Boris is talking up Crossrail 2

Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

ijmad

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2016
Messages
1,635
Location
UK
The north/south orientation, heavy branching and interlining with National Rail services always makes me think Crossrail 2 is more of a Thameslink 2.

Regardless, would still be awesome to see it happen.
 
Joined
11 Mar 2022
Messages
64
Joined up government number 94:

November 2020 Government demands Crossrail 2 work is 'paused' as a condition of the COVID-19 emergency financial agreement between the government and TfL

May 2022 Boris Johnson calls for Crossrail 2 to be built and says the Government would back it (as long as businesses pay for it through tax increment financing).
 

Tobbes

Member
Joined
12 Aug 2012
Messages
1,176
Joined up government number 94:

November 2020 Government demands Crossrail 2 work is 'paused' as a condition of the COVID-19 emergency financial agreement between the government and TfL

May 2022 Boris Johnson calls for Crossrail 2 to be built and says the Government would back it (as long as businesses pay for it through tax increment financing).
And there's the key difference in the North-South debate - London is making a significant contribution to XR1, and will do for XR2 as well in a way that no other urban area in the UK can do. XR2 in the mid-2030s doesn't seem unreasonable.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
12,436
XR2 in the mid-2030s doesn't seem unreasonable.
London can't afford it on its own and there would appear to be no government money on offer. TfL are starting to hack out significant parts of the bus network because it has no money. Crossrail 2 against that backdrop seems a very distant prospect. Try 2050 once the engineers building HS2 and routes in the North are at a loose end.

https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/busreview
Central London Bus Review

Proposed changes to bus routes into central London

TfL’s reliance on customer fares for the majority of its income means the effect of the pandemic on our finances has been devastating, requiring Government support to keep public transport in London operating. Customer numbers have begun to recover, but are still significantly below pre-pandemic levels.

The Government set a number of conditions before it would provide emergency funding to enable TfL to keep operating, including requiring us to produce a plan to set out how we would achieve significant financial savings. This plan included reducing the extent of our bus network.

May 2022 Boris Johnson calls for Crossrail 2 to be built and says the Government would back it (as long as businesses pay for it through tax increment financing).
It is all just politics so the government don't get the blame for it not being built. The implied 'government backing' appears to just be legislative, not financial.
 
Last edited:

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
4,944
London can't afford it on its own and there would appear to be no government money on offer. TfL are starting to hack out significant parts of the bus network because it has no money. Crossrail 2 against that backdrop seems a very distant prospect. Try 2050 once the engineers building HS2 and routes in the North are at a loose end.

https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/busreview



It is all just politics so the government don't get the blame for it not being built. The implied 'government backing' appears to just be legislative, not financial.
Too late by Johnson. The Tories are dead men walking in London and likely most of the South East if they expect it to pay through the nose and get nothing back.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
12,436
Too late by Johnson. The Tories are dead men walking in London and likely most of the South East if they expect it to pay through the nose and get nothing back.
Is Crossrail 2 (or indeed bus cuts and TfL funding) of sufficient consequence on its own to be a 2024 election issue? I don't believe a decision to fund it and 'spades in the ground' would make a difference to electoral fortunes.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,047
I think Crossrail 2 will happen, but without the Chelsea and Tooting/Balham sections. Maybe even with the Southgate branch axed as well.
Chelsea is dead, Tooting is alive. Without the Tooting station CR2 fails to fulfil the Northern line relief requirement (which as good BCR). Southgate Branch to follow on later to smooth out cash flow requirements.
 
