility and OHLE for battery recharging while under way makes more sense in the interim till everything is in place.
As the traffic levels are relatively low the AC/DC change overs could be comparatively cheap and suitable grid supply points for OHLE won’t be a problem.
OHLE is the better option for freight.
timbeau,
I was primarily thinking that the people of the loop have a bit of a reputation for not liking to see anything changed.
As I envisaged it, you would have to swap terminating two Crossrail trains per hour for through trains and conversely terminating two Wimbledon loop trains at Wimbledon so therefore nothing positive really achieved and on the negative side running unnecessarily long trains to Sutton via a little used route and adding yet further to the complexity of Crossrail 2 operations. That is simplistic because, as we both know, it is a lot more complicated than that. All this presumes loop trains and extended CR2 trains terminate at Sutton but I don’t think there is capacity to do that there.
@ngh: Flyover at Redhill for the freights too?
@ngh
The Tonbridge – Redhill section was electrified (on dc) primarily to allow freight trains from the Tunnel to reach the West London Line avoiding the (original) Eurostar route via Sevenoaks, and the class 92s built specifically to operate them.
If dc isn’t up the job of powering heavy freight now, what has changed since the early 1990s?
@PoP
Would it be too complicated to have CR2 trains that would otherwise terminate at Wimbledon run round the loop, and back into London by Thameslink? Solves the “terminating at Sutton” problem, ensures the “People of the Loop” keep a service to Farringdon (not to mention Kings Cross, both ways round!)
How about Welwyn – Alexandra Palace – Seven SistersCR – Kings CrossCR – Victoria – Tooting Bdy – Wimbledon – Sutton – Tulse Hill – Blackfrairs – St PancrasTL – Ally Pally – Welwyn?
As I mentioned, Haydons Road would be a Crossrail 2 station (but lose its service to Tulse Hill and Blackfriars). Tooting is a harder nut to crack.
Re Southern Heights,
All VERY quiet on that front…
The pressure to do that would not come from within the Sussex or Wessex NR area so would likely be proposed elsewhere (main benefits to southern WCML & MML, WLL, NLL. Hence some long term TfL interest for a next step when 8car LO NLL and WLL have been done.
JR points out the cost for freight alone is prohibitive but if some of the assets are already there for other reasons – the cost drops. Once GWML & Reading – Bedford via Oxford is electrified (EWR) that doesn’t leave too much left. At which point in time the Redhill – Tonbridge section will have needed re-signalling (doesn’t like class92 freight locos a the moment) so a good opportunity…
Re Timbeau,
Yes – too complicated. The Wimbledon loop is already giving Thameslink long term nightmares.
The Wimbledon via Haydons services are needed as they have more space on them when they reach Streatham, Tulse Hill and Herne Hill, this will be a bigger issue in the future. NR are also proposing extra 2tph all day Wimbledon – London Bridge (via Haydons Rd) to provide capacity relief due to the knock on effects caused by the previous loop decision.
To me extending (some of) the 10tph Wimbledon to Sutton would make sense as a high frequency service might encourage lots of people not to railhead to the Northern Line @ Morden, but that number of trains just doesn’t work at Sutton in reality.
The CR2 proposals appear to need very few modifications on any of the actual branches themselves just massive works on the SWML – doing anything with the 10tph to Wimbledon – Sutton would need massive works at Sutton (an underground station?) so would fall into a completely different category to the other branches.
Freight:
They now want to run longer trains up-to 775m too rather than just 375m to make better use of paths overall.
Platform space at Wimbledon is at a premium, and having platform 9 serving just four trains an hour (two each way) is already rather wasteful. building work will be necessary at Wimbledon anyway for CR2.
Even if only four of the 10tph proposed to terminate at Wimbledon are sent to Sutton (and on to, say, West Croydon if termination at Sutton is not possible) that still frees up a platform at Wimbledon.
(Despite the expansion work going on at the moment, I can’t see Tramlink being able to stay in the station if CR2 comes along).
As for the capacity-busting capabilities of the Haydons Road services (which, incidentally, suggest that the demand for Wimbledon to City via Tulse Hill is not as great as some have claimed!), diverting them via Mitcham Junction would surely have the same effect (to avoid terminal problems at Sutton, they can go on to Cheam to terminate).
timbeau,
Platform space at Wimbledon is at a premium
Yes, but as I keep saying, there is no point in looking at how things are now. You have to consider how it will be in the future. As I understand it, Wimbledon station will change massively as a result of Crossrail 2. For starters, it is my understanding that the huge office block above the tracks will be demolished. This means that the Crossrail 2 planners have a lot more freedom than you might think to add platforms. They also have the option of two or four underground platforms for Crossrail 2.
I also understand that the two tram platforms will be removed and replaced with three just south of the existing ones – which raises all sorts of other issues and leads to all sorts of further questions.
ngh knows far more about this than me so maybe he can enlighten.
timbeau,
If dc isn’t up the job of powering heavy freight now, what has changed since the early 1990s?
Just for the avoidance of doubt in case ngh’s reply wasn’t clear. The dc wasn’t up to the job of powering heavy freight in the 1990s. Since the freight went via the West London Line it was already crippled by, amongst other things, the dc power supply so the trains had to be shorter as ngh says. It is notable that on the rare occasions I see a long freight train going through Purley it is always hauled by a class 66 despite dc electrification.
I may be wrong but I thought the idea was ac all the way to the tunnel so that 775m freight trains could be run through the tunnel to Reading and beyond. So dc replaced with ac from Tonbridge to Ashford and loads of dual voltage passenger trains.
ngh @ 11:25
Not entirely sure but all new big schemes look like being 25kv OHLE
Looks to me like an opportunity for analysis paralysis …
(F)GW will have dual voltage 387s (387/3?) …
According to this press release they will have a total of 29 4-car Class 387 units for Thames Valley services. My understanding is that these 110mph capable units are needed to run on the main line with the 125mph longer distance services between Paddingdon and Didcot (and possibly Swindon).
@Edgepedia
It is my understanding that the 3rd-rail equipment will be removed from the 387/1s when they are transferred from TSGN to FGW, although it could be reinstated of course.
@poP”The dc wasn’t up to the job of powering heavy freight in the 1990s……….. so the trains had to be shorter as ngh says. ”
So the dc electrification from Tonbridge to Redhill was intended for shorter freight trains than are now envisaged, because the rest of the dc network couldn’t cope anyway?
Incidentally, I’m sure the reason 66s are more common on heavy freight through Purley has as much to do with the unreliability of the only dc-capable locos (class 92) as the capabilities of the traction supply. A problem Serco have discovered – hence my recent journey on the Caledonian sleeper to Carstairs behind a 50-year class 86, with the journey to Edinburgh completed behind an even older class 47.
Hopefully the (also dc-capable!) class 73 conversions, when they arrive, will be more successful on the diesel-operated Highland legs.
Re Edgepedia,
The 29x 387/1s are to be cascaded from Thameslink for Thames Valley however there will also be 8 more 387/3s for FGW (to be built after the GatEx 387/2s) which will have the battery power option that was trialled on a 379 in East Anglia last year.
Re PoP & Timbeau
Wimbledon,
NR want 2 Thameslink Platforms…
The surface safeguarding limit (i.e. of possible demolition / modification includes:
See page 6&7 of this pdf:
http://1267lm2nzpvy44li8s48uorode.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Volume-1-Wimbledon-Chelsea-March-2015.pdf
– All the existing station including district line
– a slice of Centre Court shopping centre enough for another platform island, and the car park ramp and Queens Road Church (modern office style building)
– Everything on the slab /road bridge over the track including the shops to the west (Next, WHSmith) and Wimbledon Bridge House.
– Orinoco lane (aka the taxi rank road to the north of the district line)
– the shops between Orinocco Lane and Alexandra Road (i.e. HSBC etc)
– all commercial property south of Alexandra Road (Magistrates Court, Waitrose and the former Diy shop…)
That is a lot of space.
Re Timbeau,
Redhill – Tonbridge I was told the return current from the 92s was too large and didn’t agree with the impedance bonds. (This may not have been helped by long signal sections on the route to reduce costs???).
Timbeau, re Tonbridge-Redhill electrification
It was specified for use by freight plus a max half hourly passenger service of 4 cars.
Not 6 trains an hour of up to 12 cars, which is what you see south of Basingstoke in the peak.
@Sad Fat Dad
Not sure I see the relevance of traffic density on the Basingstoke-Southampton corridor to whether dc electrification would be suitable to the North Downs line.
The Reading – Redhill route has service levels much closer to what you see on Tonbridge-Redhill, which works quite happily on dc.
Fair point – I read your question about DC capability now and then in the context of The AC-DC conversion of Basingstoke – Soton.
Anyway, the case for electrification of the North Downs is demolished by battery trains.
@ngh:
That space will include site access and space to put the usual stack of portable offices, generators and other kit needed on a construction project of this magnitude. It’s not a given that the final station will be that big.
The scale of the work needed for Crossrail 2 at Wimbledon won’t be that far off the rebuilding of London Bridge or Blackfriars in many respects. Given that SWML services will also need to be kept running throughout the work, it’ll also need to be phased very carefully.
@Sad Fat Dad:
No locomotive that can haul the desired long freight trains using battery power exists, nor is one likely to do so: diesel is a more efficient option, hence the Class 66 locomotives used today. Hybrid battery trains are only viable for short sections, and even then, only for passenger trains.
In any case, all forms of electrification need to be renewed periodically. Given that AC electrification offers demonstrably more advantages over 3rd-rail DC, it makes sense to replace the latter with the former when the old DC kit is life-expired. I don’t think Network Rail are suggesting replacing DC 3rd rail infrastructure before it has paid for itself.
I thought Tonbridge to Redhill was electrofied for Eurostar as a diversionary route?
@ngh: what do you mean the return current is too much? Current Out = Current In!
So I can only assume that the ’92’s are too powerful?
This page from 2002 gives some information about the Class 92:
http://www.semgonline.com/electric/class92_1.html
Note the comment “they no longer meet European safety standards”.
Return current goes through the running rails in 3rd rail (and ohle, but the currents are 33 times smaller), and it is there that the problem arose
Choosing an electrification system on the basis of freight seems a bit foolish given that the freight operators prefer to run diesels anyway. Tonbridge to Redhill electrification was just another in a long line of freight infrastructure white elephants (the Bletchley flyover, numerous marshalling yards, flyovers that take coal trains over main lines finished just in time for coal haulage demand to collapse, the curve at Ipswich that one freight operator doesn’t use because they prefer to change over crews while reversing…). The Electric Spine has “future white elephant” written all over it.
Anyway, back onto Crossrail 2, it is interesting to hear PoP and ngh’s references to a major rebuild at Wimbledon. It strikes me that one of the lessons of Crossrail 1 is that you shouldn’t be afraid to demolish large commercial buildings as part of these schemes (as at Tottenham Court Road and Farringdon), because knocking down commercial buildings and replacing them with larger and newer ones is a pretty lucrative business in London.
Re Anomnibus,
“That space will include site access and space to put the usual stack of portable offices, generators and other kit needed on a construction project of this magnitude. It’s not a given that the final station will be that big. The scale of the work needed for Crossrail 2 at Wimbledon won’t be that far off the rebuilding of London Bridge or Blackfriars in many respects. Given that SWML services will also need to be kept running throughout the work, it’ll also need to be phased very carefully.”
There are another couple of hectares available I didn’t mention available for that and there is also a reasonable amount of office space that always seems available to rent just off site.
Both London Bridge and Blackfriars are managing / have managed to built to the extent of their site in a carefully phased way and I think NR see Wimbledon in a very similar way.
Ian J
The Electric Spine has “future white elephant” written all over it.
Not necessarily.
There is also the “network effect” … where, once a sufficient proportion of (freight in this case) is electrified, it makes sense to use that system
See DB for an example.
Also, freight is ridiculosuly-under=supported in terms of rail spend – a result of the locust years since 1975 (ish)
Felixtowe is single-track & diesel-hauled, “Thames Gateway” is facing the “wrong way” at the London end ( which is why this is relevant) etc, ad nauseam. [ Like getting the electric freights (or even diesel-hauled ones) out of London, entirely. ]
ngh
There’s also the mostly-disused ex-yard to the SW of Wimbledon station, which, at present only seems to have the “B&Q building”, a.k.a. Wimbledon “panel”/IECC standing in it – you could use a lot of that space in the circumstances
Re Greg,
Indeed, I was including that in the “There are another couple of hectares available…” comment. It’s never going to be station but plenty of spare area available for construction purposes. There are presumably going to have to be sidings for the TBM spoil trains too.
@Ian J
“Choosing an electrification system on the basis of freight seems a bit foolish given that the freight operators prefer to run diesels anyway.”
Inevitable given the incompatibility of overhead electrification with the loading of such things as hopper wagons or container trains. The Southern had a sort of answer to a similar problem (third rail in marshalling yards) with its electro-diesels, but if you’re going to carry the weight penalty of a diesel engine around anyway you might as well use it.
Also flexibility,in the sense that a diesel locomotive is a “go anywhere” vehicle…to the ends of even the obscurest siding….whereas electric locomotives are,by definition limited.
Freight operators set great store by flexibility.
Compare the class 68 and 88 designs from Vossloh.
Class 68: diesel 3,800hp
Class 88: diesel 950hp, electric 5,400hp
Operators will only favour the electrodiesel if it is either cheaper to buy (unlikely as it is more complicated, although the smaller engine may simplify things), or cheaper to operate – and that depends on how much diesel fuel costs, how much NR charge for using their electrons, and any weighting of access costs by axle weight – Wikipedia shows the Class 88 as thirty tonnes heavier than the 68, which seems odd!
Interestingly enough, that yard to the SW of Wimbledon Station contains a listed building in the form or a First World War seaplane shed from Newhaven.
“The seaplane shed now at Wimbledon Depot was sold c 1921 at an RAF disposals committee auction, dismantled, and acquired by London & South Western Railway (from 1923 Southern Railways), coinciding with the expansion and electrification of its suburban lines in the 1920s. The Wimbledon depot was set up as part of the scheme. The seaplane shed, including its annexe, was re-erected at Wimbledon Depot in the early 1920s for use as a civil engineering and signal telegraph stores building. It is now owned by Network Rail and leased as storage to a film production company. “
Clearly, by its very nature, dismantling it and re-erecting it elsewhere is not an insurmountable task, but not as cheap or straightforward as simply taking a wrecking ball to it.
@ ngh 16 September 2015 at 23:19 … “NR seem desperate to avoid lengthening suburban platforms from 10 car to 12 car so the simplest way to do this is to suggest CR2 runs at 30tph rather than 24tph and not have more than 20-tph on NR turf… i.e. TfL’s problem”
London Travelwatch paper on Waterloo Stn for Board Meeting 22 September 2015 “Plans to extend all platforms to 12-car length were dropped as this would have resulted in the demolition of most of the historic Lower Marsh area, as well as prohibitive cost.”
@ Taz
Did that decision happen recently?
No wonder the Chancellor is keen on CR2 if it is the only way to relieve the Waterloo suburban services.
What happened to the proposal to open up the undercroft at Waterloo, as was done at St. Pancras (and is currently being done to London Bridge)? I thought the point of that was to extend the platforms into the existing concourse area to avoid having to extend them even more expensively at the other end.
Also, an opened-out concourse offers the opportunity to eliminate the common terminus station design flaw that sees everyone bunched up at the buffers end of the platforms prior to boarding. Opening up the undercroft would allow multiple entrances and exits to the platforms and down to the Tube lines below.
I distinctly remember hearing that such an option was being considered, but I never did hear why it never happened. (I assume money had a lot to do with it.)
I had not heard of any proposals to extend the suburban platforms to 12 cars. From platform 7 upwards they can take twelve anyway, but getting platforms 1 to 4 to ten-car would be a start – progress on that is best described as glacial.
There was a suggestion that the platforms could be extended at the other end, across the concourse, with access from the mezzanines above and below, which would need to be expanded.
Anomnibus,
My understanding is South West Trains was all set to go ahead with this on the presumption they would get their franchise extended – which is what they were expecting. This didn’t happen. I am presuming it will be written into a future franchise agreement but it is a bit daft. It should be Network Rail doing this and then the franchise is worth more to the franchisee who would take this into account when bidding.
What I suspect will happen is that it will become a franchise condition. This is the wrong way to do things but maybe, with Network Rail the way they are, it means it gets done quicker and without the cost so obviously on the governments books.
From what I have seen it is a very worthwhile scheme and is actually needed to cope with the flow of people entering Waterloo for the sole purpose of using the Underground. Apart from anything, else having to maintain an escalator for people walking in off the street climbing stairs and then descending by escalator doesn’t make much economic sense and even less so if additional escalators are needed.
Sadly we don’t have to look far to see obvious good schemes that take years longer than they should to get implemented.
timbeau,
Summer 2017 if I recall correctly? And I think it was you that pointed out there was not much point in doing it until you had the additional rolling stock.
Extending into the concourse at Waterloo was a serious proposal for the long SWT franchise in the mid 2000s, (which would have been a 10+10 deal like Chiltern ended up with) but I don’t think it has been part of anyone’s serious plans since the then SRA binned the whole concept of TOC sponsored infrastructure work. It isn’t mentioned in any of the recent RUSs etc.
There was a mention of 12 car inner suburban platforms on the main line side later which came with a proposal to close P1 and 2 permanently, to make space at the country end of the station, so in the throat, but the latest ideas require that all 25 platforms remain in use.
@PoP
Actually, it’s the other way round – we have the 456s (now at last in service), and platforms extended at all stations EXCEPT Waterloo – the one station used by all services. Until the work at Waterloo is done, no ten-car trains can operate on the suburban side*, and the platform extensions on all the branches are just a maintenance overhead.
*One or two operate from platform 5, but they are an operator’s nightmare because if anything goes out of sync and the platform isn’t available when a 10-car arrives, everything on the up slow gets delayed until it becomes free.
@Timbeau, PoP
I’m looking at the Network Rail CP5 Enhancements Plan, June 2015 version. The key project in question is identified as WX001. This shows that the full re-opening of Waterloo International is a precursor of lengthening of platforms 1-4 and that the re-opening was due to start on site in 01/2015, infrastructure ready for use 05/2017. This suggests that the platform extension was not planned to be ready before 2018/9.
The link below, dated 03/2015, publicises the contract let by the NR/SW Trains Alliance to develop the proposals for both tasks, with expected completion for 2019.
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/passenger/single-view/view/consortium-to-plan-30-capacity-increase-at-london-waterloo.html
However, the overall project ‘Single option selection’ (GRIP3), presumably part of this contract, was due to be complete by 06/2015, which deadline has been missed. The regulated output deadline for this is 09/2015. The comments further up suggest that this overall project development is facing some serious feasibility problems. Yet the feasibility stage GRIP2 was complete in 06/2014. So the alarm bells should have been ringing then or at least when the contract was let. Perhaps they were – there is little easily accessible information on the NR website.
@Answer = 42
Glacial progress, as I said.
WIT closed in 2007.
Something did happen by 01/2015: but progress so far has been limit to building steps bridging over the old street-level Eurostar concourse to allow direct access from the main concourse to platforms 20 to 24. (Platform 20 could in any case already be reached via platform 19). But use of platforms 20-24 is still severely constrained by the single-track access from International Junction, and only platform 20 sees any use at all, and then only as a congestion-buster to get one more train into the station when things have gone wrong elsewhere and all platforms are occupied. Remodelling of International Junction to allow parallel moves will be necessary before sufficient capacity can be created to allow everything to be moved over to let Platforms 1 to 4 be closed for rebuilding.
The fact that as recently as March this year a contract was let “to develop the proposals” does not inspire confidence that anything is at all close to “shovel-ready”.
Projected date of 2019? A hundred years ago, the LSWR went from Board approval on 6 December 1912 to electrification of its entire inner suburban network (the East Putney line, Hounslow and Kingston loops, Shepperton, and Hampton Court) in three and a half years. And for half that time Britain was at war.
Such is progress.
Re Answer = 42,
NR submission to Lambeth (planning permission application) as background for why they want to make some small additions to bridges on the approaches to Waterloo International:
http://planning-docs.lambeth.gov.uk/AnitePublicDocs/00574985.pdf
(57 pages)
Construction due to start in November 15 (the document was submitted in July)
@timbeau/answer=42 – demolition of the flyover at International Junction would be a Good Thing to deal with that single lead,but I guess that sums of EU grant would then have to be repaid.
ngh, tim B
Network Rail’s parallel factsheet to the planning application suggested a start date of 10/2015 and completion ‘mid-2017’ for the International works, suggesting that infrastructure use will slip somewhat from 05/2017.
The planning application does not have direct bearing on extension of platforms 1-4. Clearly we are talking now about 2019 at best.
Re Answer=42
“The planning application does not have direct bearing on extension of platforms 1-4. Clearly we are talking now about 2019 at best.”
Sure it does have a direct bearing on P1-4 as you would need as many of the former international platforms in use to minimise the closure of presumably P1-7 to get the P1-4 works done.
I think P5 is currently 10car (20m cars) and P6&7 11car (20m cars) Is there any plan to lenghten these to 12car for mainline service at the same time?
@Graham H
I think you have confused your junctions. The flyover runs from Nine Elms Junction on the former LSWR line to Linford Street Junction on the former LCDR line, and is nowhere near International Junction, which is immediately outside Waterloo station.
@answer=42
“The planning application does not have direct bearing on extension of platforms 1-4.”
Except that until Windsor line trains can move into the International terminal, there isn’t the spare capacity in the main station to allow platforms 1-4 to be taken out of use for the extension work.
TimB /ngh
Indeed, a causal relationship and hence a potential for further delay exists. But the planning application does not itself deal with platform extension. Whether a further planning application will be needed for said platform extensions (ie whether there is a need for a square centimetre of non-railway land) is unknown, at least to me.
ngh
Sorry, didn’t answer your second question about platforms 5-7. This is outwith the scope of WX001. So no, as far as I know.
@ngh
“I think P5 is currently 10car (20m cars) and P6&7 11car (20m cars) Is there any plan to lenghten these to 12car for mainline service at the same time?”
Platform 5 is used for the rare ten-car suburban services that do already operate, and actually looks as if it might be long enough for 11. Platform 6 is the opposite face, and therefore the same length.
Platforms 6 and 7 are usually used by the Salisbury/Exeter diesel services, which can be up to nine cars (although as the class 159 cars are 23m long, nine of them come in at slightly longer than a ten-car train of 20m cars)
Platform 8 takes 12-car trains, so the actual platform 7 (the opposite face) must also be long enough for a 12-car, but from the aerial view it looks like a 12-car train standing in platform 7 would foul the convergence of the track leaving platform 6, preventing any train entering or leaving that platform.
Re Answer =42
The last I heard the plan for P1-4 lengthening involved closing P5-7 at the same time hence my pondering if they were going to do do any lengthening there to.
[for other less familiar with the area – The platform lengthening itself is the easy bit – the real problems is the location of the points and their replacement.]
Going back to Taz’s comment yesterday about London Travelwatch’s view that 12 carriage platforms throughout will be prevented by cost and damage to Lower March area. I refer you to the following document. See especially the map on page 72, which doesn’t go far enough in the down direction but might suggest that concerns are overdone. Nevertheless, 10 carriage platforms are the order of the day.
http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/pl-Waterloo%20Area%20SPD%20-%20Adopted%202013.pdf
For completeness SWT also run a couple of 10 car combinations made up of 159 and 158, i.e. 3+3+2+2, they need a nominally 12 x 20m platform.
