Crossrail 2

[hwl]

Looking at the CR2 Clapham leaflet (S11):
https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/crossrail2/october2015/user_uploads/s11.pdf


Worksite A includes track 7 but not the platform 7 from the St John's Hill bridge to near the passenger footbridge.

Site A – Would be used to construct a station box, station shaft and a bridge between Crossrail 2 and the existing station. The site includes the existing Network Rail sidings and yard which would be relocated in the northern part of the site.

I.e. that the existing shed will be demolished and new sidings (and shed?) constructed in the currently vacant(ish) triangle between the shed and the sidings closer to the Windsor line. This should allow almost all the well document issues surrounding P7 to be solved if the sidings are rejigged

 

[Bald Rick]

If people can't join Crossrail 2 from a fast service then I imagine it will only be of benefit to London based commuters or anyone other than South West Trains customers currently travelling on fast services into Waterloo, as whose going to want to join a slow train at Woking and then another slow train at Surbiton or Wimbledon. Might as well all pile into Waterloo and fill up the underground services as already happens.

If you could get a fast train to Wimbledon or even better, Clapham Junction, then commuters might use it.

But well over half of peak trains do call at Clapham Jn, and half of those are from stations that will be served by Crossrail 2 services. So it is reasonable to assume that anyone on these services who wants the West End, the Euston Road, and arguably the City and Canary Wharf will use Crossrail 2 either directly or by changing at Clapham, thereby freeing up plenty of space at Waterloo LU for those on the longer distance services.

And the extra fast line paths will mean more trains from places beyond Woking. If you asked everyone who commutes in from Woking and beyond if they would rather have a better chance of a seat, or to stop at Clapham Jn, I'd bet my house that it would be at least 3:1 in favour of more trains.

 

[infobleep]

But well over half of peak trains do call at Clapham Jn, and half of those are from stations that will be served by Crossrail 2 services. So it is reasonable to assume that anyone on these services who wants the West End, the Euston Road, and arguably the City and Canary Wharf will use Crossrail 2 either directly or by changing at Clapham, thereby freeing up plenty of space at Waterloo LU for those on the longer distance services.

And the extra fast line paths will mean more trains from places beyond Woking. If you asked everyone who commutes in from Woking and beyond if they would rather have a better chance of a seat, or to stop at Clapham Jn, I'd bet my house that it would be at least 3:1 in favour of more trains.

Very true. I hadn't thought of all the locals using trains into Waterloo who won't have to any more.

That will make the existing metro trains into Waterloo less crowded I guess.

Do you think Southern passengers would want more services into Victoria if it meant they had to miss out Clapham Junction?

My experiences come from trying to get to Harrow for two years. At the time there was a four car Southern train that ran every hour. If I got up early enough I could catch one. If I didn't, I'd have to rush across central London to catch one of the half hourly fast London Midland services from Euston. If I did get up early enough I'd still have to go across central London in the evening, otherwise I'd be working to many hours each day. If I left to avoid high peek, I'd not do enough hours.

I'd usually run across centre London and the tubes in the process. On an average day the journey one way was 1 hour 30 minutes. On a bad day 2 hours.

If I went via Clapham Junction, it would be 10 minutes less. That may seem like nothing but across week it's 100 minutes, if you include both journeys a day.

Being a contractor I didn't wish to move to Harrow as didn't know how long my contract would last.

I only moved to Guildford as my job was here. It's only in the last 5 years that I've commuted to London.

That is the reason why I was keen for more services to stop at Clapham Junction.

I know fixing Clapham Junction isn't cheap but it opens up all the service opportunities to other parts of London, not to mention heading south on the Brighton main line.

Yes it is possible now but only with multiple changes or doubling back and the latter on solely South West Trains services at least, seems to involve paying more. If by paying more it would mean that one day they would be blessed to alight or board at Clapham Junction it would make it worth while.

I admit I may be in a minority in wanting services to stop at Clapham Junction though and they can't make changes just for my benefit. It has to be what the majority of passengers would like, within reason.

