Crossrail 2

[The Ham]

Crossrail is not open and the next major project being planned and hotly debated is HS2 and there are many other projects around the country which would provide extra capacity which could be just as worthy, if not more so, of funding. Those subjects all have their own threads for discussion and we needn’t repeat ground which has been gone over again.

Therefore if Crossrail 2 was announced to be going ahead what would you like it to look like and what other linked projects would you like to see to provide the best benefit to the rail network?

In answering the main question there are various questions which you may consider including, but not limited to:

Should it be an automatic metro or regional railway?
(http://www.transportxtra.com/magazines/local_transport_today/news/?id=28776 provides maps of the two options, but requires a subscription to read the full article)

What railway and tube lines will it relieve and what other projects could be undertaken to provide further capacity to these lines?

Where, other than within the M25, could benefit and what new services could be run to these locations because of it?


Personally I would like to see it as a regional railway freeing up a lot of paths into Waterloo. This would make putting up the overhead wires over the whole SWML a lot easier and enable a lot more longer distance services to run from Hampshire, Wiltshire and Dorset into London as well as providing the future to extend some of these services as far as Devon if there was the demand.

I would also line to see a link so that some of the services which run into Victoria can run into the tunnels with the option to add more tunnels to further free up Victoria being investigated.

There would probably be some fairly major linked projects to enable the extra services (grade separated junction at Woking). However given how busy the SWML such services would be well used from day one by providing relief to other services, however over time all the services would soon become fairly busy again. As the M3, A303 and A3 corridors are fairly busy with traffic and could do with extra rail capacity to provide an alternative to driving.

Within London as well as directly relieving the tube lines it runs in parallel to it could also reduce demand on underground services which are not directly linked to the current termini which would be being relieved as the change points of peoples journeys would change.

 

[cle]

I think this is the more sensible thing to do.

London could easily do with a new SW-NE tube line also, but hopefully this could encompass that and then also help some of the NR lines too.

I think if it took the local lines on the SWML and the many fiddly branches, outer surburban trains could move to these lines and fast trains could truly run fast. Combined with wires (already coming for Basingstoke to Soton) - trains could probably hit 125mph in spots.

It could easily mop up Hampton Court (2tph), Chessington (2tph), Dorking (2tph) and Guildford (2tph) via Epsom, Shepperton (2tph) and supposedly 4tph to Kingston or Twickenham.

That makes 14 and really it should be carrying double that. So I think the Guildford via Cobham route could join this, at least off peak for 2tph - with the odd fast train in peak.

Frequencies could be upped on the Chessington branch to 4tph perhaps, but it's still a little short. More short runs from Kingston would make sense, and maybe more to Epsom, Leatherhead or Dorking if junctions and platforms could cope. But it's hard! Maybe slow trains along the Weybridge section to Woking?

It would have to act as a tube through Central London too, before popping out somewhere around Tottenham and trying to match the frequencies - another challenge!

 

[jopsuk]

I'd go with a "super tube" setup, similar to Crossrail 1. On the south side, I'd look taking the routes out of Waterloo currently opperated using 455s, and possibly most of those that will be using the 458/5s- though that may be too many per hour. On the north side, I'd suggest the Lee Valley/Chingford services- perhaps as far as Hertford East and Bishops Stortford.

Not sure where I'd put tunnel portals though- the Lee valley could do with tunnels stretching past Clapton (I'd then close the current station) to allow Cambridge/Stansted services a clear run

 

[D365]

Going by Crossrail standards, Crossrail 2 would be built for 32tph 12-car National Rail standard. Gives us a lot to play with...

I am the 69th voter on this new poll, the Regional option currently appeals to me more :P

 

[cle]

Luckily the SWML has some nice grade separation in place to help out...

The other end would be tricky to terminate 28-32tph in terms of frequencies. People do like their Liverpool Street connections - this would be a West End route. So there may need to be a mix of destinations, which is messy.

