Crossrail 2

[tbtc]

The Hampton Court branch would remain a Waterloo service (with the "Crossrail Two" trains running out to Woking)?

That surprised me slightly.

I thought that the idea would be to take over the branches (and run all other trains fast)?

 

[Class377/5]

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

No there's no mistake. New stations have to be double ended so its proposed Euston St Pancras links new rebuilt HS2/WCML station on one end with St Pancras on the eastern end. Kings Cross station will be separate station further down the Libe however they may axe it.

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?

They're no four tracking planned for the line through Tottenham now as its planned to be 3 track a lot of the way with a bi-direction middle line to allow overtaking. May be cheaper but I'd prefer four tracking.

I'd missed Victoria's BR arrow along with Overground's link at Euston. I decided that NR services should go top at Euston St Pancras station so not moving it. Think the major rail interchange over the Tube is right.

The Crossrail 2 platforms will add in two additional platforms but with interchange in both ends with major hubs. It's going I be the best connected station on the line.

The Hampton Court branch would remain a Waterloo service (with the "Crossrail Two" trains running out to Woking)?

That surprised me slightly.

I thought that the idea would be to take over the branches (and run all other trains fast)?

At this point it's still very early days so could change. Indeed it depends if they go down the Crossrail 1 route of perminately fixed routes or just follow Thameslink's idea with long term destinations kept flexible to enable massive investment be best focus on biggest benefits.

However is Hampton Court 12 car line as Crossrail 2 is expected to be run with fixed length 12 units (like Thameslink and planned for Crossrail) ?

 

[si404]

No there's no mistake. New stations have to be double ended so its proposed Euston St Pancras links new rebuilt HS2/WCML station on one end with St Pancras on the eastern end. Kings Cross station will be separate station further down the Libe however they may axe it.

It would probably need to be kept as it's only on the metro option, and metro-length platforms will struggle to serve St Pancras without serving Euston poorly. Kings Cross-St Pancras-KXSP complex is such a large station complex that platforms 100m or more west of the west edge of complex is going to need another station right at the east end to provide decent interchange with the tube station at the east end, Kings Cross, and provide another long-walk option for St Pancras.

At this point it's still very early days so could change. Indeed it depends if they go down the Crossrail 1 route of perminately fixed routes or just follow Thameslink's idea with long term destinations kept flexible to enable massive investment be best focus on biggest benefits.

Crossrail is more the model at the moment, but the regional option will turn a bit like Thameslink if it is chosen - though there's not that many options - basically whether you do all 12tph on the slows at Surbiton, as well as 12tph to Kingston or whether you branch at Raynes Park.

Crossrail model:
Step 1) look at outer routes that need 'through' services to relieve other parts of the network
Step 2) choose a core route in zone 1 (OK, Crossrail 2 kind of did this in reverse)
Step 3) look at options for outer routes and propose a proposal (Aylesbury/Reading - Shenfield for Crossrail 1, Wimbledon - Epping for Crossrail 2)
Step 4) a major development requires a change in the route and means a rethink of core and branches (Canary Wharf / HS2)
Step 5) reject branch options that aren't the ones you chose with your initial re-route after the major development
Step 6) modify the route to save money (Maidenhead, no take-over of HEx)
Step 7) start construction
Step 8) return route to the original plan before the cut-back tweaks as you can now save money by doing it

 

[trivran]

...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.

Seeing as all but 1tph calls at Stratford, would you tunnel from there? Of course with Crossrail, you could tunnel from Liverpool Street.

 

[Class377/5]

It would probably need to be kept as it's only on the metro option, and metro-length platforms will struggle to serve St Pancras without serving Euston poorly. Kings Cross-St Pancras-KXSP complex is such a large station complex that platforms 100m or more west of the west edge of complex is going to need another station right at the east end to provide decent interchange with the tube station at the east end, Kings Cross, and provide another long-walk option for St Pancras.

That's why my maps only show Euston St Pancras and Kings Cross on Metro option and Euston St Pancras on the regional as that version is deemed not needed to be calling additional at Kings Cross.

is more the model at the moment, but the regional option will turn a bit like Thameslink if it is chosen - though there's not that many options - basically whether you do all 12tph on the slows at Surbiton, as well as 12tph to Kingston or whether you branch at Raynes Park.

Crossrail model:
Step 1) look at outer routes that need 'through' services to relieve other parts of the network
Step 2) choose a core route in zone 1 (OK, Crossrail 2 kind of did this in reverse)
Step 3) look at options for outer routes and propose a proposal (Aylesbury/Reading - Shenfield for Crossrail 1, Wimbledon - Epping for Crossrail 2)
Step 4) a major development requires a change in the route and means a rethink of core and branches (Canary Wharf / HS2)
Step 5) reject branch options that aren't the ones you chose with your initial re-route after the major development
Step 6) modify the route to save money (Maidenhead, no take-over of HEx)
Step 7) start construction
Step 8) return route to the original plan before the cut-back tweaks as you can now save money by doing it

There was a rough service pattern in one of the TfL reports that did state at least one of the branches would have 50% Crossrail service and 50% Waterloo.