So as much as I'd like it, it may never happen and I'll just moan about it from time to time and get on with life the way things are.

For a while I felt as if nothing was being done to improve the South West Mainline, despite it being one of the busiest and running oversubscribed. I saw works being done elsewhere and thought why not here, given the numbers traveling. It makes sense to do something.

However they then started a platform and train lengthening process and are getting new trains on top of this to help increase carriage numbers, so something good is happening. Passenger money is being invested to bring back benefits to passengers.

If passengers can see their fare go up but also see an improve, then I'm not sure how they can moan about season tickets being overpriced. How were tickets to keep rising but nothing done to improve crowding or other conditions when travelling, people may wonder what is their money actually being used for.

 

[wastedlife]

So it is reasonable to assume that anyone on these services who wants the West End, the Euston Road, and arguably the City and Canary Wharf will use Crossrail 2 either directly or by changing at Clapham, thereby freeing up plenty of space at Waterloo LU for those on the longer distance services.

I live in Surbiton, and with respect and the exception of the Euston Road, if you suggested CR2 to me as the best way to get to any of those places, I would think you were out of your mind. Even then, I suspect I would get to Euston quicker by taking the bus or the Northern Line from Waterloo than CR2. I know we're spoiled with frequent non stops, but if I wanted the City or Canary Wharf starting from Clapham, I have a hard time believing CR2/CR1 would be quicker than routing via Waterloo and then either the Waterloo and City or Jubilee Line.

And this is really the crux as to why I'm really sceptical as to the benefits to SW London from CR2. The market for Berrylands to Broxbourne must be minscule and I just can't see people taking CR2 en masse in preference to Waterloo unless they are going to Chelsea or Victoria or the western half of Oxford St. If we need to relieve the SW Mainline, then we should relieve the SW Mainline properly - which means six tracks going to Waterloo. If capital is constrained, as I assume it is, I would far prefer that over CR2.

 

[gtr driver]

I live in Surbiton, and with respect and the exception of the Euston Road, if you suggested CR2 to me as the best way to get to any of those places, I would think you were out of your mind. Even then, I suspect I would get to Euston quicker by taking the bus or the Northern Line from Waterloo than CR2. I know we're spoiled with frequent non stops, but if I wanted the City or Canary Wharf starting from Clapham, I have a hard time believing CR2/CR1 would be quicker than routing via Waterloo and then either the Waterloo and City or Jubilee Line.

And this is really the crux as to why I'm really sceptical as to the benefits to SW London from CR2. The market for Berrylands to Broxbourne must be minscule and I just can't see people taking CR2 en masse in preference to Waterloo unless they are going to Chelsea or Victoria or the western half of Oxford St. If we need to relieve the SW Mainline, then we should relieve the SW Mainline properly - which means six tracks going to Waterloo. If capital is constrained, as I assume it is, I would far prefer that over CR2.

It's no more about there being a Broxbourne to Berrylands market any more than there is a Shenfield to Reading, Wimbledon to Kentish Town, or Morden to Mill Hill market. It's about terminal stations being massive bottlenecks because EVERYBODY has to get off and the other cab has to be set up and the train sent back out, all of which takes far more time than simply stopping, unloading and continuing in the same direction, as well as preventing another incoming train terminating while the platform is occupied. By diverting current services from terminals AND routing them under central London on new lines to join other existing lines you get far more capacity than you could just by putting extra tracks on current routes. You free up space on existing tracks, platforms at both termini, and relieve other modes of transport in the central section, as well as creating new journey opportunities.

 

[Bald Rick]

I live in Surbiton, and with respect and the exception of the Euston Road, if you suggested CR2 to me as the best way to get to any of those places, I would think you were out of your mind. Even then, I suspect I would get to Euston quicker by taking the bus or the Northern Line from Waterloo than CR2. I know we're spoiled with frequent non stops, but if I wanted the City or Canary Wharf starting from Clapham, I have a hard time believing CR2/CR1 would be quicker than routing via Waterloo and then either the Waterloo and City or Jubilee Line.

