Crossrail 2

[swt_passenger]

If as expected the tunnel portals are to be between Wimbledon and Raynes Park it would make sense to have the portals either side of the four existing tracks - so the logical place for a turnback would possibly be beyond Raynes Park but on the way to Motspur Park. That way it could be used without having to cross the four existing lines?


--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Waterloo loses upto 12tph suburban services but they are replaced by 9tph long distance services which suggests more of the long distance services will stop at Wimbledon or Clapham Junction (there are fair number fast thorough Clapham).
....
NR and the then franchisee will also want to run the maximum length of trains to full utilise the paths so probably 12 car on everything through Wimbledon which means several of the lower number platforms at Waterloo can't be used as they are only 8 car (P1-4 but if you lost P1,2 then P3-4 should be extendible to 12car) so there will be the need to bring some if not all the international platform in to use sooner to shuffle the Windsor lines over.

Agreed. A major increase in peak arrivals from longer distance via Woking will easily make use of any additional platforms freed up by removing main suburban side services. The problem of ECS having to run out to somewhere like Clapham Jn can be reduced - because some trains can sit in their arrival platform until after the peak, reducing crossing moves in the station throat.

Also, one of the current constraints on capacity on the Windsor side is that the down Windsor is used to get some morning peak empty trains to Clapham Jn to make room in the station. Hence an added benefit of Crossrail 2 providing for more platform capacity on the main line side is that you get a knock on effect of more capacity on the Windsors.

 

[Bald Rick]

Anyone else wondering how approx 68km of tunnel + 13 undergound stations + rebuilding bits of the SWML + 2 extra tracks from Tottenham Hale to Broxbourne Junction is £12bn...

Whilst 42km of tunnel + 8 underground stations + rebuilding bits of the GWML is £16bn?

#justsaying

 

[mister-sparky]

Anyone else wondering how approx 68km of tunnel + 13 undergound stations + rebuilding bits of the SWML + 2 extra tracks from Tottenham Hale to Broxbourne Junction is £12bn...

Whilst 42km of tunnel + 8 underground stations + rebuilding bits of the GWML is £16bn?

#justsaying

Some of the preparation works for CR2 (Tottenham Ct Rd etc) is being done now, so won't cost extra later.

 

[Bald Rick]

Some of the preparation works for CR2 (Tottenham Ct Rd etc) is being done now, so won't cost extra later.

Which bits?

 

[Rational Plan]

Anyone else wondering how approx 68km of tunnel + 13 undergound stations + rebuilding bits of the SWML + 2 extra tracks from Tottenham Hale to Broxbourne Junction is £12bn...

Whilst 42km of tunnel + 8 underground stations + rebuilding bits of the GWML is £16bn?

#justsaying

They don't include the optimism bias in the budget. Which is naughty.

 

[Class377/5]

Some of the preparation works for CR2 (Tottenham Ct Rd etc) is being done now, so won't cost extra later.

Which bits?

Angel has and Victoria and Tottenham Court road will have provision for interchange. However Angel is going to need a new entrance to cope as current one is over taxed as is it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They don't include the optimism bias in the budget. Which is naughty.

Very. I only picked on this point today. I had thought it was abit cheap. However the talk is that its going to get funded the same way as Crossrail, meaning that public funding will be nearer this amount.

However work on SWML & GAML that would have cost large sums of money can now be 'diverted' to Crossrail 2 instead.

 

[jopsuk]

What with the OHL work further south, I wonder if Crossrail 2 will go all OHL- could be the spur to bring it as far north as Wimbledon

 

[Class377/5]

What with the OHL work further south, I wonder if Crossrail 2 will go all OHL- could be the spur to bring it as far north as Wimbledon

Why? It doesn't need to be. Just follow Thameslink's approach.

 

[jopsuk]

because by the time this actually happens, the OHL work further down the SWML should have been done and the DC-only 455 and 456 will be being retired and replaced with new stock (both Crossrail 2 and otherwise). The DC equipment will be up for replacement (and would likely need upgraded anyway), and AC will eventually reach Waterloo anyway- using CR2 would be an ideal launchpad.

 

[tbtc]

What with the OHL work further south, I wonder if Crossrail 2 will go all OHL- could be the spur to bring it as far north as Wimbledon

If it's self contained at the southern end, then no reason not to - if this isn't going to happen for another twenty years then I'd expect the transformation away from Third Rail to be advanced by then (and virtually no EMUs incapable of being at least dual voltage by then).

