Crossrail 2

[swt_passenger]

Is this the original (or as close to) project that was referred to as the Chelsea - Hackney link many moons ago?

Yes. The decision on whether to go with the original Chelsea-Hackney tube or alter the plans to provide a longer distance regional metro, as Crossrail 2, was formally taken in about 2013, IIRC.

It followed the DfT asking TfL to reconsider the Chelsea-Hackney line in about 2009, with a view to replacing it with a Crossrail 2.

I found an option selection report from the 2013 TfL consultation here which provides some background:

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cr...g_documents/Summary of Option Development.pdf

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It is starting to get political:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ast-half-of-crossrail-2-bill-lord-adonis-says

What's political about it? Andrew Adonis resigned the Labour whip to lead the NIC.
He also says that London (and 3rd party) funding was a major factor in saving Crossrail 1 from the axe in 2010.

 

[The Ham]

What's political about it? Andrew Adonis resigned the Labour whip to lead the NIC.
He also says that London (and 3rd party) funding was a major factor in saving Crossrail 1 from the axe in 2010.

More to do with the fact that the NIC has advised that it needs to go ahead (so strongly I'm not sure how much more they could have said to make their point) and therefore if the Tories would neglect to act on the advice of the body that they set up then the other parties would question what was the purpose of the NIC.

Of course there is also the issue of the London Funding ad the Mayoral Elections (May this year), does Boris agree to it and force the hand of the next mayor or does it become a political ball to play with during the Mayoral Elections? If Boris agrees there will be many (mostly those who will have to pay the tax) who will ask why it was rushed through, if it is left then there will be many who will question why is the Mayor avoiding the issue.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

What's political about it?.

In my cynical opinion, there is almost always a hint of politics in everything to do with railways.

 

[Busaholic]

Haringey Council were represented on BBC London area Spotlight last night getting their retaliation in early to the suggestion that the New Southgate branch might never get built.

 

[WatcherZero]

Chancellor has approved £80m for development work and is asking TfL to match fund it, also promised to pass the legislation authorising construction within this parliament.

 

[7031]

Would I be right to assume that Surrey CC's call for Crossrail to be extended to Woking and Guildford has been ignored?

With that said, I'm dubious as to why it would be necessary for Surrey - surely Crossrail would free up capacity on the SWML for increased services to London Waterloo from Surrey anyway, which I would've thought would be preferable for outer suburban routes?

 

[Bald Rick]

Chancellor has approved £80m for development work and is asking TfL to match fund it, also promised to pass the legislation authorising construction within this parliament.

To get the bill submitted in this parliament, not passed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Would I be right to assume that Surrey CC's call for Crossrail to be extended to Woking and Guildford has been ignored?

Not ignored, as final decisions on route have yet to be taken - hence the recent consultation. But presumably they have been listened to and carefully explained why it's not a good idea.

 

[47421]

Is the working assumption that Brox will be the northern terminal?

Any serious discussion about going the extra 6 miles to Harlow Town? I know you have to stop somewhere, but Harlow is a big town, population over 80,000, with lots of potential for housing development, as it is a new town built over a large area, whereas Brox even if you include neighboring Hoddesdon is less than 40,000.

 

[swt_passenger]

Would I be right to assume that Surrey CC's call for Crossrail to be extended to Woking and Guildford has been ignored?

I think when Surrey made that call they were either not yet fully aware of the point that CR2 will release capacity for 7 or 8 additional fast line paths through Woking, by reallocation of existing fast line paths back to the slows east of Surbiton. Or they were aware but didn't understand, preferring to feel hard done by.

So to an extent the original demands have been overtaken by further details becoming emphasised.

 

[mr_jrt]

Is the working assumption that Brox will be the northern terminal?

Any serious discussion about going the extra 6 miles to Harlow Town? I know you have to stop somewhere, but Harlow is a big town, population over 80,000, with lots of potential for housing development, as it is a new town built over a large area, whereas Brox even if you include neighboring Hoddesdon is less than 40,000.

Well, you wouldn't want the trains to be full by the time the reach London, would you?

Harlow will probably have faster services to Liverpool St. after CR2 opens even if only from the 4 tracks from Broxbourne alone.