Surbiton has the fast(ish) trains, so the gains are not so great there, this is true. But if you live in Kingston, New Malden, Epsom, Tolworth, and any number of other places which don't have the fast trains (ie everywhere except Surbiton), then it will be quicker.

Even for Surbiton it will be quicker to the West End (26 mins I reckon) and the Euston Road (29 mins) direct by Crossrail 2. And you will be almost guaranteed a seat.

 

[infobleep]

What's the reason why CR2 goes to Victoria and not Waterloo? Waterloo does have more underground lines than Victoria.

 

[mr_jrt]

What's the reason why CR2 goes to Victoria and not Waterloo? Waterloo does have more underground lines than Victoria.

Precisely that reason - this was designed as a tube line to serve an under-served location, namely, Victoria.

 

[Nym]

What's the reason why CR2 goes to Victoria and not Waterloo? Waterloo does have more underground lines than Victoria.

You may well have answered your own question there...

 

[infobleep]

You may well have answered your own question there...

Thought as much.

 

[Class 170101]

Hertford East should also be included as should Welwyn Garden City. Terminating at Broxbourne and New Southgate doesn't seem right to me.

For people who'd like a summary of the latest changes, Diamond Geezer's blog is worth a look:Chris

I refer to my earlier quote above I don't see the value in terminating at New Southgate or Broxbourne. Running beyond New Southgate would take pressure off GN suburbans and allow more services to operate between Moorgate and Hertford North / Stevenage. Likewise running to Hertford East vice Broxbourne would allow WA to focus on Stansted and Cambridge services.

 

[mr_jrt]

I refer to my earlier quote above I don't see the value in terminating at New Southgate or Broxbourne. Running beyond New Southgate would take pressure off GN suburbans and allow more services to operate between Moorgate and Hertford North / Stevenage. Likewise running to Hertford East vice Broxbourne would allow WA to focus on Stansted and Cambridge services.

I think the point is that in the CR2 world the Hertford East services, like those from Harlow et al. will run fast on the new fast lines whilst CR2 will provide the local service. In theory you could indeed project it up to Hertford East, but then you have two problems to solve:

• Passengers will want to change at Broxbourne for faster trains to London, so you're going to need bigger platforms etc. for the massively increased interchange.
• The Hertford East branch is on the west side of the line whilst Crossrail 2 is likely to be on the east side of the line, so getting there will require a grade-separated junction to be built.

All quite doable, but added expense.

 

[Busaholic]

What's the reason why CR2 goes to Victoria and not Waterloo? Waterloo does have more underground lines than Victoria.

Because Victoria's need is not only greater than Waterloo's , both now and then, but greater than almost any need for increased capacity anywhere in central London - which other central underground station is regularly closed for minutes at a time at the height of the a.m. peak for safety reasons?

 

[Nym]

Euston increasingly...

 

[jopsuk]

I refer to my earlier quote above I don't see the value in terminating at New Southgate or Broxbourne. Running beyond New Southgate would take pressure off GN suburbans and allow more services to operate between Moorgate and Hertford North / Stevenage. Likewise running to Hertford East vice Broxbourne would allow WA to focus on Stansted and Cambridge services.

New Southgate:

Your idea would require a much more complex layout here, including a portal to the west of the mainlines. As proposed, New Southgate CR2 will be a rletively simple arrangement- the lines will surface, there will be a two-track station, and beyond that a depot. Terminating trains will be able to go straight into the depot and trains entering service will go straight into the station.

With the existing Moorgate line and Thameslink services I'm not sure there will be such a big overcrowding problem anyway. Conversely if you send all the Welwyn's through CR2 you're loading the trains before they reach the parts it's intended to provide crowding relief on.

As for Hertford East, I think this requires some reading between the lines. The new GA franchise has a requirement to provide 4tph from Angel Road to Stratford. The initial infrastructure is simply a third track between Tottenham Hale and Angel Road- so in the short term, due to capacity, that's all the service will be. But with the four tracks to Broxbourne things change and with CR2 services having a local service turnback at Angel Road is a reliability risk. The CR2 consultation documents say that stations from Enfield Lock to Northumberland Park will have 14-16 services, of which 4tph will be STAR and 10-12 CR2. Waltham Cross is also slated to have 14-16, 10-12 CR2. Chesunt will have 18-20 (2tph Overground and 2tph Bishops Stortford?) and Broxbourne 20-22.

