Crossrail 2

[DynamicSpirit]

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).

How much time are you allowing for changing at Balham? Might I suggest that one issue with your reasoning could be that, if the Northern line trains are extremely full at Balham, that will slow down transfer times for people changing from CR2 there. It might take longer to get to the platform - and crucially, if they can't get on the first train, they may have to wait several minutes on the platform. That would presumably change the timings so that to most destinations, staying on CR2 becomes the faster option (as well as being the most comfortable). Most regular commuters would be likely to quickly realize this, hence the numbers transferring from CR2 to get to the City on the Northern line may become fairly small - seeing as most of the differences in timing you figured out were only a few minutes anyway.

 

[stephen_c]

The change times can be seen in the source code:
https://github.com/jodastephen/rail...model/Crossrail2BalhamSWLondonModel.java#L338
(All the routes and change times are in that file, and even if you don't normally read Java source code, it is relatively obvious)

Currently set at 2-4 mins at Balham.

Your point is well made. If the Northern is full, then fewer will change onto it. But in that case it is also dubious to say that the Northern is "relieved". Most would take that word to mean that they could actually board the Northern!

 

[MontyP]

I don't think the Epsom trains currently skip stop once they join the main line at Raynes Park. Surely there is a bigger impact on other outer suburban destinations? It looks likely that the 8 peak services that will transfer from the fast lines into Waterloo onto the slow lines will include the Guildford via Cobham fast service, the stoppers from Woking which currently run non-stop from Surbiton and possibly some of the services that start at Alton/Farnham or even Basingstoke which typically run non-stop from Woking. If these have to either stop at every station from Raynes Park inwards (or join a queue behind a stopper) then this could add 10+ mins to the journey time for commuters from Weybridge, Walton, Cobham etc.

 

[MontyP]

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.

As far as I am aware, the peak trains from Epsom don't "skip stop" once they join the main line at Raynes Park - some of the trains from Dorking miss out stops between Epsom and Raynes Park though.

I would think that the worthies of some other Surrey commuter stations would be more worried about their current fast line services being transferred onto the slow lines to allow more mainline services from more distant destinations to run. I understand from a combination of the Crossrail 2 consultation documents and earlier discussion on SW RUS that the slow lines into Waterloo will have to accommodate 8 x current slow line all-station stoppers (stopping all stations from Raynes Park inwards) plus 8 services transferred from the fast lines - which won't necessarily stop at all stations but will have to run at the same speed as the stoppers.

The only way to avoid this would be to "flight" the stoppers in pairs or threes with another flight of semi-fast outer suburbans following them - but this would give a very irregular service pattern at Earlsfield. The time penalty for the services transferred from fast lines to slow lines would look to be at least 10 mins, and looking at current schedules the most likely candidates would be the Guildford via Cobham, Woking stoppers, some of the Farnham/Alton services and perhaps even some of the slower services from Basingstoke. Can't imagine this will go down too well with commuters from the likes of Cobham, Weybridge, Walton and Byfleet.

 

[swt_passenger]

TfL have supplied some supplementary info about the Wimbledon work, giving a bit more detail about phasing, they also point out that they might just take down the rear 60% of the Centre Court shops.

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/crossrail2/october2015/user_uploads/s13b.pdf

 

[HarleyDavidson]

I find it quite ironic that Tfl have just spend several £m on installing a second platform for trams at Wimbledon, only for them to be relocated at street level in a few years time.

Hopefully I'll be retired before this twaddle gets off the drawing board.

 

[D365]

I find it quite ironic that Tfl have just spend several £m on installing a second platform for trams at Wimbledon, only for them to be relocated at street level in a few years time.

What's the alternative; fast-tracking Crossrail 2 so that a new Tramlink super-station can be provided immediately?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

TfL have supplied some supplementary info about the Wimbledon work, giving a bit more detail about phasing, they also point out that they might just take down the rear 60% of the Centre Court shops.

