Crossrail 2 alternative suggestions

[LUYMun]

My vision of Crossrail 2 (the Chelney line upon opening) prioritises the eastern Hackney branch as the main route, and adjusts the northern and southern terminis.

The start of Crossrail 2 would be at Bishops Stortford, with a branch line to Hertford East. A mix of short and full length semi-fast and stopping services travel via Meridian Water and Lea Bridge, to where new underground platforms would replace the current ones at Stratford.

The route then follows underground along the North London line. Two megastation complexes would merge Hackney Central/Hackney Downs (renamed Hackney) and Dalston Junction/Dalston Kingsland (renamed Dalston Junction). A northern route would travel to Welwyn Garden City or Hertford North via Rectory Road, Seven Sisters/South Tottenham, Turnpike Lane and Alexandra Palace, with, like the West Anglia line, a mix of short and long stopping and fast services.

The current planned core section from Dalston to Chelsea would still be adopted. The southern end, however, is dependent on either taking over the Windsor or Wimbledon lines. Limited SWR trains may travel from these destination to Waterloo.

If the Windsor line is opted, then the underground section continues through Imperial Wharf and a new station called Wandsworth Bridge, surfacing near Putney. Crossrail 2 takes over the Weybridge/Woking, Windsor, and Shepperton services, all diverted through the core section.

If the Wimbledon line is opted, the underground section continues to Clapham Junction, Wandsworth Common and Tooting Broadway, surfaces prior to Haydons Road, and to Wimbledon. Crossrail 2 then takes over the Guildford (via Epsom and Claygate), Chessington South, Hampton Court, and Dorking services, all diverted via the core section.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Wandsworth Common is fairly quiet and out of the way. Why not straight to Tooting?

As I understand it, mixing short and longer distance trains on a Crossrail will cause cahos with timetabling. You might need seperate Crossrails for each service-if you can find the money!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

My vision of Crossrail 2 (the Chelney line upon opening) prioritises the eastern Hackney branch as the main route, and adjusts the northern and southern terminis.

The start of Crossrail 2 would be at Bishops Stortford, with a branch line to Hertford East. A mix of short and full length semi-fast and stopping services travel via Meridian Water and Lea Bridge, to where new underground platforms would replace the current ones at Stratford.

The route then follows underground along the North London line. Two megastation complexes would merge Hackney Central/Hackney Downs (renamed Hackney) and Dalston Junction/Dalston Kingsland (renamed Dalston Junction). A northern route would travel to Welwyn Garden City or Hertford North via Rectory Road, Seven Sisters/South Tottenham, Turnpike Lane and Alexandra Palace, with, like the West Anglia line, a mix of short and long stopping and fast services.

The current planned core section from Dalston to Chelsea would still be adopted. The southern end, however, is dependent on either taking over the Windsor or Wimbledon lines. Limited SWR trains may travel from these destination to Waterloo.

If the Windsor line is opted, then the underground section continues through Imperial Wharf and a new station called Wandsworth Bridge, surfacing near Putney. Crossrail 2 takes over the Weybridge/Woking, Windsor, and Shepperton services, all diverted through the core section.

If the Wimbledon line is opted, the underground section continues to Clapham Junction, Wandsworth Common and Tooting Broadway, surfaces prior to Haydons Road, and to Wimbledon. Crossrail 2 then takes over the Guildford (via Epsom and Claygate), Chessington South, Hampton Court, and Dorking services, all diverted via the core section.

A couple of issues that come to mind with that route: Firstly, you have something like a 315-degree turn at Stratford, with CR2 approaching from North-NW and leaving West-NW. That's going to be pretty tough to engineer, and also means you have trains taking quite a diversion between Tottenham Hale and Central London - which will add to journey times. Making such a diversion to serve Stratford directly seems unnecessary when CR2 would have interchange at Tottenham Court Road with CR to Stratford anyway.

