Crossrail 2 alternative suggestions

[BartTheAnorak]

The plans, official or otherwise, for Crossrail 2, or Chelney to give its old nickname, have changed over and over for half a century. I can't help wondering though:

• Why did they drop Piccadilly Circus from the plans? It served the whole 'interchange with everything' rule perfectly.
• Did they ever consider a Jubilee line interchange between Piccadilly and Victoria? Pall Mall anyone?
• What the hell is the point in having it go all the way to Epsom?
• Instead of splashing out on an extension to New Southgate, why don't they just have it take over the Enfield Town services and have it dip under at Seven Sisters or something?
• Most of all - what was the blooming problem with the Epping-Wimbledon plan in the first place? That Essex Road interchange would have given great connectivity with the Northern City Line.

 

[TrainBoy98]

Piccadilly Circus may be the same reason as Oxford Circus - no space for expansion and/or serious risk of overcrowding.

Epping I'd imagine would've been dropped as there's not a great deal of demand from Epping, and a lack of connectivity at that end of the line (and the cynic in me says no plans for new housing development?).

Thought it was emerging at Wimbledon, and that it would likely take over some of the SW metro services? Didn't think the current plan was for Epsom but I might be wrong.

 

[Warrior2852]

• What the hell is the point in having it go all the way to Epsom?

Thought it was emerging at Wimbledon, and that it would likely take over some of the SW metro services? Didn't think the current plan was for Epsom but I might be wrong.

The current map (https://crossrail2.co.uk/route/route-map/) shows it emerging at Wimbledon and taking over some suburban SWR services, as mentioned above, and it does indeed go all the way to Epsom. As for the relevance, these suburban services are ridiculously overcrowded during peak hours, and this would provide a much needed service increase. Furthermore, it could also help with overcrowding on the tube for those who currently change at Waterloo and may not need to with this. If you still think Epsom is too far out, it is closer to London than Reading on Crossrail 1/Elizabeth Line/Whatever you want to call it, and Reading already has a large service given its position on the Great Western Mainline.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The plans, official or otherwise, for Crossrail 2, or Chelney to give its old nickname, have changed over and over for half a century. I can't help wondering though:

• Why did they drop Piccadilly Circus from the plans? It served the whole 'interchange with everything' rule perfectly.
• Did they ever consider a Jubilee line interchange between Piccadilly and Victoria? Pall Mall anyone?
• What the hell is the point in having it go all the way to Epsom?
• Instead of splashing out on an extension to New Southgate, why don't they just have it take over the Enfield Town services and have it dip under at Seven Sisters or something?
• Most of all - what was the blooming problem with the Epping-Wimbledon plan in the first place? That Essex Road interchange would have given great connectivity with the Northern City Line.

If I remember correctly... No room to build any full-size platforms at Piccadilly Circus (I seem to recall reading they could've just squeezed them in if they made CR2 run tube-sized trains, but obviously that would be a pretty insane loss of capacity per train to do that).

Dunno if they ever considered an interchange between Piccadilly and Victoria, but it seems to me that would be be very problematic: It'd cause massive disruption on the Jubilee line to build the platforms (you could be talking, closing the whole line through central London for up to a year), and the station would be so close to Green Park as to be scarcely worth building. All you'd really achieve is save some people an extra interchange, as there are other ways people can get to the Jubilee line if they need to. For many destinations along CR2, you'd just take a train to Waterloo instead and get the Jubilee line from there.

If you really wanted Jubilee interchange, a CR2-only station roughly where the line passes closest to Green Park station, and recommended walking route between the two would probably be the most sensible approach. But it would be a huge extra cost on CR2, would slow it down a little, and not give that much extra connectivity. I'm not sure if there might also be environmental sensibilities given that location is going to be right in the middle of the parks around there.

I don't really see any problem with it going to Epsom. Epsom isn't that far out - pretty much within the area served by metro services, and it perfectly fits in with one of CR2's aims - to free up capacity on the SWML into Waterloo.

No idea about the other questions, but I also don't see a problem with the line going to New Southgate. It opens up new connections in a pretty densely populated part of London. What's the problem?