 

[mr_jrt]

A bit rambling...but just brain dumping:

If you take it passing through Clapham Junction as a given, then you basically have 6 service patterns to option on:
Hounslow loop - Waterloo metro
Reading - Waterloo suburban
SWML slow lines - Waterloo metro
SWML fast lines - Waterloo suburban/intercity
BML slow lines - Victoria metro
BML fast lines - Victoria suburban

I'd argue that the Hounslow loop is better suited to any long-term extension of either LO or the Northern line from Clapham Junction, so I'll rule it out. Likewise, the BML suburban services are essentially Thameslink, so I'll rule those out. This leaves us with:
Reading - Waterloo suburban
SWML slow lines - Waterloo metro
SWML fast lines - Waterloo suburban/intercity
BML slow lines - Victoria metro

The SWML intercity services are hopelessly inappropriate for a Crossrail service, so I'll rule those out, but you'll notice that by removing one service pattern from a pair of lines we can separate out the suburban and intercity services north of Surbiton. This suggest priority 1 should be either the SWML metro services or the SWML suburban services. That said, it's widely known that the most expensive part of constructing new tunnelled lines is the stations, so unless you wanted to open up new routes with Crossrail 2 (a-la Tooting), then tunnelling the intercity services and leaving the surface routes to the stoppers would probably be the most cost-effective, so I'd suggest an intercity tunnel to Surbiton/Hampton Court Junction should probably be the first serious option, with the surface wholly given over to the metro and suburban services which could then all dive into tunnel (with intercity rising to the surface) at Clapham Junction to serve Battersea, Victoria, TCR, KXStP, Dalston, then surfacing around Coppermill Junction to run metro to Chingford, Hertford East, Enfield (with a short tunnel to run under South Tottenham). The suburban services could use the planned fast tracks from Tottenham Hale to run to Stansted from Woking and Basingstoke to Cambridge.

 

[swt_passenger]

Crossrail is not open and the next major project being planned and hotly debated is HS2 and there are many other projects around the country which would provide extra capacity which could be just as worthy, if not more so, of funding. Those subjects all have their own threads for discussion and we needn’t repeat ground which has been gone over again.

In raising this question though, you are still covering something that has already been 'gone over' at length in this forum on a number of previous occasions, firstly back in 2011 when NR's London and SE RUS strongly suggested that Crossrail 2 be built as a link between the SWML and the WA suburban routes. TfL have followed up more recently with the same analysis, but still quite a few months back - so the question being raised by 'transportxtra' is not new at all...

 

[ntg]

Indeed this has been heavily discussed here. There's no news for it - my guess being we're waiting for the HS2 bill announcements near the end of the year, as Crossrail 2 is necessary for HS2 to exist, before we'll have anything new to discuss.

 

[Chris125]

...Crossrail 2 is necessary for HS2 to exist, before we'll have anything new to discuss.

Interestingly HS2 Ltd have explained to the Transport Select Committee (question 7) the need for 'additional underground capacity' would predominantly be down to general growth in rail traffic, and not the building of HS2.

Chris

 

[LE Greys]

I've gone into this a few times before, I'd go for the Chelney Line, a standard-diameter Tube line running from Heathrow Airport to Hainault with a branch to Southall. An actual Crossrail 2 ought to run from Stratford to Clapham Junction, taking in Stansted Express and a number of West Anglia services, plus some of the South Western.

Chelney stations

• Hainault
• Fairlop
• Barkingside
• Newbury Park
• Gants Hill
• Redbridge
• Wanstead
• Leytonstone
• Homerton
• Hackney Central
• Dalston Junction
• Essex Road
• King's Cross-St Pancras
• Euston
• Tottenham Court Road
• Piccadilly Circus
• Victoria
• Sloane Square
• King's Road Chelsea
• West Brompton
• Craven Cottage
• Barn Elms
• Chiswick
• Gunnersbury
• Kew Bridge
• Brentford
• Syon Lane
• Isleworth
• Hounslow
• Feltham
• Heathrow Terminal 4
• Heathrow Terminal 5

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Added after dinner

Southall Branch from Brentford

• Boston Manor
• South Hanwell
• Southall

 

[HSTEd]

There will never be another tube line, if they were going to build another traditional underground line it is more likely that the track cross section would more closely resemble the subsurface lines. (So main line gauge).