Also, your Windsor line proposal would mean by-passing Clapham Junction. That would make CR2 massively less useful, since it kills the possibility of interchange with Southern and SWR trains for people from Woking/Croydon/Brighton/Basingstoke/etc. to use CR2 to get to central London. And unless you do something about those level crossings between Putney and Richmond, you have basically no chance of adding any CR2 trains to the existing ones on that line.

 

[swt_passenger]

Also, your Windsor line proposal would mean by-passing Clapham Junction. That would make CR2 massively less useful, since it kills the possibility of interchange with Southern and SWR trains for people from Woking/Croydon/Brighton/Basingstoke/etc. to use CR2 to get to central London. And unless you do something about those level crossings between Putney and Richmond, you have basically no chance of adding any CR2 trains to the existing ones on that line.

It seems to me the published plan is designed specifically to make room for more fast services through Woking, the 6/7 extra paths per hour thats been discussed for many years.

That purpose seems to have basically been agreed by Dft, NR and TfL. Running Via Windsor does none of that, so I think speculating about alternative routes at this late stage is going down a blind alley...

 

[Bald Rick]

It seems to me the published plan is designed specifically to make room for more fast services through Woking, the 6/7 extra paths per hour thats been discussed for many years.

That purpose seems to have basically been agreed by Dft, NR and TfL. Running Via Windsor does none of that, so I think speculating about alternative routes at this late stage is going down a blind alley...

Going down a blind alley with a blindfold on.

 

[si404]

Making such a diversion to serve Stratford directly seems unnecessary when CR2 would have interchange at Tottenham Court Road with CR to Stratford anyway.

The Stratford Sag is little different from the official Balham Bulge/Tooting Kink between Wimbledon and Central London - adding miles and tunneling complexity while reducing relief in order to try and tick another box.

And TCR is miles away. About 7.5 via this proposal (with various essing around to ease curves), and 6.5 via Elizabeth line. What you are saying here is a bit like saying that the JLE didn't need to serve Stratford directly because it has an interchange with the Central line at Bond Street (though the Jubilee is a lot more indirect).

 

[Bald Rick]

The Stratford Sag is little different from the official Balham Bulge/Tooting Kink between Wimbledon and Central London - adding miles and tunneling complexity while reducing relief in order to try and tick another box.

You might need to explain further as Tooting unquestionably does not ‘reduce relief’ and the added tunnelling complexity is minimal. Whereas this would not be the case at Stratford.

 

[Warrior2852]

And TCR is miles away. About 7.5 via this proposal (with various essing around to ease curves), and 6.5 via Elizabeth line. What you are saying here is a bit like saying that the JLE didn't need to serve Stratford directly because it has an interchange with the Central line at Bond Street (though the Jubilee is a lot more indirect).

The difference between this and the JLE is that as the JLE terminates at Stratford there isn't a further destination that Stratford is a detour on, whereas here it is essentially going two sides of a traingle as Stratford is a completely different direction from the final destination of the SWR suburban network, and so it is inefficient to divert this route there instead of simply interchanging with the Elizabeth/Central line at Tottenham Court Road.

 

[si404]

The difference between this and the JLE is that as the JLE terminates at Stratford there isn't a further destination that Stratford is a detour on,

A decent point, shame you go and ruin it...

whereas here it is essentially going two sides of a traingle as Stratford is a completely different direction from the final destination of the SWR suburban network, and so it is inefficient to divert this route there instead of simply interchanging with the Elizabeth/Central line at Tottenham Court Road.

'Stratford is a completely different direction from the final destination of NW London, and so it is inefficient to divert this route there instead of simply interchange with the Elizabeth/Central line at Bond Street'. The problem is you keep coming back to TCR and SW London and it being a long way around from there (when it isn't).