 

[Bald Rick]

Is the working assumption that Brox will be the northern terminal?

Any serious discussion about going the extra 6 miles to Harlow Town? I know you have to stop somewhere, but Harlow is a big town, population over 80,000, with lots of potential for housing development, as it is a new town built over a large area, whereas Brox even if you include neighboring Hoddesdon is less than 40,000.

Why would anyone in Harlow want to get a Crossrail 2 train to London, when they would be overtaken by at least one, probably two subsequent fast trains (of which there will be more than today) and then change at Tottenham Hale?

 

[swt_passenger]

Is the working assumption that Brox will be the northern terminal?

Any serious discussion about going the extra 6 miles to Harlow Town? I know you have to stop somewhere, but Harlow is a big town, population over 80,000, with lots of potential for housing development, as it is a new town built over a large area, whereas Brox even if you include neighboring Hoddesdon is less than 40,000.

We had an inconclusive discussion about this much earlier in this thread, I suggested that as the TfL maps showed an 'up arrow' at Broxbourne, rather than a terminus 'bar' as on the SW branches, then this could imply some through services, but others disagreed, citing the suitability of Broxbourne as a terminus with a location for stabling sidings and good turnback possibilities.

I'd say various options are still possible.

 

[hwl]

We had an inconclusive discussion about this much earlier in this thread, I suggested that as the TfL maps showed an 'up arrow' at Broxbourne, rather than a terminus 'bar' as on the SW branches, then this could imply some through services, but others disagreed, citing the suitability of Broxbourne as a terminus with a location for stabling sidings and good turnback possibilities.

I'd say various options are still possible.

The preferred option is Broxbourne as CR2 terminus.

 

[The Ham]

Why would anyone in Harlow want to get a Crossrail 2 train to London, when they would be overtaken by at least one, probably two subsequent fast trains (of which there will be more than today) and then change at Tottenham Hale?

For the same reason that Crossrail (Elizabeth Line) goes to Reading and why Surrey want CR2 to go to Woking/Guildford, as there will be people who will want to go to the minor stations on route at which the fast trains do not call.

 

[swt_passenger]

For the same reason that Crossrail (Elizabeth Line) goes to Reading and why Surrey want CR2 to go to Woking/Guildford, as there will be people who will want to go to the minor stations on route at which the fast trains do not call.

The latest paper from Surrey CC has dropped Guildford from their recommendations, but added Dorking. They do still recommend Woking as a suitable location for turnbacks to provide CR2 benefits to stations between there and Surbiton.

Request further investigation into amendments to the current proposals: firstly to test the operational feasibility of an extended service beyond Epsom to Dorking, and secondly to understand the development benefits and operational implications of a service along the SWML to Woking

http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/73736/SCC-CR2-Assessment-Report-Final.pdf

I think Woking would be turned down on the basis that it would probably conflict with the published aim of re-pathing mainline semifast services to provide the extra fast services. They cannot really do both.

Not sure about Dorking though...

 

[Bald Rick]

For the same reason that Crossrail (Elizabeth Line) goes to Reading and why Surrey want CR2 to go to Woking/Guildford, as there will be people who will want to go to the minor stations on route at which the fast trains do not call.

Except that Reading is a major inbound commuting centre, which justifies it. And notwithstanding what Surrey CC might have said in the past, they don't really want CR2 to go to Guildford.

The choice for Harlow (and Woking) is simple - more fast trains or Crossrail 2 trains.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not sure about Dorking though...

Given capacity past Epsom, if Crossrail 2 goes to Dorking, I should imagine it would have to lose Victoria and Waterloo services, including those that skip stops. Not popular.

 

[The Ham]

Except that Reading is a major inbound commuting centre, which justifies it. And notwithstanding what Surrey CC might have said in the past, they don't really want CR2 to go to Guildford.

The choice for Harlow (and Woking) is simple - more fast trains or Crossrail 2 trains.

Woking will almost certainly get more fast trains regardless of whether or not it is served by CR2. As most of the long distance services would still continue to call there.