I’ve heard somewhere that eventually all the platforms in the main shed apart from 1-4, so 5-19, will all be 12 car.
answer=42
A very interesting document : Figure 22 is a revelation in showing where the Tube lines actually are.
In catch up mode – the CR2 plan for 10 tph terminating at Wimbledon will soon be hijacked by politicians demanding they go somewhere else. I can guarantee that Assembly Members will demand those trains head east to Sutton / Tooting / Croydon. I know there’s a logic as to why you want starters at Wimbledon but there was considerable disbelief in the early phase of analysis that discounted lines from Sutton and South London running into CR2. There will be a real battle mounted to get those 10 trains extended. Although I’ve read all the comments as to why 12 cars aren’t particularly practical it struck me as daft that NR are not seeking to do the 12 car work on the suburban lines as part of CR2.
I know there are arguments about spending money too early but if we believe what is supposed to happen to CR1 – “immediately full to bursting point” – then why on earth create a not inconsiderable problem for any future expansion of CR2? If you opt for 30 tph on CR2 on day 1 or not long after and the trains fill up then what on earth you do you do? You have a not inconsiderable piece of work to do at a vast number of locations which may be difficult to justify as a stand alone project.
I await the N/NE London/Herts implications of a 30 tph service pattern with interest. I can see the “branch to East London” argument gaining even more political momentum which is not going to do anything for the project’s cost or timescale given no detailed work or consultation is happening on that idea (well not that’s been made public anyway).
I note the comments in the Evening Standard article. I believe TfL is very keen to get diggers in the ground by 2020 but that’s a tough call and will require a very big push to get designs done to a point where powers can be sought. I note also the remark about Mr Osborne being “tough” on day to day spending but loving infrastructure spend. This rings nasty alarm bells with me that fares on TfL will go up even more as Mr O abolishes revenue support in exchange for writing the cheque for CR2. This means bus passengers in particular will be “exploited” (to put it politely) to allow CR2 to be funded. I think everyone “high up” is so obsessed with getting a go ahead for CR2 they’ll sign up to almost anything which is a ludicrous situation but then I think CR2 is the wrong answer to an as yet undefined question.
‘I think everyone “high up” is so obsessed with getting a go ahead for CR2 they’ll sign up to almost anything which is a ludicrous situation but then I think CR2 is the wrong answer to an as yet undefined question.’
Hear, hear!
WW, Anonymously
Surely this assumes that there will be no political fallout from the ‘big pause’ on the Midland + Northern Hub? Mind you, given the state of the UK media these days, you are probably right.
I’ve always thought the opposite: that now matter how big the justification, no pol would sign off on CR2 before he/she had 2 years data from CR1. I really don’t know which is worse – delay or semi-wilful mis-specification.
For those objecting to terminating some CR2 trains at Wimbledon – remember that the original plans for the Chelsea-Hackney Line would have terminated every train there.
My understanding of NE branches of CR2 was minimum 20tph to Alex.Palace to encourage people to change from crowded north/south lines. Was to be 24tph on opening, with extra trains to Cheshunt in stage 2. Anyway, doesn’t leave sufficient trains to service two other branches. The Grays branch would have needed tunnel to Dagenham so priced out of contention. (see Transport Committee of the London Assembly position paper 30 July 2013)
Just to clarify a couple of non CR2 issues raised in this thread.
The reason class 92 locomotives are limited to the WLL – Catford – Maidstone – Channel Tunnel route on DC has nothing to do with their power draw – all the DC power supplies were massively upgraded to cope with the demands of the Eurostar trains which are just as power hungry on DC given their complexity and length.
The introduction of the power hungry Electrostar / Desiro fleets to replace the slam door stock also saw Railtrack have to engage in a last minute upgrade of the 3rd rail power supply in many areas
The issue is all due to with the rather simple fact that early 90s AC traction motors* (as opposed to the traditional DC types used until then or the more advanced AC motors used since 2000) can generate interference which can cause certain types of track circuits to falsely show ‘clear’ even when there is a train on them. If you don’t think this is a big deal then I refer you to the 1987 Clapham Junction crash to see what happens if the vital integrity of track circuits is compromised.
Now while the Redhill – Tonbridge line saw all the track circuits renewed with types that are immune to Class 92 / Eurostar / Networker (yes these are bared from anywhere other than the SE lines) when 3rd rail was installed, From Redhill to Clapham Junction the mid 1980s vintage BML signalling is most definitely NOT IMMUNE and as such it is dangerous to allow the 92s to be used on this section. Until it is decided to undertake a large scale track circuit replacement programme that is how things will stay – and is why diesels are used on freight flows.
*Do not confuse the type of motors to move the train along with the power supply type. Until recently all 25KV AC locomotives transformed the AC into DC before using it to power the train – and these days AC units do a double conversion – AC to DC then back to AC, while 750V DC powered units convert it to AC before using in to power the train.
Re WW,
1. There are plenty of readily spade ready infrastructure elements along both WAML and SWML axes that would result in improvements for passengers before the CR2 core opens (e.g. WAML 4 tracking) that might be suitable for starting before the next general election.
2. Not lengthening the suburban station platforms from 10 to 12 initially reduces the number of NR work sites and can be done relatively easily later as a stand alone project (the extra rolling stock cost would be circa £250m at current values)
3. Sutton Croydon etc surely heading west then south?
As previously mentioned by several commenters – heading from Wimbledon to Sutton would need a separate rebuild probably with a new station underground which if the box faced roughly West – East could then easily be linked up to the Sutton – West Croydon route (though not necessarily terminating at West Croydon – an East Croydon West Croydon link was examined in the CR2 study did look a such a link but then going up the A23 instead.)
For this to happen the 3 local authorities (Merton, Sutton, Croydon) would need to work together, this might be a problem for Sutton with their apparent “we don’t want to look or be like Croydon policy”.
Wimbledon – Sutton – Croydon could be an easy later addition.
Sutton to Victoria via CR2 would probably be about the 2-4 minutes slower than the current fastest service (but significantly faster than the slowest current services), and faster than Thameslink to St Pancras + 10tph frequency would go down well which might reduce the current rail heading to the Northern Line at Morden.
Re Anonymous 0803,
Thanks, I knew there was some issue with the signalling I just couldn’t remember what.
The issue presumably being that the variable frequency* AC used in modern 3phase AC traction motors potentially overlapping with the frequency (traditionally 50Hz) [and harmonics thereof?] used for the track circuits?
Hence the Siemens and Bombardier approach on the Desiro and Electrostars etc of having the gaps in traction current frequency between 40-60Hz etc.?
*Motor speed control achieved by matching the frequency of AC to the desired motor speed.
From what I understand NR has been replacing the “Southern” track circuits with the jointless high frequency (circa 1.5-2.5KHz) type around the London Bridge area so we’ll see what they do when a fair chunk of Victoria – Gatwick is resignalled in CP6.
@Anonymous
“these days AC units do a double conversion – AC to DC then back to AC, while 750V DC powered units convert it to AC before using in to power the train.”
Why convert ac to dc and back to ac again? Because the supply is at a fixed frequency (usually 50Hz) and for traction you need a smoothly variable frequency (as the frequency determines the speed – very obvious when you hear a South Eastern Networker accelerating as their frequencies are in the audio range). You therefore need to remove the 50Hz signal.
@ngh
“The issue presumably being that the variable frequency AC used in modern 3phase AC traction motors potentially overlapping with the frequency (traditionally 50Hz) [and harmonics thereof?] used for the track circuits?”
That is what I understand – in ac territory, dc track circuits are used, but in DC-land, ac track circuits are the norm. This allows traction return current to be distinguished from the track circuit current (the relays look for a dc bias or an ac signal). But if the return current is variable-frequency ac, from time to time that frequency will match the track circuit current and produce a “false clear”.
@WW
I can guarantee that Assembly Members will demand those trains head east to Sutton / Tooting / Croydon
CR2 is already planned to go through Tooting (Broadway, rather than plain Tooting station, which is actually just over the border in Mitcham). This is itself rather controversial as it will make the Clapham Junction-Wimbledon journey much longer than the existing direct SWML route, and feed more passengers into the Northern Line.
Sutton is south of Wimbledon, and would require a major rebuild if more services were to be fed in from the St Helier line – especially if they are to continue to Croydon, as they would have to cross over the Mitcham Junction line.
It might be possible to widen the formation immediately to the west of Sutton station to four tracks, allowing the St Helier and Epsom lines to be separated, but space in the station is limited unless you can somehow make better use of the Epsom Downs branch platforms.
@ngh
“Sutton’s “we don’t want to look or be like Croydon policy”.” – except when it comes to proposals for trams – conversion of the Epsom Downs branch has been suggested more than once, and may be the solution to making enough space in Sutton station for CR2 trains to terminate.
As for extension to Croydon, it already has direct services to Clapham Junction, Victoria, Farringdon, Kings Cross and even Dalston, by a much more direct route than CR2 could provide.
timbeau,
and feed more passengers into the Northern Line
You keep making this claim (I have lost count of the number of times) but CR2 insists that the analysis says otherwise. For the same number of changes (once you are on a CR2 train at Wimbledon) you could change at Tottenham Court Road for Moorgate or Liverpool Street using CR1 which would be far fewer stops, air-conditioned and probably be quicker and generally more comfortable. You also have to take into account the number of people transferring off the Northern Line to CR2 which will be running at least 32tph from Morden (from next year I understand) and maybe as much as 36tph or simply starting their journey at Tooting Broadway and electing to use CR2 rather than the Northern line.
I think we can only take this comment as highly speculative and, if made, should be worded as such.
(Usual caveat about CR1 being full up applies)
timbeau says “As for extension to Croydon, it already has direct services to …”
This remark belongs to the same family as those who said that CR1 need not go to Reading because Reading already has better services to London. The non-London end of many stopping services is at an also-served place, and the point of this is generally to provide a link between that place and the other places served by other local stops. For example here, Tooting and Mitcham to Croydon would be valuable links.
(Of course, the invalidity of one particular argument against serving Croydon does not count as an argument for serving Croydon).
@Malcolm
Croydon is of course a major traffic centre, but extending CR2 over the EXISTING line from Sutton to Croydon would not add many useful new connections.
Tooting to Croydon is easily done by way of Balham – much shorter than a long detour via Wimbledon and Sutton would be, and likely to be more frequent too.
Mitcham (which is not actually proposed to be served by CR2 anyway) already has a direct tram service to Croydon, which is again more frequent and faster than anything the st helier line could offer, even with CR2
Re Timbeau,
Sutton’s “we don’t want to look or be like Croydon policy” – it appears they don’t want high rise developments which might help may for transport or other improvements.
Doing the Sutton – Croydon part provides Tramlink relief and a orbital capacity in SW London it isn’t all about going to Central London. [for example significant numbers of people appear to go into Clapham Junction to head out again on a different line in the morning]
@PoP
“CR2 insists that the analysis says otherwise”
I have not seen any figures from CR2 on projected transfer flows at Tooting
“You also have to take into account the number of people transferring off the Northern Line to CR2 which will be running at least 32tph from Morden”
Doubtless there will be some residents of Morden, South Wimbledon and Colliers Wood who would forsake their Northern Line seats to switch to CR2, but I still suspect the net flow will be the other way simply because London-bound CR2 trains will be pretty full by the time they reach Tooting, whereas there are only three Northern Line stops south of Tooting Broadway, and at least one of which has a catchment area that overlaps with CR2-served Wimbledon anyway.
The Northern Line serves more City destinations than CR1 and CR2 combined – notably London Bridge, Bank and Old Street.
@timbeau: You are obviously correct to demolish my suggested Croydon links. Croydon via Sutton may well be an unsuitable CR2 destination, as I sort of hinted in my final sentence. All I was trying to say, which may be a rather trivial point anyway, is that proof of its unsuitability cannot be established by listing its existing good services to central London.
Croydon via Sutton could be a sensible CR2 destination, for the same reasons as Twickenham via Kingston, as a convenient place to turn trains round or to maintain an existing orbital route which would otherwise be lost. But as you say, no-one would use the service end-to-end (or even end-to-central-London) because more direct alternatives exist.
Turnback at Twickenham could be achieved quite cheaply, (e.g resignalling the flyover for bidirectional use) and terminating the Loop trains there would also release a couple of paths through Richmond. Turnback of 4tph at Sutton would not be so easy with the existing layout, but provided there is sufficient capacity through the junction at Sutton, turnback at West Croydon might be easier. But would the good folk of Wallington etc prefer their direct service to Victoria to go via Wimbledon instead of via Thornton Heath?
Re. reversing trains at West Croydon:
You folks do know that the bay platform at this station was (a) too short for 10-12 car trains, and (b) closed some years ago, right? The Overground services use the London-facing bay that is not accessible from the Sutton direction.
@Anomnibus
When we are talking about a project that involves digging a tunnel from Hackney to Wimbledon, the cost of reopening a platform and extending it to take ten cars is probably not a showstopper.
Anomnibus,
Oakfield siding, (as shown on Carto Metro) is much longer than portrayed although much of it has not been used for years and looks abandoned. Not ideal by any means, but, if one thought it was a good idea to do this, it would be possible. Obviously you would need an additional crossover on the running lines as well as as points to get to/from the siding directly from the up line.
I really can’t see the point myself. The danger is that it encourages people to change for London Overground which couldn’t handle the extra passengers – if it could then why not do the simple obvious thing and extend London Overground. Extending the London Overground, if it were sensible, or (probably more sensible) the existing Southern terminators at West Croydon would have he added advantage of avoiding massive overprovision of carriages and probably the need to extend platforms at relatively lightly used stations.
timbeau,
I don’t think re-opening the former platform 2 at West Croydon would be feasible. It really was very short. Remember it was exclusively used for the 2-car shuttle to Wimbledon. It is not just a case of re-opening. The tracked has been filled in and used to widen (and lengthen) platform 3.
Turning this question round – assuming that some of the Wimbledon terminators are extended over the St Helier line, as was suggested, where is the best place to terminate them? Neither West Croydon nor Sutton seem ideal for reasons already stated, but which is the least worst, or is there a better candidate? The answer might, after all, turn out to be back at Wimbledon!
(After all, the Haydons Road trains would still have to go somewhere)
@ timbeau
Why not Wallington?
If, as PoP suggests, money could be found for such a project, then perhaps building a south-facing chord near Sutton would allow the service to run out to Epsom or Leatherhead instead of doubling-back towards Croydon. It would also break the loop, which could have other advantages for timetabling.
That said, I really don’t think terminating at, or near, Wimbledon is a problem. It does ensure that at least some trains will be empty on arrival. Wimbledon is already a busy station; I doubt it’s going to become any less busy once CR2 is built.
Just to be clear,
It was timbeau who suggested that money could be found for such a project [CR2 extensions beyond Wimbledon and West Croydon in particular]. I offered no opinion about it in general and merely pointed out the difficulties, possibilities and dubious benefits of extending CR2 as far as West Croydon.
@ Timbeau – you are being far too logical. I appreciate there are a myriad practical issues about extending terminating trains onwards from Wimbledon. I understand CR2 is planned to run via Tooting Broadway. All that does *nothing* in the minds of politicians who wish to be seen to be “fighting the corner” for constituents. On that basis the arguments will simply NOT go away. You may think the politicians are daft or lacking practical understanding but they’re the people with the power and influence not the poor passengers or observers from the sidelines. That’s the only point I’m making – expect years of fiddling, arguing, lobbying and demands for something bigger than already planned.
The problem with everyone hyping “new infrastructure” as some sort of panacea / answer to all known economic and social ills is that people only want new stuff, not boring stuff like extra services run by boring existing trains or boring existing buses. People will feel short changed because they’re being “trained” to expect new shiny toys which is utterly ridiculous. It’s a completely wrong way to view things – looking at only one type of solution is daft. Some rational debate would be nice but I realise I’m wailing in the wilderness like some crazed prophet.
Anomnibus: “The Overground services use the London-facing bay [at West Croydon] that is not accessible from the Sutton direction” – I don’t think so: they use the through platforms and the specially-provided reversing siding west of the North End/London Rd bridge (the siding is also inaccessible from the Sutton direction, so your general point is valid).
TfL have been pushing KMPG’s analysis of the economic benefits of CR2.
I haven’t found the report yet but the PR is here:
https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2015/research-confirms-benefits-of-crossrail-2
The net effect is a a suggested BCR of between 3.2 and 3.7 (KPMG benefits 2015 , PWC costs & Funding 2014)
Selected items (minus waffle)
Note the link to housing – just in case any future mayor decides to declare that housing should be a priority over transport.
Re PoP,
“just in case any future mayor decides to declare that housing should be a priority over transport.”
Probably more an issue post 2020 or 2024 mayoral elections as the (likely) candidates are all pro CR2?
@ngh
TfL/KPMG get the point that seems to be lost on Surrey councillors
“Crossrail 2 would release space on some of the most congested railway lines into London allowing additional trains to operate into Waterloo and Liverpool Street during peak periods. As many as 11,800 more seats could be available on Network Rail services from Hampshire and Surrey into Waterloo during the peak,”
CR2 isn’t intended to go deep into Surrey. It’s to get those pesky inner-suburban stopping services off their nice racetrack into Waterloo.
And let SWT get on with what it wants to do, without the millstone of all those inner suburban stations to maintain – in the rain last week I had to use my umbrella at the station – in the subway!
@timbeau – 🙂 🙁
Re Timbeau,
It seems Surrey CC may have seen the light
http://www.964eagle.co.uk/news/local-news/1745699/crossrail-2-plans-backed-by-surrey-county-council/
More so sure SWT will be happy about the revenue abstraction from certain suburban stations
@ngh/timbeau – and I look forward (without any hope at all) to being pleasantly surprised when Surrey politicians fail to demand that CR2 be extended to every station in Surrey – and then some. I am also looking forward,on similar terms, to not hearing the wail of complaints when it turns out that the residual services aren’t what the politicians fancied.
@ngh
“Not so sure SWT will be happy about the revenue abstraction from certain suburban stations”
Actually, they might be quite happy to lose them, as the ratio of revenue : expenditure tends to increase with distance travelled. Despite the lack of TLC suggested by the umbrella-in-the-subway state of many of them, those local stations do all cost money to run and, compared to stations further from London, bring in much less revenue, simply because a ticket from New Malden to London costs a lot less than one from New Milton. The cost of every journey, however short or long, includes the overheads for running two stations.
Re Timbeau,
Long term SWT should do a lot better but that could be beyond the franchise during which they take the CR2 hit given the housing build rates in Surrey /Hampshire.
Take an example of hypothetical (given real service pattern not known!) example of Motspur park currently 6 tph peak which could become 10tph with 8 CR2 2 SWT (or 12tph and 8/4 etc.) SWT etc. potentially sees the revenue fall to a third (6–>2tph but then there also all the changing possibilities so it isn’t that simple if a passenger takes CR2 to Wimbledon or Clapham Junction then SWT onto Waterloo).
If lots of “residual Waterloo service” passengers swap to CR2 at Wimbledon instead of Victoria line at Vauxhall there is potential revenue loss, just how big? – did they change on to CR2 at Surbiton or Wimbledon or Clapham etc.
I think CR2 might also force a few station currently outside Oyster into it.
Ever more London dormitories. Cases like this at Micheldelver Station will undoubtedly add pressure to main lines into London from the SW as landowners keep pushing in the expectation of the right political time for development to be allowed.
In this example I am sure the homes are not expected to be mainly occupied by local commuters e.g. to Winchester (rail) or Andover (road).
@ngh
SWT might well lose revenue in that scenario, but given that XR2 would be the major user of them, responsibility for running the stations would probably pass to the XR2 operator (presumably TfL) as well.
Lose all the overheads but keep a third of the revenue? What’s not to like?
Surrey County Council finally get round to understanding something that has been perfectly obvious since at least 2011’s London and SE RUS?
Wonder how much they had to pay to get it all explained in words of one syllable?
Re timbeau,
If the station are transferred to TfL responsibility and costs are are split by usage, with TfL staffing them all operating hours the SWT usage cost could actually go up in some cases…
@ Paul – I am sure they all understood a long time ago. The point, I suspect, is whether they’ve been properly “invited to the CR2 party” or not. It was evident in the London Assembly discussions on rail devolution that Surrey and Kent wanted to be treated “properly” and to be involved as equal partners and not be presented with fait accomplis from Network Rail, TfL and City Hall. Now that all might seem like the worst sort of primary school playground nonsense but sometimes you have to bow and scrape to get people to “play along” so you achieve your objectives.
WW
Sounds like Kent & Bromley doesn’t it?
Re Paul and WW,
A good proportion of the Surrey and Hants benefits rely on more than just CR2, for example the long proposed Woking flyover, hence NR having prioritised that will also have helped. (See NR Wessex Study)
@ Greg – not really. At the Assembly meeting it was clear Kent and Surrey had their own rail experts who understood perfectly what the issues were. I am sure they are perfectly capable of relaying all the relevant issues to their politicians. It’s all more subtle – perceptions, impressions, behaviours etc. How true those are I can’t say but if you’ve got people whose noses are out of joint for some reason and you need their co-operation and active support you need to change your approach. Personally I find it tiresome but then I also found office politics tiresome but unfortunately you have to “play the game” to get things to happen.
The London Mayor/Network Rail/TfL report (rather than the input from KPMG) is on the Crossrail 2 website here
http://1267lm2nzpvy44li8s48uorode.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Crossrail-2-Regional-and-national-benefits-FINAL.pdf
Crossrail 2/TFL have been seeking representations from community groups in north London.
It appears that a station at Wood Green is now an option, while omitting Turnpike Lane and Alexandra Palace!
Anonymous refers to the possibility of a station at Wood Green. Two stations are likely to be considered better than one by most locals, but of course only one would save a fair bit of money, which is however unlikely to be spent in some other way in the area.
Omitting Alexandra Palace would also remove the interchange possibility onto the Hertford North branch, but few journeys in practice might have used it. Palmers Green or Winchmore Hill to Seven Sisters or Dalston Junction with one change seem to me to be about the only lost plausible journeys.
@ Anon – good grief more tinkering. Removing Ally Pally from the line is ludicrous given the objective of relieving overloaded routes in North London and aiding regional accessibility.
@WW
Now is a good time for tinkering with the route, as spades have not yet hit the earth.
Don’t forget that completion is still 20 years away!
@ Chris Mitch – I thought TfL were aiming for spades in the ground by 2020 so let’s assume 10 years construction so 15 years on an optimistic timescale for CR2. I take your point but the more it *appears* that local groups can lobby for and secure changes to the station locations then it simply encourages further such nonsense elsewhere on CR2. If you create that impression you’ll never get spades in the ground by 2020 if that is genuinely the aim. I’ll stop now before I resume my old rant against CR2. 😉
At this rate, CR2 is going to morph from its origins as a simple tube line into something that really ought to be called Thameslink 2, with a completion date of 2050 (by which time I’ll almost be in my 70s!).
@Anonymously – As pleased as I am that LR has a significant number of youthful readers here, dare I suggest that a completion date of 2050, or even 2030, will mean that many of we others here are of such an age that we might not see either of those years anyway! However, the knowledge and wisdom imparted by those who now may never see a project completed (even any Bakerloo extension – or even any rolling stock replacement for the line (hooray!)) does show that there are those around who wish to advise for the best (on LR, that is).
In the case of Crossrail 2, there are many indeed who hope that they won’t have to say in frustration “I told you so” upon fruition of the scheme because all the blurb seems to be about the advantages of the scheme but seemingly constantly fails to address the problem that the general mass of suburban commuters on the existing routes concerned do not wish to be diverted from Waterloo and neither do they wish to break their relatively short journey by having to change at Wimbledon to reach Waterloo and return from it should CR2 run where planned, effectively replacing the existing outer-suburban routes.