 

[The Ham]

Crossrail 2 potentially makes it a lot easier to convert to overhead power supply as it enables all the services west of Wimbledon to be OHL without needing to worry about the mess of lines through Clapham Junction until all the services through there are ready to be converted.

Although it would be good to see no more 3rd rail trains in the next 20 years, given that in the next 6 years the only conversions programmed are between Basingstoke and the South Coast along the SWML and with the demand for electrifying more of the existing non electrified network. I would suggest that as trains get replaced there will be a lot that are duel voltage (or at least like the current 450's and 444's which can be converted) for some time yet as there will be still a number of third rail miles left.

 

[swt_passenger]

Crossrail 2 potentially makes it a lot easier to convert to overhead power supply as it enables all the services west of Wimbledon to be OHL without needing to worry about the mess of lines through Clapham Junction until all the services through there are ready to be converted.

But as is often pointed out, there isn't really a 'mess of lines' through Clapham Jn anyway. It would not be too far fetched at all to have the SW mainline side AC and the Windsor side DC during a fairly long transitional period, and of course Southern and LO are effectively completely separate operationally.

A lot would hinge on whether or not the Kingston Loop still ran as well as a future CR2. I'd expect it wouldn't because that would remove a whole load of conflicts...

 

[Callum J]

the DC-only 455 and 456 will be being retired and replaced with new stock (both Crossrail 2 and otherwise).

I'm trying to get my head round the idea that the 455/456s will still be ploughing away on SWT Metro services in the early 2030s. How old would that make them? 50 or 60 years old? Wouldn't SWT (or whoever ends up running that franchise) need to look at replacing that rolling stock well before Crossrail 2 ever gets off the ground? You can tart up the interiors as many times as you like, but will the vehicles themselves still be 'rail worthy'?

I'm wondering too what happens to stations such as Earlsfield. Presumably it will see a massive downgrading of frequency, with only Dorking, Guildford (via Epsom & Cobham) and Woking trains stopping there en route to Waterloo. Same for Wimbledon-line services to Vauxhall too? That station would presumably become a lot less busy?

 

[Manchester77]

I'm trying to get my head round the idea that the 455/456s will still be ploughing away on SWT Metro services in the early 2030s. How old would that make them? 50 or 60 years old? Wouldn't SWT (or whoever ends up running that franchise) need to look at replacing that rolling stock well before Crossrail 2 ever gets off the ground? You can tart up the interiors as many times as you like, but will the vehicles themselves still be 'rail worthy'?

The 455s entered service in 1982 and the 456s in 1991. Perhaps a 455 replacement maybe but not yet and certainly not for the 456s.

They could last even longer if they decided to give them a new traction package and total modernization

 

[johnb]

I'm trying to get my head round the idea that the 455/456s will still be ploughing away on SWT Metro services in the early 2030s. How old would that make them? 50 or 60 years old? Wouldn't SWT (or whoever ends up running that franchise) need to look at replacing that rolling stock well before Crossrail 2 ever gets off the ground? You can tart up the interiors as many times as you like, but will the vehicles themselves still be 'rail worthy'?

50-60 years is standard lifespan for Southern Region EMUs - the only reason the 1990s-early 2000s saw a move away from that pattern was because of the safety-driven replacement of younger slam-door mk1-based (two separate safety points there...) stock.

 

[tbtc]

456s will be roughly as old (when Crossrail2 opens) as 313s are now (and there seem to be no plans to replace 313s any time soon)

 

[Chris125]

They could last even longer if they decided to give them a new traction package...

I noticed some tweets on this a few weeks back, that's the plan apparently though i don't think it's been officially confirmed yet.

Chris

 

[jopsuk]

456s will be roughly as old (when Crossrail2 opens) as 313s are now (and there seem to be no plans to replace 313s any time soon)

But the 456s are unlikely to have much of a use once the 455s go- SWT don't really have need, other than extending 8-car 455s to 10 car, for a small fleet of two car units.

 

[johnb]

But the 456s are unlikely to have much of a use once the 455s go- SWT don't really have need, other than extending 8-car 455s to 10 car, for a small fleet of two car units.

They could be used to displace AC-compatible stock from SR workings, as electrification gathers pace up north. They could even replace 313s on the South Coast, turning it into a full-on BR EMU graveyard

 

[jopsuk]

Perhaps, though is South Western division AC-ification gathers pace, those 313s may need their pantographs refitted- if say the Portsmouth Direct and the Portsmouth-Southampton lines get wired up.

 

[tbtc]

Perhaps, though is South Western division AC-ification gathers pace, those 313s may need their pantographs refitted- if say the Portsmouth Direct and the Portsmouth-Southampton lines get wired up.

