Crossrail 2

[jopsuk]

So what's the point?

Every operation must serve everywhere. It's The Law.

 

[Class 170101]

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.

Regarding Broxbourne about interchanging I would agree but is it not likely to require rebuilding anyway?

The map for Tottenham Hale link below) suggests the construction site for the tunnel portal is on the west side of the line suggesting the new lines on the east side will be for WA services with the existing lines used for Crossrail 2 services. If the four tracks are setup as Crossrail Down Crossrail Up WA Down WA Up format then a grade separated junction at Broxbourne should not be needed with only a flat junction allowing access between Crossrail lines and WA lines (which would see limited use) would be needed.
https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/crossrail2/october2015/user_uploads/s4.pdf
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

Yes but not guaranteed to happen, I am saying it should be part of the plan from the outset.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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

This would be my understanding as well that Welwyn slow services would carry on to serve Moorgate.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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?

I'll try and answer each in turn.

1) I was thinking using the existing Moorgate to Welwyn paths and diverting them via the Crossrail 2 route to enable the Hertford North branch to receive a better service to / from Moorgate. Additionally the sidings facility at New Southgate could be abolished and moved to an existing albeit partially disused set of sidings at Welwyn Garden City instead.
2) I am inclined to agree with you on this but without detailed timings I am in no postition to disagree with you.
3) Not 100% convinced about Finsbury Park as a mass interchange facility reference the NR block at Kings Cross last Christmas and issues it had handling large numbers of people.
4) Lengthening those that can be done at reasonable cost is fine why not use SDO for the rest which is what Crossrail is planning to do at some of its stations

 

[stephen_c]

I've written up an alternative plan for Crossrail 2 in SW London - Swirl:
http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/crossrail-2-swirl.html

It involves a single TBM drive from New Malden to Clapham Junction and beyond, with a tunnel "swap" in the middle. Fast services would use the tunnel from New Malden to Weir Road Wimbledon before surfacing, with the Crossrail 2 services descending into the tunnel. This combination removes the need to destroy Wimbledon town centre and is perhaps £1.5bn cheaper than TfL's flawed "Balham Bulge" plan.

 

[telstarbox]

How will that relieve the Northern line though?

 

[jopsuk]

The "Balham Bulge" isn't because the line physically needs to go that way, it's to interchange with Southern metro services and the Northern Line.

The demolition & rebuilding of Wimbledon town centre is something that as far as I know is desired by the borough and by the landowners.

You've not accounted for your Northern Line extension- which, in any case, would simply put more people onto an already overcrowded Northern Line!- or for opportunity costs of not providing Kings Road with better public transport options.

 

[mr_jrt]

In fairness he has, just not here. To briefly paraphrase, linking to Balham is pointless as CR2 will be worse for most journeys than the Northern Line (as CR2 doesn't go anywhere near the City), so will more likely result in passengers from CR2-land changing ONTO the Northern Line, not off it, so it could in fact make things worse. I believe he advocates spending the money saved on improving the Northern line itself. Sounds outwardly reasonable, but I'm curious that this wouldn't occur to TfL...

 

[stephen_c]

The previous article demonstrated how routing CR2 via the Northern Line makes the crowding worse not better there:
http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/crossrail-2-and-northern-line.html
This totally destroys the entire case for routing via Balham or Tooting.

To relieve the Northern Line, you need a different solution. I've proposed extending the Northern Line from Battersea Power to Clapham South or Balham as a cheap solution. Ideally, you want another Crossrail, but we're a long way from that. Such as approach would double the total capacity from Balham and/or Clapham South to central London. And yes, ideally CR2 would run via Battersea Power not Chelsea, simply because it is going to be needed more there. In that scenario, all Morden trains would run via Battersea Power, not Stockwell.

BTW, saying that there is a "need" to interchange with Southern is slightly odd, given that did not apply when it was Tooting.