Let’s hope that your comparative youth continues to carry the acquired knowledge forwards, together with others whom LR hopes usefully to inform.
Graham Feakins,
But at least with Crossrail 2 people will be aware years and years in advance of what will be happening and so will adjust long-term decisions on where to live and work in advance just as people are already probably starting to do with Crossrail 1.
The trouble with the “I told you so” argument is that only transport schemes that are beneficial to almost everyone will progress if we stifle progress on that basis. Usually there will be losers and we just have to accept that sometimes.
Anyway, as far as I can tell your argument is largely flawed because, as far as I am aware, there will be no reduction of trains going into Waterloo. So I would presume the worst case scenario will be that some people who currently have a through train to Waterloo will have to change at Wimbledon (hopefully onto less crowded trains).
Surely the number of losers from CR2, i.e. those passengers whose commute becomes longer or more complicated, is quantifiable from the modelling that underlies the calculation of benefits?
@WW
Not a rant. What should be done better in CR2 planning?
@PoP – no doubt, there will be no reduction of trains into Waterloo, but one of the points for CR2 is that it releases long distance capacity on the SWML, so punters who previously had the pleasure of a direct train to Waterloo will now have either CR2 or a greater number of fasts whistling past them non-stop at Wimbledon. And whereas they could disembark at Waterloo and get to the West End or the City on reasonably empty trains, now they will have only the option of changing at TCR onto CR1, which is likely to be very full at that point.
Yes, CR2 is an important addition to capacity, but does it go anywhere the punters want to go first and foremost? Seems not. And it’s not so much that punters will change their habits to suit – they can’t move the West end and the City. That is a lose lose situation as consultant speak has it.
Matters are not helped – CR2 proponents don’t help themselves – by the wall of silence that has descended on the question of residual services.
i must admit that I am mystified by the argument against the CR2 route that regular commuters will ‘lose their direct train into Waterloo’. Waterloo is not much of a destination, and the replacement CR2 trains will go onwards to more central destinations instead. Isn’t Waterloo tube station one of the busiest? This shows that Waterloo is a commuting waypoint, not an endpoint for most.
@chrisMitch – whilst Waterloo isn’t much of a destination in its own right, it does have the advantage of empty bakerloo trains to the West End and empty W&C trains to the City. CR2 will take you to neither of those popular destinations but deposit you instead on the already crowded CR1. This doesn’t sound like any sort of gain.
To note, this isn’t a criticism of CR2 as such, merely its detailed choice of stations and route.
Chris Mitch says “Waterloo is a commuting waypoint, not an endpoint for most”.
Maybe so, but this illustrates the disadvantage of arguing by fractions. Even if “most” arrivers at Waterloo transfer to another train, the smaller fraction (whether 40%, 10% or 4%) who do not do so still amount to a substantial number of people.
On the other side of the argument, I have to wonder when Graham H saw reasonably empty trains (in the rush hour, at Waterloo).
Ah yes, I see what Graham means about the reasonably empty trains, my scepticism was perhaps unfounded. A train that you can actually get on, no matter how sardine-can it becomes before it departs, has to be rather better than an equally full one that you can’t even squeeze onto. I suppose.
Re Graham H,
Given the numbers changing on to the Victoria line at Vauxhall and Stockwell and the Northern Charing Cross Branch at Waterloo or Kennington (yes spare seats left on Bank Branch trains after they swap (at 0745 from full standing before!!!) and the Bakerloo lots of passengers clearly want to go to locations North or North-West of Waterloo!
Given everything apart form the Bakerloo is nearing capacity the status quo isn’t sustainable.
“now they will have only the option of changing at TCR onto CR1, which is likely to be very full at that point.”
A bit like the Waterloo and City then and CR1 will have better coverage of the Northern half of the square mile.
Journey times from any station that only has stopping SWT services to Canary Wharf will be identical to SWT + Jubilee but with the advantage of higher frequencies (Assuming you don’t have to queue to get on to the Jubilee at Waterloo!)
The same arguments about does it go where the punters want to go were also made about the domestic services on HS1. Commuters from Kent disproprtionately work in the City and the southern part of the west end and hence St Pancras was seen as being in the wrong part of London for them. However, HS1 has been a success notwithstanding the fact that many more journeys now involve a change onto very crowded underground lines at a station which has, at best, poor interchange arrangements.
@quinlet /ngh – “success” in forcing people to do something that either they would rather not do, or which is no improvement, is an odd definition of “success”. We are never going to build a second CR2 so we might as well get our first shot at right, right?
Chris Mitch
Don’t forget that completion is still 20 years away!
Err, no.
Cr1 Act 2008, shovels in to ground seriously 2010-11 final completion 2019, with heavy complications re terminal stations, esp Paddington.
CR2 proposal (say) Autumn statement 2015
Act 2016-7
Completion 2026-7 – look at where the portals are …..
Graham H
A huge proportion of “Waterloo” commuters are heading for the City & either use the Drain, or walk, especially in fine weather.
The trouble there is that the CR2 interchange for the City is a @ TCR on to CR1 for one or two stops – except it will only be one or two stops in a large, continuous-gangway train.
Not a problem, maybe (?)
@ngh – “A bit like the Waterloo and City then and CR1 will have better coverage of the Northern half of the square mile.” No, not at all like the W&C – at Waterloo, W&C trains arrive, by definition, empty; at TCR you may not even be able to board the first eastbound train. And swapping better coverage for the northern part of the City for better coverage of the southern part is – err, – just a swap
Graham H,
A train arriving empty is no guarantee you can get on it as many Waterloo & City user (and migrant) will tell you.
Graham H,
pardon my naivety but from what you describe I get the impression you are against CR2 because it is replacing one line taking people to where they don’t really want to go with another line taking people to where they don’t really want to go (or maybe many of them do actually).
Just imagine if it were the other way round. CR2 existed and the proposal was to build a line from Wimbledon to Waterloo. The complaint would be that lots of people want to get to the City. Aha, say the planners, we will also build a tube railway with just two stops that starts at Waterloo and ends just beyond Mansion House station. But don’t worry, we’ll put in a couple of long moving walkways to get you up to near the surface at Bank. Oh, and the trains will only be four carriages long. And as no-one will use it on a Sunday we won’t bother opening it then.
The truth lies out there in the Origin and Destination data but unfortunately we don’t have access to that.
There is also the option not mentioned of changing at Clapham Junction. Remember trains actually have more space leaving Clapham Junction to London than when they arrive. Again not ideal but it does mean that people can still make their journey. It just involves an additional change.
@PoP – don’t I know it – as someone whose arrival terminus was Waterloo but whose office was once by Moorfields (at a time when the Drain was going through one of its unhappy phases), it used to be the next train but two. The 243 to Old Street was usually a better bet. I do not believe that matters are that bad now – the queues don’t now back up onto the passage under the main line platforms. And, with having to miss only the next train, at least half the punters can board a completely empty train. That cannot be the case at TCR
@PoP – your post that crossed with mine – don’t get me wrong: I’m all in favour of some form of CR2, and especially one that removes the inners from SWML (living in the deepest corner of Surrey, I’m all in favour of eliminating the boring stops and tiresome punters from Zacland). What I do find difficult is spending a lot of money to replace one not very satisfactory arrangement with another not very satisfactory arrangement.
The importance of good o/d information cannot be overstated as employment patterns are changing substantially. There is a clear link between the terminal station serving trains home and the location of the workplace. This was established by the GLC nearly 50 years ago when they demonstrated clearly that a disproportionate number of city workers lived in Essex and Kent (because their trains went into Liverpool Street, Fenchurch Street, Cannon Street and Moorgate) and that a disproportinate number of Whitehall workers lived in south London, Surrey, Sussex and Kent (because their trains went into Victoria and Charing Cross). But times have changed and although that strong link remains, the introduction of zonal fares and travelcards weakened it and, more particularly, the growth of other big employment areas, notably Docklands, and more through central London trains has weakened it. So while the City is still heavily dominated by workers who live in Kent and Essex (and, pace Graham H, SW London via the drain) it’s not such a heavy predominance as it once was.
My point about the domestic services on HS1 is that it has also made it easier for people who live in Kent to work in Docklands and on the northern side of the west End (and around King’s Cross) and, surprisingly enough, that is what has happened. Those who do still work in the City don’t tend to go to St Pancras, they sit tight on the slower through trains to Cannon Street.
On that basis CR2 no longer serving Waterloo may not be the problem that you anticipate – job locations will change at least as much as existing passengers having longer/less convenient journeys.
Don’t forget that Crossrail2 to City punters will also have the option of the Central Line to the City, or, of course existing services to Waterloo (with, presumably, a same or cross platform interchange at Raynes Park or New Malden if required). And I don’t think anyone really believes that both the Central and Crossrail1 will be at maximum capacity at TCR eastbound in the am peak come 2030.
Graham says “at least half the punters can board a completely empty train”.
Being picky, only one passenger per train can board it completely empty. Being more reasonable, if the train starts empty, it is only half-full when the average passenger boards it. I still don’t quite see how that helps, as a few seconds later it becomes completely full.
The challenge with O & D information is that it is backwards looking – where people travelled yesterday. Yes, people make life choices based on current services, but transport planners are increasingly having to make decisions that will make people unhappy as they try to squeeze quarts into pint pots (1136.52ml into 568.26ml for the younger readers).
However, and this has dawned on strategists but not yet filtered to all the plans.
Connectivity is increasingly going to be an issue – many origins to many destinations. This is currently focussed on the London termini and a small number of other stations – Stratford, East Croydon, Clapham Junction etc. At these stations, the majority of train stop. Increasingly the new developments will require other stations to be added to the list of stations where most trains stop. Old Oak Common is an example.
Personally, based solely on this article and debate, I believe Wimbledon will become the “East Croydon” of the LSW lines with all that this implies (see PoP’s articles)
@Sad Fat Dad
“And I don’t think anyone really believes that both the Central and Crossrail1 will be at maximum capacity at TCR eastbound in the am peak come 2030.”
Why would they not be? Surely any capacity improvements on those line are to cater for growth in existing catchment areas, not to cater for thousands of SWT commuters to City and Canary Wharf whose current route is being dismantled.
(Whereas the Jubilee line becomes strangely quiet – seems unimaginable now but could happen. Actually, maybe CR2’s a good idea after all!)
It is a pertinent point that many who are getting worked up about this, (wherever it goes and goes via), will never live long enough to see it completed. So, little point in getting worked up about it, methinks.
Does it actually matter that much whether CR2 is the best solution or not ? People will complain, but some of them will have retired by the time CR2 is in operation and many of the people who will use CR2 are still at school today and so do not yet have set travel patterns. With demand increasingly so quickly, surely it is better to add capacity now rather than delay the project by arguing about whether it is the best possible solution or not.
Employment opportunities, potential staff and travel patterns all change over time, and historical data will never tell you what the future will bring. On the other hand, there is a increasing shortage of capacity now, so just get it built and move onto the next project and then the next… Stop worrying so much about possibly having surplus or unused capacity by over-building – it will get used up eventually.
CR1 provides a direct train to the West End (2 stops), the City (2 stops) and Canary Wharf. CR2 provides a direct train to the West End (1 stop), and, er, no thats it. This means that TCR is critical to CR2. If CR1 is full, CR2 will simply be a disaster for passengers. And best not talk about what happens if CR1 has no trains for 10 minutes in mid-peak (try working out how many people per minute will build up in TCR station)
It is this disparity in spreading the destination load that is the biggest CR2 downfall. The first step forward the CR2 could make would be two West End stations. One simple option that doesn’t involve changing the route is this, where the proposed TCR southern entrance becomes the northern entrance of an additional station. Although ideally, you need a connection to the Jubilee (in case CR1 can’t cope).
I’ve expressed my view elsewhere that CR2 should head east after Angel to Shoreditch, Whitechapel and Canary Wharf. Such an approach provides a far better balance of destinations for passengers, and avoids mass changing of trains.
Oh, and changing onto the Northern line at Tooting Broadway will be fastest for everyone that works south of the river around London Bridge. But its actually the impact of people changing at Angel onto the Northern line that most worries TfL if I understand correctly.
I understand the supposed problem: difficulty in accessing routes to the City from the southwest. But what are the possible solutions? Serving Green Park? Serving Waterloo? Either would require that Victoria is not served, Victoria itself being a large and growing employment zone.
Have I ststed the problem correctly? Does a solution exist?
StephenC,
But a major justification is serving Euston for HS2. So you just have to have a proper interchange there. You just can’t ignore this or botch it and move the CR2 platforms to the east. That requirement limits also how far north the platforms for Tottenham Court Road can be. Also the station for Tottenham Court Road has already not only been safeguarded but passive work done (or not done) at Tottenham Court Road station to facilitate this.
Remember that Tottenham Court Road (CR2) will have an entrance off Shaftesbury Avenue so whilst it has only one true West End station, that station will have both its entrances excellently strategically located. Building a station in the West End is going to cost more than a billion pounds if you are not careful. The merits of a second station in the West End have to be really substantial to make it worthwhile. You also need to consider the practicality and it is said that one reason why Piccadilly Circus was omitted is that they could not get the station tunnels in amongst existing tunnels without going very deep down – which clearly has implications for stations on either side.
CR2 is a very different beast from CR1 and one needs to be careful with comparisons. CR1 is largely about improving mobility in the centre of London and linking Docklands. For that you need stations in the West End and the City. CR2 is more about addressing the capacity problem into Waterloo and the housing problem in the Lea Valley. For each Crossrail you have to look to see if they solve the objectives for that scheme and not the objectives of the previous scheme.
Castlebar says “many … will never live long enough to see it completed”. Even old men still plant oak trees.
Malcolm
I don’t understand.
Surely the other name for this website is ‘U3C’ – the University of the 3rd Crossrail…
StephenC,
A railway that runs east-west through the centre of London can hardly fail to serve both the West End and the City and have a couple of stations in each. Mind you one heavily touted alternative managed to avoid the West End by following the route of the Euston Road.
Similarly if going from north to south then really you have to choose either the West End or the City. Thameslink serves the City (just about), Crossrail 2 will serve the West End.
Thameslink? Thats _three_ central London stations very close together. CR2 is such an outlier here, that I’m amazed it has got as far as it has. If you look at the map linked previously, you’ll see two West End stations close together (one from TCR north reusing the passive stuff and one from Shaftesbury Ave south) fit in just fine, and would expand the reach is CR2 dramatically.
The benefits of a second station are obvious – avoiding CR2 users changing to the tube, and resilience. It also gives another option for routing when CR3 comes along (as it will eventually do). The cost (probably more like £500m than £1bn I suspect) could be covered by dropping Chelsea and straightening the route.
“addressing the capacity problem into Waterloo”: Well, not if it takes people where they don’t want to go! (60% to 70% go via Waterloo, not Vauxhall) All it does it move the problem, putting far too much pressure on CR1. The mistake is to see it as a North South scheme. The journey time of SW London to Whitechapel/Wharf via Euston, Angel and Shoreditch would match or better that of changing to CR1 at TCR. And it shows that you can serve both West End and City coming from SW London.
Put simply, CR2 is twice the cost of CR1, but with 20% of the central London employment destination stations. Its ridiculous.
@answer=42, see the two links in my previous post.
Since when has TCR been in the West End?
StephenC says “The cost … could be covered by dropping Chelsea and straightening the route”
If dropping Chelsea is a good idea, then it should be done anyway. If it is not, then it shouldn’t.
Stephen says “CR2 is such an outlier here [in terms of number of central London stations], that I’m amazed it has got as far as it has”.
Rather than talking outliers, look at it as a time series. Each time a railway line has been built through central London, it has had fewer stations there than its predecessors. Because the best (or only) way of speeding up an urban railway is to cut down the number of stations. And speeding up helps passengers, who get there quicker, and the operator (who needs fewer trains to deliver the same benefits).
Graham H,
I believe most people (rightly or wrongly) regard anything west of Charing Cross Road as in the West End. Tottenham Court Road station’s current main entrance is in the City of Westminster so if the West End adjoins the City (disputable I know) then the station is in the West End.
StephanC,
Put simply, CR2 is twice the cost of CR1, but with 20% of the central London employment destination stations. Its ridiculous.
Not at all. This is selective use of statistics to back up the conclusion that you have already come to. As I said judge it against its objectives – not the objectives you arbitarily choose. I strongly suspect stations per mile is about the same as Crossrail 1. And remember that when comparing with single entrance tube stations each station ought to count double. Also you need to take into account the length of trains when considering the number of stations. This actually starts to have quite an impact. Imagine trying to keep all the stations on the Circle line and run the same service as today with 240m trains. At some stations before they could get up any speed to leave the platform free for the next train they would have to start slowing down for the next station.
@StephenC:
[Extraneous text snipped. LBM]
Crossrail 2 is not, and never was, intended as a relief line for Crossrail 1 and the Central Line. It’s intended to relieve the Victoria Line (and, to a lesser extent, the Piccadilly), as well as other public transport routes along its axis.
That is its primary objective. Not linking Wimbledon with every part of London’s Central Activity Zone, which will likely stretch all the way from OOC to Docklands and Stratford by the time CR2 is eventually built.
This is why it runs broadly SW-NE, rather than E-W, like Crossrail 1. Crossrail 3 is, unsurprisingly, being looked at as a SE-NW route, roughly mirroring CR1. Beyond that lie Crossrails 4, 5, 6… and so on.
If Crossrail 1 really is rammed from day one of opening, then the correct solution to relieving it is another E-W line.
I’ve previously suggested piggybacking a “High Speed Crossrail” onto an HS1-HS2 connection from Old Oak Common in the west, to HS1 in the east. The business case for an HS1-HS2 link solely for international services is unlikely to hold up, particularly if the UK pulls out of the EU, but national HS services could tip the balance in its favour.
[1] Thameslink = “Crossrail 0”.
StephanC’s 20% stat counts Paddington or Whitechapel as 5v1 (Bond St, TCR, Farringdon and Liverpool St is merely 4). Surely Victoria, Euston or Angel (or all three) are as close to central London employment destinations as either one of options for a 5th CR1 station?
@Si
What do you mean by ‘5v1’?
LBM and others: My translation of Si’s comment would read as follows:
StephenC refers to CR2 having 20% of the number of central London stations compared to CR1. He must be counting central London CR1 stations and coming up with the answer 5. Assuming that four of these are Bond Street, TCR, Farringdon and Liverpool Street, he must also be adding in either Paddington or Whitechapel. Surely Victoria, Euston or Angel (or all three) are as close to central London employment destinations as either one of these.
Thank you Malcolm, my translator!
@LBM 5 versus 1
CR2 will clearly make the rest of the network suffer because it doesn’t offer any *new* stations, just interchanges – which might have second exits.By not delivering people to new locations it can only hope to reduce (or rather move) overcrowding around.
I’d also be concerned that something which is clearly labelled “FINAL” has the following major error:
4.4.8 Under a more cautious assessment which assumes no demand growth from new housing and uses the top end of the range cost estimate, the BCR would be 1 : 1.4 – 1.7 – thus still demonstrating that the scheme’s benefits are more than outweighed by its costs.
I would hope that the benefits of any new construction would be greater than the costs thereof!
CR2 is the wrong solution for a completely different problem that the original Chelney line proposals and route safeguarding were designed to address (relief for the Victoria and other tube lines and improved rail connectivity for Chelsea and Hackney into Central London…..hence the name!).
Instead, what seems to have happened is that the planners (dating back to when Ken handed over the plans to the Crossrail team to develop, instead of keeping it within TfL….why did this happen?) have taken this route alignment for a *Tube* line and morphed it into a flawed solution for what was until recently a fairly ill-defined problem (release capacity at Waterloo, and serve- assuming it is even built!- the HS2 terminus at Euston).
If that is the problem they truly wish to solve, better that they come up with a completely new proposal and route through the central area for this (addressing many of the issues mentioned above), and leave the Chelney alignment for something a bit more appropriate (i.e. a Tube line!!!).
@Anonymously – I understand that something is needed at Euston regardless of HS2.
I also understand that the probability of anything like a “tube” ever being built again is close to zero. Far more capacity is delivered with fewer trains (and less discomfort) with the larger tunnels that can be built today. Once you’ve done that, with what’s happening to London, you can most bang-for-your-buck (highest BCR..) by getting it out to where a reasonable number people will have to live.
Malcom ( re. Chelsea )
The ( rich / stupid / selfish ) inhabitants, or some of them, in Chelsea are determined to save TfL etc loadsamoney, see here for laughs – or alternatively, bashing your head against a wall.
Reminds me of the desperate struggle in Epsom, to stay out of London, 50 years ago – which turned out so well, didn’t it?
Alison W
CR2 will clearly make the rest of the network suffer because it doesn’t offer any *new* stations, just interchanges – which might have second exits.By not delivering people to new locations it can only hope to reduce (or rather move) overcrowding around.
Really?
Lets compare that with CR1:
Paddington, Bond St, TCR, Farringdon ( & Barbican ), LST ( & Moorgate ) & Whitechapel are all existing stations.
Therefore, by your argument ….
“CR1 will clearly make the rest of the network suffer because it doesn’t offer any *new* stations, just interchanges – which might have second exits.By not delivering people to new locations it can only hope to reduce (or rather move) overcrowding around.”
Err, umm ….
Would you care to go back to the beginning & start again?
[SNIP]
Greg, Alison W,
Actually arguably an even better example than Greg’s one of Crossrail 1 is the Victoria Line. The original line had no new stations. All were either existing stations or already British Rail stations. The only arguable exception was Blackhorse Road which was originally separate from the British Rail station but is now an integrated station with a common ticket hall.
The only new station altogether is Pimlico which in the morning peak is pretty useless as trains are full up on leaving Vauxhall northbound.
Actually Crossrail 1 does do what Alison W wants at Hanover Square where Crossrail deliberately doesn’t interchange with Oxford Circus. Done out of necessity certainly, because the southbound Victoria line platform would otherwise be swamped, but I suspect that many of those arriving at Hanover Square would have preferred to be able to exit at Oxford Circus.
Of course the Thameslink Upgrade doesn’t provide any new stations either and you could close the Waterloo & City line entirely without losing a station.
The discussion about new stations or not underlines the fact that the definition of “a station” in central London is pretty nebulous. How many stations is Bank/Monument/Cannon Street? How many is Paddington? How many is Knightsbridge? (Answers to be written on a postcard and filed in that round thing in the corner.)
What you have is platforms, and they are grouped into “stations” mainly for ease of passenger understanding. (Also for staffing, fare-setting, emergency management and similar purposes, but these are behind the scenes). You also have exits to the exterior, but one station may have various numbers of these.
Obviously if extra lines are built, then extra platforms are essential. Extra passageways, escalators, lifts and exits to the street are almost as obviously required. But extra names on the tube map? Maybe, maybe not.
@Malcolm – it is at least arguable that some portions of zones 1 and 2 are comparitively ill served by the current network of stations and there does seem to be an assumption by some that the existing network of stations is the optimum. However the problem for all new Crossrail type lines is that they make a virtue of as few stations as possible and where they do exist they are additions to existing interchanges. The problem I see is that a Crossrail type line is essentially an express line which aims to off load passengers at these central interchanges where it is expected that most of the passengers will complete their journey using the legacy underground network. Leaving aside the capacity of the legacy network to soak up such traffic it does mean the interchange stations are likely to become victims of the success of this thinking as congestion rates climb. Tottenham Court Road is probably going to become especially unpleasant on the Central and Northern line platforms due to excessive congestion if Crossrail 2 proceeds.
