Crossrail 2

LE Greys · 30 Mar 2013

HSTEd said:
But it is likely any resignalling work will set stopping distances to what modern EMU stock is capable of from 100mph.

Which is rather shorter than what modern EMU stock requires to stop from 125mph.

Probably true, but when was the line last resignalled? Also, somewhere with such dense traffic is a likely candidate for moving block operation, where a speed increase might end up reducing headways, but not by much.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

swt_passenger said:
As you say, and it's all academic unless they remove freight from the route west of Basingstoke. This was discussed only a few months ago with respect to why XC don't run at a decent speed on the SWML...

And there's this as well. Quadrupling any remaining double-track bits might be the answer here, but that gets a bit awkward through Winchester and Southampton Airport Parkway.

RailUK Forums

Bald Rick · 30 Mar 2013

LE Greys said:
Probably true, but when was the line last resignalled?

Surbiton - Pirbright Jn was done in 1997 and has at least another 20 years. Farnborough-Basingtstoke was done in 2007/8 and has another 30.

The Ham · 14 May 2013

TfL has started consultation on Crossrail 2, if you want to have your say go to:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/27405.aspx

Crossrail 2 would create a new high-frequency, high-capacity rail line running between south west and north east London.

Transport for London (TfL) and Network Rail (NR) are seeking the views of people in London and south east England on Crossrail 2.

Crossrail 2 replaces an earlier scheme known as the Chelsea-Hackney Line. Crossrail 2 would help to relieve congestion on both the national and TfL rail networks, and support economic development in and around London.

We are planning a route that takes account of future transport challenges facing London and south east England. It will include the opportunity to serve Euston as a terminus for High Speed 2.

Preliminary work has identified two possible routes: a Metro option offering a high-frequency, underground service across central London and a Regional option connecting central London with areas to the north east and south west. Both options share a similar route through the centre of London.

anthony263 · 14 May 2013

Boris will be quiete pleased if he can get this signed off and the green light given before he leaves office.

Still lookslike it will be a great scheme for London

Chris125 · 14 May 2013

Metro - DLR style operation with 4 coach trains and 120m platforms. Up to 40tph.

Regional - As with Crossrail 1, 10 coach trains and 250m platforms. Up to 30tph.

Chris

swt_passenger · 14 May 2013

Chris125 said:
Metro - DLR style operation with 4 coach trains and 120m platforms. Up to 40tph.

Presumably DLR style in that each of the 4 'coaches' is a 30m articulated pair. I think they need to be clearer about this, or there'll be incorrect comparisons with typical tube train lengths of 7 or 8 cars...

I also think they've missed a trick by describing the regional option service as 'similar to National Rail'? If they want to give a more positive impression maybe they should have written 'like Crossrail 1'

HSTEd · 14 May 2013

Chris125 said:
Metro - DLR style operation with 4 coach trains and 120m platforms. Up to 40tph.

Regional - As with Crossrail 1, 10 coach trains and 250m platforms. Up to 30tph.

Chris

I think the Regional option is probably far superior to the Metro option.... but that's just me.

(If we are going to bore a tonne of new tunnels, we might as well make them big.)

D365 · 14 May 2013

Back in February I recall "Regional" being the preferred option - built to Crossrail 1 standard with capacity for 32tph of 12 cars (x20 = 240m trains) - I reckon this is the better choice.

Morgsie · 14 May 2013

Regional route because it will relieve pressure at Waterloo

LE Greys · 14 May 2013

I agree entirely. However, I'd like more details on the exact route between Dalston Kingsland and Euston, partly since the route looks as though it goes right past Essex Road, making a second possible interchange with the GN&C. Additional stops for (what will be by then) Thameslink services at Ally Pally would be a good idea, taking some of the pressure off Finsbury Park.

Morgsie · 14 May 2013

Why is both proposed routes taking a detour rather going straight from Euston to Ally Pally or Severn Sisters?

LE Greys · 14 May 2013

Morgsie said:
Why is both proposed routes taking a detour rather going straight from Euston to Ally Pally?