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/crossrail2/october2015/user_uploads/s13b.pdf

Hmmm.

The station works and supporting track infrastructure would all be constructed at a shallower level. A deep station option at Wimbledon would involve additional tunneling and would cost up to £2bn more.

Am I missing something? I was under the impression the Wimbledon CR2 platforms were to be underground anyway? £2bn seems an extraordinarily high cost for making them a bit deeper underground than they would have been.

I used to work in Wimbledon Bridge House, one of the buildings suggested for demolition. That does seem a shame as, like Centre Court, it is a relatively modern building and quite pleasant inside (although I'll concede that the outside looks a little odd). I imagine the cost of buying it to demolish it would be well into the millions (although still small compared to £2bn).

 

[Feathers44]

TfL have supplied some supplementary info about the Wimbledon work, giving a bit more detail about phasing, they also point out that they might just take down the rear 60% of the Centre Court shops.

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/crossrail2/october2015/user_uploads/s13b.pdf

Interesting. This reads more as a marketing exercise to me than anything else. I guess they've had a lot of feedback on this aspect specifically (some of it from me) and are trying to dampen the fires before they flare up.

It doesn't add a whole lot to my understanding of what they're doing although the phasing aspects are interesting.

 

[D365]

Am I missing something? I was under the impression the Wimbledon CR2 platforms were to be underground anyway? £2bn seems an extraordinarily high cost for making them a bit deeper underground than they would have been.

Deep-level tunnelling rather than cut-and-cover would be my first assumption.

 

[Bald Rick]

Hmmm.



Am I missing something? I was under the impression the Wimbledon CR2 platforms were to be underground anyway? £2bn seems an extraordinarily high cost for making them a bit deeper underground than they would have been.

AIUI the CR2 platforms are roughly 3-4m below the level of the existing platforms.

A deep tunnel station would, one assumes, still need to come up to the surface somewhere for passengers to get in/out, and that somewhere is in Wimbledon, where there's lots of buildings, so some demolition would be inevitable. Also, it would presumably have to be sufficiently deep to miss the foundations of the various large buildings in the area so they don't need demolition as well (at least 20-30m?) So to get back up to the surface it would be past Raynes Park, which means building a subterranean junction for the Epsom line, and a subterranean Raynes Park station, and 2 portals, etc.

£2bn extra looks cheap.

 

[mr_jrt]

I suspect they're only 3-4m below the existing platforms because of the road bridge - if they were any higher the road gradient between the existing bridge and the nearby road junction would be impossible. Maybe they should lower the existing platforms to match

 

[stephen_c]

I would think that the worthies of some other Surrey commuter stations would be more worried about their current fast line services being transferred onto the slow lines to allow more mainline services from more distant destinations to run. I understand from a combination of the Crossrail 2 consultation documents and earlier discussion on SW RUS that the slow lines into Waterloo will have to accommodate 8 x current slow line all-station stoppers (stopping all stations from Raynes Park inwards) plus 8 services transferred from the fast lines - which won't necessarily stop at all stations but will have to run at the same speed as the stoppers.

The only way to avoid this would be to "flight" the stoppers in pairs or threes with another flight of semi-fast outer suburbans following them - but this would give a very irregular service pattern at Earlsfield. The time penalty for the services transferred from fast lines to slow lines would look to be at least 10 mins, and looking at current schedules the most likely candidates would be the Guildford via Cobham, Woking stoppers, some of the Farnham/Alton services and perhaps even some of the slower services from Basingstoke. Can't imagine this will go down too well with commuters from the likes of Cobham, Weybridge, Walton and Byfleet.

Having asked, the Network Rail team indicated that they want 10 to 12 tph stopping all stations from Wimbledon to Waterloo, with 8tph all stations Raynes Park to Waterloo. There seems to be no talk of better signalling on the tracks, which have a capacity of 18tph (plus 2tph for perturbation).