It is notable that even Crossrail 1 avoided an interchange with Oxford Circus even though logic suggests such an interchange precisely because of the unacceptable congestion issues such an interchange will engender.
If traffic levels continue to rise we may have no choice but to consider creating an alternative network with new (i.e. new locations not interchanges) stations but I suspect that is still some way off not least because of the cost of creating such stations
I think a key problem with designing new lines across London is that the city’s core locations are spread along a very wide east-west axis, and getting wider by the decade. This is partly for historical reasons: the Thames was a major thoroughfare until well into the 20th Century, while the lack of bridges until the 19th Century meant the river also acted as a barrier for transport. The upshot is that all the city’s important business and tourist centres are north of said river.
This is also why the Tube network is also primarily north of the Thames. What little of it makes it across the river stays in the Thames Valley rather than venturing further south.
This makes planning any new cross-city line tricky.
By the time Crossrail 2 opens, London’s ‘centre’ will be vast, stretching all the way from Heathrow / Old Oak Common in the west, the museums district in Kensington, the West End itself, the City itself, Shoreditch and Hoxton, to Docklands and Stratford in the east. There is simply no way any broadly north-south cross-river railway can hope to serve all of these without effectively duplicating a big chunk of Crossrail 1.
You can’t serve the entire core of London with a cross-river line, but you can provide interchanges with other lines that do: Crossrail 1, the Central Line, and the northern and southern sides of the Circle. You can also try and encourage more development zones north and south of the Thames so that the city can expand along that axis as well, rather than just east-west.
By far the biggest problem London faces right now, however, is that it insists on only building one Crossrail-scale project at a time, and each is taking ages just to get off the ground. Yes, Crossrail 1 is officially going to be completed in “just” 10-15 years, but it took roughly twenty years just to get it green-lit to begin with. If Crossrail 2 takes that long in gestation, we’ll be looking at 2035 or thereabouts before the first shovels hit the ground.
London needs a major change in how its infrastructure projects are handled. The status quo really isn’t working.
@Richard. I agree that there are areas (e.g. Clerkenwell) with no convenient rail access. Ideally such areas should be served. I also agree that difficulties (not necessarily insuperable ones) arise when adding new platforms to existing stations.
But I do not deduce from the above that a hypothetical new line must therefore miss Holborn and serve Clerkenwell instead. Passengers requiring Holborn (whether for interchange or access to the street) are not going to be satisfied by being put on the street at Clerkenwell and told to walk to Holborn. Nor should they be.
We need not deduce that when a new Crossrail type line disgorges passengers at an interchange station, the existing network will necessarily become overloaded. It may do, but that should be (and is) determined on a case-by-case basis. Crossrail 1 missing Oxford Circus is a result of such analysis, but so are all the other places where Crossrail 1 will offer interchange with the existing network.
@Malcolm…..You’re right about Clerkenwell, despite the Met/H&C/Circle/TL passing right beneath it! Does anyone know why no station was provided here when the original Met was built? In the past, your ‘which area to serve’ question would have had a simple answer….serve both! This is what the Picadilly line did, and partly why so many of its stations in the central area (Down St, York Rd etc) were shut…..too many too close together! Covent Garden might well have ended up on this list too, if not for its location and the redevelopment of the market into a retail and leisure destination in the 80s. I wonder how transport planners now decide the optimum spacing and placement of stations. Surely a priority is to serve areas with poor rail provision and overloaded buses (e.g. Chelsea King’s Rd and Camberwell)?
@Mike….I’ve said this before and I’ll say this again: any brand new tube line that doesn’t need to use existing tube infrastructure can be built to a mainline rail standard, and still be a Tube line, just like the subsurface lines or the Northern City line! Trying to solve one problem with the solution to a completely different problem has led to so many issues cropping up as we’ve all discussed above. I’m not saying that another cross-London heavy rail line is a bad idea, just that it deserves something a bit more thought through than being shoehorned into a plan and alignment that was meant for something completely different! As for Euston….without HS2, my understanding is that a Victoria / KX style rebuild (incorporating Euston Square station) will be sufficient, but please feel free to correct me and explain further.
@Malcolm:
“Passengers requiring Holborn […] are not going to be satisfied by being put on the street at Clerkenwell and told to walk to Holborn”
Why would passengers requiring Holborn get on a train that doesn’t go there?
If interchanging was such a big turn-off for commuters, Waterloo would have been closed down and sold off for redevelopment long ago.
Anomnibus asks “Why would passengers requiring Holborn get on a train that doesn’t go there?”
For the same reason that passengers requiring Euston often get on a train that only takes them to Euston Square.
My point was really that in choosing where to put platforms on a new line, we should not automatically rule out adding the platforms to existing interchange stations (if that’s where people need to go).
Anonymously says “any brand new tube line that doesn’t need to use existing tube infrastructure can be built to a mainline rail standard, and still be a Tube line, just like the subsurface lines or the Northern City line!”
Indeed, except that your examples show that the concept of what is, and what is not a “Tube” line is a bit vague, and does not really help. The public mostly class Met and District as “Tube” even though, in strict technical terms, they are not. As has been said, future tunnels built under London will probably be to main line gauge. Lines may or may not be added to the “Tube map” (let’s not go there!). Trains will probably be built to fill the tunnels available.
But what I think you may be getting at is that there is nonetheless a choice to be made, principally about how far out any new lines may go. The public was offered that choice in respect of CR2, as there was a so-called “metro” option. The original Chelsea to Hackney route would have been a “metro” in those terms. The public turned down the “metro” option for CR2, perhaps because as presented it seemed to have no advantages compared to the longer crossrail-type route. I think you may be suggesting a re-visiting of that choice.
@Malcolm….Actually, both the Metro and Regional options had public support, but the Regional one had slightly more support (I forget by how much). The consultation document did mention some advantages of the Metro option (e.g . higher frequency), but not the key one as I see it (operational independence from the National Rail network), so one could argue it was heavily weighted in favour of the Regional option as you allude.
I guess what I’m suggesting is that if a heavy rail Regional option is the preferred one (and I acknowledge that it does have some advantages), then the *route* needs to be comprehensively reviwed. Others have already explained above the problems with using the Chelney alignment for this project instead of a brand new one (e.g. bypassing Waterloo, reduced service at Earlsfields, rebuilding Wimbledon station, ‘mission creep’ pressure from politicos in the home counties wanting it to serve their communities…..). So I’m not opposed to CR2 in principle, just against using a route which was never meant for it!
(PS I have kept my crayons under lock and key, so that I don’t succumb to the temptation of suggesting an alternative route.)
The Regional CR2 almost certainly got more support because the pretty lines on the map went to more people. Many of those people may not have realised that what was proposed would replace, not augment, there nice fast trains to Waterloo.
What hasn’t perhaps been appreciated about Waterloo is that it is within walking distance of the City, the West End and Whitehall. (And many Whitehall/Westminster commuters can save themselves a Z1 fare by using Vauxhall)
Moreover, the concourse at Waterloo is a much more pleasant place to wait for a train than some underground cavern – and provided trains are announced in reasonable time those for whom the train is essential (because it is the only one for 30 minutes) get to join the train before the shorter distance passengers for whom missing a train is simply a minor inconvenience (the service is 20tph as far as Raynes Park), On a through platform, it’s a free-for-all and I can imagine on XR1 many Twyford/Reading commuters getting fed up at not getting their train because of the hordes of shorter distance commuter who could have waited.
Anyway, I have no particular axe to grind for any of the XR2 options, as I expect that, long before it is completed, I will have my own personal Underground (cut-and-cover construction), with a compartment all to myself!
Malcolm “Passengers requiring Holborn … are not going to be satisfied by being put on the street at Clerkenwell and told to walk to Holborn” – as people seeking to get to Clerkenwell from anywhere currently are, you mean?
Anonymously: You mention York Road (now York Way) and it is clear that one way to reduce the load on KX would be to have a new station in the area of this massive building project, just as it will be at OOC.
I won’t mention “single metal” options, but if we can’t dig down further to put in new lines because the exit times would be unacceptable, maybe it is time to think more about level access (trams) or raised services?
/where did I put my coat …
Oh what fun – “dissing” CR2 again. 😉
I agree with the previous comments that we need to shift our thinking about what “tube” might mean in the future. It certainly doesn’t have to mean a semi circular shaped train whizzing through a small tunnel. People need to consider that many modern metros provide long, high capacity high performance trains that can operate at high frequencies. I despair that we seem to have got to a position with “those in authority” that the only new construction they can foresee is Crossrail-esque. The more we keep trying to join up complex suburban networks via through tunnels under London the more we risk creating railways that seem fine in theory but are nightmares to operate because of the intermeshed way all suburban routes interact with other services or freight.
While I know people don’t necessarily like “interchange time penalties” there must come a time when the answer is to build boring, dull A to B new Tube Lines that are not all meshed in with NR networks other than affording a convenient interchange with them. At some point we may also start to put some meat on the bones of one or more decent orbital Metro lines that will be capable of getting people across / around London without overloading the central area (regardless of how many Crossrail routes there are in that part of town). Some imagination from the planners might be helpful.
@Malcolm – I am somewhat bemused by your reference to Clerkenwell, as here: “I agree that there are areas (e.g. Clerkenwell) with no convenient rail access. Ideally such areas should be served….But I do not deduce from the above that a hypothetical new line must therefore miss Holborn and serve Clerkenwell instead.” and equally bemused that nobody seems to have picked this up but Clerkenwell Green (the centre of the original village) is a mere stone’s throw from Farringdon station, which, in turn, is little more than a stone’s throw from both Holborn Viaduct (also served by City Thameslink) and Holborn Circus.
The pedestrian commute on the short distance between Farringdon and Holborn, and Farringdon and nearby Clerkenwell, is considerable indeed but not so much as to warrant an additional station in the area. The Clerkenwell area is also accessible by foot quite comfortably from the Angel tube along Rosebury Avenue and from St. John Street. It is certainly no farther than some other City or West End destinations are from stations.
@Clerkenwell. I wish I had used a made-up place to illustrate my point. I suppose I really meant Mount Pleasant sorting office. But maybe that will turn out to be just round the corner from a station. In which case I meant somewhere else.
I just tried to recast the argument in algebraic terms, with stations X and Y and line L. The resulting spiel was so impenetrable that it got hit by my nice big delete key. The discussion has moved on, anyway.
Anomnibus
London needs a major change in how its infrastructure projects are handled. The status quo really isn’t working.
Announcement this AM for tory party conference.
Lord Adonis is going crossbench & heading up a new Infrastructure Commission.
A N Other straw-in-the-wind, IMHO … Osborne is very, very likely to fire the admin starting gun for CR2 this autumn?
Malcolm & GF
Clerkenwell would be much better served, for some time, if a cheaper option was embraced: A North entrance/exit to Farringdon ( Met/Circle/Widened Lines ) on to Clerkenwell Rd – & it might be a good idea to do it before CR1 opens fully?
Meanwhile, I suggest everyone read the end of Chapter 12 of “Rails through the Clay” where the post-War proposals for cross-London services were laid out.
Even then, a distinction was made between “urban” & “suburban” services to be programmed to use those putative new links.
Plus ca change …
And what those proposals were, for that matter.
WW mentions the difficulties of CR2 ‘joining up complex suburban networks’, but isn’t the answer to this what was done with (for example) the eastern part of the Central Line, where the main line services were ‘disconnected’ and handed lock stock and barrel to the underground?
So go the whole way and with 6 tracks between New Malden and Wimbledon operate CR2 as the only service over a subset of the branches, rather than everywhere having both CR2 and Waterloo services. Raynes Park and New Malden would then become cross platform interchanges rather than junctions.
@Malcolm
“I suppose I really meant Mount Pleasant sorting office. But maybe that will turn out to be just round the corner from a station.”
On the contrary, despite being on top of the Circle Line, it is the location within the C-charge Zone that is the most remote from a station, (unless you count the Post Office Railway), being at the centre of a mile-wide circle bounded by Farringdon, Angel, Kings Cross, Russell Square and Chancery Lane. The Albert Memorial (equidistant from High Street Ken, Lancaster Gate, Knightsbridge, South Kensington, and Gloucester Road) is the most remote location within the Circle Line. (Cheyne Walk, near the Albert Bridge, is even ore remote – a distinction the locals seem keen to preserve!)
My reference to 20% referred to Bond Street, TCR, Farringdon, Liverpool Street and Canary Wharf (not Paddington or Whitechapel, which both have less employment). With two entrances at all except Canary Wharf. CR2 only has TCR.
On double entrance stations, and fewer stops, of course that is a good thing. But there is a difference between fewer and too few. Draw 10 minute walk circles around each entrance on CR1, and vast parts of the central employment zones are covered – no need to change to the tube. CR2 doesn’t come at all close.
@Pedantic I strongly suspect stations per mile is about the same as Crossrail 1
Paddington to Liverpool Street is 7km with 3 intermediate stations (5 if including the ends). Victoria to Euston/KX is 4km with 1 intermediate (3 including ends). Victoria to TCR’s southern entrance is longer than TCR to Farringdon. So, no I don’t think that washes as an argument.
@Walthamstow Writer, while a network with interchanges is generally good, bear in mind that South London has practically no tube to start with. Taking over existing lines is the only sensible option. Its just that CR2 is taking over too many suburban lines in one scheme.
With 60tph of 1200 people arriving at TCR on CR2 (from North and South), thats probably 1000 people per minute getting off (as its the only destination station). Given that 60%-70% from SW London want Waterloo not Vauxhall today, its not unreasonable to believe that at least 40%-50% of those 1000 people per minute will want CR1 eastbound. By my reckoning, the total capacity of CR1 eastbound from TCR is around 500 people per minute (24tph * 1200ppl / 60 mins). Thus, every CR1 train needs to be effectively empty eastbound at TCR to cope!!! Even if CR1 is increased to 30tph, it just won’t work. Just 3 or 4 minutes delay on CR1 will require CR2 to no longer stop at TCR to avoid a crush underground. Thats why I say that a second station isn’t just a nice to have, its essential.
StephenC,
My primary argument is that CR1 and CR2 are altogether different beasts and this comparison doesn’t really achieve much.
Yes, Victoria – Tottenham Court Road (southern entrance) will be further than Tottenham Court Road – Farringdon but not by much. I make it 2km v 1.8km. But designing Crossrail 2 is more constrained than designing Crossrail 1 simply because Crossrail 2 has to take into account Crossrail 1 but not the other way round.
Once you have committed to Tottenham Court Road on Crossrail 2 and the previously earmarked site then you have a choice. You either add a further station between Victoria and Tottenham Court Road – assuming that you can fit one in amongst the existing structures below ground – or you don’t. If you don’t then maybe the stations are a bit too far apart. If you do then Piccadilly Circus, the logical place, would probably be far too close to Tottenham Court Road southern entrance. Which is the lesser evil?
One could argue that the route for Crossrail 2 was largely determined by the decision made in Crossrail 1 to provide passive provision for the Chelsea-Hackney line at Tottenham Court Road but not to provide it at Hanover Square. That was probably the correct decision at the time because then no-one had heard of HS2 and Chelsea-Hackney wasn’t planned to serve Euston. Incidently it was planned to serve Piccadilly Circus but only if conventional tube-size stock was used because of the issue of finding a route for the tunnels. The trains would also have been shorter which would have reduced cost and meant that, even if double-ending had been thought about, the station entrances between adjoining stations would be further apart.
I agree you could stick a station elsewhere but this sounds like looking for a place to stick a station which seem the wrong way of going about it to me.
I have to admit I am not entirely convinced that Crossrail 2 calling at Tottenham Court Road is a particularly good idea because of the constraints it imposes but I think we re well beyond the point where that can be changed.
Stephen. TCR will not be “the only destination station” on CR2. It may be the only station where a substantial number of passengers alight and walk to their destination (though Euston Cross and Victoria will run it close). It will be the only station where passengers alight and change onto CR1, but there can only usefully be one of these. Passengers from the north requiring the city will change at Euston Cross.
@Malcolm – or Angel. Or not even board but rather take the GN&C or Lea Valley lines. The latter is also the case for Docklands (or taking ELL or STAR) from the North.
Too much is being made of changing between Crossrails – it’s not the only interchange in town!
From the South West, there’s one-change routes changing at Wimbledon (slow), Tooting (slow), Victoria (still not great), or TCR (where there are two routes, serving different areas) for The City. And StephenC also has mentioned changing at Angel in the past (which doesn’t seem viable). Docklands only has the one – Crossrail from TCR, which is an issue.
But then, like with the north, CR2 won’t be the only show in town. OK, unlike the north, there’s more stations that will be CR2 only, but we’re not looking at the entirety of Waterloo’s suburban network, but merely stops on the Chessington branch, Kingston loop, Shepperton branch and Hampton Court branch (one presumes that the Epsom branch will still have Waterloo trains using it, even though that’s operationally annoying!). Tooting Broadway won’t get Tootingites taking it, rather than the Northern, to get to The City either. Residents of Battersea won’t board CR2 at Clapham Junction rather than take the pre-existing lines to get to the Jubilee for Docklands, etc, etc.
@Stephen C
[on whether stations per mile is about the same on CR1 and CR2]]
“Paddington to Liverpool Street is 7km with 3 intermediate stations . ”
So 1.75km between stops
“Victoria to Euston/KX is 4km with 1 intermediate”
So 2km between stops
Only slightly more (and there is some rounding in there)
“Victoria to TCR’s southern entrance is longer than TCR to Farringdon”
But less than Paddington to Bond Street.
Ideally CR2 should have gone further east – perhaps Westminster and Holborn instead of Victoria and Centre Point – but I think that ship has sailed.
One point that seems to be missed regarding Crossrail 2 is that it’s neither the first nor, one hopes, the last such project to be built. The routes it opens with are likely to change too; Thameslink originally ran trains all the way out to Guildford, for example, but these stopped years ago. The service pattern isn’t fixed in stone and can be refined over time.
As each new line is built, the Crossrail “network effect” increases almost exponentially. We’re still at the early stages of this; it’ll be a long time before this new network can be considered ‘complete’. (Hopefully we’ll find ways to speed up the design, planning and construction phases in future, or it’ll be a hundred years hence before that day comes.)
Yes, Tottenham Court Road is going to be the sole Crossrail interchange, but what about Crossrail 3? This is likely to take a NW-SE route, which means it, too, will need to intersect both CR1 and CR2. Then along come CR4, CR5…
Rome wasn’t built in a day. Neither was Paris’ 5-line RER network. Crossrail will be no different.
I am going to say it again, that Wimbeldon will inevitably have to become a major interchange station in its own right. Assuming all or almost all trains stop, then those wanting g the West End can change to CR2 and anyone on a CR2 train wanting a Waterloo train can change there. Wimbeldon, with straight platforms will be much easier for interchange than Clapham Junction (especially fast trains).
If people sort out at Wimbledon where they want to go ultimately, much of the debate about ending up at the wrong place is eliminated. Wimbledon will need major work though.
Before people mention the terrible boarding and alighting times of classes 444 and 159, I am assuming that, in the timescale of CR2, the ‘fast’ and ‘ slow’ trains will be virtually indistinguishable rather like the situation on Southern.
@Castlebar- for someone who was born after the death of Network SouthEast, I’m not sure I can be included in that comment.
@Paul
Yes segregated tracks all the way on the south west CR2 lines is the best way forward (a la Plumstead to Abbeywood). Need to also have segregated tracks up the Lee Valley as well. This would give a completely segregated railway with no disruption pollution from all the parallel NR lines.
Re: Dan – segregated tracks make great sense operationally. However not so good for the punters in this case. Especially those from beyond Epsom who quite like their train service to Waterloo, there being no plans to take CR2 past Epsom.
@Anon
Possibly all beyond-Epsom trains might go via Sutton after CR2?
It’s reasonable for CR2 to share some of the branch extremities with other traffic. A good example of this might be Kingston terminators from Waterloo running via Richmond and overlapping with CR2 Shepperton and Twickenham trains. In the core New Maldon – Wimbledon six track section, in order to run such an intense service reliably the concept needs to be as simple and segregated as possible. Weaving traffic between adjacent tracks will be a big performance risk. Raynes Park is the problem if SWT services into Waterloo are retained from Leatherhead and beyond. It would be much easier if the Epsom line was to be a CR2 only branch. The question then is what to do with the Leatherhead trains. Previously, we have discussed a new cutoff line from Leatherhead heading to Oxshott or Claygate so those trains could run via Surbiton. That could involve as little as 5km of new double track construction partly following the M25. I would also cut the Hampton Court branch from the CR2 map so the four track section beyond New Malden to Surbiton would not have to host CR2 train. Looking for a new branch to add in it’s place I return to my suggestion of Sutton via St Helier, allowing the Thameslink Wimbledon loop service to be modified to form two branches terminating at Wimbledon and Sutton.
@Mark T
CR2 and Thameslink both terminating at Sutton would be a challenge without substantial modification to the station there.
Leatherhead trains: As I’m sure many readers know, there was a pre-war plan to run trains from Leatherhead to join the Chessington Branch with stations at Leatherhead North and Malden Rushett. This would’nt help the commuters of Ashtead though.
Re Mark T,
With 8 residual slow services it would leave virtually no slots for anything else if all the from /via Epsom services still went to Waterloo.
See my post above:
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2013/crossrail-2-doing-nothing-is-not-an-option/#comment-254509
@ngh
“just outside a potential mayor’s constituency ”
Not far from Richmond Park or Tooting actually, and independent candidate Siobhan Benita also lives in New Malden.
“With 8 residual slow services it would leave virtually no slots for anything else if all the from /via Epsom services still went to Waterloo.”
The via-Epsom services are 2tph Dorking, 2 tph Guildford-via-Bookham , (and others which go to Victoria) which still leaves four for, say, Shepperton and Guildford-via-Cobham.
It would be tidier if all Epsom starters went via CR2 and all “beyond Epsom” went via Sutton, but that means all trains would go to Victoria (one way or another) or London Bridge, and none to Waterloo
The question of electrification seems absent. Crossrail 1 seems to be going out of its way to avoid buying dual-voltage stock. I wonder what the plan is for CR2 given the SWML is also third-rail territory.
Anomnibus
I would expect dual-voltage, with a two or three-station section on both, to avoid pantograph blips.
Raynes Pk – Wimbledon – Tooting probably.
Or something like that
Greg Tingey 6 October 2015 at 16:54
Why do you “expect dual-voltage”, rather than overhead line electrification of the SW branches?
Alan Griffiths
I think 3rd rail (and hence dual-voltage stock) will be with us for many decades to come.
How easy is it going to be to make a business case for OHLE on the Shepperton Branch? Hampton Court? Epsom Downs? Hayes (Kent) even….? All those bridges…no freight….stop-start,all-stations running….
It seems to me that as Mark is right that it is dual Crossrail / NR running on the core that should be avoided while extremities are less of an issue.
If the service is intended to be 30tph and to the north the split is 20tph Alexandra Palace, 10tph Cheshunt then would the south not work better with 4 branches of 5tph than 5 branches of 4tph?
This allows you to run a Wimbledon terminator, branch 1, branch 2, Wimbledon, branch 3, branch 4 on a 12 minute repeating pattern through the core.