There is little advantage to a traditional tube cross section in this day and age.

 

[LE Greys]

There will never be another tube line, if they were going to build another traditional underground line it is more likely that the track cross section would more closely resemble the subsurface lines. (So main line gauge).

There is little advantage to a traditional tube cross section in this day and age.

Would it not be cheaper to dig? I think that was the reason for Tube cross-sections in the first place. I was simply thinking in terms of commonality with the current lines. However, a main line-size would present more commonality with the Met/District/etc (and National Rail obviously).

Of course, there is no real need to stick to what we've always done just because it's what we've always done. Thing is, I'm looking at this more as an internal London route rather than a connection between two main lines. There are two reasons for that. Firstly, it stops so many times in central London that it's bound to be used for short-distance journeys. Secondly, it's aimed at filling a gap in the current network. Both the existing District Line and one of the former LSWR lines currently head up the Thames, but they don't head directly up the river. In fact, it's quite hard to get from Chelsea to Heathrow. The idea here is to knit together a lot of different lines to make accessing Heathrow easier.

 

[Class377/5]

Would it not be cheaper to dig? I think that was the reason for Tube cross-sections in the first place. I was simply thinking in terms of commonality with the current lines. However, a main line-size would present more commonality with the Met/District/etc (and National Rail obviously).

Not really as it's the stations that require the money not the tunnels. Also 12 car EMU will hold a lot more people than an 8 car Tube train would.

Plus simple fact if a Tube would need a new London spot. Mainline you can get away with building on further out as well as using current stabling places meaning a smaller depot and less cost there.

 

[LE Greys]

Not really as it's the stations that require the money not the tunnels. Also 12 car EMU will hold a lot more people than an 8 car Tube train would.

Plus simple fact if a Tube would need a new London spot. Mainline you can get away with building on further out as well as using current stabling places meaning a smaller depot and less cost there.

Would it be possible to use Hainault? It might need to expand, though. I agree with you on the capacity issue, though.

 

[The Ham]

The estimated costs for either scheme are between about £10 and £15 billion with the higher end of the range being for the regional proposal and the lower end being for the automated metro.

Even if the costs were the extreme end of the range that leaves a difference of £5 billion, which given the estimate of £1 billion to add a small (in comparison) amount of capacity to the SWML by building an extra line into Waterloo seams a small price to pay for the extra capacity that would be provided over a much larger area.

The other thing is worth thinking about is that one you have one you can't go back and build the other, or at least not without massive disruption and cost. Is there enough alternative options for the SWML to be able to provide the needed capacity without using Crossrail 2?

In addition if the section 106 contributions from a wider area are able to be used then the cost difference becomes a lot less, as well as the possibility of a lot more income from train fares as the line covers a larger area.

 

[HSTEd]

Would it not be cheaper to dig? I think that was the reason for Tube cross-sections in the first place. I was simply thinking in terms of commonality with the current lines. However, a main line-size would present more commonality with the Met/District/etc (and National Rail obviously).

The bore of the tunnel is not really the primary cost driver.
For instance the Tottenham Court Crossrail station is projected to cost something on order of £1bn.

Making the tunnel bigger just means you spend slightly more ordering a slightly larger diameter TBM, and spend some more money for landfilling spoil.

You might want tube length trains to keep station costs down, but there is no reason to have tube cross section trains now that we have TBMs rather than Irish navvies.

