Crossrail 2 alternative suggestions

[theking]

Cheers for the detailed responses guys yes did mean the Overground lol

 

[Ken H]

I am curious about the rolling stock that would be used for this. Given that is unlikely that half the SWR suburban network would have overhead wires added, I presume the stock would have both shoegear and a pantograph like the 700s and 717s (and numerous other stock as well). Perhaps the changeover point could be on the Crossrail 2 platforms at Wimbledon.

Why not at the northern portal? Put in 3rd rail in the tunnel. smaller tunnels - cheaper and easier engineering fitting the tunnels through the other stuff underground in central london

 

[swt_passenger]

Why not at the northern portal? Put in 3rd rail in the tunnel. smaller tunnels - cheaper and easier engineering fitting the tunnels through the other stuff underground in central london

AIUI a typically spacious cylindrical tunnel with a modern evacuation walkway will have enough clearance for an overhead conductor rail by default. Probably enough energy efficiency reasons for AC OHLE anyway...

 

[hwl]

AIUI a typically spacious cylindrical tunnel with a modern evacuation walkway will have enough clearance for an overhead conductor rail by default. Probably enough energy efficiency reasons for AC OHLE anyway...

Easier to safely maintain tunnels with OHLE.

No real cost savings from smaller tunnels with modern TBMs, very different from the last of the old method tunnels like the Victoria line.

 

[swt_passenger]

Easier to safely maintain tunnels with OHLE.

No real cost savings from smaller tunnels with modern TBMs, very different from the last of the old method tunnels like the Victoria line.

Just did a bit of Googling, and discovered that the last major DLR bored tunnels to Woolwich are described as 6m diameter, which is the same size as Crossrail 1...

 

[Class 170101]

New Southgate and Broxbourne as Termini

OK I just seem to remember talk of the Hertford East branch being served by CR2 as well.

Hertford East was talked about and would be a better terminus than Broxbourne as it would remove them from Liverpool Street / Stratford and allow more services to operate north of Broxbourne towards Bishops Stortford and Cambridge. This route itself part of large growth area - New towns, housing and jobs plus Stansted Airport.

As for New Southgate there were rumours the route would be dropped however if it hasn't been then it should extend to Welwyn Garden City - the limit of GN suburban services on the ECML as this would allow a more frequent service to be provided to Hertford North / Stevenage without expensive tunnelling between Finsbury Park and Moorgate. The depot site at New Southgate need not be there as land is available at Broxbourne and at Welwyn Garden City.

 

[samuelmorris]

Hertford East was talked about and would be a better terminus than Broxbourne as it would remove them from Liverpool Street / Stratford and allow more services to operate north of Broxbourne towards Bishops Stortford and Cambridge. This route itself part of large growth area - New towns, housing and jobs plus Stansted Airport.

As for New Southgate there were rumours the route would be dropped however if it hasn't been then it should extend to Welwyn Garden City - the limit of GN suburban services on the ECML as this would allow a more frequent service to be provided to Hertford North / Stevenage without expensive tunnelling between Finsbury Park and Moorgate. The depot site at New Southgate need not be there as land is available at Broxbourne and at Welwyn Garden City.

I imagine Hertford East is probably only not included for the same reason it didn't pass to TfL when the other suburban routes became LO in 2015 - the government wouldn't allow it to transfer to TfL control. I do wonder if the 'Crossrail' banner may help get round some of those issues, but Crossrail 1 will probably need to be up and running before having a rethink on that.

 

[si404]

As for New Southgate there were rumours the route would be dropped however if it hasn't been then it should extend to Welwyn Garden City - the limit of GN suburban services on the ECML as this would allow a more frequent service to be provided to Hertford North / Stevenage without expensive tunnelling between Finsbury Park and Moorgate.

Surely that Finsbury Park-Moorgate tunnel exists? The limitation currently is stock and demand - with the line soon seeing quite an increase in capacity. Any fix would be in the same ballpark as a complex CR2/ECML slows tie in would add to the CR2 budget.

And you'd be sharing tracks with Thameslink trains if you go to WGC. I can't see journeys sharing with both SW suburban services and Thameslink ones being a good idea.

I'm also not sure that extending this branch is a good idea - it's meant as long reversing sidings for trains from SW of Wimbledon to do something useful in North London (else we're looking at a Westbourne Park sidings type situation) while not spreading performance pollution. And it would only do it's relief function if it's a reliable 15+tph service that gives Wood Green area passengers seats (and so abstracts people off the Piccadilly line) - that doesn't happen if the line goes to Herts.

There's good reason why proposals for Crossrail to go to North Kent talk about 4-tracking to Slade Green, not going beyond Gravesend, etc. Crossrail 2 beyond New Southgate is similar.