If correct, just 6-8tph would not stop at Wimbledon and Earlsfield. But clearly, given that there are only 2 tracks, those 6tph would have to run behind the stopping trains anyway, thus not stopping will save very little time, no more than 2 minutes I'd say.

This is why Surbiton is almost certainly the big loser from TfL's plan, as the fast non-stop trains to Waterloo are almost certain to go.

The Swirl plan mitigates this slightly by removing the need for these Outer Suburban trains to stop at Earlsfield.

I also asked yesterday about the feedback on the Wimbledon plans. They described it as "mixed" - some positive thoughts on regeneration but also negative ones on the building work. (The fact that there are supplementary factsheets for Balham/Tooting and Wimbledon suggest those are the places receiving most attention in the consultation).

 

[Bald Rick]

This is why Surbiton is almost certainly the big loser from TfL's plan, as the fast non-stop trains to Waterloo are almost certain to go.

That depends on your outlook. The fast Surbitons are typically trains from Woking / Farnham / Guildford (both routes) that swap to fast lines north of Surbiton. They are only non stop from there as they are on the fast lines, and thus can't stop at Clapham Jn (much to the chagrin of many on this forum, see endless debate on the subject passim). It's pretty clear that more fast line trains would stop at Clapham Jn if they could.

Most of the fast Surbitons also have pathing time in their schedules, in some cases 4 or 5 minutes.

So it is conceivable, in my view, that they would all stop at Clapham Jn to improve connectivity from Guidlford / Woking etc, and also to connect with Crossrail 2, which would certainly help anyone heading for the West End or Euston Road. And they could stop there without extending existing journey times.

 

[swt_passenger]

The Swirl plan mitigates this slightly by removing the need for these Outer Suburban trains to stop at Earlsfield.

I think you should include the point that 'Swirl' is your own big idea. Otherwise people will be justifiably confused and think it is some sort of recognised proposal...

 

[stephen_c]

So it is conceivable, in my view, that they would all stop at Clapham Jn to improve connectivity from Guidlford / Woking etc, and also to connect with Crossrail 2, which would certainly help anyone heading for the West End or Euston Road. And they could stop there without extending existing journey times.

To clarify though, with CR2 that assumes the faster Surbiton-Waterloo trains would run on the existing slow lines?

On journey times, I see this:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/sea...24/0600-2000?stp=WVS&show=pax-calls&order=wtt

Switching slow to fast:

07:08 - 16mins - from Woking slow lines - 1min pathing
07:27 - 20mins - from Woking slow lines - 4min pathing
07:38 - 16mins - from Woking slow lines - 1min pathing
07:53 - 18mins - from Guildford via Claygate - 2.5min pathing
07:57 - 20mins - from Woking slow lines - 3min pathing
08:08 - 16mins - from Woking slow lines - 1min pathing
08:19 - 15mins - from Woking slow lines - no pathing
08:25 - 19mins - from Woking slow lines - 3min pathing

By contrast, staying on the slow lines (stopping SUR-NEM-SIM then all stations):

07:11 - 25mins
07:41 - 28mins
08:11 - 27mins

It seems reasonable for any Surbiton slow-line future non-CR2 train probably will not stop at New Malden or Wimbledon, but they will have to crawl through Earlsfield behind a stopper. They might as well all stop at CJ and Vauxhall. SUR to WAT in 23-24mins maybe?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

AIUI the CR2 platforms are roughly 3-4m below the level of the existing platforms.

A deep tunnel station would, one assumes, still need to come up to the surface somewhere for passengers to get in/out, and that somewhere is in Wimbledon, where there's lots of buildings, so some demolition would be inevitable. Also, it would presumably have to be sufficiently deep to miss the foundations of the various large buildings in the area so they don't need demolition as well (at least 20-30m?) So to get back up to the surface it would be past Raynes Park, which means building a subterranean junction for the Epsom line, and a subterranean Raynes Park station, and 2 portals, etc.