They're probably trying to provide some 'outer circle' routes between radial lines, in this case the ECML, Piccadilly, Victoria and NLL, which currently only connect at Finsbury Park and Highbury & Islington. If this improves connectivity from the ECML to the north and east of London, I'm all for it. Just a pity we can't bring the Northern Heights Line back as well.

tbtc · 14 May 2013

Morgsie said:
Why is both proposed routes taking a detour rather going straight from Euston to Ally Pally or Severn Sisters?

Probably for the same reasons that it's proposed to go via Tooting Broadway (between Wimbledon and Clapham Junction), its a combination of a box ticking exercise and trying to offer something different (since Crossrail2 would never be able to compete timewise between Ally Pally and St P with Thameslink).

HSTEd · 14 May 2013

Also a direct route could have obstructions in its path.

Remember the ground below London is probably best described as swiss cheese.

anthony263 · 14 May 2013

HSTEd said:
Also a direct route could have obstructions in its path.

Remember the ground below London is probably best described as swiss cheese.

One reason why I have been surpised they can build so many tunnels under London with all the current tunnels.

There is going to be a point where the ground simply cannot accomodate any more tunneling

philjo · 14 May 2013

I think it would be useful if the Alexandra Palace Branch was extended further via Muswell Hill (an area which doesn't have a tube station) to either Finchley East or Central (& take over the Mill Hill East Branch?) or then go to Brent Cross/Cricklewood to link both Nothern line branches - maybe even go to Wembley. It would help with some of the east-west travel in north London without having to go via Zone 1/2.

D365 · 14 May 2013

anthony263 said:
HSTEd said:

Also a direct route could have obstructions in its path.

Remember the ground below London is probably best described as swiss cheese.

Click to expand...

One reason why I have been surpised they can build so many tunnels under London with all the current tunnels.

There is going to be a point where the ground simply cannot accomodate any more tunneling

Or any more people, perhaps. Nom, Swiss Cheese :P

philjo said:
I think it would be useful if the Alexandra Palace Branch was extended further via Muswell Hill (an area which doesn't have a tube station) to either Finchley East or Central (& take over the Mill Hill East Branch?) or then go to Brent Cross/Cricklewood to link both Nothern line branches - maybe even go to Wembley. It would help with some of the east-west travel in north London without having to go via Zone 1/2.

Suggested many times as a 'modern Northern Heights' but as was mentioned earlier by jopsuk, there always (will) exists the possibility to extend from the proposed Alexandra Palace underground terminus - albeit, there exists a steep hill to the west, on the way to Muswell Hill. Mmm, TBMs...

jopsuk said:
A tunnel portal would be a major engineering job compared to a dead end underground station- which could be designed (as with several LU stations) to be relatively easily extended onwards should the opportunity arise.

bicbasher · 14 May 2013

Essex Road is not on the proposed line for either option sadly, although I can see why Dalston Junction was chosen for that area with it's connections to the London Overground East London Line.

Why wasn't a tube option given instead of the DLR light rail operation? In that case, the Regional option is the better of the two considering the length of cars and stations served.

transmanche · 15 May 2013

philjo said:
I think it would be useful if the Alexandra Palace Branch was extended further via Muswell Hill

I think the major problem with that is the local geography. The difference in height between the existing Alexandra Palace NR station and Muswell Hill is about 70m. And they're proposing an underground Crossrail 2 station there - so the difference in height could be as much as 100m. I'm guessing only the DLR-style option would be able to cope with a steepish climb - otherwise any Muswell Hill station would have to be very deep.

In comparison, Hampstead tube station (the deepest below ground level) is about 58m below the surface - and as a result has lifts instead of escalators.

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

What surprised me is that the 'regional' option doesn't include a proposal to extend from Alexandra Palace along the Hertford loop - to Gordon Hill or beyond. This would seem to be a suitable way of 'dealing with' Hertford loop inner suburban services when Thameslink comes into full operation .