My guess is that post CR2 four tracking STAR will be a stopping service all the way to Hertford East and/or Bishops Stortford. Cambridge services will have less stops on the southern part of the route, possibly no longer calling at Chesunt.

It's a complex railway, and we're trying to cobble together information from different sources that merely hints at the other sources.

 

[hwl]

The highest loadings on SWT are Clapham Jn to Vauxhall where loads of pasengers get off (circa 100 passenegers on my service this morning - probably around 25% of passengers on services that go beteween the 2 stations) and hop on the Victoria Line, which means there is very little space left on the Victoria line for pasenegrs to board at Victoria (hence frequent closures)and means there is very little space for passengers to get onto Waterloo services at Clapham Jn (I got on the third train at P10 this morning).
CR2 relieves this by removing most of the Victoria line passengers changing at Vauxhall and some of the passenger heading North or North West on the Northern and Bakerloo at Waterloo.

 

[swt_passenger]

I refer to my earlier quote above I don't see the value in terminating at New Southgate or Broxbourne. Running beyond New Southgate would take pressure off GN suburbans and allow more services to operate between Moorgate and Hertford North / Stevenage. Likewise running to Hertford East vice Broxbourne would allow WA to focus on Stansted and Cambridge services.

Don't the maps indicate (by the different symbology used on the line ends) that Broxbourne is not necessarily a terminus? It has an arrow head. On the other hand the four SW branches are definitely shown as such, especially as three of them (except Epsom) are currently 'end of line' stations anyway.

 

[infobleep]

Because Victoria's need is not only greater than Waterloo's , both now and then, but greater than almost any need for increased capacity anywhere in central London - which other central underground station is regularly closed for minutes at a time at the height of the a.m. peak for safety reasons?

Is the Jubilee line entrance at Waterloo ever closed at during the height of peak? I suspect not, except during periods of disruption. It is extremely busy mind you.

 

[hwl]

Don't the maps indicate (by the different symbology used on the line ends) that Broxbourne is not necessarily a terminus? It has an arrow head. On the other hand the four SW branches are definitely shown as such, especially as three of them (except Epsom) are currently 'end of line' stations anyway.

I understand Broxborne is the intended terminus.

Waterloo Jubilee is sometimes closed (certain entrances only due to local crowding issues - as one entrance was this morning) but this is somewhat due to extra loadings at the moment due to Waterloo East - London Bridge being closed due to London Bridge rebuild and most using the Jubilee instead.

 

[infobleep]

The highest loadings on SWT are Clapham Jn to Vauxhall where loads of pasengers get off (circa 100 passenegers on my service this morning - probably around 25% of passengers on services that go beteween the 2 stations) and hop on the Victoria Line, which means there is very little space left on the Victoria line for pasenegrs to board at Victoria (hence frequent closures)and means there is very little space for passengers to get onto Waterloo services at Clapham Jn (I got on the third train at P10 this morning).
CR2 relieves this by removing most of the Victoria line passengers changing at Vauxhall and some of the passenger heading North or North West on the Northern and Bakerloo at Waterloo.

That sounds reasonable. Those trains do look packed at Clapham Junction . Of course isn't that partly to do with the London Bridge works and people changing their travel habits. The train lengthening should be helping with this overcrowding.

I try to avoid travel on slow trains to Clapham Junction in the morning as I'd rather not spend 50 minutes on a train without loos. By the time one leaves Hinchley Wood people are standing on the Cobham line trains

At Surbiton one or two get off to wait for the non stop services to Waterloo and load more get on. If a similar number board at every other station before Clapham Junction I can easily see why people couldn't board the trains.

The stopping trains from Woking, which run fast beyond Surbiton, are also busy but they might provide some additional space at least.