 

[Feathers44]

Where will the trams and Thameslink go in this new scheme? Getting trams up onto the bridge won't be easily achieved without demolishing something and since you've allocated both platforms 9 and 10 as crossrail turnbacks I'd guess Thameslink has to cross onto the slows on the flat?

To respond to another post, I'd be eternally surprised if the council were actually in favour of this level of devastation. Do you have a source for that opinion?

 

[stephen_c]

Where will the trams and Thameslink go in this new scheme? Getting trams up onto the bridge won't be easily achieved without demolishing something and since you've allocated both platforms 9 and 10 as crossrail turnbacks I'd guess Thameslink has to cross onto the slows on the flat?

I see two options for the trams.

1) a bridge across the Wimbledon approach to the north side, demolishing the (ugly and probably end of life) office buildings between the railway and St.Georges Road

2) Demolishing the offices currently on the concrete deck (without removing the deck).

I'm sure Wimbledon will change as a result of CR2. The problem with TfL's plans is that they take so much out for so long that it ceases to be a major shopping location (there are no vacant buildings for the shops to move into).

At Wimbledon, the Swirl plan has 22-24tph using platforms 5 and 8, and 6-8tph turning back using platforms 9 and 10. The actual turn back would need to be to the south of the platforms to allow them to also be used for up to 4tph of Thameslink (ie. a maximum of 12tph on platforms 9 and 10). The flat junction to the north of the platforms should be able to cope with that frequency, and there is enough distance between the flat junction and the Weir Road site for a CR2 trains to stand clear of the main CR2 lines.

Note that I did consider arguing for the turn back to be at a rebuilt St.Helier (with only Thameslink covering St.Helier to Sutton), to help draw demand away from the Northern Line at Morden. While I still think its a good approach, I left it out to avoid complicating the Swirl plan any further.

 

[Feathers44]

I'll admit that part of my issue with the TfL plan is seeing all of the stuff built in Wimbledon in my lifetime being demolished and returning it to the commercial sink-hole it was in the 70s and leaving it that way for quite a number of years. Now that I live in Worcester Park, it affects me less directly than it might have done once but it does seem extreme. From my perspective, the town gets a new, larger station with no reason to visit.

With Swirl, I struggle to see where a tunnel portal would fit between New Malden and Raynes Park without wiping out part of the playing fields on one side and some demolition of the Carters estate to take the slows round the new portal for the fasts but I agree that this has much less impact than blitzing thetown centre.

I'm going to one of the local CR2 roadshow things tomorrow so I'll be interested to see what else I can find out about the 'actual' plan of the moment in this respect.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I'll admit that part of my issue with the TfL plan is seeing all of the stuff built in Wimbledon in my lifetime being demolished and returning it to the commercial sink-hole it was in the 70s and leaving it that way for quite a number of years. Now that I live in Worcester Park, it affects me less directly than it might have done once but it does seem extreme. From my perspective, the town gets a new, larger station with no reason to visit.

If I understood the proposals correctly, the only large area to be demolished would be the building + car park that sits above the short railway tunnel just the other side of Wimbledon Bridge from the station - it looks like the new tram terminus would occupy part of that area. (I'm not sure if that's the same area that stephen_c is referring to as the concrete deck). As I recall there are only 3-4 shops there, so, although it'll be sad to lose Waterstones, that's a fairly insignificant proportion of the number of shops in the town centre. I don't see any reason to think that would stop Wimbledon from being an important shopping destination.

 

[swt_passenger]

If I understood the proposals correctly, the only large area to be demolished would be the building + car park that sits above the short railway tunnel just the other side of Wimbledon Bridge from the station - it looks like the new tram terminus would occupy part of that area.

There's far more to come down, nearly the entire Centre Court shopping centre is also a worksite for the new station box. 'Worksite D' Check out the red lines on the Wimbledon station fact sheet: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/crossrail2/october2015/user_uploads/s13.pdf

 

[stephen_c]

swt_passenger has answered the point about how much in Wimbledon is demolished - D is the shopping mall, C is an old pub and more shops, B is the existing over-track development and A is a block of flats. I'm guessing CR2 would remove 70% of the shopping sqft , although I'd like to see the actual number.