Having only 4 branches simplifies the core network by avoiding dual running from New Malden – Surbiton so your 4 branches are:
Twickenham
Shepperton
Chessington South
Epsom
The only mixed NR / Crossrail running is Twickenham – Kingston and Epsom – Raynes Park. Some new Crossrail only platforms at Twickenham and Epsom could further reduce the conflicts.
4 branches is also likely to be more reliable operationally than 5.
Worth noting the phrasing in the Wessex Route Study is for all branches to have at least 4tph, not exactly 4tph.
@altnabraec
“The only mixed NR / Crossrail running is Twickenham – Kingston and ………….”
It is unlikely the Waterloo – Twickenham – Kingston services would still run if CR2 is running to Twickenham – paths through Richmond are at a premium.
Dual electrification is definitely not a desirable solution today. Mixed systems like the North London Line before most of it was converted to AC only were subject to very severe stray current effects, and difficulties with signalling equipment.
DC systems are designed with the running rail traction return path floating free of earth on insulated pads and with insulated retaining clips. The rails must not be earthed or connected to other surrounding metalwork at any point. This policy ensures the running rails themselves and any strengthening conductors bonded in parallel remain by far the most attractive path for the current to follow to return to the substation, and the method is very effective in reducing stray DC currents which can be so damaging.
For high voltage AC systems, the running rail return cannot float in the same way because accessible voltage can drift very much higher than with lower voltage DC. In such systems, everything metallic nearby must be bonded to the rails and Earth for safety. That does nothing to discourage stray current, but with AC alone it doesn’t cause the same corrosion problems as with DC and the current levels at high voltage are very much lower anyway for a given power load.
The two philosophies collide when trying to combine the two electrification systems on the same section of track. In order to safely manage accessible voltages, the comprehensive bonding of AC must be applied, but this actively promotes the high DC return current using alternative ‘stray’ paths. Ideally dual electrified areas should be avoided or kept as small as possible.
Here’s an interesting ORR publications detailing the latest guidance for DC systems on tramways. These are based on decades-old methods used by DC electrified railways such as the former Southern Railway.
http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/5070/TTGN3.pdf
DESIGN STANDARDS STRAY CURRENT MANAGEMENT
Tramway Technical Guidance Note 3
I think CR2 is very likely to end up dual voltage like Thameslink. CR1 didn’t need to be dual because the lines joined at either end were either already OHLE equipped or planned to become so. The new tunnels are likely to be OHLE with trains changing systems near the southern portal, but the LSWR branches will likely stay DC but could be converted to AC at some time in the future as long as any new civil infrastructure is constructed with OHLE clearances in mind. It’s very risky to rely on being able to convert the entire inner LSWR network to OHLE at the same time or prior to CR2. An unacceptable dependency that could serious jeopardise both projects. To repeat. Widespread mixed electrification is highly undesirable. A completely separate AC network running parallel to the DC may be a is a little more acceptable as the traction return circuits with their different philosophies could be kept more segregated, but they really need be kept as separate as possible like LT&S and District in East London.
Why would you need to convert the entire inner LSWR network to AC? If anything, it might be a good argument to keep CR2 in tunnel until south of Wimbledon, where it can surface and take over branches segregated from the DC mainline through the provision of a new pair of tracks between the portal(s) and New Malden, which would segregate it fully out to Shepperton, Twickenham, Chessington South and Epsom, which could then all be converted to AC.
@mr_jrt
I certainly was not advocating a widespread conversion linked to CR2. More accurately whilst I acknowledge the benefits of AC generally I was warning of the dangers to timely completion if attempting to link the CR2 scheme into any wider LSWR re-electrification strategy.
Ability to use AC throughout would certainly be possible with operational segregation of CR2 at the south end. In that case if any other services were to inter-run with CR2 services at the extremities, like the Kingston via Richmond trains I suggested earlier, then THESE would have to be dual system instead of the CR2 trains themselves and there would need to be a short changeover section through Twickenham station for them to switch.
I, like Slugabed, can’t see what the great benefit of a conversion of the branches is however. If anywhere, 3rd rail DC is most appropriate on shorter urban metro style networks of which CR2 clearly is an example. With AC, along the LSWR corridor you’d have the incongruous scenario of longer distance higher speed commuter expresses using low voltage DC running in parallel with local all-stations trains on high voltage AC, the exact opposite of the LT&S/District corridor in East London.
There is no significant disbenefit in using 3rd rail for CR2 and the entire new tunnel section could even use that system with power changeover only taking place when emerging at the northern portal. With a new fleet required for the scheme, then just like Thameslink a dual system design could be specified from the outset. Whilst there is a cost clearly, adding DC capability to a new train that already has to have AC should be a lot cheaper than an AC conversion of a DC train.
If you can have dual voltage trains at little extra cost, why saddle the project with extra cost for little gain.
These branches will have stopping services on them, I see no need for the extra oomph that AC supplies. Considering how electrification is receding into the future on the rest of the network it will be a long time before any existing DC network is at the forefront of conversion.
If for nothing else it will be politically unviable, while large parts of the North or unwired.
At most it will be the outer extremities of the network, where higher line speeds might prove worthwhile, that conversion might be considered.
My point was that Crossrail 1 stops dead at Abbey Wood.
The usual excuse given for not taking it beyond that point to Dartford is “capacity”, given that dual-voltage trains are a known science now. But we’ve already heard that the South West Main Line (SWML) is close to capacity as well with talk of adding a fifth (or even sixth) track all the way out to Surbiton.
Given the paired-by-direction arrangement, not to mention the flying junctions, that’s going to be very expensive and feels like an easy target for the usual salami-slicing tricks accountants are so fond of. It’ll make the plans for extending from Abbey Wood to Dartford look like peanuts by comparison.
We’re talking about rebuilding pretty much every station along the way, not to mention modifications to the multiple flying junctions on the route.
So my question stands: are we that certain CR2 will actually go anywhere at all beyond Wimbledon when it opens?
My money’s on “probably not”, though I’ll be happy to be proved wrong.
Mark Townend
Agree- please note I said a LIMITED section of dual-voltage, if only to avoid pantograph blips. Basically one extra station past the southern tunnel mouth, i.e. Raynes Park, assuming that Wimbledon CR2 will be in tunnel & have 3rd rail to the platforms, which will have PED’s, anyway.
Mr jrt
And what do you do about the DC beyond Epsom services, then?
You are still going to need a conductor rail Raynes Park – Epsom, err …
Anomnibus,
I think the main reason for not extending to Dartford is cost rather than capacity issues.
Crossrail 2 is a different beast from Crossrail 1 and the branches at the southern end are integral to the scheme. That was not the case with Abbey Wood – Dartford – Ebbsfleet or even Maidenhead – Reading.
You are not going to terminate 24 or 30 tph at Wimbledon very easily. Six tracking to New Malden will probably work out to be expensive but much cheaper than extending in a tunnel – and you then have multiple portals which dramatically increases cost.
Five tracks to Surbiton (from around Clapham Junction) is a different but complementary scheme. It obviously has a bit of commonality between Wimbledon and New Malden.
@Pedantic of Purley:
“Six tracking to New Malden will probably work out to be expensive but much cheaper than extending in a tunnel”
What about a station-less express tunnel from Wimbledon to Woking for the long-distance fasts, leaving the existing formation for slows and skip-stoppers? I suspect this might even be slightly cheaper than trying to widen every bridge, cutting, viaduct, flying junction, and station between Clapham Junction and Surbiton.
You’ve already got the TBMs out; you might as well get the most out of them.
Anomnibus,
Wimbledon to Woking – more than 16 miles
Wimbledon to New Malden – less than 3 miles
anomnibus and PoP: CR1 not going to Dartford is surely a cost and capacity issue. Sharing existing tracks and platforms (which might be technically possible, though if not please don’t bother with the explanation) is ruled out on capacity grounds. And building new ones is believed to cost too much.
@Malcolm – the Crossrail project management team was very clear – going to Dartford implied too much operational “pollution” risk [their term], whatever the cost or technical issues.
Graham H,
Yes but that was only a factor. It was the combination of the three without any satisfactory solution. You can’t say it was entirely performance pollution because that is only true if you don’t have segregated tracks – which is a cost issue.
I admit I am confusing the issue now when no-one would seriously consider extending beyond Abbey Wood without new tracks and the issue then when it was proposed to extend over existing tracks.
@mr JRT
“Why would you need to convert the entire inner LSWR network to AC? ……………..segregate it fully out to Shepperton, Twickenham, Chessington South and Epsom, which could then all be converted to AC.”
That IS almost the entire inner LSWR network!
If dual-system trains are needed anyway, is there a significant advantage to having ohle (or more likely “ohre”, CR1-style) in the tunnel section rather than 3rd rail?
@Mark T
“Whilst there is a cost clearly, adding DC capability to a new train that already has to have AC should be a lot cheaper than an AC conversion of a DC train.”
Most new trains built for UK use in the last 25 years are ac/dc capable, partly because it is easy to don and partly because it to make them more saleable by the leasing company. In particular, conversion to dc requires little more than adding shoegear.
As has been mentioned before, even if a train is taking power from an ac supply and using it to drive ac motors, there is no way to convert the fixed supply frequency into the variable frequency required by the motors without an intermediate zero-frequency (DC) stage
mr jrt
Why would anyone wish to travel from Waterloo (or anywhere west of it), to Twickenham via New Malden
I thought the GWR was known as the Great Way Round
Is SWT to be known as !Serpentine Way There”?
PoP
hence the pressure, already building -especially given the, err building around Ebbsfleet (pun unintended) for a segregated Abbey Wood / Dartford / Ebbsfleet line-extension of CR1.
Whether it can, or should go further than Ebbsfleet is a n other kettle of stinking fish, I think.
Dr R B
Err, there was always: “Castleman’s Corkscrew”- the original route to Bournemouth, wasn’t there?
@Dr Richards Beeching
Twickenham seems to be the plan for CR2 that London First want, and TfL have also shown desire for that. Presumably the biggest advantage of going all the way around is to remove a branch from the Windsor lines and allow more trains to go west of Twickenham via Richmond without increased fouling of level crossings on that route.
As far as I can see, CR2’s Southwestern branches are not set in stone. There’s going to be 30tph CR2 and up to ~18tph Waterloo at Wimbledon, and 7 or 8 destinations to send trains to (Twickers, Shepperton, Hampton Court, Woking, via Cobham, Chessington North, Epsom, and perhaps beyond Epsom). There’s many service patterns that would be possible, several that would be reliable and a couple that could happen if a move away from the current proposal occurs.
@Dr Richards Beeching
“Why would anyone wish to travel from Waterloo (or anywhere west of it), to Twickenham via New Malden”
How else do you get from, say, Wimbledon to Twickenham?
As well as orbital journeys, the “Loop” service Strawberry Hill would have three trains a day, and the trains have to go somewhere after Strawberry Hill. The route from Strawberry Hill to Waterloo via Twickenham is quicker than via Kingston, and also cheaper, as the latter goes through Zone 6.
An alternative might be for all CR2 services via Kingston to go to Twickenham, with the freed-up paths through Richmond used for a more direct Waterloo-Shepperton service. (The circuitous route between Hampton and Hampton Wick/Kingston is duplicated by a more direct bus route – indeed bus from Hampton to Hampton Court would get you to the SWML even faster)
A Kingston-Shepperton shuttle is another possibility
Well, My understanding from friends who live there is that there are many living on the Shepperton branch who do not wish to travel via New Malden, preferring to travel via Twickenham if they only could
@ timbeau, who asked “How else do you get from, say, Wimbledon to Twickenham?
My answer is: “Why would many people want to”? > I suspect more people want to get from the Sunbury branch to Twickenham and Richmond, and the R70 can often take best part of an hour to/from Nurserylands to Richmond station in the peaks. Frankly, some (not all) ‘suggested routings’ I’ve seen suggest a hint of crayonism, trying to find “a nice place to link CR2 up to and which look tidy on a map”, rather than being of much practical help to the majority of people who live there. Many on the Shepperton branch see New Malden only as an irritating stop on the long way round journey to somewhere else, especially those who have, say a connection with L.U. as their objective.
I hope that answers your question without in any way appearing to be offensive, which is certainly not my intention.
@Pedantic of Purley, 7 October 2015 at 09:44
Wimbledon to Woking – more than 16 miles
Wimbledon to New Malden – less than 3 miles
Earlsfield to New Malden (fast lines) – less than 4 miles
– No station platforms required in a fast tunnel
– New ramp and north portal for fast tunnel adjacent to depot site between Earlsfield and Wimbledon
– Up slow flyover redundant and removed
– New south ramps and portals for CR2 to the north of Wimbledon
– CR2 takes over outer (former slow) pair Wimbledon-New Malden
– Waterloo slow residual services move to inner pair (former fast) between Wimbledon and New Malden
– No changes whatsoever to station layout at Wimbledon (except pedestrian measures – e.g. extra or wider footbridges stairs and passages)
– Cross-platform interchange at Wimbledon between Waterloo and CR2 trains
– Raynes Park becomes a CR2 only station, with platforms on the outer pair only
– So no layout changes at Raynes Park, assuming Epsom/Chessington becomes CR2 only)
– New South portal of fast tunnel between Raynes Park and New Malden in centre of formation
– New Malden station rebuilt
– – Old fast island platform removed
– – Road bridges and earthworks modified to accommodate 6 tracks through station area.
– – Two new island platforms created between (outer) Crossrail and Waterloo slow lines for each direction for cross-platform interchange.
– – Fasts pass through the centre with no platforms.
– To the south of New Malden existing grade separation used to allow CR2 trains to branch towards Kingston
– No CR2 trains go beyond New Malden on the main line
– Travellers between Raynes park and Waterloo or Surbiton could interchange cross platform at Wimbledon or New Malden
This concept could be operated entirely segregated from LSWR mainline slow services which could thus continue to offer a full 20+ TPH frequency into Waterloo from stations and branches beyond New Malden
If CR2 and LSWR were both DC through the area the parallel tracks paired by direction could offer some resilience and flexibility with some crossovers between the adjacent tracks. There would be no additional peak capacity provided by doing this, we are talking 20+ remaining on the slows and 24+ on the crossrails, so there’s no opportunity for planned weaving without detrimental effect on capacity as well as horrible performance risking dependency between otherwise independent service groups, but the ability to close one pair at quieter times for engineering or get around a failure would be extremely useful.
The design has only 1 CR2 platform for each direction at Wimbledon, so there’s no room for all the terminating trains from central London envisaged. This is where the Sutton branch comes in. A south flyover at Wimbledon would allow trains from the St Helier line to cross over all the other tracks conflict free and join the former Up slow (now CR2) just to the south of the station. A junction from the down CR2 would simply be on the level. This arrangement can be used for reversing siding as well as accessing the Sutton line. This is intrinsically a high capacity line built for metro style operations with electric trains by the Southern. It has no level crossings. Even with only a new single platform terminus at Sutton, built on the site of the current junction with the Epsom line) the line could handle maybe 6+ TPH with short turnbacks. Additional turnback locations on the line for service thinning and emergencies could also be considered. All track connections between the St Helier and Epsom lines at Sutton would be removed as in order to achieve a relatively level new crossrail platform, it would have to be sunken relative to the Epsom line.
At Wimbledon, the truncated Thameslink Wimbledon loop service would terminate in platform 9. Some stabling siding space beyond in the yard area could be retained for Thameslink together with an emergency/engineering connection to Crossrail Sutton branch, which might also have some sidings here.
At Sutton the truncated Thameslinks would run into the Epsom Downs branch platforms. They could get to and reverse in No.4 only currently, but junction changes might allow No.3 to be also accessible from the Mitcham Junction direction as well so services could be planned more flexibly in conjunction with the branch trains. Thinking out of the box, to avoid the junction changes it would be possible for Thameslink to run the entire Epsom Downs branch service – that’s no stranger than Thameslink running to Tattenham Corner!
Journey time comparisons from Kingston to Waterloo –
Today:
Kingston – Waterloo via Wimbledon – 31 minutes – 8 stops – direct
Kingston – Waterloo via Richmond – 50 minutes – 15 stops – direct
After CR2:
Kingston – Waterloo via Wimbledon – 34 minutes – 7 or 8 stops – 1 change ( assumed cross-platform at Wimbledon or New Malden (rebuilt))
And assuming Kingston terminators via Richmond remain as a vestige of the former ‘loop’ –
Kingston – Waterloo via Richmond (slow) – 50 minutes – 15 stops – direct.
So no change but journey time could be improved with a fast pattern –
Kingston – Waterloo via Richmond (notional limited stop) – 38 minutes – 9 stops – direct.
(same stopping pattern as Windsor trains : All to Twickenhamm then Richmond, Putney, Clapham Junction, Vauxhall, Waterloo)
@Graham H
(living in the deepest corner of Surrey, I’m all in favour of eliminating the boring stops and tiresome punters from Zacland).
“Zacland” (the Richmond Park and North Kingston constituency) does not extend as far south as the SWML, so unless you are coming in from Staines or Sunbury you won’t meet any of us tiresome punters!
@Mark Townend
Some interesting ideas there. However
“– Raynes Park becomes a CR2 only station, with platforms on the outer pair only”
Not sure if you are familiar with the existing layout at Raynes Park – the fast tracks already have no platforms, and there are two islands – the inner faces serve the lines to/from New Malden, the outer faces serve the lines to/from Motspur Park.
Your proposal presumably means that all Waterloo slow services would use the existing centre (fast) tracks
I’m not sure you could fit six tracks and two island platforms in the current width of New Malden (it currently has four tracks, two side platforms and a disused island)
“Even with only a new single platform terminus at Sutton, built on the site of the current junction with the Epsom line)”
That would be about 200 metres from the existing station at Sutton – hardly a convenient interchange. And you would need an awful lot of excavation to turn the “Wall of Death” ramp into a level stretch!
The nearest bit which is both straight and level is half a mile away, and half way to West Sutton station.
An easier solution might be to divert Epsom line services into new platforms in the angle between the existing Epsom and Epsom Downs platforms (even if that requires the Epsom Downs line to be reduced to a shuttle or (beware, joined up thinking approaching) converted to tram operation as proposed by LBSutton)
@Mark T
“Kingston – Waterloo via Richmond (notional limited stop, All to Twickenham then Richmond, Putney, Clapham Junction, Vauxhall, Waterloo) – 38 minutes – 9 stops – direct.”
But the main point of both Kingston and Hounslow loop services is to provide the stopping service on the Richmond line with somewhere to go.
If you run the loop trains limited-stop, you reduce Mortlake, North Sheen, and St Margarets to 2 tph.
Castlebar is quite correct that the Shepperton branch would be more deserving of those slots, with all CR2 trains via Kingston terminating at Twickenham.
And although, pace Richards Beeching, people do use the service from Wimbledon and Kingston to Twickenham*, there are no so many that having to change at Twickenham for stations to Richmond and beyond is out of the question.
*Road transport, including bus, is not good between these points. This is partly because of Richmond Park and the river, and partly because there were never any trolley wires along Cross Deep, so London’s last trolleybus route continues to make the long detour via Fulwell – even though it has been run by motor buses since 1962: sometimes TfL’s sense of heritage goes too far
timbeau you are correct about lack of provision for Cross Deep etc, and the only reason the trolleybuses went via Fulwell is because that is where the tram tracks ran before them, where the depot was, and where all the crew changes took place. Local residents are still paying the price for having the tram network.
Vince Cable was just getting ‘on the case’ regarding the rubbishy rail provision for his southern constituents, but he got the big P45 at the last election and the matter will now be consigned to the shredder
Re. AC-DC changeover – ‘Modern Railways’ Oct. reports on the dual-voltage Class 319’s entering service on the London Midland and “the challenges of the units”, commenting “that the reliability of the fleet will improve once they are working solely on AC power, with the constant switching between AC and DC traction while used on Thameslink services [being] a major cause of technical issues.”.
I wonder what those issues are and whether they are also apparent on other stock on Thameslink services and perhaps will also be on the Class 700 stock. It perhaps follows that anything on Crossrail 2 will need to overcome such difficulties. Can anyone amplify what MR says to compare with later stock? On Thameslink 2018, with up to 24tph in each direction, that will mean up to 48 changeovers per hour (whilst also coping with 96 changeovers between ATO and non-ATO).
I broadly agree with Mark’s summary of proposals. I’d argue that the fast line tunnel is best starting north of Berrylands than New Malden, simply to avoid major rework of New Malden. I also think the portal site is better at Berrylands, certainly in civil engineering access terms.
What I find odd with the hints in this thread of a major Wimbledon rebuild is why there is a need to stop the fast line services at Wimbledon at all. While obviously Wimbledon is a fairly major centre, it isn’t as major as East Croydon or Stratford, or as important a junction as Clapham Junction. Putting the fast lines in a tunnel leaves the Wimbledon rebuild as a much simpler problem, which is surely of benefit to all.
FWIW, I don’t think Earlsfield will be able to be dropped from 20tph to 8tph of residuals (frequency matters a lot to passengers, even though many NR planners seem to ignore it and focus solely on seat/stand capacity). While it hasn’t happened yet, a political campaign is bound to form to fight it. I’ve argued for CR2 to go via Earlsfield not Tooting, but if that doesn’t happen, Earlsfield will need at least 12tph, so that will have to be factored in.
On destinations, all the hints I’ve seen are for 12tph CR2 to Kingston. That severely limits the other branches, especially as I think 6tph should be the minimum for zones 4 to 6.
‘going to Dartford implied too much operational “pollution” risk [their term], whatever the cost or technical issues.’
And yet the planners seem happy to accept these much greater ‘pollution’ risks with the myriad of CR2 SW branches?
All the subsequent discussion about train frequencies/platforms/tunnels/branches/routes/AC vs DC (!) only serves to reinforce my view that someone needs to take a good long look at CR2 (the new mayor?) and modify the plans before it is too late. And I haven’t even started on whether or not HS2 to Euston will happen!
Don’t say that I didn’t warn you….
@Anonymously -yes, the contrast in attitudes is striking – there was a strong indication at the time that the “pollution” argument was pushed by CR1’s Chief Executive as a personal thing.
I share your concern about the way in which CR2 has emerged – CR1 was the product of a core vision which was subsequently developed incrementally to what we have now, and as such a reasonably coherent response to an identifiable problem. CR2 has never been that at any stage but remains a cobbled together mix of randomly selected responses to randomly selected problems – and is now being further muddied, even before its core functions have been clarified,by all manner of extra “goodies”. This is not to say that CR2 in some form isn’t needed – it is – but what is wholly unclear at the moment is precisely what it is for. If it was clear, then we wouldn’t have all the agitated crayonista planning redesigning the SW Inners.
More (yes, sorry,more), the lack of clarity is a good reason for rejecting StephenC’s comment of a few days ago that it is better to build any line on a map than none because (a) it all adds to capacity anyway, and (b) build it and they will come anyway. There is only a limited pot of money for any schemes at all, and it takes no more effort to get them right than it does to get them half right. Why build something on a sloppy rationale when the same planning resources would produce the correct answer? As for build it and they will come – the cry of the crayonista through the ages.*
*Readers are cordially invited to attend the launch of my fabulously expensive collection of white elephants. This will be marked by a ceremonial bonfire of £50 banknotes to be held in the atrium of Stratford Inexplicable.
@ Graham H, Surely, your fabulously expensive White Elephant exhibition should be held inside the the Millennium Dome
@castlebar – The Dome!? Old Whitehall /City joke. Ah yes, who is it who is the common link between Railtrack, Equitable Life, and the Dome – financial and corporate governance failures all?
anonymously and Graham H:
“Pollution” is an excessively loaded word here. However, it is quite clear what is meant. The more interconnected different lines are, the greater the risk of disruption on one line resulting in disruption on another.