 

[si404]

If you look at what needs relieving, then the SWML corridor is the obvious one to the south or west, mostly as you can't do much with the GWML slows with a new line (especially as Southall - West End and City will always be quicker by Crossrail).

To the north or east, the Piccadilly, Victoria and Crossrail have serious capacity issues come the time we're looking at the line opening. Serving the Central line might help relieve Crossrail from Stratford to London a bit (as people will have another quick route to the West End to change onto and not change onto Crossrail at Stratford in such large numbers). Serving the WAML would relieve the Victoria (as people will have another quick route to the West End to change onto and not have to change at Tottenham Hale).

But there's other things to bare in mind - the WAML can be better served relatively easily by a relatively short connection to the SSLs, taking it out of the main Liverpool Street station and the Central line probably wouldn't relieve Crossrail anywhere near enough.

Going north to relieve both the Victoria and Piccadilly has 2 main options (via Dalston and Seven Sisters or via Finsbury Park - the latter perhaps via Camden Town?) - but going further north than Ally Pally/Wood Green area would leave Thameslink/GN&C trains without places to go - certainly it's the best idea for the automated metro option, but the regional one less so.

I suggest having a regional route in the north of Euston St Pancras - Highbury & Islington - (Dalston?) - Hackney - Stratford - Shenfield with a branch turning off at Forest Gate to Grays (track already there), with changes at Stratford to take Crossrail away from the cross-platform interchange with the Central line and Crossrail 2 and then up the Lea Valley to Stansted and Hertford East (which will relieve the Victoria line).

My preferred automatic metro options would be similar to what TfL have proposed, but serving Ally Pally via Wood Green in the north, and then doing something in South/SW London beyond Clapham Junction - which there are several possible options you could take.

These would look a bit like this.

However there's many worthy options for a line on this corridor - even the splitting the regional option at Angel, as TfL have proposed, doesn't look as if it will come back to haunt them like Bakerloo at Baker Street or Crossrail at Whitechapel.

 

[Class377/5]

Would it be possible to use Hainault? It might need to expand, though. I agree with you on the capacity issue, though.

Yes you could as it quite a bit of the Central Lie (all the bits above ground) were actually built as a mainline railway. If you'd want to is a different matter.

 

[mr_jrt]

I suggest having a regional route in the north of Euston St Pancras - Highbury & Islington - (Dalston?) - Hackney - Stratford - Shenfield with a branch turning off at Forest Gate to Grays (track already there), with changes at Stratford to take Crossrail away from the cross-platform interchange with the Central line and Crossrail 2 and then up the Lea Valley to Stansted and Hertford East (which will relieve the Victoria line).

...the GEML is another one of those lines where there's a decent argument for boring an intercity tunnel out to the M25 and leaving the existing slow lines for a metro service and the existing fast lines for the suburban traffic. If nothing else, this would enable Crossrail to focus on being a suburban service if, say, LO could operate Stratford to Shenfield at a high tph.

 

[stephen_c]

The SWML has three services groups - inner suburban, out suburban (Walton/Guildford/Working/Farnham) and long distance. But there are only 4 tracks. Increasing that to 6 tracks is the key here.

The cheapest way to do this is a tunnel with no stations from Esher to just east of Clapham Junction. This takes the long distance services. It leaves the current fast tracks for outer suburban and the current slow tracks for inner suburban.

Next is the problem of objections by diverting peoples regular trains away from Waterloo to CR2. This can be solved by stopping the outer suburban services at Wimbledon, where there is a cross-platform interchange (between Waterloo and CR2 services).

Now, the tunnel portal for CR2 can be east of Clapham Junction. The ideal site is beside Battersea Power station, on the railway tracks near the dogs home (Thames access for spoil removal). CR2 would stay above ground to the portal, following the existing route down to Stewarts Lane junction). The tunnel portal site would also be used to create an interchange station with the new Northern Line station (and meaning that the Northern Line would not have to go via Clapham Junction if extended further).