For the SWR suburban network, there would be no need to change as it would be quicker to stay on the CR2 train - (less than) 1 extra mile and 1 extra station is only going to be a couple of minutes slower, making it not worth the change (which would be about 5 minutes, especially when you factor in frequency to Stratford). Unlike Central vs Jubilee (where the Jubilee does 3 sides of a rectangle): it's 20 minutes from Bond Street via the Central, 27 via the Jubilee and only a couple of minutes change.

It's also really not a massive 2 sides of a triangle - unless going via Stepney Green junction is two sides of a triangle (the key difference between the two routes is that Euston is due north of TCR, giving it that slightly longer route). See here:



If the Stratford-Barking branch of CR2 gets built, it would be a very viable route to TCR as it wouldn't serve Dalston, nor need to curve north after Stratford (and thus less kinky around Hackney), and so would be similar than the Elizabeth line's shape.



Now if you said that it was a diversion for the Lea Valley to central London rather than talking about SW London, you'd be right. Tottenham Hale, not Tottenham Court Road!

It very much is, killing relief of the Victoria line (though helping the NLL). North/North East London passengers on CR2 can change at Tottenham Hale or Dalston for easy access to Stratford. Though that Stratford-Dalston line is rather crowded, and the route via Lea Bridge only 4tph!

You can see here that this bit is far worse than merely being 2 sides of a triangle. It's 2.5 times as long (and three extra stops)!



But we need to bare in mind that two-sides of a triangle are fine for CR2 - most notably the Balham bulge (Tooting is a bit better):

 

[si404]

You might need to explain further as Tooting unquestionably does not ‘reduce relief’

Tooting's potential for relief has been questioned since day 1! I spent ages trying to persuade people that it was a good idea, but the naysayers won me over. We'll just look at the SWML for my point here. We'll leave aside the potential dumping of CR2-Bank passengers on the Northern line at Balham (less of an issue with Tooting) - though I've included the relevant journey options in the list.

Initial proposals for CR2 planned to be mostly segregated from the SW Network with at least 24tph extending south of Wimbledon (12tph Kingston and 3 other branches which would at least have 4tph). This was meant with complaints from those not wanting to lose Waterloo trains and residual Waterloo services were added to Kingston and the service south of Wimbledon dropped to 20tph.

Clearly this means less relief for the SW suburban branches - not only are you not sending as many trains that way, making pathing more difficult, but every Waterloo train to CR2 destinations is one fewer that can serve other locations.

Now, sure, what do these Waterloo residuals have to do with Tooting/Balham? Well it's about access to The City. Waterloo and W&C remains the quicker route to the Bank area because of the couple of minutes spent going the long way around. If going via TCR wasn't slower than going via Waterloo, then the loss of Waterloo wouldn't have been as bad. Here's some modelled journey times to The City from Wimbledon. While Liverpool Street is about as-good a station to walk from for some W&C users, most would find Bank closer. I've included Liverpool Street as it is viable:

23 minutes:

• Wimbledon - CR2 via Earlsfield - TCR - Elizabeth line - Liverpool Street

25 minutes:

• Wimbledon - CR2 via Tooting - TCR - Elizabeth line - Liverpool Street
• Wimbledon - CR2 via Balham - TCR - Elizabeth line - Liverpool Street
• Wimbledon - CR2 - Balham - Northern line - Bank

26 minutes:

• Wimbledon - SWR - Waterloo - W&C - Bank

27 minutes:

• Wimbledon - CR2 via Earlsfield - TCR - Central line - Bank

29 minutes:

• Wimbledon - CR2 via Tooting - TCR - Central line - Bank
• Wimbledon - CR2 via Balham - TCR - Central line - Bank
• Wimbledon - CR2 - Tooting - Northern line - Bank

It may only be 2 minutes more to go via the bulge, but those two minutes more make it noticeably slower to Bank than the Waterloo route.

Put it bluntly - if the line didn't try and relieve the Northern line, it would better relieve Waterloo station and the lines out of it as it could be segregated from the SW Metro with none of the residual services into Waterloo.

the added tunnelling complexity is minimal.