But the particular bit of (hypothetical) interconnection on CR1 which opened this discussion would have been (a) additional to those already planned at the other two ends of CR1, and (b) also undesirable anyway on other grounds (as discussed earlier). And as PoP reminds us, CR1 and CR2 are different beasts anyway.
The other side of interconnection is wider choice for passengers, and added robustness in some cases. OK, if some sort of Armageddon hits Waterloo one day, right now no-one can get in to London at all from the southwest. (Almost no-one, there is the District). With CR2 in place, polluted or not, there is another possibility.
I agree that the current CR2 plans may not yet be perfect. But let’s not overdo the negativity. Whether improved or not, CR2 will provide a massive (and by then desperately needed) boost to London’s travel facilities.
Anonymously,
And yet the planners seem happy to accept these much greater ‘pollution’ risks with the myriad of CR2 SW branches?
Without knowing the details I don’t think we can say this. I suspect it is not true.
It is not the myriad of CR2 SW branches which we believe will be part of CR2 that matters, it is the way they integrate (or otherwise) with existing train services. If we are talking about sharing services on dead end branch lines, by which time the the frequency of service is relatively low, then that is a world apart from what was originally proposed on Crossrail 1 between Abbey Wood and Ebbsfleet.
We also don’t know the level of segregation though the desire for six tracks gives us a clue.
Graham H,
I think it is reasonably clear what CR2 is for. What leaves me a little bit uncomfortable are the “goodies” which gives me the feeling of trying to solve too many problems at once. Then again I could say the same about the Jubilee line extension and look how successful that is.
Crossrail 1 is a bit like the Victoria line – relatively simple and appears to take a route that seems reasonably logical
Crossrail 2 is much like the Jubilee line – designed to solve a host of issues and as a result appears to meander.
In the case of the tube lines both are very successful (and I suppose I will have to concede have achieved their purpose) yet, to me, the Victoria line will always feel to me to be the epitome of a well-designed tube line designed to solve the problems of the day and the Jubilee line route will always feel like a bit of a mess without a simple logical objective.
@malcolm – “Pollution” was the word used by the CR1 team – as you say a loaded term and their choice says much about their attitudes.
@PoP – I tend to agree with you; it’s the wrangling over the (ill-defined but popular) goodies that is upsetting the various compromises inherent in the initial version of CR2 – the debate about what is to be done with the SW inners neatly illustrates that – the unanswered questions about residual services, the use of released main line capacity, and indeed the choice of inners to put through the new scheme, all suggest a lack -*now* – of clear purpose and careful thought. Add a few layers of goodies (the image I had in mind was a box of chocolates…) and the concept becomes extremely muddied.
Muddiness is not an evil in itself, of course, but the financial and operational (and commercial) consequences are.
I have to object to the idea that CR1 came about in a rational gradualist way. You can argue that CR1 is much more compromised.
The core of the scheme has always to link Liverpool street to Paddington and relieve the Central Line. It’s what happened after that that has constantly changed.
The main problem with the current scheme is that it has two branches on it’s Eastern side, rather than the Western. This is important because commuting demand is so much higher from the East than the West.
Those two Eastern Branches are going to swamped. The Stratford branch does not even have enough space for the current number of peak commuting trains into Liverpool Street!
The original 90’s scheme balanced the demand properly.
But in the end politics changed all that. The rise of Isle of Dogs brought a newly moneyed district into play, which desperately needed new capacity if it wanted to continue to grow.
Logic would dictate that any split in the core route should occur after Canary Wharf, but the Geography here is not kind. It is impossible to serve the Great Eastern Line very well from Canary Wharf, when the ideal point to take over the inner services is Stratford.
The problem there is the time penalty involved in a rather awkward dog leg.
A smoother link occurring at Ilford would introduce an awkward split in inner services and not release as many platforms at Liverpool Street.
If you wanted to serve Canary Wharf then it would make sense to link up to LTS at Barking and/or North Kent Lines with a fast tunnel down the Greenwich peninsula. But that would be seen as a betrayal politically speaking so the Great Eastern Line needed to be served as well.
So instead of one expensive scheme we got an even more expensive scheme that does not serve the Eastern Branches very well.
We could have kept the old routing and saved ourselves a lot of money, or built the Bakerloo to Lewisham with the saved cash, or had a longer crossrail scheme in the East providing a real boost in capacity.
The design of Crossrail was necessitated by the need to get business backing for higher business rates to help pay for it. If central government had been willing to pay for it all, then I doubt we’d have ended up with the same design.
Rational Plan,
I could hardly do anything else than agree with much of what you have said given that I wrote something very similar way back in 2011.
There is are a couple of differences though, says he trying to weasel out of this.
I think we shall forever be stuck with the routing and design of Crossrail 2. If it turns out that there is a problem on the east side of Crossrail 1 that can’t be resolved by longer and more frequent trains then one could separate the eastern branches in much the same way the the Fleet Line (subsequently Jubilee line stage 1) did with the same issue at Baker Street. To me the basic idea was still sound.
I also think that the introduction of Crossrail 1 will be an enabler for subsequent schemes to get replacement capacity into Liverpool Street. And there does have to be a limit to just how much demand there can be on 240m (ultimately) trains from Shenfield.
I know people go on about the imbalance between west and east on Crossrail 1 but does it really matter? And in any case if planning an east-west route this is practically inevitable unless you start adding more branches.
@Rational Plan – I was careful in describing CR1 to refer to the *core* scheme – Paddington to LST. Its nature and purpose hasn’t changed. You are correct in suggesting the inherent problem was – and still is – balancing the eastern and western sides [one of the more controversial presentations I used to give NSE colleagues showed the numbers of vehicles approaching Paddington in the morning peak, compared with the numbers approaching LST], which is why the Mk 1 CrossRail was a much more elegant solution.
Adding Abbey Wood may turn out to be a mistake in traffic terms but in the context of the available traffic forecasts at the time it was added, it seemed less of an issue. Without breaking open a new pack of Lakeland’s finest, it is arguable that the Abbey Wood branch will turn out to be a very short term means of relieving the Wharf-Thamesside corridor, but that doesn’t mean that CR1 will not do what it was intended to do,which was to relieve the Central Line. Whether it does other things as well to our collective satisfaction is probably irrelevant.
Compare this with CR2, whose purpose is unclear – the very choice between metro and regional options makes that only too plain – and whose *core* route is full of uncertainties, let alone its outer ends. How will we know whether it is the best available choice? Or indeed, whether it has succeeded? Again,what are the problems that CR2 is trying to solve?
@Graham F
As I recall the early ac/dc changeover problems with the 319s was partly down to a lack of experience. The only previous ac/dc units (the 313s) ran with pan up for most of the time, only running on dc for the quick dive “down the hole” and out again. I don’t recall exactly why running in dc mode for more of the time was a problem for the 319s, just that it was. (Did it get stuck in the down position?)
I seem to recall 313s also had problems running on dc at full line speed on the North London Line, having been limited to 30mph on the “Big Tube”
Eurostar operations started twenty years ago, and they seemed to have cracked the problem by then.
It is important though to have somewhere for a unit to go if the changeover fails to happen – at its simplest a crossover to allow the train to go back the way it came, but a siding is preferable. The extension of wires from Farringdon to City TL was done to allow units stuck on ac to reverse there (previously they would have been sent to Moorgate). It also means a unit stuck on dc can be discovered in time to put it into Smithfield sidings.
@Anonymously
“And yet the planners seem happy to accept these much greater ‘pollution’ risks with the myriad of CR2 SW branches?”
Which is why I think residual Waterloo services on the Kingston and Epsom lines are unlikely. Six-tracking as far as New Malden looks possible (given a major rebuild of Wimbledon is inevitable) .
Sending the terminating CR2 services down the St Helier line looks attractive, but the stations on that line would all need extending to take the longer CR2 trains.
@Stephen C
12 tph for Earlsfield? How about four each from Hampton Court, Guildford via Cobham, and Weybridge. Also gives Berrylands a decent service at last.
@Malcolm
“OK, if some sort of Armageddon hits Waterloo one day, right now no-one can get in to London at all from the southwest.”
It needn’t be at Waterloo itself – yesterday morning’s incident at Surbiton caused disruption over a wide area of southern England
@poP
“I know people go on about the imbalance between west and east on Crossrail 1 but does it really matter?”
It matters because demand on the eastern legs is not matched by capacity on the west, and the demand in the west is not enough to justify extra capacity on the GWML. Demand on either eastern leg would, by itself, be enough to match two GWMLs, but we have the opposite.
Pollution – this was seen as a downside of Thameslink right from the start- that wires down at Flitwick could cause delays on a large chunk of the South Central Division and, just as significant, the self-contained “Bedpan” route’s hitherto exemplary reliability would take a nosedive because of the complexities south of the Thames. But the economic arguments of eliminating two London termini, and the rolling stock saved by not laying over in those termini, was what got the line re-opened – at the height of the Thatcherite “lets turn Marylebone into a bus station” era.
@ GH
In a very serpentine way, this really was my point on 2nd October before Malcolm made a comparison with “planting trees”. I do actually get his point (in a way), but the core issue is where to plant them. There is no point in planting trees in the wrong place. This is a project totally unlike CR1 simply because nobody can decide where it should start and end and which route it should take. It is almost becoming a case of “at least let us make a start on something” , and with any luck it will prove to have been the right thing to do. Back in Gerry Fiennes days, 50 years ago, when he went on record as saying that he would have “4 tracked the Central Line” (which is similar to saying CR1 should run LST to Paddington but with bits stuck on each end) we are arguing about hypothesis of the best possible route for CR2, the real objectives of which are becoming more and more muddied as this thread develops.
I am more and more reminded of the instruction to “Keep it simple, stupid”, yet we are reading plans here, which if all came to be constructed, would look like a tarantula on a map. Everywhere (perhaps with the exception of Chelsea) is crying out “We want it to pass through here!” Why? Because it is assumed that it will provide better and faster rail services to central London. Do some of these plans do that? For residents of Abbey Wood/Thamesmead to be on any Crossrail scheme certainly would. For New Malden, Tattenham Corner, Twickenham, Kingston, “Berrylands”, Epsom etc, I’m not so sure.
timbeau,
It matters because demand on the eastern legs is not matched by capacity on the west, and the demand in the west is not enough to justify extra capacity on the GWML.
But why does that actually matter?
@timbeau – yes, it was mainly problems with the pan, so far as the 319s were concerned. [For amusement, I accompanied Paul Channon when he was SoS, on a special train through the not-yet-reopened core as far as Farringdon, where the set was supposed to go forward to S Albans. However, they couldn’t get the pan up and so there we sat; at the front of the train Channon was busy chatting to the driver, unaware of what was going on further down the train. And that was a bunch of v angry punters – “we’ve been told to get on, we’ve been told to get off. Is this train going to [insert expletive] or not”? BR local management, ever sensitive to public opinion, brought on their ultimate customer care tool,and the BTP threw everybody off the train. Channon – a very nice man – was most distressed when I told him what he had missed…
The business case for TLK was not so much that it eliminated two termini – actually, very little land was released thereby -but that the elimination of trains standing in terminal platforms paid for the cost of the wiring. The whole scheme was very cheap and as such passed below No 10’s radar.
@Graham H
“The business case for TLK was ……that the elimination of trains standing in terminal platforms paid for the cost of the wiring. ”
Surely there wasn’t any wiring – the new link was a couple of hundred yards of 3rd-rail track, (although it has been electrified on ac since) and a reinstated junction at each end.
“Very little land was released thereby”
Surely even in the 1980s the value of a plot of land in the Square Mile the size of Holborn Viaduct station would have been significant? I was under the impression the cost of building City Thameslink was paid for by the land released by diverting the line to pass under Ludgate Hill instead of over it.
@Stephen C
Clearly Earlsfield residents will campaign against any reduction in frequency. (And what happens at Vauxhall?) And you would also provide a higher frequency if that was practical. But Earlsfield only has 16 tph off peak now (18 tph in the peak). So the reduction isn’t as stark as you suggest. And there are a number of SWT staions with higher usage than Earlfield but only 4tph or 6tph, because they aren’t on the SWML. No-one is going to change the whole planning of the post CR2 service or stop the semi-fasts at Earlsfield just to provide more tph at Earlsfield. 16tph at Earlsfield isn’t intentional, it is just a by-product of aligning the stopping pattern of all the slow line trains to increase capacity and performance at the major SWT re-cast.
timbeau,
Don’t confuse the original implementation of Thameslink which I believe cost something like £4 million (no that is not a typing error) to reconnect the two systems and the big scheme done later on to remove the viaduct and the bridge over the road called Ludgate Hill.
The latter involved Ludgate Hill being regraded to go over the railway and did release a lot of land but that came later. Incidently, if I recall correctly, they managed the diversion (more on a vertical than horizontal alignment) in 16 days though building City Thameslink (then St Pauls Thameslink) took a lot longer. Also incidently, it is only now with a building redevelopment that the obvious hangover of the pavement being substantially lower than the road has been eliminated.
@Graham H
‘Ah yes, who is it who is the common link between Railtrack, Equitable Life, and the Dome – financial and corporate governance failures all?’
Google is your friend. Jennie Page, CBE. Apparently, she cut her teeth on the London Docklands Development Corporation after a string of mostly civil service jobs before being headhunted by Minister Stephen Dorrell. Immediately before her job as Chief Executive of Millennium Central (the Dome organisers), she was Chief Executive of the Millennium Commission. Presumably she recused herself from the selection process. Her successor at the Millennium Commission also came from the LDDC and was responsible for the development of Canary Wharf.
Other friends in high places included Lord Montague of Beaulieu and Jocelyn Stevens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennie_Page
Good grief.
ML,
In the morning peak at Earlsfield I suspect the issue is not the number of trains but the number of people that can board them. I am sure if they had half the number of trains but they could actually board them (and maybe even get a seat) because so many passengers had got off at Wimbledon to change then they would be
very happyhappier than they would be currently.I presume most SWT commuters get off at Vauxhall to catch the Victoria line. By 2030 I can’t see how anyone will be able to get on the Victoria line at Vauxhall in the morning peak on the presumption that in the previous fifteen years they would have only been able to increase the service from 34tph today to 36tph. The signalling and rolling stock will only be approximately 20 years old so not due for replacement anyway. Add to the mix the number of new inhabitants of Vauxhall and I am pretty sure that anyone from South West Trains land will get Crossrail 2 to continue to Victoria and possibly beyond.
@PoP – exactly so – City TLK was in fact paid for by the Corporation of London. Chris Green was offered a major sum towards improving the London rail network within the City. Within NSE, there was a faction that was inclined towards an intermediate station at BFRS on the Drain (+the extra 4 car set needed as a consequence) , but Chris’ clear preference was for City TLk – and who is to say that that was the wrong choice?
@Answer=42. Just so (Jenny was in fact my predecessor but one in Railways in DTp. Lured away by pelf and fame alas into unsuitable appointments that were fixed by certain other friends not appearing in your list – a very great pity, as she was an outstanding civil servant).
@PoP wrote:
This is highly important. Crossrail 1’s mission creep is rectifiable. Crossrail 2’s isn’t. Unless, of course, we return to the split at Angel that was treated with such disdain that TfL decided to take the either/or approach for Dalston and Hackney, rather than the both/and.
Crossrail 2 is quite clearly trying to do the work of two lines: an Automatic Metro relieving tube lines and a Regional Crossrail between SW and NE London. It will be successful for sure – lines that do lots of things in a passable fashion attract passengers just as well as lines that do a couple of things to a very high standard (eg Victoria line), but will not be the ideal way of fixing the problems that exist.
@poP
“I presume most SWT commuters get off at Vauxhall to catch the Victoria line.”
Indeed so – there can be very few people who make the Waterloo-Vauxhall hop on SWT – the distance is more appropriate for a bus, and as has been mentioned before most people using Waterloo are coming from further afield anyway, so would use the Tube is Vauxhall was indeed their destination.
Quite a few SWT commuters of my acquaintance get off at Vauxhall to use local buses or walk to their destinations in Westminster. Not only is Vauxhall closer to the Marsham Street area than Waterloo is, but you save yourself a Zone 1 fare by alighting at Vauxhall.
I somehow omitted a sentence that would have made it clear I was aware of the difference between the actual Thameslink £4m linkup and the later project. However, although the site of Holborn Viaduct station was redeveloped as part of the later project, it was the initial linkup project which caused the closure of the station, and doubtless it would have been redeveloped whether or not the later project had happened.
@ Timbeau I don’t dispute a significant number of passengers travelling on inner suburban trains get off and on at Vauxhall but most do not. As a onetime regular commuter to Waterloo I can vouch that an awful lot do get off and on at Waterloo. Whilst one could disembark at Vauxhall and get a bus I doubt if you would save any time. There was a sound reason for the LSWR to build the extension from Nine Elms to Waterloo and the numbers who get off and walk across the bridges to Westminster, Whitehall and the Strand/ Fleet Street are a good illustration of this and that doesn’t take account of those who then resort to the Tube having arrived at Waterloo.
What seems to be missing from these debates are some detailed statistics of the travel patterns of passengers using the inner suburban lines. I remain to be convinced that Tottenham Court Road is the ideal transfer point for such travellers.
@PoP, About 70% of Wimbledon SWML commuters go to Waterloo, not Vauxhall.
“I am pretty sure that anyone from South West Trains land will get Crossrail 2 to continue to Victoria and possibly beyond”
Not necessarily. If you are employed near Green Park, CR2 is of no direct help. You’d have to change to the Victoria line at Victoria. But that will of course be stupidly full, so a sensible commuter will still change at Vauxhall, so as to actually get on. Now if only there was another central London station between TCR and Victoria…
@ML, your response clearly indicates the difference between a Network Rail planner and an underground planner. 12tph should be considered the bare minimum for inner zone 3. Just compare to the tube at Walthamstow, Highgate, Neasden, West Ham, Tooting Broadway et al. Frequency plays a huge part in driving public transport journeys. And the whole of South London needs 12tph on pretty much every line to begin to be fair with the provision in other parts of London.
The answer to the Earlsfield conundrum has always been to send CR2 via it, and not Tooting, with a fast-tracks tunnel to provide the capacity for Surrey. A combination that is lower cost than CR2.
Isn’t this supposed ‘Earlsfield frequency reduction’ a bit of a red herring? The proposal in the Wessex route study is that the main slow lines capacity released between Wimbledon and Waterloo is to be used by those services that currently move onto the main fasts inbound from Berrylands. Which in turn means more long distance services can be run up the main fast.
If these 6 or so trains (e.g. from Guildford via Cobham or from Woking) move back onto the slows east of Wimbledon, (or more likely just stay on the slows anyway due to the almost guaranteed six tracking already mentioned), won’t they presumably become all stations stoppers anyway to avoid catching up the train in front – and therefore re-provide most of the current frequency at Earlsfield?
“5.3.10 (of Wessex Route Study Aug 2015)
[…]
Inwards of Wimbledon a large proportion of existing Slow Line services would become Crossrail 2 services and therefore be routed into the central tunnel section at Wimbledon. This would release capacity on the Slow Lines inwards of Wimbledon and platform capacity at London Waterloo The capacity released on the Slow Line and at London Waterloo can then be used by the six to seven trains per hour which currently join the Fast Line inwards of Surbiton. If these were to remain as 10-car outer suburban services then no platform works would be required but if they were to be 12-car services then platform extension works may be required.”
@Stephen C
“About 70% of Wimbledon SWML commuters go to Waterloo, not Vauxhall”
At least,
However, I read, and answered, PoP’s comment “I presume most SWT commuters get off at Vauxhall to catch the Victoria line” as meaning that, of those SWT commuters (30%?) who do get off at Vauxhall, most are heading for the Vic. Those who transfer to CR2 would, in future, be taken direct to Victoria or Euston Cross (or Seven Sisters!), or change at one of those places for the other Vic Line destinations.
In any case, PoP was answering ML’s query as to how Earlsfield and Vauxhall commuters would cope with the reduction in frequency. Whilst Earlsfield is highly pertinent, (neither CR2 nor any existing line will have a nearby station to take any of its existing catchment) there are very few people who commute from Vauxhall to Waterloo, and in any case the diminution would be proportionately less as most Windsor Lines trains call there as well. Indeed, if it wasn’t for Earlsfield there would be a case for SWML trains from Waterloo, post CR2, to call within Greater London only at Clapham Junction, Wimbledon and Surbiton – assuming Hampton Court and/or Cobham to be CR2 lines.
Which raises the question as to whether the Tooting Kink is more trouble than it’s worth.
Earlsfield:
The problem is indeed likely to be space on the trains for passengers to board as the trains have potentially more passenegers as they have started further afield
Re Stephen C
“On destinations, all the hints I’ve seen are for 12tph CR2 to Kingston. That severely limits the other branches, especially as I think 6tph should be the minimum for zones 4 to 6.”
Really? All the public material (for instance the recent NR Wessex Study) suggest minimum 4tph / branch and hence 8tph via Kingston. Hence 12tph are still available for the other 3 potential branches.
CR2 is not looking at add capacity by exactly replicating existing journey opportunities hence Tooting and not Earlsfield is an advantage not a problem.
(I’m guessing you live near Kingston?)
“The answer to the Earlsfield conundrum has always been to send CR2 via it, and not Tooting,”
Or may be as many of the 10tph non residual services on the slows at Earlsfield are likely to be 12car anyway just extend the platforms at Earlsfield to 12car?
” If you are employed near Green Park, CR2 is of no direct help. ”
Really? The Southern entrance of TCR is only 700m from Green Park.
timbeau,
Thank you. Yes that is what I meant. Most of the passengers who do alight at Vauxhall (however many that would be) …
StephenC
I still get the impression you have found a “solution” that you find preferable and are then looking for the arguments to justify it. As I understand it, your idea was for an additional station at Piccadilly Circus or maybe down Haymarket. Again, my understanding that Piccadilly Circus is fundamentally challenging because of the difficulty of finding a subterranean route at suitable depth. And finding a worksite would be an expensive nightmare. However, in any case, this really doesn’t help in the way you suggest because all someone has to go is catch a train to Waterloo (change if necessary) and catch the Bakerloo line using its fabled spare capacity to get to Piccadilly Circus or maybe Charing Cross (Trafalgar Square entrance). So, no worse off than before – or, at worst, only slightly worse than before for some passengers who may now have to change.
Crossrail 2 won’t stop the Victoria line being full at Vauxhall and if you don’t build Crossrail 2 then you have simply reduced the number of alternative options available. If you want to get to Green Park from Wimbledon etc in 2030 then your best hope is that Crossrail 2 reduces the number of people transferring at Vauxhall from South West Trains (or whoever the franchisee will be) to the Victoria line to enable you to get on at Vauxhall. Having your second station won’t help.
timbeau,
Just for clarity, although it was the initial link up of Thameslink that put the nail in the coffin for Holborn Viaduct, Thameslink opened in May 1988 but Holborn Viaduct did not close until January 1990.
I think Holborn Viaduct was pretty much on the deathlist anyway with only three useable platforms that could only just get an 8-car train in them and had no obvious way of them being extended.