£2bn extra looks cheap.

Thanks, that explanation makes the £2bn sound more reasonable.

 

[stephen_c]

Just to note that TfL did eventually publish some more detail on the Wimbledon choices they had investigated before the consultation (a slide show, second half is interesting). While TfL did not investigate a fast line tunnel under Wimbledon before the consultation, I have been informed that it is being investigated now.

Pondering the journey time question some more (faster trains from Surbiton stuck behind others stopping at Earlsfield), it might be possible to have three slow line tracks through Earlsfield to allow trains to be overtaken there. It might also be possible for the slow line services to not stop at Vauxhall (passengers expected to change to Crossrail 2 at Clapham Junction instead). The combination of these two things might save a few minutes for Surbiton.

I'm preparing my consultation response at the moment, which will be based on my Swirl-Max plan.

 

[The Ham]

Surrey County Council are calling for Crossrail 2 to serve towns further out:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-35271716

A new rail route running crossing from north London into Surrey should extend as far as Woking and Dorking, according the the county council.
Plans for Crossrail 2 currently include Shepperton, Surbiton, Epsom, Hampton Court and Chessington South stations.

But Surrey County Council (SCC) said extending it further south would bring significant benefits to commuters and businesses in the county.

Transport for London (TfL) said it welcomed feedback on the proposals.
'Free up capacity'

"We believe there is a really strong case for pushing Crossrail 2 out to Woking and down as far as Dorking," said deputy leader Peter Martin.

"If we can shift more people onto Crossrail 2 we can free up capacity which will bring benefits to people coming in from further afield in Guildford, Haslemere and Farnham."

Therefore, if (as an example) the Woking stoppers were to be run as Crossrail 2 services; would this create more paths into London for services beyond Wimbledon (i.e. could provide more long distance services), or would it just mean that there could be services into London which operated in the "shadow" of the Crossrail 2 services (i.e. could only provide more metro services)?

Which leads to a follow on question; could it provide a more frequent service between Woking or Dorking and London (either instead of longer distance services or as well as)? If not, given what is proposed and Surrey would like to see, how much extra would it cost to put from the southern arm of the junction at Raynes Park to the existing proposed tunnel portal in a tunnel?

As that would allow all the services which approach Raynes Park to avoid using the SWML (potentially a reasonable uplift in capacity on the SWML), but would mean a change of train to go to stations between Clapham Junction and Waterloo (which could be potentially offset by a more frequent service).

 

[TheNewNo2]

I thought one of the points of Crossrail 2 was to allow more paths from Woking etc to be used by fast trains. Surely any interchange would be worse for Woking.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Surrey County Council are calling for Crossrail 2 to serve towns further out:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-35271716



Therefore, if (as an example) the Woking stoppers were to be run as Crossrail 2 services; would this create more paths into London for services beyond Wimbledon (i.e. could provide more long distance services), or would it just mean that there could be services into London which operated in the "shadow" of the Crossrail 2 services (i.e. could only provide more metro services)?

Which leads to a follow on question; could it provide a more frequent service between Woking or Dorking and London (either instead of longer distance services or as well as)? If not, given what is proposed and Surrey would like to see, how much extra would it cost to put from the southern arm of the junction at Raynes Park to the existing proposed tunnel portal in a tunnel?

As that would allow all the services which approach Raynes Park to avoid using the SWML (potentially a reasonable uplift in capacity on the SWML), but would mean a change of train to go to stations between Clapham Junction and Waterloo (which could be potentially offset by a more frequent service).

I would imagine putting a junction in a tunnel would add quite a bit to the expense. Offhand I'm not even sure it would help people at Dorking that much: Although we don't know what the final pattern of services would be, it seems reasonable to surmise that if CR runs to Epsom, then Waterloo-Dorking (and Waterloo-Guildford via Effingham Junction) services could then run non-stop between Epsom and Wimbledon. That would certainly give people at Epsom faster journey times to Wimbledon and Waterloo, and might even give them faster journey times to CR2 destinations, if the few minutes spent changing at Wimbledon is more than offset by getting to Wimbledon much faster.