The New Malden A3 portal would involve slewing the Up tracks to the north under the A3. The bridge has lots of room (this is the A3 bridge over the SWML):


Raynes Park, London by StephenC, on Flickr

The rest of the space next to the railway is a car park:


Raynes Park, London by StephenC, on Flickr

I expect that some nearby industrial/undeveloped sites would also be needed.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Ah yes, re-reading, it looks like you're correct. For some reason I'd previously thought that a lot of the works were only below ground, but that's not indicated by the map. I take back my previous post. That does look very serious for the town centre - especially the loss of Centre Court. (And it also seems to me a little odd that they would require so much land above ground to do the work of adding a line that's in a tunnel.) I hope something can get re-thought there.

 

[swt_passenger]

Ah yes, re-reading, it looks like you're correct. For some reason I'd previously thought that a lot of the works were only below ground, but that's not indicated by the map. I take back my previous post. That does look very serious for the town centre - especially the loss of Centre Court. (And it also seems to me a little odd that they would require so much land above ground to do the work of adding a line that's in a tunnel.) I hope something can get re-thought there.

Earlier in the thread I was trying to point out the confusion, (around post #19) because they refer to the new platform lines as being at 10m depth to the tunnel top, but they also refer to a portal north of Wimbledon where the tunnels come to the surface. I still suspect they are talking about a massive station box, but how much lower the new platforms will be compared to the existing platforms, just isn't clear at all.

So I suppose another way of phrasing the question is, are they differentiating between the bored tunnels of the main drives under London, and 'cut and cover' tunnels nearer the station?

 

[Feathers44]

Earlier in the thread I was trying to point out the confusion, (around post #19) because they refer to the new platform lines as being at 10m depth to the tunnel top, but they also refer to a portal north of Wimbledon where the tunnels come to the surface. I still suspect they are talking about a massive station box, but how much lower the new platforms will be compared to the existing platforms, just isn't clear at all.

So I suppose another way of phrasing the question is, are they differentiating between the bored tunnels of the main drives under London, and 'cut and cover' tunnels nearer the station?

That is one of the things I intend to enquire about tomorrow. I'm completely unclear on quite how the station construction is envisioned.

 

[stephen_c]

My understanding is that they intend to create a 1 mile long cut and cover box from the portal through the heart of Wimbledon. (a platform box that is 10m to 15m below ground has to be cut and cover, because the existing foundations of the shopping centre are likely to be deeper than that.)

The Swirl proposal is the only alternative to demolition at the moment.

 

[swt_passenger]

That is one of the things I intend to enquire about tomorrow. I'm completely unclear on quite how the station construction is envisioned.

I saw a post in the District Dave forum (about the Tottenham Hale activity) that strongly suggested that the people manning these 'consultations' cannot answer any meaningful questions about the engineering solutions, apparently they know little more than what's on the factsheets.

So I wouldn't be too optimistic about getting a detailed answer.

Good luck anyway, just in case they do send people who know a bit more...

 

[Feathers44]

I saw a post in the District Dave forum (about the Tottenham Hale activity) that strongly suggested that the people manning these 'consultations' cannot answer any meaningful questions about the engineering solutions, apparently they know little more than what's on the factsheets.

So I wouldn't be too optimistic about getting a detailed answer.

Good luck anyway, just in case they do send people who know a bit more...

It doesn't surprise me, but I'll give it a go anyway.

(I did the same sort of thing on a Merton traffic calming consultation a few years ago and ended up with an actual council planner of some sort who did know a thing or two so it's not impossible...)

 

[stephen_c]

The sessions are run by either NR (beyond the tunnel) or TfL (along the tunnel). The NR ones know less because they are 2 years behind in planning.

 

[Bald Rick]

The sessions are run by either NR (beyond the tunnel) or TfL (along the tunnel). The NR ones know less because they are 2 years behind in planning.

