Their only headline would be “Diana wouldn’t want HS2”
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
The TaxPayers’ Alliance report on Crossrail 2
- Thread starter kevin_roche
- Start date
- Status
Their only headline would be “Diana wouldn’t want HS2”
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
“HS2 will bring worst winter this century, and Diana would have stopped it”
DanDaDriver
Member
- Joined
- 5 May 2018
- Messages
- 338
“HS2 will bring worst winter this century, and Diana would have stopped it despite statins and a new dementia wonder-drug”
AutoKratz
Member
Seriously who funds the Taxpayer’s Alliance...? Billionaire’s Alliance?
They are very secretive about their funders, though what little information I've seen suggests that most of them either don't pay UK tax, or already avoid it to the extent that they practically don't pay it. Hence the irony of their chosen name.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
that will be their aim. They detest ANY form of government spending so if they can propose a way to undermine the business and benefits case but look like they are being very reasonable they will take it. People who do not understand their game will latch onto this "report" as a way to make the project cheaper. Were these ideas to be accepted they would then claim the whole project was a waste of money and should be scrapped because there was no benefit case!
kevin_roche
Member
- Joined
- 26 Feb 2019
- Messages
- 930
I'm waiting for the Daily Mail to write "HS2 causes cancer".
Some of them had industry background, and they were struggling to see how having the quickest route from SW branches to The City being via the Northern line would be helpful for its relief. Certainly TfL felt the same way when it made its first set of changes to London First's proposals, by adding more residual Waterloo services to the plan, retaining the W&C as an (similar timed) option for getting to The City, relieving the Northern line of some of the CR2 passengers wanting the southern City or London Bridge areas.
I wasn't one of these people thinking it would swamp the Northern line (in fact I was one of the fervent defenders of going via Tooting), but their arguments were based on logic and data, rather than just gut feeling, and it certainly it reduced my optimism about Northern line relief. Not only because it will be a two-way change with passengers swapping between lines rather than just coming off northbound NL trains onto northbound CR2 ones (though they too would have sitting for longer being worth a few minutes extra journey time), but because a Morden/South Wimbledon/Colliers Wood passenger with a seat is unlikely to give up their seat and walk through a station to then stand the rest of the way to one station where they either have to do a short hop or a short walk (I'll assume they would take the same amount of time to do) from, in order to save a small amount of time that going via an easy cross-platform interchange at Stockwell or Kennington would:
-1 (CR2 going via Tooting) / -4 (CR2 going via Balham) minutes for Green Park, Oxford Circus (quicker to stay on the train anyway)
1 (T) / -3 (B) minutes for Warren Street
2 (T) / 1 (B) minutes for Leicester Square
4 (T) / 1 (B) minutes for Goodge Street
5 (T) / 2 (B) minutes for Victoria
CR2 is definitely going to pull NL to TCR, Euston, Farrington, Westminster, etc passengers off the NL. But much of the West End is borderline - including Victoria (!), and so ease of interchange and stuff like standing or sitting is important - does TfL's model deal with these accurately?
And then, changing the other way Wimbledon to Bank is a couple of minutes quicker changing from CR2 to the NL at Balham than going via TCR or Waterloo, and changing at Tooting is about the same as via TCR or Waterloo (but more frequent than via Waterloo and psychologically more direct than via TCR) - though keeping seats and more comfortable standing on the other routes would help reduce the numbers changing.
There's going to be some relief of the Northern line (especially if going via Tooting Broadway), don't get me wrong, but it's not as wholesale as the spin makes out. As such, going via Earlsfield and having a Balham or Tooting branch instead of Wimbledon terminators is certainly an idea with merit (and not just as it's mine) and worth further consideration by those with models and budget people (certainly the scheme has the political problem of its pricetag, and better rethinking how to get similar benefits of the SW end for a lower cost than dropping the New Southgate branch that is meant to bring most of the most urgent crowding relief N of London).
I'd argue that TfL's data and modelling is much more sophisticated and detailed*. E.g. where and how are people coming from to get the starting station in the first place and how do they travel onwards beyond The CR2 critics don't have the data to do this.
TfL will have been looking at Oyster data which will show up bus heading origins especially those to Tooting Broadway and Earlsfield. Reducing dwell times at Earlfield (which could easily become a SWML slow line capacity limiting factor post CR2) would involve encouraging a number travellers not to take the 44/77/270 (which mostly empty out at Earlsfield with plenty of seat available afterwards) up Garrett Lane but to get on CR2 at Broadway instead.