 

[stephen_c]

We know that Epsom is due to get 8tph to London (via Wimbledon), with 4-6tph as Crossrail 2. We also know that Chessington is due to get 4tph. Furthermore, all the Waterloo trains from Epsom are currently planned to stop at Worcester Park and Raynes Park. (All these are published details from recent consultation)

Given that there are only 2 tracks between Epsom and Raynes Park, and those tracks are shared with the Chessington branch to Motspur Park, there seems little opportunity to me to have non-stop Epsom to Wimbledon trains. From the above, the natural assumption would be 4tph Crossrail 2 from Epsom, sharing the tracks with 4tph to Waterloo that only stop at Worcester Park and Raynes Park, plus 4tph CR2 from Chessington. This matches the basic timetable today, but with 2 extra to Chessington and 2 extra semi-fasts.

Putting a tunnel in from the planned portal north of Wimbledon to the Epsom branch is hard. There is no obvious portal site until after Motspur Park (the only other site at the Rainbow industrial estate in Raynes Park now has planning permission), so you are talking at least two more tunnelled stations.

The Woking options don't really work either. CR2 must serve Kingston, so Shepperton naturally falls to CR2. Hampton Court could be swapped with Woking, but really Hampton Court is a much better option.

CR2 in general provides another 6tph or so from Woking and beyond. It does this by removing the Surbiton Express trains that shift from slow to fast lines at Surbiton. Note however that once CR2 is built, the SWML long-distance services will be at capacity - 24tph of 12 car trains on 2 tracks, non stop from at least Woking to Waterloo with no conflicting movements.

I haven't got the perfect image of the TfL/NR plan, but this image does show the proposed TfL/NR service plan on the branches. Just ignore the tunnels and Earlsfield parts (because they come from my Swirl proposal), and accept that "green" outer suburban trains from Teddington and Leatherhead are proposed to stop at Raynes Park:

FWIW, I think Network Rails branch selection choices are fine, and Surrey benefits from more reliable dedicated outer suburban services. The main conflict is at Raynes Park, where 4tph from Epsom to Waterloo have to be threaded through 20tph of CR2. I suspect this will require some considerable engineering.

(This last point is why I favour a new line from Leatherhead to Claygate, so the "green" outer suburban services from Dorking can avoid Raynes Park and run to Waterloo via Surbiton. aka the 'Mole Valley Link')

If I have any beef with the branch selection, it is that there is one too many. 4tph is simply not a high enough frequency for these lines IMO (but it is hard to achieve more without building 4 new tracks from Raynes Park to London, not 2!).

 

[swt_passenger]

FWIW, I think Network Rails branch selection choices are fine, and Surrey benefits from more reliable dedicated outer suburban services. The main conflict is at Raynes Park, where 4tph from Epsom to Waterloo have to be threaded through 20tph of CR2. I suspect this will require some considerable engineering.

Surely it will only need a pair of crossovers at the London end of the outer platforms? Up Crossrail to Up Slow, and Down Slow to Down Crossrail. Basically the points that are already there form half of the necessary junctions, IYSWIM?

Assuming that the existing outer platforms are relocated, and straightened on a wider embankment, they'll take the new 5th and 6th tracks to New Malden for Crossrail, and the existing branch tracks towards Motspur Park will turn off from those tracks just west of Raynes Park as now.

 

[stephen_c]

The problem is the frequency. Can Network Rail reliably thread 4tph from Leatherhead and the 4tph from Teddington through the 20tph of CR2 at that point over a flat junction? In total that is 12-14tph from Motspur Park and 14-16tph from New Malden, with the Teddington and Leatherhead trains stopping at Raynes Park (the other outer suburban services from Surbiton and beyond are not planned to stop at Raynes).