 

[matt_world2004]

I am curious about the rolling stock that would be used for this. Given that is unlikely that half the SWR suburban network would have overhead wires added, I presume the stock would have both shoegear and a pantograph like the 700s and 717s (and numerous other stock as well). Perhaps the changeover point could be on the Crossrail 2 platforms at Wimbledon.

The rolling stock probably isnt even designed yet. Diesel would be not very good for a tunnel. Early concepts for Crossrail had networker based rolling stock as its basis for design that changed radically between concept to construction

 

[Class 170101]

Surely that Finsbury Park-Moorgate tunnel exists? The limitation currently is stock and demand - with the line soon seeing quite an increase in capacity. Any fix would be in the same ballpark as a complex CR2/ECML slows tie in would add to the CR2 budget.

And you'd be sharing tracks with Thameslink trains if you go to WGC. I can't see journeys sharing with both SW suburban services and Thameslink ones being a good idea.

I'm also not sure that extending this branch is a good idea - it's meant as long reversing sidings for trains from SW of Wimbledon to do something useful in North London (else we're looking at a Westbourne Park sidings type situation) while not spreading performance pollution. And it would only do it's relief function if it's a reliable 15+tph service that gives Wood Green area passengers seats (and so abstracts people off the Piccadilly line) - that doesn't happen if the line goes to Herts.

There's good reason why proposals for Crossrail to go to North Kent talk about 4-tracking to Slade Green, not going beyond Gravesend, etc. Crossrail 2 beyond New Southgate is similar.

Not convinced about the value of the New Southgate branch without the extension to be honest. The depot site seems expensive compared to the existing siding space at Welwyn. As for Piccadilyy Line I don't think Crossrail 2 will draw people away from it - its too far south.

Insofar as your argument referring to Crossrail 1 I accept there could some performance pollution with Thameslink but by that argument there could also be some performance pollution with SWT from Epsom which is shared and potentially with the WAML from Coppermill Jn to Broxbourne, so in that case should not run to Epsom or indeed on the WAML?

Yes the Moorgate tunnel exists but it is at capacity so to provide more trains to Hertford North I suggest removing WGC services from the Moorgate to Finsbury section to allow this to happen.

 

[deltic]

I think the next iteration of Crossrail 2 will see a fair bit of descoping as TfL try to bring the cost down to something more affordable.

 

[samuelmorris]

I think the next iteration of Crossrail 2 will see a fair bit of descoping as TfL try to bring the cost down to something more affordable.

I think that's likely. As for the rolling stock, probably a later iteration of the Crossrail 1 stock (in the same way 387s are to 377s), assuming CR2 happens at all. After finally getting the CR1 systems sorted out on 345s, they won't want to make any drastic changes unless the system proves a disaster in operation. They may as well stick with what will hopefully by then be proven.

 

[The Ham]

I think the next iteration of Crossrail 2 will see a fair bit of descoping as TfL try to bring the cost down to something more affordable.

The problem with descoping is that at what cost? Do you really want to remove, say, third rail capability from the trains (as that would make them cheaper and require fewer of them) but then not have the income from the SWR stations?

Do you change the design so that you impact more heavily on the SWML (reduced tunnel costs), but then are likely to see more delays and problems with running services and less chance to improvements to the existing SWR services (i.e. loss of the 8tph out of Waterloo which could otherwise be provided)?

I'm not saying that they should review what's needed, but to cut for the sake of cutting costs may end up costing more.

 

[deltic]

Descoping will be more drastic than that - branches and stations will be “taken forward in later phases” ie dropped and unlikely to happen for another couple of decades after the main section opensr. The scheme as a whole is slipping considerably and with the problems on Crossrail 1 and NLE being put back as well I doubt we will see any trains on it till 2040 at the earliest.

 

[si404]

As for Piccadilyy Line I don't think Crossrail 2 will draw people away from it - its too far south.

How is Wood Green or Ally Pally/Turnpike Lane too far south to remove passengers from the Wood Green area from joining the Piccadilly line there? Wood Green is not only a growth area, but also right in the part of the line where people go from having the option of sitting when boarding to all the seats full and quite a few people standing if nothing is done.

Insofar as your argument referring to Crossrail 1 I accept there could some performance pollution with Thameslink but by that argument there could also be some performance pollution with SWT from Epsom which is shared and potentially with the WAML from Coppermill Jn to Broxbourne, so in that case should not run to Epsom or indeed on the WAML?

Broxbourne trains would, while interacting with freight (though there would be more room on the mainline tracks) and Stratford-Broxbourne trains, not interact with other WAML trains, nor - more importantly - with anything SW of Wimbledon as they will terminate there.