Of course some of these stopping services replaced the semi-fast Woking services so presumably these would remain fast even after CR2.

 

[TheNewNo2]

To be honest I would think Balham is a better alternative than Tooting Broadway anyway. Interchange with the Northern Line is retained and National Rail Services are added to the interchange list.

True, but anything that stops at Balham also stops at Clapham Junction, so it's not a great benefit.

Hertford East should also be included as should Welwyn Garden City. Terminating at Broxbourne and New Southgate doesn't seem right to me.

I refer to my earlier quote above I don't see the value in terminating at New Southgate or Broxbourne. Running beyond New Southgate would take pressure off GN suburbans and allow more services to operate between Moorgate and Hertford North / Stevenage. Likewise running to Hertford East vice Broxbourne would allow WA to focus on Stansted and Cambridge services.

I agree that CR2 should extend beyond New Southgate if possible, although this will create some problems. I'd have thought that extension to Welwyn Garden City would be possible capacity-wise, beyond that would be very tricky due to the twin track Welwyn viaduct. Currently most stopping service on this bit (AFAIK) is 6 car 313s every 20mins or so, which compares very unfavourably to ~12 car CR2 trains every 6mins. That would imply to me that rerouting all Moorgate services away from Welwyn wouldn't be such a big thing, provided CR2 goes via Alexandra Palace. If you send it via Wood Green instead, you lose out on that interchange.

Beyond Broxbourne isn't such a big issue for me, it's appropriately far out in the sticks in a way New Southgate isn't. What is more problematic on this bit is the platforming, especially at Tottenham Hale. What you really want is the lines grouped by direction, and with island platforms between each pair. If CR2 comes out on the east side of the West Anglia Main as you suggest, that means that you have an unfortunate situation where the next train north could be on one of two platforms which are separated by bridges. That said, doing anything else is likely to involve closing Tottenham Hale to national rail traffic for several months at best, and quite possibly the tube station too while they reroute the passageways. It's a thorny issue.



I'm not sure I've seen any discussion earlier in this thread about Seven Sisters and South Tottenham. The plan seems to be to link the two using the CR2 station. That seems a sensible plan to me, but I wonder if it would be possible to entirely merge the two stations. Assuming it's necessary to keep the chord in place (I assume freight uses it, for passenger trains it's a parliamentary), moving the Gospel Oak platforms west of the chord would seem sensible to me. There's already going to be a new station entrance on that side of the road, and this would allow an easier passage to the Anglian platforms.


One more note (I haven't got beyond TCR with my submission yet), CR2 means you'll now be able to travel between Euston and Angel either northbound or southbound.

 

[jopsuk]

The arrangement of the Lea Valley is going to take some care. For ideal interchange and to minimise crossing, it would seem that having the CR2 tracks up the middle might be best. This would allow easier turnback at Broxbourne. Broxbourne and Tottenham Hale should be "two island" stations, with the Chesunt the same plus an additional single-ended island for the Overground terminus. Preferably for interchange at Broxbourne trains would terminate, empty, shunt north and then back south to the other platform to start.

Will stations Finsbury Park to Welwyn Garden City be gaining any services from Thameslink?

 

[D1009]

I refer to my earlier quote above I don't see the value in terminating at New Southgate or Broxbourne. Running beyond New Southgate would take pressure off GN suburbans and allow more services to operate between Moorgate and Hertford North / Stevenage. Likewise running to Hertford East vice Broxbourne would allow WA to focus on Stansted and Cambridge services.

AIUI the inners from Welwyn will be going south of the river via the Thameslink route.

 

[hwl]

The arrangement of the Lea Valley is going to take some care. For ideal interchange and to minimise crossing, it would seem that having the CR2 tracks up the middle might be best. This would allow easier turnback at Broxbourne. Broxbourne and Tottenham Hale should be "two island" stations, with the Chesunt the same plus an additional single-ended island for the Overground terminus. Preferably for interchange at Broxbourne trains would terminate, empty, shunt north and then back south to the other platform to start.

Will stations Finsbury Park to Welwyn Garden City be gaining any services from Thameslink?