Extending XR2 to Guildford depends on which way it is extended, if you going to have XC2 going to Woking (to replace the stoppers) and then decide that there is a need for more capacity between Woking and Guildford (given that there are reasonable numbers who get on at Guildford and off at Woking, whether that is to change to a stopper, change to head west or leave the station) then it kind of makes sense to extend it to go to Guildford, especially after the junction a Woking is revised so that trains from Guildford to Woking don't block the down lines.

However having it run via Epsom to Guildford makes little sense unless you are able to put all the services between Epsom and London into tunnels so that the junction at Raynes Park can be removed allowing there to be able to increase the frequency of services on both lines (i.e. SWML and outwards of Raynes Park to the south).

With regards to the stoppers to Woking, if they stay as they are then they may well increase to 3tph or 4tph (using one or two of the new paths) or if they go over to Crossrail 2 then they will use the existing paths beyond the Crossrail tunnels, possibly utilising one of the new paths to increase their frequency to 3tph or 4tph. As such whatever the outcome it is likely that the Woking stoppers will use one or two of the new paths which Crossrail 2 provides.

 

[7031]

I think Woking would be turned down on the basis that it would probably conflict with the published aim of re-pathing mainline semifast services to provide the extra fast services. They cannot really do both.

Not sure about Dorking though...

Feel free to point out why I'm wrong to suggest this, but if they wanted to include Woking in Crossrail 2, would it not be practical to simply move the Waterloo to Woking stopping service onto Crossrail? I would've thought this could be done with relative ease, with the main downside being that it would certainly be a slower way to get into London (but with the upside being more intermediate stops).

 

[swt_passenger]

Feel free to point out why I'm wrong to suggest this, but if they wanted to include Woking in Crossrail 2, would it not be practical to simply move the Waterloo to Woking stopping service onto Crossrail? I would've thought this could be done with relative ease, with the main downside being that it would certainly be a slower way to get into London (but with the upside being more intermediate stops).

They could, but there'd then have to be a compensating reduction in the number of CR2 services on other branches that they already do want 4 tph at, assuming the 20 tph on NR lines west of Wimbledon is a fixed number. This was discussed in January back around post #169 in this thread.

 

[stephen_c]

The latest proposed service pattern of CR2 is sensible enough in that it takes the existing inner suburban services. My only complaint is that the Waterloo to Waterloo via Kingston service is retained, whereas I'd just run Waterloo to Kingston via Richmond, which should be more reliable and have less conflicts.

The real issue for Surrey is that the benefits for long distance passengers (Guildford, Woking, Farnham etc) come at the expense of a worse service for outer suburban locations (Walton/Esher/Weybridge/Claygate etc) who lose non-stop services from Surbiton. The real pain comes from the current exclusion of Earlsfield from CR2, which will cause no end of problems to service patterns and journey reliability. The current proposal has about half the Waterloo residuals stop at Earlsfield. ie. roughly each stopper will be followed by a fast, thus those that live in Walton/Esher/Weybridge/Claygate etc should expect future journeys to be slower (no non-stops from Surbiton) and less reliable (stuck behind stopping trains at Earlsfield).

As such, Surrey CC is arguing for the wrong thing. They *really* need to be arguing for CR2 via Earlsfield, not Balham/Tooting, as Earlsfield has direct benefits to their citizens in Walton/Esher/Weybridge/Claygate etc.

Dorking is only ever likely to get better service if it can separate itself from the inner suburbans, which is only likely through a new link between Leatherhead and Claygate (the "Mole Valley Link"). It could be funded as part of the Chessington housing development, but I fear it is unlikely. It would solve a lot of problems at Raynes Park though.

 

[Bald Rick]

Feel free to point out why I'm wrong to suggest this, but if they wanted to include Woking in Crossrail 2, would it not be practical to simply move the Waterloo to Woking stopping service onto Crossrail? I would've thought this could be done with relative ease, with the main downside being that it would certainly be a slower way to get into London (but with the upside being more intermediate stops).

Because the Woking 'stopping' service is only half hourly off peak, less frequent in the peak, and skips some stops (usually New Malden and Raynes Park). The absolute minimum requirement for Crossrail 2 is 4tph all stations. So the slow trains would get slower.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The real issue for Surrey is that the benefits for long distance passengers (Guildford, Woking, Farnham etc) come at the expense of a worse service for outer suburban locations (Walton/Esher/Weybridge/Claygate etc) who lose non-stop services from Surbiton.