They literally tried to replace Tooting with Balham, because the tunneling would be too difficult! Balham is also going to be difficult, but less so.

There's also the 'proposed eastern branch' to Barking, which would have a station at Stratford.

Whereas this would not be the case at Stratford.

I'm not supporting Stratford, I'm saying that it's an idea with similar logic to that which bought us 'lets relieve the Northern line with CR2'.

 

[Bald Rick]

Tooting's potential for relief has been questioned since day 1! I spent ages trying to persuade people that it was a good idea, but the naysayers won me over. We'll just look at the SWML for my point here. We'll leave aside the potential dumping of CR2-Bank passengers on the Northern line at Balham (less of an issue with Tooting) - though I've included the relevant journey options in the list.

Initial proposals for CR2 planned to be mostly segregated from the SW Network with at least 24tph extending south of Wimbledon (12tph Kingston and 3 other branches which would at least have 4tph). This was meant with complaints from those not wanting to lose Waterloo trains and residual Waterloo services were added to Kingston and the service south of Wimbledon dropped to 20tph.

Clearly this means less relief for the SW suburban branches - not only are you not sending as many trains that way, making pathing more difficult, but every Waterloo train to CR2 destinations is one fewer that can serve other locations.

Now, sure, what do these Waterloo residuals have to do with Tooting/Balham? Well it's about access to The City. Waterloo and W&C remains the quicker route to the Bank area because of the couple of minutes spent going the long way around. If going via TCR wasn't slower than going via Waterloo, then the loss of Waterloo wouldn't have been as bad. Here's some modelled journey times to The City from Wimbledon. While Liverpool Street is about as-good a station to walk from for some W&C users, most would find Bank closer. I've included Liverpool Street as it is viable:

23 minutes:

• Wimbledon - CR2 via Earlsfield - TCR - Elizabeth line - Liverpool Street

25 minutes:

• Wimbledon - CR2 via Tooting - TCR - Elizabeth line - Liverpool Street
• Wimbledon - CR2 via Balham - TCR - Elizabeth line - Liverpool Street
• Wimbledon - CR2 - Balham - Northern line - Bank

26 minutes:

• Wimbledon - SWR - Waterloo - W&C - Bank

27 minutes:

• Wimbledon - CR2 via Earlsfield - TCR - Central line - Bank

29 minutes:

• Wimbledon - CR2 via Tooting - TCR - Central line - Bank
• Wimbledon - CR2 via Balham - TCR - Central line - Bank
• Wimbledon - CR2 - Tooting - Northern line - Bank

It may only be 2 minutes more to go via the bulge, but those two minutes more make it noticeably slower to Bank than the Waterloo route.

Put it bluntly - if the line didn't try and relieve the Northern line, it would better relieve Waterloo station and the lines out of it as it could be segregated from the SW Metro with none of the residual services into Waterloo.
They literally tried to replace Tooting with Balham, because the tunneling would be too difficult! Balham is also going to be difficult, but less so.

This all misses a rather significant point. Commuters don’t travel from station to station. They travel from home to work. As an example there’s a lot of people who use the Morden branch now who work near Liverpool St - they use the Northern line and walk from Bank. TfL have some fantastic models which include origin and destinations of journeys, and include the expected ‘busyness’ of each transport link. The modelling demonstrates overwhelmingly that a clear majority of passengers for the city would use CR2 and the Elizabeth line (if heading for anywhere near Moorgate or Liverpool St), or residual services to Waterloo and the W&C (for Bank) in preference for changing at Tooting for the Northern Line. Even for those heading to London Bridge, it was still a preference for the majority to go via Waterloo and Waterloo east.

Conversely, passengers at Tooting heading for the West End would abandon the northern line and use CR2, which would be very much quicker and with more capacity.

 

[si404]

This all misses a rather significant point.