As regards getting to Victoria from SW Northern line land - interchange at Stockwell is far easier and cheaper than swapping to Southern at Balham. [The ex Morden trains often empty out at Stockwell] Northern line relief at the southern end is intrinsically linked to Victoria line relief. The relief needed on the Northern line is southwest of Stockwell and when you look at it like that CR2 is much more interesting.
*After a limited 1 month trial in November 2016 from which they learnt an awful lot from Monday 8th July 2019 TfL will be tracking the MAC address of every mobile device on the Underground to learn more about real passenger routings and traveller behaviour as the devices move through the network.
kevin_roche
Member
- Joined
- 26 Feb 2019
- Messages
- 930
Aren't the tax dodgers alliance anti everything except reducing taxes to zero?
...of course, there is one problem with responsive capacity provision, (especially detailed data) - you create a feedback loop. If you monitor traffic and it says lots of people travel between two points so you add capacity, that then makes that corridor more attractive so demand increases, etc.
Obviously adding rail capacity where no-one wants to go isn't going to help anyone, but there is a danger to over-concentrating routes in London as supply will never be able to keep up with demand. Incentivising passengers to use alternative routes is important, and the two easiest ways to do that are to either have tiered pricing, or to have faster route options, which is why I condone the regional option having less stations in the central area, leaving the existing tube lines for the last-leg connections, if that makes sense?
Obviously adding rail capacity where no-one wants to go isn't going to help anyone, but there is a danger to over-concentrating routes in London as supply will never be able to keep up with demand. Incentivising passengers to use alternative routes is important, and the two easiest ways to do that are to either have tiered pricing, or to have faster route options, which is why I condone the regional option having less stations in the central area, leaving the existing tube lines for the last-leg connections, if that makes sense?
kevin_roche
Member
- Joined
- 26 Feb 2019
- Messages
- 930
From where I live it is easy to get to Waterloo at rush hour. If I want to go somewhere else I generally have to go to Waterloo, which is crowded, and change. I have, in the past, turned down a job which would have been easy to get to if I could get off at Clapham Junction because none of the trains stop there at rush hour.
Seems to me that stopping the longer distance trains at Wimbledon or Clapham Junction would help people who want to get to places on the new Crossrail 2 network but it doesn't look like that is going to happen.
If it isn't then having the trains that never stop at Wimbledon use the tunnel would be a better choice. Keep the platforms for stopping trains and avoid having to build a new underground station.
Hence the tendency not to exactly replicate what is already there with new schemes but to introduce some variations.
A Clapham rebuild that would enable peak stopping is on the cards for the medium term. (market led proposals...)
You can assume that it has been looked at, and would also be far more expensive. The numbers of passengers using Crossrail 2 at Wimbledon will be substantial, and the station may well need a rebuild anyway to deal with them.
sikejsudjek
Member
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 21
They should be renamed the billionaires tax dodgers club. One of a number of neoliberal outfits pretending to represent the public and helping 'form opinions' in the right wing press. Undemocratic and creepy.
700007
Established Member
Even though the report doesn't paint my argument in a good light at present because it is written by a bunch of wibblists, I don't see the current case study for Crossrail 2 at the moment in all fair honesty. There are so many potential infrastructure projects that could and some will actually happen to increase capacity into Central London from the suburbs of Hertfordshire and Surrey at present. Part of this is to do with new trains on both SWR and GA, new trains on Thameslink and Great Northern, recomissioning Waterloo International, station improvement works and the third tracking (judging by its success I could easily see a 4th one happening soon) on the West Anglia mainline. The Piccadilly line is also to get a major upgrade in a few years as well which will see capacity increased by a third if I have it correctly. I don't think there is a specific demand to require more tunnels going under Central London as of yet.
Of course this is a long term plan but I think Mass growth will level off for a short while during the Brexit fiasco regardless of outcome now.
I know I am not an expert transport planner and so forth, and it is not currently my profession but you are more than welcome to discredit my views. I just don't see the need for the line yet until all other options that I have listed above have been excercised and there is a clear demand for such a line.
Of course this is a long term plan but I think Mass growth will level off for a short while during the Brexit fiasco regardless of outcome now.
I know I am not an expert transport planner and so forth, and it is not currently my profession but you are more than welcome to discredit my views. I just don't see the need for the line yet until all other options that I have listed above have been excercised and there is a clear demand for such a line.