Indeed, it looks like the aim is to turn between 2 and 5tph at Tottenham Hale in which case would make slows paired and possibly in the middle very sensible but some stabling needed near Broxbourne which would be easier if they were to either side though.

 

[jopsuk]

AIUI the inners from Welwyn will be going south of the river via the Thameslink route.

My understanding is different- the fleet being procured for the Class 313 replacement is similar in size to the existing fleet. With the Letchworth services being cut back to Stevenage that'll free up a few extra trains. Moorgate is moving to 7-day, full operational hours and will continue to serve WGC

 

[edwin_m]

the need to keep cant (and negative can't) through the S&C to acceptable limits

Shouldn't that be positive can and negative can't?

(sorry, autocorrect at work I presume)

If the interchange at Balham is properly designed some Southern passengers will change there instead of Clapham Junction or Victoria, so it could have a benefit in relieving congestion elsewhere.

 

[glbotu]

I would suggest the logic of Broxbourne as the terminus is that there are a vast number of disused sidings to the East of the Station. The current service pattern uses the 4 platforms at Broxbourne to allow fasts to overtake slows. Assuming they wish to keep this, just sticking the crossrail tracks to the East of the current tracks would seem easier and cheaper, because the land is already there, and requires minimal changes to the existing trackwork.

 

[philjo]

AIUI the inners from Welwyn will be going south of the river via the Thameslink route.

The 2018 service pattern shown in the GTR franchise consultation is quite different.
It shows the Thameslink services on GN comprising :
half-hourly Peterborough semi-fast (i.e. non-stop finsbury Park-Stevenage)
half-hourly Cambridge semi-fast (i.e. non-stop finsbury Park-Stevenage)
half-hourly Cambridge stopper - FPK, Potters Bar, Hatfield then all stations.
half-hourly to Finsbury Park extended to WGC during peak periods in the peak direction only.
The calling pattern for the latter is not stated.

So the inner stations will not be affected much by Thameslink. However there will be increased services on the inners to Moorgate (particularly off-peak).
It would make sense if feasible to allow CR2 to be able to run to WGC (or even just Potters Bar as that would connect with the Thameslink outers though that would need an additional flyover to turnback)- even if this is for 3tph so there are also trains to Moorgate. This would allow Moorgate to run more services to Hertford North & maybe some starting from Gordon Hill to create capacity for the London stations in the zones to allow some of the Hertfords to speed up.

 

[IrishDave]

The 2018 service pattern shown in the GTR franchise consultation is quite different.
It shows the Thameslink services on GN comprising :
half-hourly Peterborough semi-fast (i.e. non-stop finsbury Park-Stevenage)
half-hourly Cambridge semi-fast (i.e. non-stop finsbury Park-Stevenage)
half-hourly Cambridge stopper - FPK, Potters Bar, Hatfield then all stations.
half-hourly to Finsbury Park extended to WGC during peak periods in the peak direction only.
The calling pattern for the latter is not stated.

My guess is the Thameslink service to Welwyn will simply take over the existing peak-only trains that currently run between Kings Cross and Welwyn - in the morning there are three departures from Welwyn at 0812, 0843 and 0940, while in the evening there are five departures from Kings Cross every half-hour from 1658 to 1858. Those generally call at Finsbury Park, New Southgate, Oakleigh Park, New Barnet, Potters Bar, Hatfield and Welwyn.

 

[Bald Rick]

Crossrail 2 isn't going further up the ECML.

1) the slow lines are at capacity in the peak from 2018, so they would have to replace the Moorgate services.
2) it would be slower to central London, having to go via Wood Green, Dalston and Angel
3) there is / will be already a very good connection to cross London services with cross platform interchange at Highbury and Islington to the Victoria line, and from 2018 same / cross platform interchange at Finsbury Park to Thameslink.
4) the 200/250m long trains would need platform extensions at every station up to Welwyn, which whilst not impossible, would be very expensive (eg Brookmans Park)

Taken together, the transport benefit is minimal. And it would cost a lot. So what's the point?