And you miss a rather significant point. I deliberately didn't focus on the issues you raise:

We'll just look at the SWML for my point here. We'll leave aside the potential dumping of CR2-Bank passengers on the Northern line at Balham (less of an issue with Tooting) - though I've included the relevant journey options in the list.

And don't think I've not noticed you keep ignoring that the route has been Balham, not Tooting, for 5 years now.

With CR2 via Balham the crowding relief for the Northern line is less than Tooting - the journey time reductions for stuff like Morden-Victoria/Euston are less: 2 and 4 minutes respectively, rather than 5 and 7, meaning people are less convinced to leave their seats and take a non-level interchange - instead continuing via Stockwell. And it makes the likelihood of people changing from CR2 to reach The City higher and will be the fastest route for those stations (including Moorgate for the lot of Liverpool Street workers - who are a minority according to the TfL data I have. A large number, but dwarfed by those who'd be better off with Bank) without residual Waterloo trains. Another reason why the Balham bulge hinders relief of the SWML - you need to have residuals into Waterloo so as to not undermine crowding relief on the Northern line!

 

[hwl]

Tooting's potential for relief has been questioned since day 1! I spent ages trying to persuade people that it was a good idea, but the naysayers won me over. We'll just look at the SWML for my point here. We'll leave aside the potential dumping of CR2-Bank passengers on the Northern line at Balham (less of an issue with Tooting) - though I've included the relevant journey options in the list.

Initial proposals for CR2 planned to be mostly segregated from the SW Network with at least 24tph extending south of Wimbledon (12tph Kingston and 3 other branches which would at least have 4tph). This was meant with complaints from those not wanting to lose Waterloo trains and residual Waterloo services were added to Kingston and the service south of Wimbledon dropped to 20tph.

Clearly this means less relief for the SW suburban branches - not only are you not sending as many trains that way, making pathing more difficult, but every Waterloo train to CR2 destinations is one fewer that can serve other locations.

Now, sure, what do these Waterloo residuals have to do with Tooting/Balham? Well it's about access to The City. Waterloo and W&C remains the quicker route to the Bank area because of the couple of minutes spent going the long way around. If going via TCR wasn't slower than going via Waterloo, then the loss of Waterloo wouldn't have been as bad. Here's some modelled journey times to The City from Wimbledon. While Liverpool Street is about as-good a station to walk from for some W&C users, most would find Bank closer. I've included Liverpool Street as it is viable:

23 minutes:

• Wimbledon - CR2 via Earlsfield - TCR - Elizabeth line - Liverpool Street

25 minutes:

• Wimbledon - CR2 via Tooting - TCR - Elizabeth line - Liverpool Street
• Wimbledon - CR2 via Balham - TCR - Elizabeth line - Liverpool Street
• Wimbledon - CR2 - Balham - Northern line - Bank

26 minutes:

• Wimbledon - SWR - Waterloo - W&C - Bank

27 minutes:

• Wimbledon - CR2 via Earlsfield - TCR - Central line - Bank

29 minutes:

• Wimbledon - CR2 via Tooting - TCR - Central line - Bank
• Wimbledon - CR2 via Balham - TCR - Central line - Bank
• Wimbledon - CR2 - Tooting - Northern line - Bank

It may only be 2 minutes more to go via the bulge, but those two minutes more make it noticeably slower to Bank than the Waterloo route.

Put it bluntly - if the line didn't try and relieve the Northern line, it would better relieve Waterloo station and the lines out of it as it could be segregated from the SW Metro with none of the residual services into Waterloo.
They literally tried to replace Tooting with Balham, because the tunneling would be too difficult! Balham is also going to be difficult, but less so.

There's also the 'proposed eastern branch' to Barking, which would have a station at Stratford.
I'm not supporting Stratford, I'm saying that it's an idea with similar logic to that which bought us 'lets relieve the Northern line with CR2'.