.

Evidence? Who says they will lose their non stop service? Not Network Rail or TfL.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The current proposal has about half the Waterloo residuals stop at Earlsfield. ie. roughly each stopper will be followed by a fast, thus those that live in Walton/Esher/Weybridge/Claygate etc should expect future journeys to be slower (no non-stops from Surbiton).

Again, evidence? Have you seen the timetables? I'd be surprised, given that they haven't been written yet.

 

[stephen_c]

I don't think these points are particularly controversial:

1) Services that currently run non-stop on the fast lines from Surbiton to Waterloo will move the slow lines.

2) At least some of those services will stop at Clapham Junction.

3) The platforms at Earlsfield are on the slow lines, and about 50% of slow line services are planned to stop there as per the recent consultation.

4) Mixed traffic railways, where not all trains have the same stopping pattern, do not maximise capacity.

5) There will be roughly the same number of services on the slow lines as today, however today all those services stop at Earlsfield.

Furthermore, it is possible to note that:

1) The speed limit on the slow lines is lower than that on the fast lines.

2) The slow lines run into the low numbered platforms at Waterloo. These can only take 8 car trains today, and are (IIUC) only planned to be extended to 10 car trains.

So, while I appreciate that there is some optimism that timetabling can handle the issues, it should also be clear that timetabling should not have to. Crossrail 2 should serve Earlsfield, allowing all Waterloo residual slow lines services to have a consistent stopping pattern of Wimbledon and Clapham Junction to maximise capacity. Even the National Infrastructure Commission background report describes the current plans as leaving Earlsfield "stranded". I'm sure everyone in the Network Rail team secretly wishes they didn't have to deal with the "Earlsfield mess".

So, yes it is easy to say there is no no timetable. But are plenty of constraints on the problem pointing at very few possible outcomes.

 

[hwl]

There is planning permission for several thousand more flats which will help add to the Earlsfield crowding issues before CR2 construction even starts so there may need to be rethink on the number of stopping services given passenger levels using Earlsfield in the late 2020s.

New Rolling stock for residual services with wider doors and fewer seats would change the numbers on dwell time issues so more stoppers might not be an issue (ditto ETCS/ATO etc.) threre are many potential variables given existing stock and signalling will probably need to be renewed before CR2 opens.

I think Bald Rick's point is that some issues are best left till nearer the time so there is more actual real data and less extrapolation and assumptions used to make some decisions.

 

[Bald Rick]

I think Bald Rick's point is that some issues are best left till nearer the time so there is more actual real data and less extrapolation and assumptions used to make some decisions.

I think my point was that it is unwise to put out service patterns, journey times etc as fact when it is only opinion and assumption. Such issues will be worked on by professionals over the years to come.

 

[tsangpogorge]

Has the final decision been made between Tooting Broadway and Balham? I'm strongly in favor of the Tooting option.

 

[swt_passenger]

Has the final decision been made between Tooting Broadway and Balham? I'm strongly in favor of the Tooting option.

They claim a saving of half a billion by going for Balham as opposed to Tooting.

I'd suggest the consultation will not sway them from the Balham option, whatever people's favourite happens to be.

Fact sheet (clarification information): https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/crossrail2/october2015/user_uploads/s12b.pdf

 

[Bald Rick]

Has the final decision been made between Tooting Broadway and Balham? I'm strongly in favor of the Tooting option.

No. Long way to go before anything is decided.

 

[tsangpogorge]

They claim a saving of half a billion by going for Balham as opposed to Tooting.

I'd suggest the consultation will not sway them from the Balham option, whatever people's favourite happens to be.

Fact sheet (clarification information): https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/crossrail2/october2015/user_uploads/s12b.pdf

If the savings are really that vast then there really is nothing more to be said apart from build the dang thing in Balham! The reason I initially preferred the Tooting option was because Tooting Broadway is currently the busiest non interchange tube station south of the river, the much needed economic and social benefits to an area that is on the verge of becoming a ghetto and as an afterthought improved access to St George's hospital and medical college. Also there is already sufficient rail provision at Balham with both a surface rail and underground station.

 

[Bald Rick]

Worth noting the current MP for Tooting.