By comparison with TfLs current scheme (tunnel from Raynes Park with undergroud stations at Wimbledon, Tooting Broadway and Clapham Junction), this scheme is over £1.5bn cheaper (as underground stations are expensive, and my scheme avoids them).

Since my scheme doesn't relieve the Northern at Tooting (and TfLs does), I'd spend some of that £1.5bn+ saved on something else that helps the Northern.

 

[jopsuk]

...the GEML is another one of those lines where there's a decent argument for boring an intercity tunnel out to the M25 and leaving the existing slow lines for a metro service and the existing fast lines for the suburban traffic. If nothing else, this would enable Crossrail to focus on being a suburban service if, say, LO could operate Stratford to Shenfield at a high tph.

You'd ideally want to emerge just past Shenfield and then continue as a four track railway (to ipswich? hell, you've just invested in some mighty TBMs, might as welll use them). I'd leave Crossrail running to Shenfield, and have outer suburban/GE locals useing the fast lines to there- interchange between Crossrail and GE suburban at Stratford and Shenfield, GE Suburban and GE IC closest to London interchange perhaps at Chelmsford with passengers on IC services from further north requiring interchange at Stratford changing there- that, or have deep level platforms at Stratford.

You're looking at 20 mile + tunnel

 

[si404]

...the GEML is another one of those lines where there's a decent argument for boring an intercity tunnel out to the M25 and leaving the existing slow lines for a metro service and the existing fast lines for the suburban traffic. If nothing else, this would enable Crossrail to focus on being a suburban service if, say, LO could operate Stratford to Shenfield at a high tph.

Yes indeed - along with about half of the mainlines leaving London! As has been mentioned in the gap between your post and this one, you still have the problem of the two tracks on the mainline beyond Shenfield - but actually you don't really have enough tph for Crossrail to take over more than simply the Southend/Southminster routes.

As for Overground between Stratford and Shenfield - I assume you mean 10-/12-car trains running into two/three platforms at Liverpool Street, with Crossrail going on the 'fasts' and stopping a couple of times between Stratford and Shenfield (done to relieve the Central line between Stratford and the West End of at least some of the Shenfield branch passengers), before going to Southend and Southminster? Just asking as the phrasing could suggest running 8tph of 5-car trains from the NLL - which would be woefully inadequate.

 

[OliverS]

...the GEML is another one of those lines where there's a decent argument for boring an intercity tunnel out to the M25 and leaving the existing slow lines for a metro service and the existing fast lines for the suburban traffic. If nothing else, this would enable Crossrail to focus on being a suburban service if, say, LO could operate Stratford to Shenfield at a high tph.

Not really; the capacity constraint on the GEML, as per the RUS, is outside of Shenfield not inside. Most services on the GEML are fast between Shenfield and Liverpool St and so there is little contention. Outside of Shenfield there is more need for extra lines to separate out the semi-fasts and the fasts.

 

[cle]

The SWML has three services groups - inner suburban, out suburban (Walton/Guildford/Working/Farnham) and long distance. But there are only 4 tracks. Increasing that to 6 tracks is the key here.

The cheapest way to do this is a tunnel with no stations from Esher to just east of Clapham Junction. This takes the long distance services. It leaves the current fast tracks for outer suburban and the current slow tracks for inner suburban.

Next is the problem of objections by diverting peoples regular trains away from Waterloo to CR2. This can be solved by stopping the outer suburban services at Wimbledon, where there is a cross-platform interchange (between Waterloo and CR2 services).

Now, the tunnel portal for CR2 can be east of Clapham Junction. The ideal site is beside Battersea Power station, on the railway tracks near the dogs home (Thames access for spoil removal). CR2 would stay above ground to the portal, following the existing route down to Stewarts Lane junction). The tunnel portal site would also be used to create an interchange station with the new Northern Line station (and meaning that the Northern Line would not have to go via Clapham Junction if extended further).