I think you mean the NR ones have less detail

 

[stephen_c]

True

I asked some more questions at the Raynes Park roadshow yesterday. The NR opinion is that while Raynes Park will retain 8tph to Waterloo, Wimbledon and Earlsfield will get 10tph or 12tph. As such, NR are thinking of running some outer suburban trains, perhaps 8tph, on the current slow lines through Wimbledon and Earlsfield without stopping (likely to be those serving Surbiton).

Of course the observant will notice that Wimbledon and Earlsfield have 18tph to Waterloo in peak today, so this is a cut in service and capacity. While obviously balanced by an additional 30tph to Victoria at Wimbledon, Earlsfield gets a very raw deal. (NR believe that those trains stopping at Earlsfield in 2030 will have more space than those stopping today. I'm not convinced by that argument, as there will still be lots of people trying to get to Waterloo, and in peak people tend to fill the available space.)

 

[swt_passenger]

True

I asked some more questions at the Raynes Park roadshow yesterday. The NR opinion is that while Raynes Park will retain 8tph to Waterloo, Wimbledon and Earlsfield will get 10tph or 12tph. As such, NR are thinking of running some outer suburban trains, perhaps 8tph, on the current slow lines through Wimbledon and Earlsfield without stopping (likely to be those serving Surbiton).

That intention of transferring up to 8 tph back to the slow lines was fairly widely known, it was foretold in the London and SE RUS, also mentioned in the Wessex route study, and explained in the fact sheets discussed in the first few pages of the thread.

What hadn't necessarily been as clearly foreseen by everyone is that some trains would be skip stop, but it certainly isn't new news.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Wouldn't it make more sense for the outer suburbans running on the slow lines to at least call at Wimbledon, seeing as (a) quite a few of people coming into London on them are likely to want to get out there, (b) not calling there seems unlikely to save significant time given that the semi-fast will probably be crawling behind a stopping train for much of the way to Waterloo anyway, and (c) Many people on the outer suburbans who are intending to travel all the way to Waterloo will probably get there quicker by changing to a fast train at Woking.

 

[Feathers44]

I was at Raynes Park for an hour or so this afternoon and ended up talking with a NR guy who seemed to know his topic very well. The conversation went down a lot a specific rabbit holes but also covered a lot of generic stuff that I was only peripherally aware of.

We got into pathing and routing as well as station layout for Epsom and Hampton Wick among others. Wimbledon was an interesting conversation all on its own but then I have a lot of history there.

It was a very informative time. Interestingly, when I pushed on the Wimbledon portal, they were keen to say that nothing was final and they were still looking into possibilities further down the line.

 

[swt_passenger]

Wouldn't it make more sense for the outer suburbans running on the slow lines to at least call at Wimbledon,

I don't think it has been suggested that they won't be calling at Wimbledon, Clapham Jn and Vauxhall for interchange.

The question of skipping stops is really all about whether Earlsfield needs all trains to stop. They do at the moment, because it is thought better to run a standard calling pattern for line capacity reasons. But that doesn't follow in the post Crossrail 2 situation.

 

[Feathers44]

On the topic of skipping stops, one of the little facts I gleaned from this afternoon is that the current 'stop skips' from Epsom by some trains in the peak, may not survive post-CR2. Presumably with all the extra trains they'd be bumping up against too many red signals too soon to make it work the effort.

I imagine that may aggravate some of the worthies of Epsom.

 

[stephen_c]

I don't think it has been suggested that they won't be calling at Wimbledon, Clapham Jn and Vauxhall for interchange.