Joined
18 Aug 2019
Messages
1,150
Location
London
Chelsea is dead, Tooting is alive. Without the Tooting station CR2 fails to fulfil the Northern line relief requirement (which as good BCR). Southgate Branch to follow on later to smooth out cash flow requirements.
I still don't think the entire thing is going to happen though. At least, it certainly won't open until 2050 if it does happen.
 

mr_jrt

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2011
Messages
1,266
If CR2 tries to relive both the SWML and the Northern Line it's going to end up doing both poorly. Sad reality is we need a planned programme of new lines, not a series of wonderlines that try to solve every problem at once and end up failing to do so because they are overwhelmed from day 1, setting the stage for the next wonderline. What the Northern Line needs for relief is a series of dramatic improvements to tube penetration in south east London so everybody doesn't have to pile onto it at Tooting (or the Victoria at Brixton!). Leave CR2 to be a reasonably direct NR line through the centre.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
12,436
Sad reality is we need a planned programme of new lines, not a series of wonderlines that try to solve every problem at once and end up failing to do so because they are overwhelmed from day 1, setting the stage for the next wonderline.
However, the money only exists to buy one new line every twenty years or so, if that. We arguably do have a shopping list for lines (eg Crossrail 2, Bakerloo Line extension) that accounts for the money available in the next fifty years. Fortunately, the reduction in commuting has bought time. Unfortunately, the reduction in revenue has set back development of new lines.
 

norbitonflyer

Member
Joined
24 Mar 2020
Messages
1,132
Location
SW London
Chelsea is dead, Tooting is alive. Without the Tooting station CR2 fails to fulfil the Northern line relief requirement (which as good BCR). Southgate Branch to follow on later to smooth out cash flow requirements.
I fail to see how having CR2 call at Tooting would help relieve the Northern Line. On the contrary, I would expect the Norrthern LIne through Clapham to get busier if CR2 connects with it at Tooting.
Tooting Broadway is only three stops from the end of the line, so relatively few people would be on northbound trains arriving there and able to switch to CR2. But, contariwise, bigger trains (10-car, full size) from four branches, serving 26 stations across SW London and Surrey will be calling at the CR2 platforms there, and many of their passengers will find a direct line to the City quite useful - especially if the CR2 trains are standing-room-only on arrival at Tooting.

Balham always made more sense - but remind me where Sadiq Khan used to be MP ...........
 

BayPaul

Member
Joined
11 Jul 2019
Messages
1,112
For me it's Euston that's the shoehorned bit of XR2 that doesn't quite fit. As someone else said, having only one central station ar TCR doesn't really seem to make sense - it would surely be better if it kinked to the east in the centre, with stations at, say, Charing Cross and Moorgate, rather than everyone having to change onto the Elizabeth Line.

Obviously that doesn't solve the HS2 issue, but it does seem like one line is trying to solve too much and failing to do any of it properly
 

Adoarable

Member
Joined
24 Jul 2020
Messages
46
Location
London
I fail to see how having CR2 call at Tooting would help relieve the Northern Line. On the contrary, I would expect the Norrthern LIne through Clapham to get busier if CR2 connects with it at Tooting.
Tooting Broadway is only three stops from the end of the line, so relatively few people would be on northbound trains arriving there and able to switch to CR2. But, contariwise, bigger trains (10-car, full size) from four branches, serving 26 stations across SW London and Surrey will be calling at the CR2 platforms there, and many of their passengers will find a direct line to the City quite useful - especially if the CR2 trains are standing-room-only on arrival at Tooting.

Balham always made more sense - but remind me where Sadiq Khan used to be MP ...........
You’re right to say that the three southernmost stations contribute a relatively small proportion of the total northbound demand. Tooting Broadway, however, is very popular. In the morning peak it’s where “plenty of seats” becomes “standing room only”. Assuming half of those commuters take Crossrail2 instead (a similar proportion currently changes at Stockwell), that opens up plenty of capacity on Northern line trains for passengers between Tooting Bec and Clapham North.

I haven’t seen any passenger flow modelling, but I would guess that moving the Northern line connection down two stops from Balham to Tooting Broadway makes the Northern line sufficiently unattractive. Tooting Broadway is 12 stops from Bank - that’s 25 sweaty minutes on a loud, cramped deep tube train. Using Crossrail 2 and Elizabeth line instead it’s 6 stops to Moorgate on full-size air-conditioned stock.
 