It'd make these debates easier if we knew what the expected timetable would be for replacing DC - could take decades

 

[johnb]

The only routes where replacing DC with AC could plausibly take priority over replacing diesel with AC (outside of programmes like Crossrail 1&2) will be major freight corridors, and the map of those is fairly straightforward. For example, you'd need to clear Soton-Portsmouth-Woking for 9'6 containers before even considering AC.

 

[swt_passenger]

The only routes where replacing DC with AC could plausibly take priority over replacing diesel with AC (outside of programmes like Crossrail 1&2) will be major freight corridors, and the map of those is fairly straightforward. For example, you'd need to clear Soton-Portsmouth-Woking for 9'6 containers before even considering AC.

'Southampton - Portsmouth - Woking' isn't really a freight corridor by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[joeykins82]

Well there are speed and acceleration improvements to be had with DC-AC conversion, plus the reduced impact of snow & ice. Does anyone know how much capacity could be made available on the lines through East Croydon and/or Sevenoaks if 110mph with AC acceleration was possible?

 

[hwl]

Well there are speed and acceleration improvements to be had with DC-AC conversion, plus the reduced impact of snow & ice. Does anyone know how much capacity could be made available on the lines through East Croydon and/or Sevenoaks if 110mph with AC acceleration was possible?

Once all the stock on the 3rd rail network is dual voltage capable, replacing DC equipment with AC at renewal would probably be the cheaper option.

As regards routes through East Croydon I suspect junction and station capacities would be bigger limiting factors especially the track work between East Croydon and Selhurst / Norwood Junction (NR have plans)

 

[johnb]

'Southampton - Portsmouth - Woking' isn't really a freight corridor by any stretch of the imagination.

No, obviously not. Suggested in context of freight diversion.

Once all the stock on the 3rd rail network is dual voltage capable, replacing DC equipment with AC at renewal would probably be the cheaper option.

Depends on the amount of renewal required, TBH. There's also the need to resignal in many cases. It's likely that the BML and probably the two mainlines out of Waterloo will be AC in 50 years' time, but I wouldn't put put any money on the rest of the SR (willing to take this bet with anyone, would make a nice 84th birthday present!)

As regards routes through East Croydon I suspect junction and station capacities would be bigger limiting factors especially the track work between East Croydon and Selhurst / Norwood Junction (NR have plans)

Agree. Enhancing linespeed from 100 to 110 doesn't help capacity, especially if you can't do that for all trains - it's better for capacity to run everything at the same speed or as close as possible (this is why the 110mph Desiros enhance capacity on the WCML, as they share the fast lines with 125mph stock). Increasing SR linespeeds would be a nice piece of icing, but the cake is a capacity and efficiency cake.

 

[swt_passenger]

No, obviously not. Suggested in context of freight diversion.

But they're already doing the useful diversionary route, via Laverstock and Andover. I doubt enough freight stays on the SWML beyond Basingstoke to justify the route via Havant & Woking as well.

 

[The Ham]

An update, TfL are due to hold a consultation on Crossrail 2 during this spring:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/Part-1-Item16-Crossrail-2.pdf

TfL plans to hold a public consultation on two shortlisted alignment options in April 2013, prior to recommending a safeguarded alignment to the DfT in 2014. London First launched a report supporting the London Regional option (one of the two which will be consulted upon)

The two shortlisted options which are being considered alongside the original safeguarded (Chelsea – Hackney) scheme are :

Option A (+)
the Metro scheme
(a) a London focused metro scheme involving a new cross London Tunnel between Alexandra Palace and Wimbledon via Seven Sisters, Euston, Clapham Junction and Victoria, providing key interchange with national rail services at each end.
The indicative route is shown on Figure 2


Option B
the London Regional scheme
(b) a broader suburban scheme providing regional benefits that is more akin to Crossrail 1, which includes a similar tunnel to Option A (+) in the core section but connects with national rail services to the north and south west, thus connecting some lines on the South West Trains network to lines in the Lea Valley to the north. It would provide relief to the main line services into Waterloo and other main line termini.
The indicative route is shown on Figure 3

; and

Option C
(c) the safeguarded alignment linking Wimbledon to Epping

 

[Ironside]

An update, TfL are due to hold a consultation on Crossrail 2 during this spring:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/Part-1-Item16-Crossrail-2.pdf

Is it as simple as option b goes to a larger number of places so will be of more benefit, but will cost more?

 

[jon0844]

I think they missed d), which includes a line up to the end of my road.