Try looking at it from just the TfL point of view you get a very different picture. Then add everything together.
Agree with Bald Rick on this one when you look at things from the TfL point of view the Northern line was already beginning to be in trouble at certain times in the am peak pre Covid after Tooting Bec (i.e. capacity relief needed south of Balham or it isn't going to work) with the Northern Line trains emptying out substantially at Stockwell for Victoria Line and Kennington for Charing Cross Branch of the Northern line i.e. a huge number of the users on the Morden branch are heading to West End destinations and if you relieve that at the biggest main demand centre (Tooting Broadway is on par with Fenchurch street in term of annual usage and a major bus heading point). Then you address the northline issues in one go and half the Victoria line ones too

In ability to board train at Earlsfield leads to people heading south down Garrett Lane on buses to use the Northern line at Tooting Broadway.

 

[hwl]

And don't think I've not noticed you keep ignoring that the route has been Balham, not Tooting, for 5 years now.

Has it? Where have TfL stated that recently

 

[Bald Rick]

And don't think I've not noticed you keep ignoring that the route has been Balham, not Tooting, for 5 years now.

Are you absolutely sure about that?

Crossrail 2 route shake-up: Transport for London's business case proposal scraps Kings Road Chelsea station - City AM

A controversial station at Kings Road Chelsea, set to form part of Crossrail 2, has been dropped from the latest business case for the planned rail route. In the business case which TfL sent to the government in March, and seen by City A.M., the latest route for the railway running across London...

www.cityam.com

 

[si404]

Tooting Broadway is on par with Fenchurch street in term of annual usage and a major bus heading point

Which is great, but the plan, as currently proposed is via Balham.

It's just 2 minutes quicker Tooting - Victoria via changing onto CR2 at Balham than the Victoria line at Stockwell. That level interchange at Stockwell means that there's not going to be much transfer in order to reach Victoria.

If you are going to near Green Park or Warren Street or Charing Cross (via Kennington), then changing to CR2 at Balham isn't going to be quicker. The Oxford Circus area is going to be pretty much even.

In ability to board train at Earlsfield leads to people heading south down Garrett Lane on buses to use the Northern line.

So if there was a load more trains at Earlsfield, the Northern Line would be relieved? Interesting...

Has it? Where have TfL stated that recently

TfL aren't building it - the company "Crossrail 2" are. Like Crossrail, it's not just a TfL project, but a TfL and NR one.

Tooting Broadway is on their 2015 map (and this is the most recent one they have), but as "Route previously consulted on". The northern options of Turnpike Lane-Ally Pally vs Wood Green are billed as 'Option via', rather than the 'previous route' that Tooting gets.

The best I can find is the Mayor's Transport Strategy in 2018 having Tooting back as an option - obviously Sadiq wants the line through his old constituency - but there's nothing beyond that. The routing via Balham hasn't been formally changed, despite being deeply unpopular compared with Tooting.

But anyway, no one has said nothing recently - not least because it was out of everyone's price range even before Crossrail overran. Crossrail 2 hasn't posted anything on the news part of its site since May 2018. The scheme is stagnant - TfL keep brushing up its lobby-the-DfT document (sorry, I mean 'strategic outline business case'), and there's some "please build this" comments but that's it. The planning process seemed to stop with the 2016 consultation being analysed. In Bald Rick's article, Michele Dix promised a full consultation on the plans. That was 3 years ago.

Are you absolutely sure about that?

Crossrail 2 route shake-up: Transport for London's business case proposal scraps Kings Road Chelsea station - City AM

A controversial station at Kings Road Chelsea, set to form part of Crossrail 2, has been dropped from the latest business case for the planned rail route. In the business case which TfL sent to the government in March, and seen by City A.M., the latest route for the railway running across London...

www.cityam.com

From this article about a non-public document from a major stakeholder (but not the people charged with designing and building it*): "the route hasn’t been committed to." And Michele Dix, the person in charge of the scheme, says "no decisions have been made" in reference to this proposal of returning to a Tooting route - ergo, Balham is still the official route.