Recessio

Member
Joined
4 Aug 2019
Messages
245
The station choice that baffles me is Angel. Why not stop at Essex Road instead to interchange with the Northern City? Angel is already only one stop from St Pancras on the Northern line, surely it doesn't also need to be only one stop on CR2 as well?
 

Basil Jet

On Moderation
Joined
23 Apr 2022
Messages
332
Location
London
The station choice that baffles me is Angel. Why not stop at Essex Road instead to interchange with the Northern City? Angel is already only one stop from St Pancras on the Northern line, surely it doesn't also need to be only one stop on CR2 as well?
Essex Road as built was designed to be an interchange with a deeper line in roughly that direction - that's why the lifts go to a landing lower than the Northern City Line, because it was supposed to be mid-level between the two lines, but the deeper line never got built.
 

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
5,482
The station choice that baffles me is Angel. Why not stop at Essex Road instead to interchange with the Northern City? Angel is already only one stop from St Pancras on the Northern line, surely it doesn't also need to be only one stop on CR2 as well?
Angel is a much more important station though than Essex Road
 

norbitonflyer

Member
Joined
24 Mar 2020
Messages
1,132
Location
SW London
For me it's Euston that's the shoehorned bit of XR2 that doesn't quite fit. As someone else said, having only one central station ar TCR doesn't really seem to make sense - it would surely be better if it kinked to the east in the centre, with stations at, say, Charing Cross and Moorgate, rather than everyone having to change onto the Elizabeth Line.

Obviously that doesn't solve the HS2 issue, but it does seem like one line is trying to solve too much and failing to do any of it properly
Having yet another line calling at "Euston St Pan Cross" does seem to be poorly thought out. In network design one usually tries to avoid a "single point of failure". Why not have it call instead at Goodge Street/Russell Square and Angel/EssexRoad - possibly also a new interchnage at Mount Plerasant, plugging the long gap in the Circle Line?
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,047
The station choice that baffles me is Angel. Why not stop at Essex Road instead to interchange with the Northern City? Angel is already only one stop from St Pancras on the Northern line, surely it doesn't also need to be only one stop on CR2 as well?
Angel is a much more important station though than Essex Road
Essex Road is ~400m off the route alignment and track curvature to get there would be a line speed issue potential limiting route capacity at the planned high tph.

Angel is a more important station as Mike says.

Angel provides the opportunity for a high quality CR2 to Northern Bank branch interchange that isn't at Euston-StPancras/KingsCross which will help decrease the interchange volumes at Euston-StPancras/KingsCross

Angel would also have greater impact on transfer of users from buses.

Having yet another line calling at "Euston St Pan Cross" does seem to be poorly thought out. In network design one usually tries to avoid a "single point of failure". Why not have it call instead at Goodge Street/Russell Square and Angel/EssexRoad - possibly also a new interchange at Mount Plerasant, plugging the long gap in the Circle Line?
Euston, StPancras and Kings Cross are major demand centres and the CR2 usage and business case need fast transfer at those locations, having some users get the Northern line to Goodge Street to get CR2 is not a good idea.
EuPanCross actually reduces single point of failure because there are multiple options if one line is out of action.

I fail to see how having CR2 call at Tooting would help relieve the Northern Line. On the contrary, I would expect the Norrthern LIne through Clapham to get busier if CR2 connects with it at Tooting.
Tooting Broadway is only three stops from the end of the line, so relatively few people would be on northbound trains arriving there and able to switch to CR2. But, contariwise, bigger trains (10-car, full size) from four branches, serving 26 stations across SW London and Surrey will be calling at the CR2 platforms there, and many of their passengers will find a direct line to the City quite useful - especially if the CR2 trains are standing-room-only on arrival at Tooting.