This is exactly like GEML services on Crossrail turning at Westbourne Park, and the GWML ones not interacting with other services in East London. A service can reliably interact with others, as long as it does it only on one side.

Yes the Moorgate tunnel exists but it is at capacity so to provide more trains to Hertford North I suggest removing WGC services from the Moorgate to Finsbury section to allow this to happen.

It being at capacity is why it will get a 2tph frequency boost shortly due to additional rolling stock? And NR put the semi-fast local service on Thameslink to make way for more Hertford-Moorgate services - the intervention you seek has been done - to the extent that it was required.

And, even without CR2 removing passengers from it North of Finsbury Park, both GN Metro routes are only modelled to be moderately crowded in 2041 under a no new spending scenario.

What you are proposing is a solution looking for a problem.

 

[swt_passenger]

The problem with descoping is that at what cost? Do you really want to remove, say, third rail capability from the trains (as that would make them cheaper and require fewer of them) but then not have the income from the SWR stations?

Do you change the design so that you impact more heavily on the SWML (reduced tunnel costs), but then are likely to see more delays and problems with running services and less chance to improvements to the existing SWR services (i.e. loss of the 8tph out of Waterloo which could otherwise be provided)?

I'm not saying that they should review what's needed, but to cut for the sake of cutting costs may end up costing more.

Third rail capability is a microscopic cost of the entire project, and a vanishingly small percentage of the rolling stock cost. It really is just a few cables, switchgear and shoegear. I wouldn’t include it in your descoping theory if the aim is to save huge amounts.

 

[kevin_roche]

An Article on Building website today says:

Problems with the first Crossrail scheme are likely to delay the opening of Crossrail 2, the boss of the fledgling project has admitted.
Crossrail 2 managing director Michèle Dix said her team had been targeting an opening date in 2033 – but this may now not be achievable.

Not surprising since the money that was supposed to finance Crossrail 2 is now being spent completing Crossrail 1.

 

[deltic]

2033 - more like 2044

 

[The Ham]

Third rail capability is a microscopic cost of the entire project, and a vanishingly small percentage of the rolling stock cost. It really is just a few cables, switchgear and shoegear. I wouldn’t include it in your descoping theory if the aim is to save huge amounts.

It was more to do with the cutting back of the services to the core, so as to reduce the number of units, although it would also mean that no third rail capability was required.

 

[hwl]

It was more to do with the cutting back of the services to the core, so as to reduce the number of units, although it would also mean that no third rail capability was required.

But also cuts back a huge number of users and benefits... and actually costs more as Wimbledon has to cope with even bigger interchange numbers!
3rd rail equipment cost is less than 1% of total rolling stock purchase cost so not worth worrying about.
The biggest challenge and hence focus for descoping is staying within sensible annual expenditure levels (call it £2.25-2.5bn /year) so that funding models work e.g. a longer slower build overall and delaying New Southgate till the rest has opened does this.

 

[The Ham]

But also cuts back a huge number of users and benefits... and actually costs more as Wimbledon has to cope with even bigger interchange numbers!
3rd rail equipment cost is less than 1% of total rolling stock purchase cost so not worth worrying about.
The biggest challenge and hence focus for descoping is staying within sensible annual expenditure levels (call it £2.25-2.5bn /year) so that funding models work e.g. a longer slower build overall and delaying New Southgate till the rest has opened does this.

Which is why I said:

The problem with descoping is that at what cost? Do you really want to remove, say, third rail capability from the trains (as that would make them cheaper and require fewer of them) but then not have the income from the SWR stations?

 

[Tio Terry]

Don't think there's any chance of a non-standard size, 3rd rail tunnel. You would have to start by specifying what you want - bearing in mind the changes required by evacuation requirements - asking someone to design a TBM, getting it built and then writing it off because there's no real possibility of using it again.

On the other hand, there are a number of company's who already have designs for TBM's that meet the requirements for the applicable TSI's for interoperability and can supply one (or more) at a sensible price because there is no R&D or specific design required. Then you can use it again elsewhere!

 

[Bald Rick]

Don't think there's any chance of a non-standard size, 3rd rail tunnel. You would have to start by specifying what you want - bearing in mind the changes required by evacuation requirements - asking someone to design a TBM, getting it built and then writing it off because there's no real possibility of using it again.

On the other hand, there are a number of company's who already have designs for TBM's that meet the requirements for the applicable TSI's for interoperability and can supply one (or more) at a sensible price because there is no R&D or specific design required. Then you can use it again elsewhere!