The best we can say is that Tooting is TfL's preferred option. However the most recent public proposals from Crossrail 2 themselves are Balham.

If it is changed back to Tooting, then good. But it doesn't seem to have been.

*Who don't want the complexity and cost of building Tooting Broadway station.

 

[Ianno87]

The best we can say is that Tooting is TfL's preferred option. However the most recent public proposals from Crossrail 2 themselves are Balham.

If it is changed back to Tooting, then good. But it doesn't seem to have been.

*Who don't want the complexity and cost of building Tooting Broadway station.

The people building Crossrail 2 will build whatever their client (TfL/NR/DfT) want them to build, provided they give them enough £££ to do so.

If the client think the cost of serving Tooting is justified, then Tooting shall so be served.

 

[si404]

The people building Crossrail 2 will build whatever their client (TfL/NR/DfT) want them to build, provided they give them enough £££ to do so.

If the client think the cost of serving Tooting is justified, then Tooting shall so be served.

Indeed. However the client is seemingly still thinking about it - "nothing is confirmed", "no decisions have been made" - and therefore the planned route is still via Balham.

 

[Ianno87]

Indeed. However the client is seemingly still thinking about it - "nothing is confirmed", "no decisions have been made" - and therefore the planned route is still via Balham.

No public proposal has ever presented Balham as the only or preferred option.

The 2015 consultation presented both Balham and Tooting as alternatives. The logic might have been "Tooting is really difficult, give us some good reasons to go there to help us justify it, or else it's Balham".

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Was there not a study which effectively suggested a better option was some form of Jubilee line relief of sorts from North East London (eg Chingford and Broxbourne side) through parts of East to Southwark and then out over Clapham Junction?

I’m sure I’m not going mad in my old age: I think it’s a proper TfL report.

 

[hwl]

Which is great, but the plan, as currently proposed is via Balham.

Is it? You obviously aren't taking Bald Rick's subtle hints on board... I strongly suggest you do!

Bald Rick is right 99.99% of the time

The CityAm article says:

"Tooting got the go-ahead in TfL’s business case, though it did note that investigations carried out early last year found ground conditions around Tooting would make construction “challenging”.

And Tooting proved a more popular choice in consultation, despite the fact concerns have been raised over the fate of Tooting Market. Much of the space will likely be subject to a compulsory purchase order if Crossrail 2 comes to the area"

I.e. despite being more challenging it was still a better option because the benefits delivered

 

[hwl]

Was there not a study which effectively suggested a better option was some form of Jubilee line relief of sorts from North East London (eg Chingford and Broxbourne side) through parts of East to Southwark and then out over Clapham Junction?

I’m sure I’m not going mad in my old age: I think it’s a proper TfL report.

There have been Canary Wharf group proposals to relieve Waterloo - CW - Stratford over the years

Edit to add: at least 2 that I know of.

 

[Ianno87]

There have been Canary Wharf group proposals to relieve Waterloo - CW - Stratford over the years

I'd have thought Crossrail 1 would be a good start on that one...

 

[hwl]

So if there was a load more trains at Earlsfield, the Northern Line would be relieved? Interesting...

Only in very minor way so not very interesting.
The bus routes Northbound can't cope so basically just locals walking would fill space on the residual SW services into Waterloo or just be able to board first time.

 

[hwl]

I'd have thought Crossrail 1 would be a good start on that one...

But CW wanted Surrey via Waterloo targeted capacity

 

[si404]

Is it? You obviously aren't taking Bald Rick's subtle hints on board... I strongly suggest you do!

Bald Rick is right 99.99% of the time

This is one of the 0.01% times then, unless he's privy to non-public information for which the best source he can provide is one that quotes the person in charge saying that no decision has been made.