My conversation indicated clearly 10-12tph outer suburban stopping at WIM with some running through. Like others, I suspect that all outer suburban will end up stopping there, though maybe not Earlsfield.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
My claim is that CR2 at Balham will make the Northern Line worse, not better. To support this, I've done some modelling of journey times (we don't have that data from TfL):
https://github.com/jodastephen/railmodel/blob/master/CR2-SWLondon.md

Here are some examples for journeys to the City:

From Chessington South to London Bridge
* CR2 changing to Northern (City) at BAL in 41-43m at 4tph
* CR2 changing to RAY-WAT at RAY changing to Jubilee at WAT in 44-55m at 4tph (+8m)
* CR2 changing to CR1 at TCR changing to Northern (City) Southbound at MOG in 49-53m at 4tph (+9m)
* CR2 changing to Northern (City) Southbound at AGL in 50-53m at 4tph (+10m)
* CR2 changing to Central at TCR changing to Northern (City) Southbound at UBK in 52-58m at 4tph (+13m)

From Chessington South to Bank/Monument
* CR2 changing to Northern (City) at BAL in 43-45m at 4tph
* CR2 changing to Central at TCR in 46-48m at 4tph (+3m)
* CR2 changing to CR1 at TCR changing to Northern (City) Southbound at MOG in 47-51m at 4tph (+5m)
* CR2 changing to Northern (City) Southbound at AGL in 48-51m at 4tph (+6m)
* CR2 changing to District at VIC in 49-51m at 4tph (+6m)
* CR2 changing to RAY-WAT at RAY changing to W&C at WAT in 45-60m at 4tph (+9m)

From Chessington South to Moorgate
* CR2 changing to CR1 at TCR in 42-44m at 4tph
* CR2 changing to Northern (City) at BAL in 45-47m at 4tph (+3m)
* CR2 changing to Northern (City) Southbound at AGL in 46-49m at 4tph (+5m)
* CR2 changing to Central at TCR changing to Northern (City) at UBK in 52-58m at 4tph (+12m)

As can be seen, journeys to Bank and London Bridge are faster via the Northern Line.

And here is the really scary bit, the Northern Line to the West End:

From Morden to Victoria
* Northern (City) changing to CR2 at BAL in 21-23m at 30tph
* Northern (City) changing to Victoria at UST in 23-24m at 30tph (+2m)

From Morden to Tottenham Court Road
* Northern (City) changing to CR2 at BAL in 24-26m at 30tph
* Northern (City) changing to Northern (West End) at UKN in 31-32m at 30tph (+7m)

From Morden to Euston
* Northern (City) changing to CR2 at BAL in 26-28m at 30tph
* Northern (City) changing to Victoria at UST in 30-31m at 30tph (+4m)
* Northern (City) changing to Northern (West End) at UKN in 35-36m at 30tph (+9m)
* Northern (City) direct in 39m at 30tph (+12m)
* Northern (City) changing to Bakerloo at UEC changing to Victoria at UOX in 40-44m at 27tph (+15m)

Why are the Northern Line to the West End figures scary? Because no-one on the Northern Line wanting Victoria or Euston will change onto CR2! The saving they get is too small (see the number in brackets at the end of the second line). And for those starting at Morden, they'd have to give up a seat.

Looking at the numbers more broadly (go, click the link and see for yourself with hundreds of examples and more info), the issue TfL face is that Stockwell and Kennington are both cross-platform interchanges, so they are very very fast. Balham will not be cross-platform, so any time savings are lost in the change.

 

[Bald Rick]

The above is all very well, but unless you know how many people make these journeys, and their actual destination (not destination station), it is largely meaningless. One assumes that TfL do know at least the former and have done their sums accordingly.

Nevertheless, for one thing, I can't imagine anyone on a CR2 train, heading to the Square Mile who has a seat on the CR2 train, will willingly change on to the Northern line at Balham where they are guaranteed to stand, in a rather less pleasant environment, even it it was to save a couple of minutes.

 

[stephen_c]

Its the best analysis possible without access to TfL's data. Bear in mind that if 50% of the passengers on a full Northern Line train at Balham (~330 people) switch to CR2 (which I strongly doubt) it only takes 20% of a full CR2 train to counteract it (as CR2 trains are 2.25 times bigger than Northern ones).