The whole point is for planning 15 years ahead.
A 4th WAML track is a bit pointless as there is no where for the trains to go south of Tottenham.
700007
Established Member
If ever pursued in that case I imagine the proposal would be to send the extra trains to or via Stratford.
South of Tottenahm also includes Stratford...
That’s been looked at. No capacity at Stratford.
700007
Established Member
Hmmm, that's come a little bit as a surprise as the line into Stratford itself is underused for a lot of the time. Excluding ECS moves to and from Orient Way, there's not even that much freight movement down that path usually.
But either way, the whole point is there is a lot of work ongoing to already renew infrastructure, add capacity - the third WAML track is still something to shout about I am sure - on both sides of the proposed line which is happening between now and the end of the next decade. My point is I can't see an actual case for digging up new tunnels when not all current solutions have been exercised. See above.
You’ve answered your own point. The ECS to Orient Way fills the line up in the peaks. No space for more trains to be standing at Stratford blocking the line.
The third line is only an extra 2tph, and it doesn’t go north of the North Circular. There’s an awful lot of housing being proposed in the boroughs of Enfield, Broxbourne and Harlow, and their occupants won’t all fit on the trains, even the new ones.
Similarly SW of London, the new trains on the suburban routes, when they arrive, aren’t that much more capacious than the current stock. They will be the same length, with only marginally more useable space. It’s just that the number of standees ‘permitted’ on the new trains is higher than the existing. You will be able to see the Raynes Park commuters readily observe the principle each morning in a year or two...
“Ladies and Gentlemen the next train on platform 1 is the 0820 to Waterloo. This train is formed of Class 455/456 multiple units, where maximum standing room permitted is 0.35sqm per person. I’m afraid to say it is at that limit already, so notwithstanding that the limit was lower until a couple of years ago, and despite there being some space which you could squeeze into, you would be breaking the overcrowding standard set in the franchise contract. Therefore I must insist that you wait for the 0824. This train is formed of a Class 701 with maximum standing room of only 0.25sqm per person, therefore you are allowed to squeeze into that one. Have an, err, comfortable journey.”
The third line is only an extra 2tph, and it doesn’t go north of the North Circular. There’s an awful lot of housing being proposed in the boroughs of Enfield, Broxbourne and Harlow, and their occupants won’t all fit on the trains, even the new ones.
Similarly SW of London, the new trains on the suburban routes, when they arrive, aren’t that much more capacious than the current stock. They will be the same length, with only marginally more useable space. It’s just that the number of standees ‘permitted’ on the new trains is higher than the existing. You will be able to see the Raynes Park commuters readily observe the principle each morning in a year or two...
“Ladies and Gentlemen the next train on platform 1 is the 0820 to Waterloo. This train is formed of Class 455/456 multiple units, where maximum standing room permitted is 0.35sqm per person. I’m afraid to say it is at that limit already, so notwithstanding that the limit was lower until a couple of years ago, and despite there being some space which you could squeeze into, you would be breaking the overcrowding standard set in the franchise contract. Therefore I must insist that you wait for the 0824. This train is formed of a Class 701 with maximum standing room of only 0.25sqm per person, therefore you are allowed to squeeze into that one. Have an, err, comfortable journey.”
700007
Established Member
Surely if they wanted to address new housing in Enfield it would make more sense to use the Seven Sisters line instead? That line has seen mass regeneration and would be as worthy a contender as the Tottenham Hale line to go through Central London. It goes to the new White Hart Lane, a regenerated Tottenham High Road and Edmonton Green, also goes through to Southbury which is in close proximity to Ponders End and Brimsdown. Enfield Town being the heart of regeneration and joining the existing alignment at Cheshunt.
London Overground reduce its service to just London Liverpool Street, Seven Sisters and Chingford.
What is also the plan for the Hertford East service on the basis that TfL's current plan, if they don't propose to take it over?
I think you are also overlooking the fact that Greater Anglia plans to replace 4 and 8 car trains on this line with either the equivalent to 6 or 12 coach trains which if the plans don't get pulled for whatever reason, would see a lot of the stations on that line go from an hourly or half hourly service to 4 times an hour. That's a massive capacity increase that I think is being ignored here, as in the best case scenario excluding the change in frequency of trains itself would be a 200% capacity increase per train*
*assuming a current 4-car service is replaced with a 12-car train (10 car Aventra).
This is a lot of new capacity and convenience being created that should actually be able to cater to upcoming demand for several years to come.