@ngh and others – the reductio ad absurdem of the “station A is only yyy m from station B” argument is that to serve the whole of the CAZ you would need only half a dozen giant stations (eg West End and City – after all, the square mile is just that and nowhere is much more than 10 minutes walk away from Bank ) – close the Underground and manage with just CR1 and CR2 and the mainline termini (the CAZ can be crossed on foot from Waterloo to KX in just 40 minutes brisk walk…) . Think of the savings…
The reality is that that is not how London functions, and walking is subject to immense hinderances, especially at the bridgeheads (BFRS/Embankment especially bad). Besides these ever expanding stations with their tentacles making a Toronto-style parallel chthonic London doesn’t deal with two problems – people actually notice (S Ken anyone?) that they are having to trek for miles in a nice tunnel to reach their destination. Are they consoled by the fact that they are still on TfL property? Probably not. And secondly, that none of this deals with the basic problem of getting train loads of people on and off the platforms – something which is determined by the number of escalators, not the number of entrances. There is also the small matter of dwell times at megastations.
@Graham H
“ever expanding stations with their tentacles making a Toronto-style parallel chthonic London”
Do you mean Toronto’s underground PATH system that connects Union Station, the commuter train hub and subway station, with much of the business district and the large Eaton Centre Mall as well as 5 other subway stations, at one level below street level?
Graham H says “… something which is determined by the number of escalators, not the number of entrances”. Actually, it will be constrained by whichever bottleneck is the narrowest (in terms of pedestrians-per-minute, not physical width), whether that be escalators, gatelines, street-entrances, or even the passageways linking these features. But escalators do suffer the additional problem of being (a) expensive, and (b) only coming in whole numbers, so in practice the bottleneck may well often turn out to be the escalators.
Platform dwell times are important, and influenced by many things, but not (directly) by the number of other platforms which happen to share the same station, so in principle they could be the same in a mega-Euston-Pancras-Square-Cross as in a free standing Mount Pleasant.
@Malcolm – Yes indeed, although one assumes that new (parts of) stations have had the obvious bottlenecks designed out. The point about dwell times is that it is,amongst other things, a function of the numbers boarding/alighting at any one platform, so the fewer the stations, the more the delay – it’s an argument for more platforms,in effect,and that is a matter of more stations. [There is,of course, a trade off between the numbers of stations/dwell times and overall commercial operational speeds, but as a general proposition, the gains in journey time from fewer stations are relatively small].
@Pedantic of Purley:
Yes, it’s 16 miles. But it’s 16 miles with no intermediate stations, and no need to buy any non-railway land as there’s plenty of that at each end for the portals, staging sites, and TBM support infrastructure.
Furthermore, there’s no need for it to be entirely in tunnel from end to end. There’re plenty of opportunities to run on the surface for part of the distance. (Also: no intermediate stations = no need to follow the SWML too closely.)
Regarding dwell times , with London Bridge the redesigned CHX lines will have a pair of platforms per track to allow staggered dwell times, why don’t CR1/2 have a similar system? Is it just the expense of building an even bigger station box?
@ Malcolm – having reviewed a great many LU stations when considering how to install gatelines and ensure they were not a constraint on throughput / emergency egress I can say it was nearly always stairs or escalators that were the constraint. Sometimes on very old stations it may be narrow connecting corridors between platforms and intermediate levels – Holborn is a good example of this.
I would agree with Graham H that new build / expansion new build in LU stations would aim, as far as possible, not to have such pinchpoints but rather have a smooth flow with capacity for growth if the site constraints allow. I really have no idea how Network Rail tackles these issues in its modelling / design work.
Graham: I misunderstood your reference to “dwell times at megastations”. It seems that you meant “dwell times at sparse stations”. I agree that if everyone is boarding/alighting at a limited number of stations, that will increase the dwell times. Which does perhaps lend a little support to Stephen’s idea of a Picadilly-ish station on CR2. But extra stations added to keep down the dwell time at their neighbours will of course only work if a substantial fraction of punters use them.
The alternative approach suggested by John Bray above of double platforms at key points (the so-called Spanish solution) is usually dismissed on cost grounds. But Spanishing TCR alone might well cost less than a completely extra station, as well as avoiding the through-time penalty (which is however, as you say, fairly small).
@John Bray. Presumably you mean London Bridge will have a pair of platforms and tracks per direction on the Charing Cross lines; it has had a pair of tracks per direction for the last 39 years, with 2 platforms in the down direction and one platform in the up. For more than half that time they have dealt exclusively with trains that have approx 3.5metres of door opening space per coach or less. It is reasonable to assume that Crossrail 2 trains will have almost 6metres door opening space per coach (ok, the coaches might be a bit longer).
Nevertheless, the issue for CR2 is surely cost. With underground stations costing upwards of half a billion each for a 2 platform version, a 4 platform version won’t be far off a round billion. And there’s 8 of them on the section carrying 30 tph. So sn extra £4bn. And if at any one of them it is not technically possible, it destroys the point of the other 7. You can bet your last penny that it won’t be possible at at least one of them.
…and now I’m going to point out to myself that a 4 platform station would only be necessary at stations with expected long dwell times. Even so, and even if it is technically possible (which in some places it won’t be, e.g. Euston/ St Pancras I should imagine) an extra half billion or so is a lot of cash if the ped flow modelling shows that it works fine on 2 platforms, which presumably it does.
Just for clarity:
The “Spanish solution” is one track with two platforms – one for boarding and one for alighting. The only UK railway example is Tower Gateway. Note that Stratford Central line westbound and others don’t count because you can board and alight on either platform.
What John Bray is suggesting is an island platform on a single line (per direction). Just to disagree with Sad Fat Dad ever so slightly, the idea is pointless unless applied first to the most critical platform. Then apply it to the next most critical platform and so on. As soon as a
stationplatform cannot be accommodated in this way there is very little point in continuing to look at otherstationsplatforms. Whether it is a cost-effective approach or not has to be determined by the figures. The danger is that circumstances change and if, for example, a station becomes much busier than anticipated it could all be for nothing.What surprises me is that “the Spanish Solution” never appears to be considered and maybe you could get many of the benefits without most of the costs. Note, I am not advocating it, I am only hoping it forms part of the appraisal to be accepted or rejected on its merits.
In the same way that platforms both sides of the same track are sometimes known as the ‘Spanish solution’ (used for suburban platforms at Mumbai CST I learned recently from the BBC documentary), an island with two platforms tracks for each through line might be known as the ‘German solution’ as it is a very common feature at many of their larger stations. It is also fast becoming the ‘UK solution’ at major station reconstructions recently completed, under way and proposed: Reading, Gatwick, London Bridge, East Croydon.
@PoP
At Mumbai CST the two platforms are used to allow passengers to leave simultaneously from both sides, so according to your definition that may not be fully ‘Spanish’, although it seems most appropriate for their extraordinarily crowded peak arrivals nevertheless.
On UK mainline network, where platforms on both sides exist at Guildford, Yeovil Penn Mill etc, the doors are only routinely opened on one designated side. Of course before power doors and central locking, guards could not prevent slam doors being opened on either.
@PoP – Many years ago, (say 40), I asked the then Director general of RATP what was the one improvement to the Metro that he would have liked to make – – no hesitation: separate boarding and alighting platforms at the busiest stations. The cost, even in the free spending Paris of the ’70s, was thought to be both excessive and unjustifiable.
@Malcolm – given PoP’s implication that an intermediate station at Piccadilly is technically tricky, I wonder what the basis was for its inclusion in the optioneering. (Indeed,if PoP is right, then that tends to undermine the whole intellectual and factual basis on which the CR2 options were drawn up).
@WW – My former employers, who were engaged to design the Victoria upgrade, certainly used Legion to model pedestrian flow and to identify pinchpoints in the station layout. Indeed,Legion, and no doubt similar packages, can even be flexed to create artificial pinchpoints such as beggars to be avoided. Quite amusing really.
@PoP
“an island platform serving a single line …………pointless unless…….”
In fact the idea requires lots of extra points – four at each station: an additional capital and operating cost and another thing to go wrong.
Platforms both sides of a single track – other examples could be found at Norwood junction and Finsbury Park.
Partial repeat of a comment: look up London Travelwatch – apparently, Waterloo’s useage has easily more than doubled since 1995, when 108 million people used it.
They gotta go somewhere ….
So Malcom, not one day, but needed now, so we’d better hope Georgie-boy’s Autumn Statement is up to it ….
Rational Plan
This is important because commuting demand is so much higher from the East than the West.
Grrr – how many times does this canard have to be squashed, firmly? It simply is not true – the current “services” to/from Padders are woefully inadequate for the passenger demand & the peak-hour services are among the most overcrowded in Britain.
The demand is enormous, but the current carrying-capacity is woeful.
Richard B
There was a sound reason for the LSWR to build the extension from Nine Elms to Waterloo
And, also for the proposed extension, to construct an enormous back-to-back station @ London Bridge, that never came to fruition.
( Which could have meant no Charing Cross or Cannon St, presumably, though Blackfriars & Vic LCDR might have – ah crayons of the Victorian era! )
MT
Except the “German Solution” was proposed – & rejected for KXStP Thamslink southbound, wasn’t it?
Until recently, the island bay at Greenford for the Ealing shuttle was a bay platform accessible from both sides of the carriage, as it was in the days of steam when it was built in 1947/8, but my understanding is that one side has a barrier now.
Canary Wharf DLR takes this to extremes with three tracks and six platform faces.
Greenford – the NR information suggests there is no access to Ealing trains from the westbound platform, but there seems to be no physical barrier other than the fact that the doors are kept closed. Given the station’s exposed position on top of an embankment, keeping the doors open on both sides would make conditions rather draughty for passengers waiting for departure time!
As for why it is the eastbound side which is open, I would guess that this is preferred because:
1 – it facilitates connections off the eastbound Central – and missing a connection onto the Ealing line is more of a disaster than missing one off it onto the Central Line.
2- the open doors are on the driver’s side of a departing train, which makes it easier for the driver to see what is going on.
Greg,
Grrr – how many times does this canard have to be squashed, firmly? It simply is not true – the current “services” to/from Padders are woefully inadequate for the passenger demand & the peak-hour services are among the most overcrowded in Britain.
The demand is enormous, but the current carrying-capacity is woeful.
Let us not confuse two things here. (And I myself wonder how many times this canard raised by you on many occasions has to be squashed, firmly).
There is the fact that the local trains into Paddington are woefully inadequate and there ought to be substantially more carriages (Crossrail, tick) and/or more trains (Crossrail, maybe). There may well be latent demand too that needs satisfying. Even then there would appear to be general consensus that demand would be a fraction of what it would be on the east.
You appear to be making the mistake of seeing the trains crowded on a particular line and seeing surrounding lines less busy so deducing that the first line in question has a higher demand. One only has to look at the Uckfield trains in the peak (2tph) or, closer to your home, Goblin, to realise that there is a difference between overcrowded carriages on the short trains that do run with the idea that the line is busier than surrounding lines that are less crowded.
Of course I am presuming “busier” refers to the line in question in terms of passengers carried, not the individual’s perspective.
@Graham H,
given PoP’s implication that an intermediate station at Piccadilly is technically tricky, I wonder what the basis was for its inclusion in the optioneering.
I am quite sure that in the early days of the discussion of Crossrail 2 vs Chelsea-Hackney as a traditional tube-size tube it was made clear that taking the Crossrail 2 option would mean that there probably couldn’t/wouldn’t be a station at Piccadilly Circus. If it were to happen it would be deep.
So I think it is was a case of, we haven’t said no (yet) but we are warning you it ain’t going to be easy and the result may be so unsatisfactory it is not worth doing. I think it had to be in as an option because it was a fairly fundamental part of the old school Chelsea-Hackney route.
@PoP/Greg
It is noticeable that one of the “most overcrowded” trains on the GWML that gets periodic reports on by the press is a through train from Henley. This cannot be made up to the same length as most peak hour trains into Paddington because of short platforms on the branch. Because it takes a peak hour slot it inevitably sees a lot of passengers joining at intermediate stations on the main line. You could, of course, make it longer – but only by starting at Twyford. But that would deprive Henley of its direct service to Paddington. And of course the Henley passengers are not going to give up their direct service easily – at present they all get a seat: that would by no means be a certainty if they had to change at Twyford!
Possible solutions exist, such as platform extensions on the branch, or portion working, but the former is expensive for one train a day, and the other is an operational headache.
Thank you timbeau re Greenford
You have confirmed my understanding. In steam and DMU days, you could board and ‘alight’ from either side, but that facility could well fail modern safety standards for departing trains
@ngh, “thus 8tph via Kingston”
I’ve definitely seen a document that had 12tph CR2 via Kingston. Given the tph sent to Croydon, Romford, Ilford, Harrow and many other similar locations, 12tph should be considered the minimum. (I don’t live on the Kingston branch BTW)
Bear in mind, that adding SW London to the tube map is likely to increase demand, as seen elsewhere in London. The NR incremental %age increase demand projections are highly likely to be badly wrong.
“The Southern entrance of TCR is only 700m from Green Park.”
The speed of walking across central London is considerably slower than that in the suburbs. With that argument, CR1 should not have a station at Bond Street. @Graham H also nicely destroyed this argument, particularly wrt dwell times at TCR, which are crticial at 30tph.
@PoP, My strong preference is for a second West End station for CR2. I believe it is entirely justified in demand terms, in safety terms, in comparison terms, and in avoiding making TCR an overloaded “megastation”. It also has the benefit of alllowing the future CR3 to “complete the triangle”, avoiding TCR (without the extra station, either CR3 does not interchange with CR2, or it goes via TCR mega-mega station)
@Sad Fat Dad, I’ve tried to indicate that an additional station can be paid for by savings elsewhere, eg. not going via Chelsea, and removing the Tooting kink.
It still remains unclear where all the CR2 money is going. Its twice the cost of CR1 for a worse outcome.
@ StephenC
Kingston is not currently on a branch, but on a loop. Hampton & Shepperton are on a branch.
@Castlebar – that may be the explanation of 12 tph at Kingston -6tph each way? [Not that that would actually give a useable 12 tph, given that Kingston isn’t halfway round].
SWT do try to claim that Kingston already has 6tph to Waterloo, which is somewhat over-egging it as two of them go the long way round, take 50% longer, and get overtaken anyway. However, Hampton Wick and Teddington, further round the loop, can rightly claim 6tph to Waterloo.
Of course, post CR2, it is unlikely any trains will go beyond Twickenham.
Strawberry Hill gets two each way round the loop, which looks like 4tph until you realise that it’s actually two every 30 minutes (they leave within a minute of each other)
@Stephen C
“Given the tph sent to Croydon, Romford, Ilford, Harrow and many other similar locations, 12tph should be considered the minimum.”
Don’t forget that “Kingston-on-Railway” (Surbiton) is the railhead for most of the borough – indeed timewise there is little to choose between them even if travelling to the town centre, given the faster (16 minutes) and more frequent trains (6tph – 10 if you count the slow ones) to Surbiton (cf 28 minutes and 4tph to Kingston) and the frequency of buses between the two places. I live in north Kingston, but used to use Surbiton a lot.
It is only because I now have a point-to-point season rather than a Travelcard (and thus I would have to pay extra for the bus) that I don’t still do so.
StephenC
It still remains unclear where all the CR2 money is going. Its twice the cost of CR1 for a worse outcome.
“Worse outcome” is entirely subjective. Worse outcome for who? How do you measure this or do you come to this conclusion by gut feeling?
Re Stephen C,
Kingston 12tph could easily have been 2x 4tph Crossrail2 (Sheperton and Twickenham) and 4tph residual rather than 12tph crossrail2?
Not going to Chelsea or Tooting would lead to other transport problems that might cost more to ameliorate with other schemes instead. You seem not to want appreciate the rail heading that currently takes place at Tooting (so fails to achieve the aim of Northern Line relief south of TCR) or the bus crawl anywhere near Chelsea that is unsustainable (have a look one morning).
As most employment is probably east of Green Park station due to Hyde Park etc close by to the West a station to the east of Green Park might make more sense. PoP is correct that Piccadilly Circus would be a complete nightmare to engineer due to the depth and the difficulties of creating accessible interchanges with other lines. Would the benefit of an extremely expensive Piccadilly CR2 station outweighs the benefit of cheaper Tooting (shallow at circa 20m and cheap old buildings on proposed entrance sites) and Chelsea (single entrance and not other tube lines) stations.
[Moscow worked out a fairly long time ago that the ideal station spacing was 1800m with double ended station exits and I’m sure the analysis in London would come to a similar answer. Indeed the proposed CR2 station spacing looks incredibly similar to that 1800m.]
Vauxhall:
Mk1 eyeball survey and guestimation based on this morning
35 people got out of the carriage @0745 I was in this morning, so back of the envelope calcluation 35pax x8 car x36tph = 10080 pax/hr alighting at Vauxhall in am peak hour (ORR suggests cicra 30-35k weekday exits and TfL data circa 40-45k weekday entires). [23pax got out the carriage at Clapham Jn and circa 45 got on]
Even if half of that number alight and board the Victoria line shifting the majority to CR2 is worthwhile in providing extra capacity into Waterloo.
Should have added that with a combined frequency of 26bph (32 if you count the more circuitous K1 and K4) time spent waiting for a bus at Surbiton should be negligible. (although sometimes it seems that the five routes are all scheduled to arrive simultaneously together!)
Re Stephen C and PoP.
CR2 cost difference – try inflation, optimism bias and at least 50% more rolling stock for starters, subtract those differences and then the difference doesn’t look so big.
ngh,
Also what gets lumped with CR2 but would probably have been done anyway (e.g. extra tracks south of Wimbledon, 4-tracking up the Lea Valley). But to be fair one would have to subtract Royal Oak – Maidenhead electrification from Crossrail 1 on that basis.
I still maintain this is trying to compare two projects that are not actually that similar but have the same name.
@timbeau, 9 October 2015 at 11:18
It is noticeable that one of the “most overcrowded” trains on the GWML that gets periodic reports on by the press is a through train from Henley. . . Possible solutions exist, such as platform extensions on the branch, or portion working, but the former is expensive for one train a day, and the other is an operational headache.
Portions would be possible, perhaps combining the Henley with the Bourne End at Maidenhead. The new three platform layout there would allow splitting or joining to be carried out in one platform whilst leaving a route around it via another in either direction if there were problems.
The Platforms are fairly long on the branch already. They are all capable of holding a 6x23m train today and it would be straightforward to make them suitable for 8x20m, The Sectional Appendix states Wargrave has a shorter 77m platform but the structure is definitely much longer. Perhaps that’s a condition issue, or lighting isn’t installed over its full length. The Henley starting signal for setting off back to Twyford is placed a good 12-car standage from the buffers! A train longer than four Turbo cars would not fit between the signal and buffer stops in the Twyford bay however so whilst longer trains could enter and leave the branch via the junction, their diagrams could not include branch shuttles before or after.
If more through trains were planned on the branch, then a double junction could be considered with a direct connection from the Down Relief as well as the Up Relief to improve flexibility. I believe a double junction existed there historically. Platform standage is an issue at Twyford and reintroducing a double junction would complicate making either Relief platform longer without looking at the expensive option of rebuilding the road overbridge at the east end of the station (Waltham Road).
Bearing in mind they will not be able to remove the existing single lead branch junction and assuming the platform length issue will have to be tackled by some means to allow Crossrail trains to call at Twyford en route to and from Reading, one way of solving the crowding problems and providing Henley with an all day regular service to central London would be to extend the Crossrail Maidenhead terminators to Henley. Electric acceleration and no turnback allowance at Twyford could allow a 30 minute interval service on the branch with the new double junction arrangement at Twyford also including twin tracks extended at least a signal section along the branch thus enabling branch trains to pass through the junction simultaneously and have somewhere to wait clear of the single line. Extra resilience could be provided by reinstating a second platform at Henley and having a long turnback allowance there with a train always waiting to board in one platform or the other. All that would need more Crossrail rolling stock clearly.
Significantly longer trains are more of a problem on the Marlow branch due to the constraints at Bourne End. 47m or two Turbo cars is the limit in platform 1 for a Marlow train reversing there today, and that might just be tweakable to 3x20m (or a 3x18m D-Train). 125m or up to five Turbo cars can be turned back in platform 2 to Maidenhead at Bourne End however and there may be scope for a platform extension to achieve a little more.
Re PoP,
“I still maintain this is trying to compare two projects that are not actually that similar but have the same name.”
indeed – I picked the 3 numbers I chose because they could be lifted out of CR2 reports etc. without needing to go to apples -vs- oranges comparisons on detailed technical differences.
If it’s of any relevance to paths and routing, the latest whispers I’m hearing are that London First and CR2 are looking to create several new spurs in order to “open up the Mole Valley” to allow housing.
@ Anonymous
I know, (Arun Valley too), but I’m not allowed to mention it here.
My Mole Valley source recently heard this from the leader of SW London council…….and it ties in with these CR2 comments made earlier this year:
“But Leam urges the mayor’s office to be more ambitious still and look at the potential for creating ‘spurs’ from Crossrail 2 into Hertfordshire in the north or Surrey in the south to enable the creation of new towns. “It would involve greenfield development, but you look at the area beyond Chessington South [in Surrey] and it would certainly be possible to do something there that wouldn’t involve destroying oak forests,” he argues.”
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RAUW20DnTnQJ:www.propertyweek.com/-crossrail-2-targets-higher-density-development/5072302.article+&cd=19&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
My total layman’s view of the Mole Valley plans are that would surely result in fewer trains on other CR2 branches. Or fewer CR2 branches even, e.g. dropping the Hampton Court branch?
@ Anonymous.
Yes. I had a source 5 years ago ( a councillor in the Beare Green area ) who could not believe (in fact was astounded by) SWT’s negative attitude to the available existing potential. But I cannot comment further as PoP’s scissors are being sharpened.
@anonymous
“My Mole Valley source recently heard this from the leader of SW London council”
A mole in the Mole Valley?
I would give this more credence if there actually were such a body as “SW London Council” There are several boroughs in SW London, but no intermediate tier between them and the GLA, which covers the whole of London.
There is a GLA member for SW London.
Tim,
I meant to write a SW London council. A very SW London one.
Clue: Don’t Upset the People in Power.
@ timbeau
My contact there certainly exists/existed, – I have just rediscovered her “Mole Valley District Council” business card. MVDC extends right down south beyond Beare Green, to the West Sussex border where it becomes Horsham District
Just to note that if they want to open up the Mole Valley to vastly more development, CR2 isn’t the ideal solution due to distance. Part of the solution, perhaps. (I’d note that the link from Leatherhead to Claygate and/or Chessington starts to look possible). I’d worry however that 6 tracks from New Malden inwards won’t be sufficient and that a more direct route via Sutton may be needed.
@ngh, I’m aware of railheading at Tooting, which will include some from Earlsfield! But that doesn’t mean its CR2’s problem. As has been noted by many, CR2 is trying to solve too many problems. At Vauxhall, I’ll just note that commuter very much bunch at the front of the train for Waterloo and in the middle for Vauxhall. Thanks for the cost hints, but it does seem excessive.
@Stephen C
“I’m aware of railheading at Tooting, which will include some from Earlsfield! ”
But they can do that now if they are going to TCR or Kings Cross – it’s called the Northern Line.
@Anon
Ah, that SW London council leader. I happen to know him in a non-political connection, although his increased responsibilities since he became leader mean I haven’t seen him in a while.
Hmm, Chessington to Leatherhead? Dusting off plans from the 1930’s!
Is the Green Belt about to shatter in Surrey?
How brave Minister, how brave.
Maybe we should all just hold our fire and wait until the final consultation comes out in a few weeks?
No doubt LR will write an updated article for rival crayonistas to resume normal service.
Just a thought!
Anonymous @ 1912. My thoughts exactly.
Re costs, I might be being slightly simple (I’m like that) but isn’t it like this?
