Crossrail 2

I had a thought yesterday whilst perusing skyscrapercity. Why is Crossrail 2 planned to go from Hackney to Chelsea?

For me it would make more sense to have the northern portal (or a second portal) come out on the WCML freeing up valuable space at Euston for HS2.

This would see Watford-Euston LO services (as they are now), and the majority of the Northampton/MK services into the tunnel much like thameslink now).

Apologies if this has been mentioned elsewhere? I couldn't find anything about this.

DfT don't do lateral thinking

Theres also the potential that WCML Slow and DC Services will be intergrated into Crossrail 1, theres 14tph spare going in one direction from Paddington, and OOC is rather close to Weilsden Junction, would just be a new curve to get onto the DC Lines and onto the WCML Slows, and with being at the OOC portal area, can be grade seperated out as to not interfere with the GW services...

Theres actually potential to intergrate the WCML slows and some Chiltern slows all into Crossrail 1, depends on how many additional services run on the GW.

If you go for equal distribution, it would be 12tph GWML and 12tph WCML..

Currently off peak is looking at 10tph on the GWML, and 14tph terminate at a virtual station at OOC, theres the 3tph DC services, and 3tph Tring services, if you wanted to increase these to 4tph each, theres 8tph you can take off Crossrail's 'Paddington Terminators' I'm sure the chilterns wouldn't complain too much (although they proberbly would) if you threw some wires up to High Wycome and send some Marlyborne slows via Crossrail too...

Would be rather complex at the Paddington end by the time you'd finished though.

Of course HS2 may not happen and paths at Euston may not be needed for it.

dickdarlington said:

I had a thought yesterday whilst perusing skyscrapercity. Why is Crossrail 2 planned to go from Hackney to Chelsea?
...
Apologies if this has been mentioned elsewhere? I couldn't find anything about this.

Click to expand...

It was described as Hackney - Chelsea mainly because they were places it passed through without tube stations, and that was to be the main tunelled part of the project. The southern terminus of the safeguarded route was Wimbledon (with the last few miles on the District Line), the north eastern part of the route would have taken over part of the existing Central Line.

The current proposals from NR and TfL are to extend beyond Wimbledon to take in SWML suburban branches, and something similar on the WA route.

We have a few threads that have discussed it already, there's a bit in

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=56275

and in here:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=55865

I'm sure there'll be other earlier discussions too...

I thought it was originally planned to be a tube line. The change to calling it "Crossrail 2" would reflect the fact that it will now be an NR line.

There's a useful page here, in the DfT archives, confirming the recent history, and as you say it was to be a tube line in the 1991 safeguarding. By the time the safeguarding was being updated in 2007, much had changed, and one of the reasons given for requiring the revision was the proposed use of mainline rolling stock:

The original 1991 scheme assumed Underground tube operation, i.e. a specification similar to the Victoria line. There have been various studies carried out since the safeguarding which indicate that it is probable that longer and larger trains would be more appropriate. It would therefore be beneficial to update the safeguarding to allow the operation of this larger rolling stock.

Click to expand...

http://webarchive.nationalarchives....7/consulchelhackney/consulchelhackmain?page=2

As far as I can work out the agreed safeguarding document (not the drafts on the DfT site) should be available on the crossrail main website - but the relevant page only has links to the drawings. Note it is still known as the Chelsea Hackney line officially:

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/route/safeguarding/chelsea-hackney-line

I use the DC Line often. Can't see many stations on it that are long enough for a Crossrail EMU rake

Dependent on the passing of the HS2 bill I'd expect the final safeguarding will reflect the fact it'll be a NR line and will cover the extension considered not currently part of the central London safeguarding, as well as the realignment to include an extra Euston station.

districtline said:

I thought it was originally planned to be a tube line. The change to calling it "Crossrail 2" would reflect the fact that it will now be an NR line.

Click to expand...

I thought is was a Tube line - the "Chelney Line" - anyway, and that they had lumped it in with the Crossrail Bill for purposes of authorisation.

LE Greys said:

I thought is was a Tube line - the "Chelney Line" - anyway, and that they had lumped it in with the Crossrail Bill for purposes of authorisation.

Click to expand...

That was the point of the links above. In 1991 it was definitely a tube line, but since 2008 it hasn't been.

Safeguarding is not authorising though, it's really just a heads up to people and organisation on the proposed route, and a requirement for local planning authorities to keep development clear of its reserved corridor whenever new applications are made.