On the South side there are 10 car trains that have recently been introduced on most trains fair enough but there is a lot of underused capacity on the likes of Thameslink's Sutton Loop services that have just gotten new 8-car trains linking the likes of Wimbledon, Tooting and St Pancras. If demand genuinely was desperately needed for a direct route to the New Southgate area then Thameslink should address this by rejigging a number of routes and trains to divert the ex-Wimbledon services to New Southgate and beyond.
London Overground reduce its service to just London Liverpool Street, Seven Sisters and Chingford.
What is also the plan for the Hertford East service on the basis that TfL's current plan, if they don't propose to take it over?
I think you are also overlooking the fact that Greater Anglia plans to replace 4 and 8 car trains on this line with either the equivalent to 6 or 12 coach trains which if the plans don't get pulled for whatever reason, would see a lot of the stations on that line go from an hourly or half hourly service to 4 times an hour. That's a massive capacity increase that I think is being ignored here, as in the best case scenario excluding the change in frequency of trains itself would be a 200% capacity increase per train*
*assuming a current 4-car service is replaced with a 12-car train (10 car Aventra).
This is a lot of new capacity and convenience being created that should actually be able to cater to upcoming demand for several years to come.
On the South side there are 10 car trains that have recently been introduced on most trains fair enough but there is a lot of underused capacity on the likes of Thameslink's Sutton Loop services that have just gotten new 8-car trains linking the likes of Wimbledon, Tooting and St Pancras. If demand genuinely was desperately needed for a direct route to the New Southgate area then Thameslink should address this by rejigging a number of routes and trains to divert the ex-Wimbledon services to New Southgate and beyond.
(The overlap issues on those platforms at Stratford also prevent long trains being used on the StAR services.)
Currently only 61-62% of SW metro services are 10 car so effectively moving all to 10car will help and also encourage passengers to go for cars 9 or 10 more routinely.
The theoretical standing densities have been sub 0.25m^2/pax for a long time and much lower in reality as some of the theoretically available floor space isn't that usable. LU experience suggests that 0.15m^2/pax is approaching the limit.
Trust me Bald Rick is better informed than almost all of us, listen to him and take heed.
The aim is for lots of new housing on the WAML corridor in addition to that on others.
The Thameslink Sutton Loop services get rather full further in e.g. St.Reatham inwards and the journey times are poor hence lots of people not using it end to end.
It isn't necessarily end to end journeys that need to be catered for but X to a variety of Z1 locations.
700007
Established Member
I am aware of it isn't mostly about end to end journeys as per is the case with most of Thameslink, and I am not anti-CR2 for the sake of it. I would support it if we made use of all available existing resources at their optimum levels and there still continued to be a capacity issue but we haven't reached there yet. I feel that we are jumping ahead when not all paths have been exercised.
The Piccadilly line serves a number of stations at or near the Northern end of the line at New Southgate (the likes of Arnos Grove, Bounds Green, Wood Green and Turnpike Lane) and is due to get new trains that can carry more passengers and a major increase in frequency as well as automation similar to the Victoria line I believe within a few years. This line already goes to St Pancras, Holborn (which is a stones throw from TCR) and a number of stations close to Chelsea (it appears they don't even want a station anyways so this is the best you will get!).
The Northern line is a line addressing the new housing around the Battersea and Nine Elms areas whose residents are currently using Victoria, Vauxhall, Clapham Junction and Waterloo stations instead. This will bring significant relief to those stations as a train should be operating down this branch every 2 minutes if I am correct once open and will be going to a number of places Crossrail 2 is proposed to go.
Would there be a solution to speed up journey times on the Sutton Loop, which surely must be cheaper than £31bn?
I wouldn’t say that old chap - you know more than anyone about everything!
A couple of points:
The peak services on the WAML from Broxbourne south are all 8 cars today, and rammed. The longer trains GA put on will help, of course (assuming GA sort out the platform length issue), but there won’t be any increase in frequency, except for Meridian Water and Northumberland Park.
The Enfield regeneration is along the WAML. See the new flats going up at Ponders End for example.
The Piccadilly line is getting new trains (to replace the 45 year old existing stock), but the resignalling necessary to enable a frequency upgrade has been deferred. Nevertheless, as and when it does happen, it doesn’t help the WAML corridor.
The Northern line problems are south of Stockwell on the Morden branch. The Clapham stations are effectively unusable in the morning peak. The Battersea branch does nothing for this.
- Status