In the scale of things, TBM cost is irrelevant. Herrenknecht design and custom build them to almost any size. They don’t just build them for railway tunnels! The standard desig;is all about componentry, not size.

Besides, a TBM costs about £10m.

 

[Class 170101]

This is exactly like GEML services on Crossrail turning at Westbourne Park, and the GWML ones not interacting with other services in East London. A service can reliably interact with others, as long as it does it only on one side.
It being at capacity is why it will get a 2tph frequency boost shortly due to additional rolling stock? And NR put the semi-fast local service on Thameslink to make way for more Hertford-Moorgate services - the intervention you seek has been done - to the extent that it was required.

And, even without CR2 removing passengers from it North of Finsbury Park, both GN Metro routes are only modelled to be moderately crowded in 2041 under a no new spending scenario.

What you are proposing is a solution looking for a problem.

I disagree with your assertion on that one as I doubt the modelling can ake full account of house building.

However lets assume you are correct I would then assert that there would be no value in the short branch at all (depot location included). Therefore I would cancel the branch and seek to provide a new route elsewhere - perhaps including taking over the Central Line between Leytonstone and Epping.

 

[samuelmorris]

2033 - more like 2044

I'd probably guess 2040. It'll likely be shelved entirely for a few years while the budgetary crisis is dealt with.

 

[Bald Rick]

Transport modelling does take into account housebuilding - where it is known about through local plans. That’s one of they key purposes of doing it in the first place.

 

[camflyer]

I'd probably guess 2040. It'll likely be shelved entirely for a few years while the budgetary crisis is dealt with.

The concern is what happens if Crossrail 2 is significantly delayed or never happens. With HS2 bringing more passengers into Euston, I dread to think what the Northern and Victoria lines will be like by the 2040s (although by then I will be probably too old to care)

 

[samuelmorris]

The concern is what happens if Crossrail 2 is significantly delayed or never happens. With HS2 bringing more passengers into Euston, I dread to think what the Northern and Victoria lines will be like by the 2040s (although by then I will be probably too old to care)

Pretty rough, but demand can only grow so much under crowding conditions.

 

[si404]

However lets assume you are correct I would then assert that there would be no value in the short branch at all (depot location included).

There's tons of value. It's 2 or 3 stations and a couple of miles - hardly a stub. Extend it to do yet another thing, and it becomes less good at Piccadilly and Victoria line relief. CR2 is doing too much as it is, and an extension would be law of diminishing returns....

Therefore I would cancel the branch and seek to provide a new route elsewhere - perhaps including taking over the Central Line between Leytonstone and Epping.

so yet another thing for CR2 to try and do!

 

[The Ham]

There's tons of value. It's 2 or 3 stations and a couple of miles - hardly a stub. Extend it to do yet another thing, and it becomes less good at Piccadilly and Victoria line relief. CR2 is doing too much as it is, and an extension would be law of diminishing returns....
so yet another thing for CR2 to try and do!

It's the problem with most major projects is that they are asked to do too much, which results in them not being able to do what they should be doing well.

It also takes far too long to get anything done, you just need to look at how crowded the SWT network is and you have to wonder why relatively little has been done to improve passenger capacity. Personally I think it would have been better to have started on Crossrail 2 about 5 years ago. Two reasons, firstly any disruption due to the Waterloo upgrades could have also included undertaking some works for Crossrail 2, which would have reduced the amount of future pain by travelers and would have split the costs of those delays between two projects.

Secondly, SWR/SWT have been used as a cash cow to underwrite the rest of the network. If it was able to expand its services it would have likely generated more money to fund the rest of the network. By trying to maximise this before making improvements is likely to lead to a bigger drop in passengers/income during construction than doing it earlier, as the network is more strained when the works are undertaken.

If you added the 8tph to the SWR network, broadly along the lines of a 50% increase in service (those services which of through Woking) frequency (i.e. Salisbury gets 2tph so would have 3tph, it doesn't quite fit and not would there be enough paths on some lines for it to work, but as a general principle to give you an idea of the benefits) you'd likely see a significant increase in passengers over a fairly short period.

Extra services could look like (subject to paths beyond Woking)
+2tph Portsmouth
+1tph Bornemouth/Poole
+1tph Salisbury/Yeovil/Bristol/Weymouth via Yeovil
+1tph Woking stopper
+1tph Alton (probably Farnham)
+1tph Basingstoke stopper
(That's only 7 or of 8 but I'm bound to have missed something)

Paths beyond Woking would likely be the limiting factor, which could likely lead to more services where to space (as an example on the WofE line so as to not be turning them around at Basingstoke or to provide services to the likes of Southampton and Weymouth by going through Andover).