Balham always made more sense - but remind me where Sadiq Khan used to be MP ...........
There has been lots and lots of detailed analysis on this, the former MP doesn't even come into it.
a) Tooting is a major "bus heading" location and provides the opportunity to divert people from getting on the Northern Line in the first place. (Bus heading to Balham is much smaller in terms of #passnegers, distances travelled to Balham and the low rail bridges in the area limiting some routes to single deck buses)
b) There are a high number of users from the southern end of the Northern Line who change to the Victoria line at Stockwell hence you need to chose the the optimum location to encourage them to divert to CR2, the future north the CR2 interchange the lower the journey time reduction so less incentive to change but too far south the volume of passengers changing would be too low.
c) pre-covid the Northern line was already maxing out at Tooting Bec hence for effective Northern line relief in the future the interchange has to be south of Tooting Bec.
d) Potential Southern stopping service interchange users at Balham would also have the opportunity change at Clapham Jn (where Southern fast users would too).
e) Post Bank and planned but on ice Camden town rebuilds there are some improvements in Northline capacity but most need more rolling stock purchased.
 
Last edited:

Djgr

Established Member
Joined
30 Jul 2018
Messages
1,235
I'll be honest. Anything with Boris in the title should be posted under Speculative Discussion and not here.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,047
I'll be honest. Anything with Boris in the title should be posted under Speculative Discussion and not here.
More a slight reversing of previous recent London and SE bashing that lost them Westminster, Wandsworth and Tunbridge Wells recently.
 

Recessio

Member
Joined
4 Aug 2019
Messages
245
Angel is a much more important station though than Essex Road
Essex Road would be a more important station if it had a decent service, say by adding CR2 there ;)
Essex Road is ~400m off the route alignment and track curvature to get there would be a line speed issue potential limiting route capacity at the planned high tph.

Angel is a more important station as Mike says.

Angel provides the opportunity for a high quality CR2 to Northern Bank branch interchange that isn't at Euston-StPancras/KingsCross which will help decrease the interchange volumes at Euston-StPancras/KingsCross

Angel would also have greater impact on transfer of users from buses.
The alignment bit makes sense as a "station-killer" though. Iirc the Bakerloo has some tight curves in central that hamper linespeed to this day, and they're even rebuilding the short spur onwards from E&C terminus for the same reason (if the BLE ever goes ahead).

Thanks for all the detail in the rest of your reply too, very informative!
 

Sad Sprinter

Member
Joined
5 Jun 2017
Messages
1,046
Location
Way on down South London town
As a middle South Londoner, I really think what this area needs more is not Crossrail 2, but Southern Metro services being taken over by the Overground. As I've said before, some parts of South London, such as Upper Norwood, are incredibly remote places, and getting to a station that may only now have 2tph to Victoria or London Bridge, both via rather circuitous routes, is far from ideal. I think 6tph on the Crystal Palace/Norbury/Mitcham routes, all going to Victoria with new interchanges at Streatham Common and Leigham Vale to interchange with London Bridge routes, would be a far better option than XR2 and would help ease congestion at Brixton for the Victoria Line too.
 
Joined
18 Aug 2019
Messages
1,150
Location
London
As a middle South Londoner, I really think what this area needs more is not Crossrail 2, but Southern Metro services being taken over by the Overground. As I've said before, some parts of South London, such as Upper Norwood, are incredibly remote places, and getting to a station that may only now have 2tph to Victoria or London Bridge, both via rather circuitous routes, is far from ideal. I think 6tph on the Crystal Palace/Norbury/Mitcham routes, all going to Victoria with new interchanges at Streatham Common and Leigham Vale to interchange with London Bridge routes, would be a far better option than XR2 and would help ease congestion at Brixton for the Victoria Line too.
Why do you assumme that London Overground taking over would mean an increase in services. TfL can't afford to take over Southern Metro services, and if anything if they did would lead to an even worse service than the one there currently is.
 