 

[molecrochip]

Re Piccadilly Circus, its all about space. If you look at the Crossrail 1 stations, they have all needed local buildings to be demolished to provide access points for construction and these were chosen carefully to avoid the most architecturally relevant buildings. There just is not the space to do that around Piccadilly Circus without knocking down something that most want to keep.

Part of the purpose of Crossrail is to change where commuters interchange/provide direct access to Zone 1. No need for a Jubilee connection as those passengers get the connection at Waterloo already. Crossrail going to Victoria provides an interchange with the Victoria instead of Vauxhall. Piccadilly line is available at numerous locations with one change. Tourists will likely still head to Waterloo and take Bakerloo line to Piccadilly Circus.

Current plans are to take over some mainline suburban services which don't return to Waterloo. Shepperton, Chessington South, Epsom, Hampton Court.

Essex Road interchange to Northern City Line - there wasn't the demand.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

To add to my earlier post... It's also worth bearing in mind that the proposed Southern entrance to the Tottenham Court Road CR2 platforms isn't actually that far from Piccadilly Circus anyway.

 

[swt_passenger]

There was quite a long period of consultation on whether Crossrail 2 would be a full size/length heavy rail system, as opposed to a conventional new tube line - the basic Wimbledon-Chelsea-Hackney route.

IIRC the eventual view of TfL was that a simple A-B tube line, with relatively much smaller and shorter trains, just isn’t good enough for the longer term, so as a future policy the only new tube construction will be extensions, such as the Bakerloo.

I think there’s an argument that there are too many South Western branches, and they should be rationalised but with higher individual frequencies. They should also dedicate those branches to either Crossrail 2 or Waterloo suburban, and have less of both types of service mixing it on the same tracks.

 

[hwl]

To add to my earlier post... It's also worth bearing in mind that the proposed Southern entrance to the Tottenham Court Road CR2 platforms isn't actually that far from Piccadilly Circus anyway.

Correct on Shaftesbury Avenue and less than a train length away from the surface entrances to Piccadilly Circus.

A big issue with Piccadilly Circus (apart form lack of space) is that it couldn't handle the passengers interchange volumes (it struggles at the moment).

To maximise route capacity you are ideally looking for a minimum station spacing of 1800-2000m.

 

[molecrochip]

The current proposal is for all of the Shepperton, Chessington South, Epsom, Hampton Court branches to no longer serve Waterloo. Not sure what that means to Guildford via Epsom though.

 

[Warrior2852]

The current proposal is for all of the Shepperton, Chessington South, Epsom, Hampton Court branches to no longer serve Waterloo. Not sure what that means to Guildford via Epsom though.

I believe the proposal says "Mixed use" of the Epsom branch for Crossrail 2 and Waterloo services. Given that that this only goes as far as Epsom, I think the Guildford via Epsom service will continue from Waterloo (so Bookham is still served). I am less sure about the Waterloo-Dorking service though as the route south of Epsom is also served by Southern, so that could be removed for capacity reasons.

 

[swt_passenger]

I believe the proposal says "Mixed use" of the Epsom branch for Crossrail 2 and Waterloo services. Given that that this only goes as far as Epsom, I think the Guildford via Epsom service will continue from Waterloo (so Bookham is still served). I am less sure about the Waterloo-Dorking service though as the route south of Epsom is also served by Southern, so that could be removed for capacity reasons.

That’s one of the ambiguous points (via the link above) if you select Epsom in the drop down menu. It says Epsom to central London will be 8 tph, of which 4-6 will be Crossrail. Hence 2-4 will be to Waterloo. That’s where it just doesn’t appear to be specific enough, and as you say the difference is probably whether Dorking is retained or not.

I don’t think the Guildford trains have ever been in Crossrail 2’s scope in any consultation stage.

In the station details (via the drop down) Shepperton gets 4 Crossrail but also retains 2 tph to Waterloo - are the latter via the Windsor side?

 

[Ali.Carr]

I put this together a while back (to go with the 2040 Tube Map), might be helpful in clearing up some of the service pattern questions:

This is consistent with one end of the ranges given in the 2015 consultation - as people have already noted, 6 tph Crossrail 2 from Epsom would seem to imply that Dorking to Waterloo is dropped (or perhaps Dorking and Guildford via Epsom go down to 1 tph each).