The CityAm article says:

"Tooting got the go-ahead in TfL’s business case

That's not the same as saying it is now back as being the route. As the article says: "The changes aren’t concrete ones though and the route hasn’t been committed to." as well as quoting Michele Dix - the head honcho - saying "No decisions have yet been made"

The 2015 consultation presented both Balham and Tooting as alternatives.

Nope - it was presented as a replacement - the responses treated them as alternatives, and perhaps some of the supporting documents did, but the questions never mentioned Tooting.

Compare actual route alternatives:
Q5: Do you have any comments about the proposals for a Crossrail 2 station at Turnpike Lane?
Q6: Do you have any comments about the proposals for a Crossrail 2 station at Alexandra Palace?
Q7: Do you have any comments about the proposals for a Crossrail 2 station at Wood Green?

with
Q23: Do you have any comments about the proposals for a Crossrail 2 station at Balham?
<tumbleweed about Tooting>

Turnpike Lane-Ally Pally was not called "Previously consulted upon route" like Tooting Broadway but "Option via". There was genuinely a choice north of London. South of London, the choice had been made.


But anyway, lets just all agree with the thousands who responded to the consultation, TfL's business case, and common sense - that Tooting is a far better option than Balham!

 

[Ianno87]

This is one of the 0.01% times then, unless he's privy to non-public information for which the best source he can provide is one that quotes the person in charge saying that no decision has been made.
That's not the same as saying it is now back as being the route. As the article says: "The changes aren’t concrete ones though and the route hasn’t been committed to." as well as quoting Michele Dix - the head honcho - saying "No decisions have yet been made"

Nope - it was presented as a replacement - the responses treated them as alternatives, and perhaps some of the supporting documents did, but the questions never mentioned Tooting.

Compare actual route alternatives:
Q5: Do you have any comments about the proposals for a Crossrail 2 station at Turnpike Lane?
Q6: Do you have any comments about the proposals for a Crossrail 2 station at Alexandra Palace?
Q7: Do you have any comments about the proposals for a Crossrail 2 station at Wood Green?

with
Q23: Do you have any comments about the proposals for a Crossrail 2 station at Balham?
<tumbleweed about Tooting>

Turnpike Lane-Ally Pally was not called "Previously consulted upon route" like Tooting Broadway but "Option via". There was genuinely a choice north of London. South of London, the choice had been made.

If 'the choice had been made', Tooting wouldn't have been on the map at all.

By leaving it on the map, it's likely deliberately dangling the carrot for lots of people responding "send it via Tooting" in the "What do you think about Balham?" box.

 

[Bald Rick]

TfL aren't building it - the company "Crossrail 2" are

Well, actually, no-one is building it for the foreseeable future. But to date the work has very much been managed by TfL, with (of course), a partnership with NR and DfT. But TfL pay NRs bills, and have the budget.

A quick google will reveal that’s the company “Crossrail 2 Ltd” isn’t trading, never has, and has one share, valued at £1. And that share is owned by TfL.

Bald Rick is right 99.99% of the time

I’ll dispute that old boy. Maybe 80% when it comes to railways, balanced by being about 20% right domestically if you believe Mrs BR. I’m sure you know the feeling.

 

[si404]

A quick google will reveal that’s the company “Crossrail 2 Ltd” isn’t trading, never has, and has one share, valued at £1. And that share is owned by TfL.

Where did I suggest it was a publicly traded company? Or even a privately owned one.

I'd assumed it was a quasi-autonomous company set up between the two (or more) Governmental entities that are involved/supposed to be, rather than a wholly owned subsidiary of TfL.

And is it really the case that Network Rail don't have any stake, have their bills paid for by TfL, and yet get their logo on the literature?

 

[Bald Rick]

Where did I suggest it was a publicly traded company? Or even a privately owned one.

You didn’t, but neither did I. I said it wasn’t trading, ie it is a dormant company that has never been active.

And is it really the case that Network Rail don't have any stake, have their bills paid for by TfL, and yet get their logo on the literature?

Yep.