By comparison with TfLs current scheme (tunnel from Raynes Park with undergroud stations at Wimbledon, Tooting Broadway and Clapham Junction), this scheme is over £1.5bn cheaper (as underground stations are expensive, and my scheme avoids them).

Since my scheme doesn't relieve the Northern at Tooting (and TfLs does), I'd spend some of that £1.5bn+ saved on something else that helps the Northern.

That billion or so for Tooting would be best spent at Camden Town, and providing a full and final split to the Northern line. Obviously you'd retain all connections, but they'd be two separate lines. Then you could have 32tph on both and only one North London branch for each. I'm not sure which would work best - there is no consensus.

Each platform would have only one route - and circulating space and passages would need to be vastly improved. Entrances/exits too - perhaps a passage towards Camden Road (coming out at that horrible Sainsburys where many people get buses), or towards the Lock Bridge - or both.

Any change would be well spent Angel-ising Clapham North and Clapham Common. A better interchange with LO at the former might also attract some traffic off the line, especially to Canada Water and eastwards.

 

[Clip]

Looking at those maps and other posters alternative ideas of what it should be, I notice lots of mentions about Tottenham court road through out. No whilst this is a good idea for the other connections it will bring, is the current rebuild being done so in mind with any extra line going somewhere with provision for these to be added later? Im not sure the local businesses around the are could go through more years of upheaval that they are currently doing so soon after this station is rebuilt.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

I found a report from May 2012 from London First working group which discusses the Crossrail 2 options. It contains some interesting information about projected overcrowding on the tube and how Crossrail 2 can help alleviate overcrowding in central London and on the Commuter Networks in SE London and HS2.


http://londonfirst.co.uk/wp-content...ail_2_-_Supporting_Londons_growth_report2.pdf
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Looking at those maps and other posters alternative ideas of what it should be, I notice lots of mentions about Tottenham court road through out. No whilst this is a good idea for the other connections it will bring, is the current rebuild being done so in mind with any extra line going somewhere with provision for these to be added later? Im not sure the local businesses around the are could go through more years of upheaval that they are currently doing so soon after this station is rebuilt.

I believe the rebuild does include provision for Crossrail 2

 

[Class377/5]

Looking at those maps and other posters alternative ideas of what it should be, I notice lots of mentions about Tottenham court road through out. No whilst this is a good idea for the other connections it will bring, is the current rebuild being done so in mind with any extra line going somewhere with provision for these to be added later? Im not sure the local businesses around the are could go through more years of upheaval that they are currently doing so soon after this station is rebuilt.

I believe the rebuild does include provision for Crossrail 2

TCR indeed has Crossrail 2 provision as does Angel (well for Hackney-Chelsea Line anyway). As will Victoria station when current building works are complete.

Current thinking for the line is either of these,

Metro


Crossrail 2 Metro Scheme by Sparkyscrum, on Flickr

Regional


Crossrail 2 Regional Scheme by Sparkyscrum, on Flickr

 

[Clip]

Cheers for that as I was unaware that they were doing so.


Though why does the Metro scheme not have interchange with any tube lines at Kings x?

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Though why does the Metro scheme not have interchange with any tube lines at Kings x?

I think the have made a mistake in the diagram there, Euston/St Pancras and then Kings Cross as separate stations?

 

[jopsuk]

Version 2 would seem the more useful, especially if coupled to schemes such as four-tracking from Tottenham Hale to north of Broxbourne- allowing Crossrail to have separate tracks
the "Euston St Pancras" interchange should really have Overground marked, and Victoria a BR arrow, whilst the "Trains to Gatwick and Luton" box should perhaps be grouped with the HS1, HS2, Thameslink and maybe a separate line for other National Rail services? It would certainly be the best connected rail hub in London. I wonder how many platforms, including the duplicated Northern, Victoria and Subsurface lines, the complex would have, taking into account the Euston rebuild?