 

[BartTheAnorak]

The current map (https://crossrail2.co.uk/route/route-map/) shows it emerging at Wimbledon and taking over some suburban SWR services, as mentioned above, and it does indeed go all the way to Epsom. As for the relevance, these suburban services are ridiculously overcrowded during peak hours, and this would provide a much needed service increase. Furthermore, it could also help with overcrowding on the tube for those who currently change at Waterloo and may not need to with this. If you still think Epsom is too far out, it is closer to London than Reading on Crossrail 1/Elizabeth Line/Whatever you want to call it, and Reading already has a large service given its position on the Great Western Mainline.

Well personally I thought the CR1 contract should have gone to National Rail on account of the distance out it goes in Reading's case. I stand corrected re Epsom from other posts though.

Going back to the New Southgate thing, also re Broxbourne, it's harder to tell whether these are meant to be termini for the route or whether it would take over services to Welwyn Garden City and Hertford East. At this rate the old West Anglia main line will barely have very little NR control south of Roydon.

 

[hwl]

Well personally I thought the CR1 contract should have gone to National Rail on account of the distance out it goes in Reading's case. I stand corrected re Epsom from other posts though.

Going back to the New Southgate thing, also re Broxbourne, it's harder to tell whether these are meant to be termini for the route or whether it would take over services to Welwyn Garden City and Hertford East. At this rate the old West Anglia main line will barely have very little NR control south of Roydon.

New Southgate and Broxbourne as Termini

 

[BartTheAnorak]

New Southgate and Broxbourne as Termini

OK I just seem to remember talk of the Hertford East branch being served by CR2 as well.

 

[hwl]

OK I just seem to remember talk of the Hertford East branch being served by CR2 as well.

CR2 would see 2 new fast tracks (but no platforms) built up the east side of WAML and then the existing track and platforms being turned over to CR2.

 

[Ken H]

There was quite a long period of consultation on whether Crossrail 2 would be a full size/length heavy rail system, as opposed to a conventional new tube line - the basic Wimbledon-Chelsea-Hackney route.

IIRC the eventual view of TfL was that a simple A-B tube line, with relatively much smaller and shorter trains, just isn’t good enough for the longer term, so as a future policy the only new tube construction will be extensions, such as the Bakerloo.

I think there’s an argument that there are too many South Western branches, and they should be rationalised but with higher individual frequencies. They should also dedicate those branches to either Crossrail 2 or Waterloo suburban, and have less of both types of service mixing it on the same tracks.

There was discussion on the diameter of Victoria Line tubes when it was built. It was said that the cost of a tunnel goes up exponentially with diameter.
I would be interested in a cost/benefit on different sizes of tunnel. Tube (12 ft), full size network rail with 3rd rail and full size network rail with 25kv overhead
Will ORR allow 3rd rail, even if tube diameter?

The diameter does matter for another reason, and that is fitting the tunnels through the existing stuff underground in central London. Again, the Vic Line was built 12' so they could squeeze it through Oxford St, and Kings Cross.

Lastly, again when building the Vic line, it was said a tube line offers the capacity of an 11 lane motorway!

 

[swt_passenger]

There was discussion on the diameter of Victoria Line tubes when it was built. It was said that the size of a tunnel goes up exponentially with diameter.
I would be interested in a cost/benefit on different sizes of tunnel. Tube (12 ft), full size network rail with 3rd rail and full size network rail with 25kv overhead
Will ORR allow 3rd rail, even if tube diameter?

I think you probably meant cost, not size. Size goes up linearly with diameter, as that’s how they’re measured.

Northern line tube Battersea extension will be third/fourth rail. I’d expect any reasonable tube extension to be third/fourth rail, and tube takeover of an existing surface route, such as Hayes, will remain DC with fourth rail added.

 

[si404]

Why did they drop Piccadilly Circus from the plans? It served the whole 'interchange with everything' rule perfectly.

explained by others - a lack of room.

Did they ever consider a Jubilee line interchange between Piccadilly and Victoria? Pall Mall anyone?

no room (not least as way too close to other stations on both lines), slows everything down, alternatives exist. The interchange with everything rule is a little simplistic, and this would have taken it to extremes!

What the hell is the point in having it go all the way to Epsom?

because it a terminus of SW metro services? And closer than Shepperton and Hampton Court, and about the same as Broxbourne and your proposal of Enfield Town.