Crossrail 1
42km of tunnel @ £100m each
4 difficult stations @ £1bn each
4 less difficult stations @ £500m each
60 trains @ £1bn total
Works on the existing network @ £3bn total
£14.2bn (close enough to the £14.8bn including contingency)
Crossrail 2
70km of tunnel @ £100m
6 difficult stations @ £1bn
5 less difficult stations @ £500m
c90 new trains @ £1.5bn
Works on the existing network @ £6bn total
(Lots more extra tracks, bridges, step free access, and TfL stickers)
Total £23bn
Add 10 years construction inflation @2.5% call it 25%
£27.6bn
Or is my maths a bit dodgy.
@SFD – your figures do show just how reliable BOFP estimates can be (and without all the cost of those bothersome QSs and engineering assessments…)
Re the discussion about platforms. In Tokyo you will find examples of both types of usage. At terminals there are separate arriving and departing platforms. Because the passengers respect the system they will exit on one side whilst those departing will simultaneously board from the other side, greatly reducing dwell times. Combined with the stepping back of crew there are certain stations where a train can be turned in little more than the time of an en route station call, Kamata on the Tokyu Ikegami Line being an example At busy stations two tracks, either side of an island platform allow a following train into the spare platform whilst the first one is still unloading/loading. This also allows the reordering of trains if required. An example here is Nagano on the JR Chuo Line.
@ Anon 1527 – I am probably missing something but it’s hardly the job of London’s Mayor to decide to build new towns in Herts and Surrey and to fund the required new rail links. Last time the Mayor proposed major infrastructure away from London (something to with airplanes, water and Kent) it all went rather sour. I can’t believe elected members in those Counties would want more “dictating” from London. I also struggle with the concept of “just extending” a new railway when there’s no strategic context nor any linkage (that I know of) to Govt plans for major housing development nor for the rail network. Feels like we are gazing at “blue sky” again.
Walthamstow Writer,
Whilst I can’t see this being applicable to Crossrail 2 for the reasons generally stated, I do think, yes, you are missing something.
I believe that according to the Mayor’s strategy 10% of the extra London housing needed will actually come from outside London and that the county councils have agreed to this policy – well I have heard a representative from Surrey CC say that this was the case and that they have agreed. So it would not be unreasonable for them to expect some co-operation from the Mayor when appropriate. It would also not be unreasonable for him/her to want to assist in this process as there is a vested interest.
However, as others have stated, Crossrail 2 is about serving the London suburbs and just beyond and there is no reason to extend deep into Surrey. The benefit of Crossrail 2 to them is freeing paths so their fast trains can get to Waterloo. If part of the county council’s strategy was to re-open or create new rail branches for the purpose of providing new housing with access to London then it would not be unreasonable for the London Mayor to get involved. I get the impression that so long as it was done in a constructive manner then Surrey would welcome it.
PoP: Just a request for clarification, as now it must be me that’s missing something. If “10% of the extra London housing needed will actually come from outside London“, in what sense is it “London housing”?. It sounds a bit like saying “10% of red buses are green”.
The red bud network already goes deep into surrey
That should be bus of course
@WW/PoP – if London believes that 10% of “its” housing is to come from out-of-area sites, then no one has told the Local Planning Authorities (BTW housing is not a matter for Surrey County Council). During the current round of local plan development, certainly some LPAs looked greedily at their neighbours (Guildford,for example, sized up Woking for new housing sites) but they were quickly told that any houses built next door, as it were,didn’t count towards their own allocation. The only meaning to “Surrey will take 10%, or whatever, of London housing, can possibly be that LPA targets in Surrey have been adjusted upwards and London’s downwards pari passu. There’s no indication that that has happened – the targets have been fixed for a couple of years now.
And just to press the point a little further, there isn’t such a thing as “London housing” any more than there is “Surrey housing”. The very great majority of houses about to be built in Surrey – and London – will be built and disposed of entirely by the private sector. All there is,is, these days, a numerical allocation of new construction and an estimate of housing needs. The latter is built up LPA by LPA, not at county level; it would, of course, be possible for an LPA to agree to add some of London’s “needs” to its own in arriving at a total of dwellings to be built. But, again, there’s no sign that that has happened – on the contrary, the criteria used for assessing housing need in Surrey (and I dare say elsewhere) reflect entirely local ties to the LPA concerned.
@Purley Dweller – presumably, you must mean the tendered London bus network, which doesn’t in fact,stray very far at all into Surrey – Staines, Banstead, and so on -not very deep at all.
Malcolm and others,
Perhaps it was late at night and I didn’t express myself very well.
I just presumed that the speaker was talking about the expected increase in the number of jobs in the next decade or so in London that would be filled by people coming to London and the South East area to live in order to be able work in London. I didn’t make that clear.
Additional housing would be needed and around 10% of it was presumed or planned to be outside the GLA area. I presumed the person from Surrey CC was speaking on behalf of the council and not giving his own views but he was making it plain that this a large proportion of the housing to be built in Surrey needs to be easily accessible to London. It might only total 10% of London’s job figures but in relation to the population outside London that represents a considerable amount.
It is interesting (possibly) when reading county councils’ plans to see their attitude on this. From memory, and no doubt I will be corrected if I am wrong, Surrey seem to accept that a major source of employment for its inhabitants will be in London (and let’s not talk about Kingston and county towns again).
In contrast to Surrey there does seem to be a bit of a fear in Kent and East Sussex of becoming a dormitory county for London and they always seem to be taking strides to try to develop local jobs which are clearly seen as a more worthy goal than London jobs.
As discussed many times regarding the outer reaches of the Metropolitan line, it is quite legitimate for the Mayor of London to take an interest in areas outside London if they relate to commuting to the capital. We can understand that “you should have our airport” might not be in the same category. Equally one would expect the county councils to work with the Mayor on an issue that is of concern to both.
From memory the last transport plan of Surrey County Council referred extensively to schemes outside the county that affected its inhabitants – most notably possible developments at East Croydon which they strongly supported.
I am sorry if I suggested that the issue was one of taking London’s overspill or similar which wasn’t the intention. As Graham H has pointed out on many occasions all that happens is that eventually people end up living in overspill towns and commuting to London. Also I never meant to imply that somehow targets were set by the Mayor to be met by the county councils. All I meant was that the predictions were that a large number of people in future are expected to live in the counties around London and commute to London and it is in the interests of both the Mayor and the counties to recognise this and work together to do this in a satisfactory way.
@Graham H
“the tendered London bus network, which doesn’t in fact, stray very far at all into Surrey ”
Dorking and Redhill are quite a long way into Surrey – indeed both are half way to Sussex!
@PoP -thank you for the clarification. If anything, the figure of 10% of new housing being occupied by London commuters looks like an underestimate – the predicted growth in local jobs is quite small. For example, in our LPA, which faces a 15-20 % increase in its housing stock over the next 15 years, there appear to be no sites allocated for new employment at all… (On the contrary,many of the former – now brown field- employment sites will become housing, along with a number of other “live” employment sites.)
Thank you Pedantic for the long explanation; I’m sure we had no wish to cause you stress.
You say “they [Kent and East Sussex] always seem to be taking strides to try to develop local jobs which are clearly seen as a more worthy goal than London jobs“. Indeed. And as a resident of the land of the men and maids of Kent (east of the Medway) this is one of the few things I agree with my county council on. Commuting to London from these parts is very much a necessary evil, with budget-damaging fares and life-shortening tedium. And what it’s doing to the planet with the emissions. I don’t think there is much of Surrey which is a comparable distance away.
Graham H,
Further clarification
Don’t get confused. 10% of the new housing needed to support new jobs in London will be expected to be provided outside London. It does not mean that only 10% of new housing outside London is going to be occupied by people with jobs in London.
So Surrey could find that it provides the stipulated amount of housing which (along with other counties) covers the 10% of new London housing expected to be outside London and in fact 100% of this new housing is used by people commuting to London i.e. no local jobs at all.
I don’t think it is that bad but I get the impression Surrey does not expect there to be many local jobs created. There will, of course, inevitably be some local jobs as plumbers, teachers and other workers are needed to support the new local community.
Also, bear in mind that there are other major employment centres around that are not in Surrey. Gatwick Airport is not in Surrey (though I think it once was) and Reading and parts of the M4 corridor are easily accessible from much of the borough. So this is not entirely a “London thing”.
@PoP
“Gatwick Airport is not in Surrey (though I think it once was)”
Most of it was in Surrey until the local government changes of 1974.
@PoP – I think the confusion arises from the use of terms such as”London housing” when we mean housing that may – at a time in question – be used by people who commute to London. (A moment’s reflexion will show that to be a restless, shifting and most probably only partially useful term – for example, is a Surrey household in which only one of the economically active inhabitants commutes, a “London house” or not?). If, as I suspect, you mean 10% of all new houses outside the GLA area will be occupied by London commuters, then the number is likely to be seriously underestimated. The various forecasts of traffic growth (select which you like…) suggest that over the next generation commuter traffic will either nearly double or nearly treble – another million or two punters, implying at least another million households involved in commuting to London. In turn that appears to imply that virtually all the extra households planned in the SE over the next 20-30 years will be commuter households, not just 10%. Whether you believe that is another matter.
It is certainly the case – alas, Malcolm – that very little new local employment seems to be envisaged, despite the pious words on the lips of politicians. (For example, in my own LPA (Waverley), I see no sign of any new land being allocated to any sort of employment and although one might expect some intensification of existing service industries, such as doctors and schools, on their existing sites, that is hardly going to be a high proportion of the addition to the economically active households.
Graham H: it appears that you have fallen into the hole which PoP helpfully tried to keep you out of. The first two paragraphs of his post at 10:34 very explicitly answer, presciently, your point about the 10%, about 9 hours before you made it.
Some confusion might arise, as you say, from a vague phrase like “London housing”. But more of it arises from the use of percentages. When you see that little symbol with two circles and a stick, you can be fairly sure that there’s going to be a fallacy along soon…
@Malcolm – sorry but that’s not what I said. My point was,if you like, the mirror image of PoP’s point: by looking at the expected supply side of the London labour market, I was trying to say,maybe inefficiently, that the expect growth in commuting implied about 1m new commuting households outside London. If, as PoP remarks, that is 10% (and yes, I do know, you know, what the little circles and stick means) of the housing needed to support the total growth in the London labour market, then the implication is that the other 90 % is going to be roughly another 9m households EXTRA in the GLA – something I find rather unlikely. But let it pass. The strategic point would seem to be that from the Roseland perspective,the growth in housing seems to be mainly to feed the growth in the London labour market, even if it’s only 10% of what is needed.
@timbeau – yes, two routes -405 and 465 – not much really, and given the “narrowness” of the county at those locations, following the creation of the GLC, almost inevitable.
I’m sorry Graham for the aspersions. It was your “If, as I suspect, you mean 10% of all new houses outside the GLA area will be occupied by London commuters” which I read as meaning the thing that PoP had said he didn’t mean. I must have misunderstood it – I did say that percentages lead to confusion, though when I wrote that I was not (particularly) thinking about confusion in my own head.
But if I can misunderstand, then perhaps others can too, so thank you for the rewording.
@Graham H
“yes, two routes -405 and 465 – not much really, and given the “narrowness” of the county at those locations, following the creation of the GLC, almost inevitable.”
Not sure why you think it inevitable that those two routes penetrate so far into Surrey – Leatherhead would be a perfectly logical terminus for the 465 for example, and in other areas routes which penetrate only slightly into London are maintained by Surrey CC (the 458 and 459 from Kingston to Esher and beyond, for example, are former London Transport red routes 218 and 219, and provide the only services along the Portsmouth road despite being in Greater London). So why not the 405, which does a similar job on the Brighton Road?
timbeau, Graham H,
We have discussed the 405 and 465 many times. You might want to add the 166 with its hourly service to Epsom Hospital (not evenings or Sundays).
timbeau – you’ve nearly got it.
These routes are also partly funded by Surrey CC although if you live in London you would probably not be aware of it. The 405, which I use fairly often, seems to morph into something different as you approach Redhill. The bus stops change to the local ones for the area and even the timetables are not TfL style ones – and they point out that Surrey CC contributes to the cost of running the service. At Redhill bus station they appear on the departure board along with other local services.
This joint funding appears to be a purely pragmatic approach in order to provide seamless travel. It seems to work very well and it is a pity it is not often replicated elsewhere.
@Malcolm – I entirely agree with you about %ages being misleading ! Foolishly, I was trying to turn these relativisitic will o’the wisps into hard absolute numbers…
Outside London (and perhaps also within it),the whole housing debate has been conducted with very few hard facts, and those which do circulate – eg about “need” – turn out to be very flaky when pressed. For example,the definition of need adopted in Surrey rests on a survey in which respondents were asked whether or not they would like a house of their own in preference to whatever they were living in at the moment; this was then tied in to their local area (parish, in fact) by further questions that established their family ties with that area. No attempt at complete coverage of the population,no attempt to ensure a reasonable sample, and no attempt to relate the results to where people might actually wish to live(which might not be next door to mother-in-law). The Surrey statistician who came to address us on the topic at least had the grace to admit the results were not scaleable (you can see the housing allocations leaving through the window now).
@PoP – you have kindly beaten me to the trigger. Subject to correction from those who have actually seen the contracts, as I understand the position, it is simply that – as you say – the two authorities have simply agreed that one of them takes the lead in letting the contracts; the specification is a matter for each side of the border to deal with. Although the Surrey databases are very far from transparent for cross-border operations*, SCC are quite forceful in stating that the bulk of any public funding for cross-border routes comes from them. None of this makes any of the routes “London routes”; if Surrey didn’t brass up,the routes would stop at the boundary.
*In another context I have been undertaking an analysis of our local bus services(Stagecoach 70/71/503) where Surrey claim that they are “mostly supported by the county” but where the available results of tendering suggest that very little money is actually going into the trunk services daytime operations – only into the amusing evening “service”. But the results are -possibly deliberately – presented to avoid analysis.
@Gragham H/PoP
Thank you for that clarification. There is the interesting anomaly that, certainly on the 465, the only way of paying is by Oyster or contactless – a purely TfL initiative. The nearest Oyster top up point to Dorking when the library is closed is in Redhill!
@timbeau – you mean there is still a library in Dorking!
More CR2 route noise:
“Crossrail 2 could be routed via Balham rather than Tooting Broadway”
“TfL engineers say geological concerns at the site earmarked for the new Tooting Broadway station are more complex than first thought and requires a larger construction site.”
http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/local/13847133.Crossrail_2_could_be_routed_via_Balham_rather_than_Tooting_Broadway/
With connections to the SWML at Wimbledon and the Brighton Line at Balham, could we save some time and money by dispensing with the Clapham Junction call!
@Tim – but the Windsor lines!
Oh, and the fast lines.
Clapham Junction is pretty essential to CR2’s brief as it stands.
@Si
There are platforms on the fast lines at Balham and Wimbledon! As for the Windsor lines, is an interchange station worth building just for them?
Or perhaps, given Balham’s location it’s time to review where the SWML/CR2/BML interchange should be – an enlarged Queenstown Road/Battersea Park/Battersea NLE interchange is almost exactly halfway between Balham and Victoria in a straight line.
Blue sky thinking, maybe, but if the Tooting Twist is to become the Balham Bulge, the Clapham Junction becomes quite a detour.
Anonymous 14 October 2015 at 16:25
“Crossrail 2 could be routed via Balham rather than Tooting Broadway”
That really would make Balham the gateway to the south.
Having a google, it looks like geological concerns at Tooting were mentioned at an Institution of Civil Engineers talk back in November 2013.
http://londonist.com/2013/11/the-future-of-london-transport-notes-on-a-talk
“Taking Tooting Broadway as an example, Mike showed a slide showing just how vast the Crossrail platforms and connecting tunnels would be, compared with the adjacent Northern Line station……..The Crossrail platforms here would also probably cut through two geological layers, which could pose challenges.”
If Balham is selected, there must be a good case for a Plough Lane / Garratt Lane station under a major Mayoral opportunity area (Wandle Valley). Routing via Balham does, as timbeau says, push Clapham Junction into focus though – a direct route from Balham to Victoria would run under an underserved area north of the common at Clapham Cedars Road, and Battersea Power station (instead of Chelsea). Still much cheaper to go via Earlsfield though (and replacing Chelsea with Cedars Road would help the Northern line). Oh, and yes, Clapham Junction is a major location, but I don’t think it is a sacrosanct to CR2 as Victoria/TCR/Euston.
Separately, I had the pleasure of travelling in peak on the SWML slows via Wimbledon. About 12 to 15 people got off my carriage at Vauxhall the first day, and just 4 to 8 the next day. The carriage had about 140 people on the first day, and around 158 the second day (a true crush load). Thus, my previous estimate of 60% to 70% going to Waterloo and 30% to 40% to Vauxhall looks wrong. Probably more like 80%+ going to Waterloo (I was in the 3rd carriage, which is more Waterloo focussed than some, but I was still surprised by how few exited for Vauxhall). The relevance for CR2 is clear – the TfL plan does not seem to be matching the commuter demand profile, and the Waterloo residuals will probably need to remain at the same frequency as today to meet the demand (taking into account growth).
StephenC. Had you been on any of the coaches further back, it would have been very different. I have counted more than 300 per train alighting Vauxhall on up suburban services from Wimbledon.
Re Stephen C and Anonymous,
As Anon says try travelling further back it is busier as it also aligns with the tube entry from the platforms at WAT, I also agree wuith Anon overall estimates. I’ve been counting Passenger loads at differnent points on the train getting off at Vauxhall for the last fortnight especially after the last comments on the 9th Oct. Services arriving at WAT just before 8. The main Vauxhall loads are at cars 4-7 to align with getting to the stairs queue first.
My “record” on Tuesday this week (2J14 Hampton Court to WAT) in car 6 (of8) based on passeneger count leaving one set of doors at Vauxhall (and then doubled for estimation) and all those remaining on the train afterwards.
Passengers leaving one set of doors at Vauxhall 38 –> x2 = 76 /car
Passengers seated Vauxhall to WAT = 72
PAssenegrs standing Vauxhall to WAT= 41
Total 189 before Vauxhall
So 76/189 = 40% leaving at Vauxhall as the upper end of Stephen C’s original range.
You have a chance to ask TfL and others these questions directly: there are public consultations in November, including 27th November from 12 noon – 8pm and 28th November from 11am-4pm outside 3 Balham Grove, SW12 8AY.
@Anonymous at 11:11
“I have counted more than 300 per train alighting Vauxhall on up suburban services from Wimbledon”
Total 8 car capacity of 1200 to 1400 would give something around 25%.
@ngh, 189? In a single carriage. My rough count was 68 seated, 24 aisle standing and 66 door standing, and I’m not sure it could take any more. (Well, those carriages with extra standing room could of course). Everyone is saying 40% or less though.
@Anonymous at 12:37, my experience is that TfL don’t actually have such answers at consultations. Explanations and reactions/detail of Balham will be very interesting.
Re Stephen C,
189 yes it was very cosy. No need to use hand rails a) because you couldn’t reach one and b) becuase no one could fall over…
My point was that 40% is the maximum case so the upper bound of your original estimate was reasonable. 25% average on the trains would match multiple sources.
In the context of the original point of all this (what portion of people would use Crossrail 2 in preference to Waterloo?) a more relevant question would be what portion of people would get off at Vauxhall if they could be confident of getting on the Victoria line at Vauxhall?
@pop
“what portion of people would use Crossrail 2 in preference to Waterloo”
There are also those who alight at Clapham Junction for Victoria (who would presumably use CR2. But you should also subtract those who actually want to go to the Vauxhall area itself (which includes the Millbank/Marsham Street area across the river), and those who change to buses there.
One simple way to reduce the number of people using Vauxhall would be to change its current status as a boundary station. If it were solely in Zone 1, there would be no financial advantage in bailing out there instead of Waterloo unless you were continuing by tube. (And if the SW network ever went over to TfL fares, not even if you were).
If it were solely in Zone 2, there would be an advantage in switching to bus or foot there, but not to the Tube.
It was to avoid similar (legitimate) gaming of the zone system that Shoreditch High Street – a similar distance from the City as the distance from Vauxhall to Westminster) was put in Zone 1. Crossrail 2 will loop too fra west to be able to do this, even if the Chelsea Fire Station station is (a) built at all, and (b) put in as a boundary Zone 1/2 station.
@ Timbeau – I do not see how Vauxhall’s zonal boundary status has any bearing on what was decided for Shoreditch High Street. Vauxhall and Elephant and Castle have been southern edge of Z1 boundary stations since the creation of zones over 30 years ago. It may well be that the outrageous premium pricing of Zone 1 rail travel has resulted in changed demand levels at Vauxhall over the years but it’s not the same as what was done for Shoreditch High St. The extent of development in and around Vauxhall and along the river towards Waterloo may also be significant too. This will increase vastly in the next 5-7 years.
If anything can be described as “gaming” it is the placing of SHS into Zone 1 as a result of DfT “persuasion” / “insistance” / “thumb screws” (delete as applicable) over the funding for ELL phase 2 from Surrey Quays to Clapham Junction. Ditto in respect of the “decrementing” of the Bellingham to Victoria service proposal, the refusal to add stops to SE services into Victoria, the panic over potential revenue abstraction and the “we are not convinced” attitude over Surrey Canal Road station. Not exactly one of the most edifying episodes of London and National political priorities colliding.
It is noteworthy that no one ever cites a parallel movement of commuters from Elephant and Castle NR to the two tube stations and many bus services nearby. I appreciate the distances are longer and the environment not wonderful (and even worse at the moment due to TfL road works) but I’d have thought the possible financial savings might come into play there as much as at Vauxhall. You can get to almost anywhere in Z1 by bus from E&C.
I don’t know how many people transfer at elephant, – certainly fewer than at Vauxhall if only because fewer trains call there. It is also a little further from the main business areas, and a bit of a trek to the buses. Moreover, on Thameslink TfL fares apply in zone 1, whereas on SWT TOC fares apply all the way to Waterloo.
Had SHS been put into Zone 2, many people would have been able to walk or bus from there to a large part of the City without paying a Zone 1 fare to anyone (Southern or LOROL), exactly as they can to Westminster from Vauxhall. The only difference is that the privatised network inherited the situation at Vauxhall, and that particular operator has been less than proactive on any changes to zoning (or indeed introducing Oyster in the first place)
Those concerned about CR2’s slow progress might be interested in this article about the San Fransisco/Los Angeles line (http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-bullet-train-cost-final-20151025-story.html). They don’t plan to finalise the route until 2017, but expect to build 72 bore miles of tunnel through heavily faulted terrain by 2022! A clear example of a project with too ambitious cost and timescale objectives that is spiralling out of control.
Crossrail 2 will be consulting jointly with @networkrail, starting this week (w/c 26-Oct-15), on proposed new service patterns on south west branches.
https://twitter.com/Crossrail2/status/658590724951289856
I crunched some numbers on Balham vs Tooting and drew a map in my new Wimbledon to Victoria blogpost. I reckon routing via Balham is slightly longer than via Tooting. Balham is also east of Clapham Junction, thus is another dog-leg.
I calculated that routing via Tooting and Chelsea adds 27% to the shortest viable route, and routing via Balham and Chelsea adds 28%. See the link for more route options.
The consultation is now live, at https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/crossrail2/october2015/
[And could I please ask that you do not comment on this here yet. There is a lot to take in and we would rather have this on a separate thread which we will provide as soon as possible. Comments here on the consultation will be deleted so that we can start afresh with a new thread. Eventually this thread is likely to be locked – now done!. PoP]