andreading

Member
Joined
27 Apr 2019
Messages
18
Some relief to the Northern would come from upgrading the Wimbledon loop service on Thameslink to every 15 minutes. The current constraint is the 1/2 service is not attractive and misses out to more regular buses in Sutton and Merton. Its appreciated that their are limits to the number of core to Herne Hill services due to the set of flat junctions but three options come to mind. 1) Rout all loop core services through Mitcham Eastfield, Sutton, Wimbledon terminating at Blackfriars and reverse or 2) Route services via London Bridge, West Croydon, Sutton, Wimbledon and E&C meaning no additional conflicts at Blackfriars. 3) Simply run a 1/2 hourly Wimbledon Loop service each way from Blackfriars south to get every 15 minutes in both directions. No additional Blackfriars conflicts.
This route needs 1 additional station near St. Georges Hospital, Tooting to make it truly useful as it currently operates long trains with few passengers missing this important local destination. The Wimbledon loop offers simple solutions using available capacity without annoyance to any body.
I support the loop being on the core route as removal form the core would, following CR2 mean Sutton would be the only borough without Cross-london services. Compare this with Croydon with Thameslink and East London Line.
 

gnolife

Established Member
Joined
4 Nov 2010
Messages
1,906
Location
Johnstone
Route services via London Bridge, West Croydon, Sutton, Wimbledon and E&C meaning no additional conflicts at Blackfriars
I'll be quite surprised if there are any spare paths between London Bridge and Norwood Junction for this.
 

Irascible

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2020
Messages
1,303
Location
Dyfneint
More a slight reversing of previous recent London and SE bashing that lost them Westminster, Wandsworth and Tunbridge Wells recently.

As there's a by-election down here for a seat that's never not been Tory & they're likely to lose, I'm still waiting on a promise of high-speed rail in SE Devon...

I took the bus a lot when I lived in the westeern end of Hackney, there was plenty of rail if you wanted to either get to the City or go straight west, but getting to the west end was awkward. Not sure it's really awkward enough to build an entirely new line though, that's a fairly specific corridor...
 

2192

Member
Joined
16 Aug 2020
Messages
236
Location
Derby UK
... There has been lots and lots of detailed analysis on this, the former MP doesn't even come into it.
a) Tooting is a major "bus heading" location and provides the opportunity to divert people from getting on the Northern Line in the first place. (Bus heading to Balham is much smaller in terms of #passnegers, distances travelled to Balham and the low rail bridges in the area limiting some routes to single deck buses)
b) There are a high number of users from the southern end of the Northern Line who change to the Victoria line at Stockwell hence you need to chose the the optimum location to encourage them to divert to CR2, the future north the CR2 interchange the lower the journey time reduction so less incentive to change but too far south the volume of passengers changing would be too low.
c) pre-covid the Northern line was already maxing out at Tooting Bec hence for effective Northern line relief in the future the interchange has to be south of Tooting Bec.
d) Potential Southern stopping service interchange users at Balham would also have the opportunity change at Clapham Jn (where Southern fast users would too).
e) Post Bank and planned but on ice Camden town rebuilds there are some improvements in Northline capacity but most need more rolling stock purchased.
Wasn't the design changed from Balham to Tooting for CR2 to interchange with the Northern Line because preliminary tests found the ground at Balham too unstable for tunnelling easily?
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
4,944
Essex Road would be a more important station if it had a decent service, say by adding CR2 there ;)

The alignment bit makes sense as a "station-killer" though. Iirc the Bakerloo has some tight curves in central that hamper linespeed to this day, and they're even rebuilding the short spur onwards from E&C terminus for the same reason (if the BLE ever goes ahead).

Thanks for all the detail in the rest of your reply too, very informative!
I live about 0.5 mile from Essex Road, a mile from the Angel. There is precious little around the former which means that there would not be a great demand to go there. Having a station there would be a change for the sake of offering an interchange. If alignments are being ignored and interchange options are the most important factor then there should be a station at Highbury and Islington.
 

Top