Instead of splashing out on an extension to New Southgate, why don't they just have it take over the Enfield Town services and have it dip under at Seven Sisters or something?

because Wood Green/Ally Pally/Turnpike Lane is the aim of that branch - it's where the development is, and the Piccadilly needs relief. If anything it was adjudged to be where the big benefits north of the river come from, with the Lea Valley branch in order to get S106 payments from developers to pay for the Wood Green branch!

Most of all - what was the blooming problem with the Epping-Wimbledon plan in the first place?

From the analysis they did when option selection, it was the best performing of the lot (what we ended up with was a mix of bits that performed well, so it would presumably perform better - and it's not as if Chelney was more than just a tiny bit ahead).

But really it's revenue - TfL doesn't expand its empire, nor pick up developer dosh, nor Government grants (helping NR means London doesn't have to find it all). That and Crossrails were all the rage.

 

[si404]

OK I just seem to remember talk of the Hertford East branch being served by CR2 as well.

yes, then it became an arrow for possible extension. I imagine they worked out how to deal with it fitting in through Clapton and do the Bishops Stortford stoppers that were going to be kicked out of Stratford in favour of Broxbourne slow track services.

 

[Ken H]

I think you probably meant cost, not size. Size goes up linearly with diameter, as that’s how they’re measured.

Northern line tube will be third/fourth rail. I’d expect any reasonable tube extension to be third/fourth rail, and tube takeover of an existing surface route, such as Hayes, will remain DC with fourth rail added.

oops
corrected Thanks

 

[BartTheAnorak]

CR2 would see 2 new fast tracks (but no platforms) built up the east side of WAML and then the existing track and platforms being turned over to CR2.

Ah I see. Sorry, haven't bought Rail regularly in recent years (financial reasons).

 

[theking]

Will crossrail 2 affect the overground services out of London Liverpool Street?

 

[swt_passenger]

Will crossrail 2 affect the overground services out of London Liverpool Street?

Nothing like in the same way as Waterloo. If you look up any of the stations affected on the West Anglia suburban side, ie between Northumberland Park and Broxbourne it will explain the before and after situation. (Using the drop down stations list on the page linked in post #3.)

I just had a quick look and most seem to retain today’s frequency to Liverpool St, if anything there is a slight increase.

I think it’s fair to say that the NE and SW ends of the route have completely different intentions.

 

[hwl]

Will crossrail 2 affect the overground services out of London Liverpool Street?

Just some local transfer of LO passengers between Theobald Grove to Bruce Grove to the parallel new better WAML services supplied by CR2 helping address some of crowding issues.

 

[si404]

Will crossrail 2 affect the overground services out of London Liverpool Street?

Overground with a capital O? not really other than traffic abstraction.

Overground as in NR? more capacity and better reliability on the WAML. Faster outer suburban trains (Hertford, Bishops Stortford) as they won't serve inner stops - and in turn faster Cambridge trains as they won't have to make some outer suburban calls?

 

[kevin_roche]

They could do with an update on their web site.

What are the benefits of a Crossrail 2 station at Angel Road?

https://crossrail2.co.uk/stations/angel-road/

 

[Warrior2852]

I am curious about the rolling stock that would be used for this. Given that is unlikely that half the SWR suburban network would have overhead wires added, I presume the stock would have both shoegear and a pantograph like the 700s and 717s (and numerous other stock as well). Perhaps the changeover point could be on the Crossrail 2 platforms at Wimbledon.

 

[swt_passenger]

I am curious about the rolling stock that would be used for this. Given that is unlikely that half the SWR suburban network would have overhead wires added, I presume the stock would have both shoegear and a pantograph like the 700s and 717s (and numerous other stock as well). Perhaps the changeover point could be on the Crossrail 2 platforms at Wimbledon.

I think that’s almost certain to be the case. Maybe the reversing sidings west of Wimbledon will have OHLE though? (I think that’s still the plan, a bit like Crossrail 1’s Westbourne Park.)

 

[hwl]

Maybe the reversing sidings west of Wimbledon will have OHLE though?

Correct change over in platforms with turnback sidings electrified to take anything that does swap over out of the way.