The expectation has to be for a total of eight tracks at Raynes Park, with four having platforms (two islands for cross platform interchange). Perhaps a flat crossover junction just before and just after the two islands would give enough flexibility for the 28tph of movements, but I doubt it.

 

[swt_passenger]

I'd suggest passing the four TOC services from Teddington onto the slows at New Malden as now. A crossing move onto a parallel track shouldn't be considered a massive timetabling issue, there's no conflict with trains in the opposite direction. For up trains to Waterloo the TOC doesn't have to run them in any particular sequence if delayed.

I do support any proposal to make certain branches 100% Crossrail though, but it depends how much weight they give, or how many complaints they get, to travel into Waterloo or Crossrail without changing trains...

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I'd suggest passing the four TOC services from Teddington onto the slows at New Malden as now. A crossing move onto a parallel track shouldn't be considered a massive timetabling issue, there's no conflict with trains in the opposite direction.

Timetabling/pathing won't be an issue, it will be designed to work to the signalling and headway requirements we have to work with at the moment, the killer, as with ThamesLink, is S&Cs.

The existence of switches/crossovers and spare bits of track are great on long distance routes where you can do bang road working with bidi signalling or hand signalling, if things go wrong with a set of points there, send someone out to clip them and get on with the job.

The problem with ThamesLink, CrossRail and CrossRail 2 is the devastation to services you get when just one set of points looses detection, or a derailment occurs and an entire ladder is wiped out, causing biblical disruption for days.

It's a problem best solved by grade separation.

 

[stephen_c]

I'd suggest passing the four TOC services from Teddington onto the slows at New Malden as now. A crossing move onto a parallel track shouldn't be considered a massive timetabling issue, there's no conflict with trains in the opposite direction.

I don't think it is as simple as that. The Teddington trains are going to stop at Raynes Park on current plans. There is also a demand for fast services from Surbiton that don't stop until Clapham Junction. Moving the ex-Teddingtons onto the up slow from the up CR2 at new Malden will slow down those trains from Surbiton that don't stop at Raynes Park or Wimbledon. That is why I say 8 lines through Raynes Park will be needed, with the Teddington to Waterloo services staying on the up CR2 until just after Raynes Park.

ie. I imagine at Raynes Park you'd have Up ex-Epsom (platform), up CR2 (platform), up slow (no platform), up fast (no platform). Which is a lot of engineering, and another reason to put the fast services in a tunnel under Wimbledon.

 

[Class 170101]

I would imagine putting a junction in a tunnel would add quite a bit to the expense.

A diverging Junction but not a flat crossover is under construction at Whitechapel is it not? Pointwork in tunnels.

 

[The Ham]

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

Londoners should pay at least half of Crossrail 2 bill, Lord Adonis says

Infrastructure agency chief says funding for north-south rail link should be freed immediately so £33bn line can open in 2033

Ministers should prioritise developingthe £33bn Crossrail 2 line in London in order to prevent the capital “grinding to a halt”, according to the independent body advising the government on Britain’s long-term infrastructure projects.

Funding should be released immediately to enable work on the rail link – which would run from north to south across the capital – to start as soon as the first Crossrail route is completed in 2019, the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) said.

London should pay at least half of the expected £33bn bill for Crossrail 2, but the development of the north-south rail line should be a priority with benefits for the entire nation, according to Andrew Adonis, the NIC chair.

Adonis called on the chancellor to release funding in next week’s budget to produce plans for the rail link in a year’s time, to ensure it opens in 2033, when HS2, the £55bn high-speed rail network, will link London to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds.

Crossrail 2’s latest proposals show it operating as far north as Broxbourne in Hertfordshire and as far south as Epsom in Surrey, passing through central London via stations such as Tottenham Court Road, Victoria, Clapham Junction and a planned station in Chelsea.

 

[adrock1976]

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