LE Greys · 15 May 2013

transmanche said:
I think the major problem with that is the local geography. The difference in height between the existing Alexandra Palace NR station and Muswell Hill is about 70m. And they're proposing an underground Crossrail 2 station there - so the difference in height could be as much as 100m. I'm guessing only the DLR-style option would be able to cope with a steepish climb - otherwise any Muswell Hill station would have to be very deep.

In comparison, Hampstead tube station (the deepest below ground level) is about 58m below the surface - and as a result has lifts instead of escalators.

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

What surprised me is that the 'regional' option doesn't include a proposal to extend from Alexandra Palace along the Hertford loop - to Gordon Hill or beyond. This would seem to be a suitable way of 'dealing with' Hertford loop inner suburban services when Thameslink comes into full operation .

The 'old' Alexandra Palace, which nearly got taken over by the Northern Line, was substantially higher than the current station (called Wood Green at the time) with no possible way to link the two together except via the old route through Highgate to Finsbury Park. In some ways, this is closer to replacing the Palace Gates line, which also went to Seven Sisters, so a missing link is being revived.

transmanche · 15 May 2013

LE Greys said:
The 'old' Alexandra Palace, which nearly got taken over by the Northern Line, was substantially higher than the current station.

Yes, about 60m higher.

The Ham · 15 May 2013

Morgsie said:
Regional route because it will relieve pressure at Waterloo

If you look at Chart 3 on the consultion it shows what a marked improvement it would have on Waterloo:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/24698-chart-3-nr-benefits-both-schemes.pdf

And although a few London stations would be a little worse off with the regional route over the metro, overall it is a large improvement on the existing situation and a fairly good improvement on just the metro option.

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

For the Regional over the metro it changes the proportion of passenger kilometres travelled in very crowded National Rail trains in 2031 for Waterloo drops from over 60% to 10% amd drops Moregate from 45% to 40%.

Liverpool Street goes up from about 25% to 27% and London Bridge looks like it goes up from 28.5% to 29.5%.

ntg · 15 May 2013

LE Greys said:
They're probably trying to provide some 'outer circle' routes between radial lines, in this case the ECML, Piccadilly, Victoria and NLL, which currently only connect at Finsbury Park and Highbury & Islington. If this improves connectivity from the ECML to the north and east of London, I'm all for it. Just a pity we can't bring the Northern Heights Line back as well.

East-West rail is still the worst in North London so any improvement there is hugely welcome!

The North really needs a tramlink of its own to fix the gaps though. To travel the 4km from Harrow to East Barnet takes 90min by bus, or 70 minutes by train via central London. God knows why people harp on about improving transport south of the river.

YorkshireBear · 15 May 2013

The Ham said:
If you look at Chart 3 on the consultion it shows what a marked improvement it would have on Waterloo:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/24698-chart-3-nr-benefits-both-schemes.pdf

And although a few London stations would be a little worse off with the regional route over the metro, overall it is a large improvement on the existing situation and a fairly good improvement on just the metro option.

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

For the Regional over the metro it changes the proportion of passenger kilometres travelled in very crowded National Rail trains in 2031 for Waterloo drops from over 60% to 10% amd drops Moregate from 45% to 40%.

Liverpool Street goes up from about 25% to 27% and London Bridge looks like it goes up from 28.5% to 29.5%.

That link is very interesting. Not sure how they figure out no overcrowding into Kings Cross.
Also, the regional option looks far superior.

Aictos · 15 May 2013

I believe the Regional option is better but extend Crossrail 2 to Gordon Hill and cut back the WAML plans to Enfield Town for starters before looking at extending the line further north.

I mean why just terminate Crossrail 2 at Hertford East? Why not also use Hertford North to terminate Crossrail 2 therefore if engineering has to take place on one route you still have the other branch you could use.

si404 · 15 May 2013

bicbasher said:
Why wasn't a tube option given instead of the DLR light rail operation?

The DLR option is the tube option, only with automatic operation and larger trains than the typical tube. It's really not 'light' rail, what with up to 160 2-car units an hour (coupled into 4-car sets that are similar in capacity to 8-car tube trains...). TfL's analogies have been poor - choosing 'National Rail' as a descriptor of the service for the Regional option, rather than Crossrail. Same here with DLR instead of tube.

transmanche said:
What surprised me is that the 'regional' option doesn't include a proposal to extend from Alexandra Palace along the Hertford loop - to Gordon Hill or beyond. This would seem to be a suitable way of 'dealing with' Hertford loop inner suburban services when Thameslink comes into full operation .

1)how would you provide GN&C service with no Hertford loop?
2)how would you get a decent interchange at Ally Pally and surface onto the Hertford loop, and serve Turnpike Lane. The plans for Ally Pally would have roughly E-W platforms to stop the curve being too tight.
3)All Hertford service on one route? Why would you want to do that.

If you had to take one branch of the ECML locals for Crossrail, it is surely the Welwyn GC one. However, what purpose would taking either actually serve? And at what cost?

The Ham said:
For the Regional over the metro it changes the proportion of passenger kilometres travelled in very crowded National Rail trains in 2031 for Waterloo drops from over 60% to 10% amd drops Moregate from 45% to 40%.

That Moorgate drop is partially due to a small number of people taking the all-stops-to-Tottenham Hale Crossrail 2 service from Hertford East, rather than change at Ally Pally. Only a small percentage of people are that silly!

HLE 13 said:
I mean why just terminate Crossrail 2 at Hertford East? Why not also use Hertford North to terminate Crossrail 2 therefore if engineering has to take place on one route you still have the other branch you could use.

And what if the core section needs engineering works? Hertford is cut off! Hertford is currently blessed with two lines to London, there's no purpose in removing that. After all if one route has engineering works, you can still take the other route...

TransportUK · 15 May 2013

I think the regional option has got to be the way forward. Crossrail2 is looking at about a 2030 completion date. In this time, I think the significant growth in London will take place on the outskirts. As such you need much better systems to bring people in from these areas. The Crossrail2 regional option should help with this.

The Ham · 15 May 2013

I've just added a poll to get a rough idea of the support either way (although from the posts so far I can guess which way it more likely to go).

Of course it is much better to complete the consultation survey so that TfL/NR know:

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/crossrail/2

ntg · 15 May 2013

si404 said:
The DLR option is the tube option, only with automatic operation and larger trains than the typical tube. It's really not 'light' rail, what with up to 160 2-car units an hour (coupled into 4-car sets that are similar in capacity to 8-car tube trains...). TfL's analogies have been poor - choosing 'National Rail' as a descriptor of the service for the Regional option, rather than Crossrail. Same here with DLR instead of tube.

I cynically winder if this is because TfL would prefer to national option and wish to weight public response in this direction - assuming the public do indeed prefer a full national rail style service as opposed to a DLR style one.

transmanche · 15 May 2013

transmanche said:
What surprised me is that the 'regional' option doesn't include a proposal to extend from Alexandra Palace along the Hertford loop - to Gordon Hill or beyond. This would seem to be a suitable way of 'dealing with' Hertford loop inner suburban services when Thameslink comes into full operation .

si404 said:
1)how would you provide GN&C service with no Hertford loop?

Given a fantasy pot of money, extend the DLR from Bank to Moorgate where it takes over the Northern City line to Finsbury Park and then extended onto a rebuilt Alexandra Palace branch via Highgate.

Realistically, the section north of Alexandra Palace would continue to be served by some NR trains (just as the suggested extension to Hertford East). A lot depends on whether TfL wants (part of) the Hertford loop to be incorporated into its network or not - either as Overground (as suggested by others here) or Crossrail 2.

si404 said:
2)how would you get a decent interchange at Ally Pally and surface onto the Hertford loop, and serve Turnpike Lane. The plans for Ally Pally would have roughly E-W platforms to stop the curve being too tight.

Easily. I think you're reading a lot into a diagrammatic map to infer that the platforms at Ally Pally will be aligned E-W.

Crossrail 2

Crossrail 2, Metro or Regional

Metro option offering a high-frequency, underground service across central London

Regional option connecting central London with areas to the north east and south west

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Attachments