Sounds like a fairly sound development but you forgot to add in 50 years of finding reasons not to build.

 

[LE Greys]

It would probably need to be kept as it's only on the metro option, and metro-length platforms will struggle to serve St Pancras without serving Euston poorly. Kings Cross-St Pancras-KXSP complex is such a large station complex that platforms 100m or more west of the west edge of complex is going to need another station right at the east end to provide decent interchange with the tube station at the east end, Kings Cross, and provide another long-walk option for St Pancras.Crossrail is more the model at the moment, but the regional option will turn a bit like Thameslink if it is chosen - though there's not that many options - basically whether you do all 12tph on the slows at Surbiton, as well as 12tph to Kingston or whether you branch at Raynes Park.

Anything that runs anywhere near the Euston Road should include a decent-sized travolator tunnel running alongside the Circle Line, linking up the western ticket hall at KXSP, a new southern ticket hall underneath Euston's front garden and Euston Square. That should solve a few problems in one go, whilst still leaving the road for people walking between the two main line stations. A Heathrow-style people-mover would be even better, but much more expensive. Either version would have to pass under the British Library's vaults, which complicates matters, but not necessarily fatally (although I don't know how deep they go).

Crossrail model:
Step 1) look at outer routes that need 'through' services to relieve other parts of the network
Step 2) choose a core route in zone 1 (OK, Crossrail 2 kind of did this in reverse)
Step 3) look at options for outer routes and propose a proposal (Aylesbury/Reading - Shenfield for Crossrail 1, Wimbledon - Epping for Crossrail 2)
Step 4) a major development requires a change in the route and means a rethink of core and branches (Canary Wharf / HS2)
Step 5) reject branch options that aren't the ones you chose with your initial re-route after the major development
Step 6) modify the route to save money (Maidenhead, no take-over of HEx)
Step 7) start construction
Step 8) return route to the original plan before the cut-back tweaks as you can now save money by doing it

Sounds fairly typical. It also happened with Thameslink, to a certain extent, as we are now seeing with the link to the ECML - there was talk of using the Hotel Curve in the original version.

 

[swt_passenger]

Anything that runs anywhere near the Euston Road should include a decent-sized travolator tunnel running alongside the Circle Line, linking up the western ticket hall at KXSP, a new southern ticket hall underneath Euston's front garden and Euston Square. That should solve a few problems in one go, whilst still leaving the road for people walking between the two main line stations.

Not really possible. A travelator connection such as that has already been discounted as part of the HS2 investigations because the British Library is in the way, it goes a heck of a long way down, about 6 floors underground apparently...

 

[LE Greys]

Not really possible. A travelator connection such as that has already been discounted as part of the HS2 investigations because the British Library is in the way, it goes a heck of a long way down, about 6 floors underground apparently...

Assuming 6 floors = 6X10ft, plus 10ft for the passage, plus 10ft safety margin, that's 80ft. In other words, Victoria Line level. However, assuming it's in the middle, that would allow for a slope at either end. It strikes me that some form of inclined plane cable-haulage would be able to cope with this, starting at Tube level at the Euston end and finishing at Metropolitan level at the King's Cross end. Presumably, increasing depth also increases costs, but Euston needs a sort-out anyway, and a southern ticket hall at 80ft down is one way to do so, with escalators to Euston Square going one way and the cable-hauled line the other way. It's even possible to have one car running 'inside' the barriers and the other 'outside'.

If that turns out to be too expensive (it's certainly expensive!) how about looking at something on the south side of Euston Road?

 

[mr_jrt]

It's amazing the folly of building the British Library where they did still continues to cause new problems to this day

...it would have all been so much simpler if they'd just built the British Library in Stratford and the "London International" High Speed Terminal on the old Midland Goods yard...the new terminal could have been a new landmark building, and we wouldn't have ended up with the utilitarian carbuncle on the end of Barlow's shed...not to mention EMT would then have room for enough platforms in said shed!

That said, the extended 3rd SSL tunnel reaches to about there, so cutting it back and extending it to Euston could be used for a narrow travelator, though I still maintain that sorting the SSL access at Euston out will enable it to act as said travelator and remove the need for CR2 to call at Euston.

 

[RobShipway]

As I have think I mentioned in other threads about Crossrail, I am surprised that there is not a thought about creating a line from Heathrow Terminal 5 to Staines, that then joins up with the Waterloo - Reading route.

 

[jopsuk]

There were plans for that- called "Heathrow Airtrack"- that have been killed off by people along the route complaining about how long the (existing) level crossings would be down.

Seriously.

 

[LE Greys]

There were plans for that- called "Heathrow Airtrack"- that have been killed off by people along the route complaining about how long the (existing) level crossings would be down.

Seriously.

My 'Chelney to Heathrow' idea was meant to resolve this. By taking the route west, running underneath (or alongside) the current LSW line, then diverting to Heathrow, it would have absorbed a lot of the proposed Airtrack traffic (plus linking Fulham to Barnes more effectively and relieving the Piccadilly). Airtrack would have been very helpful for another purpose though, linking Heathrow to Gatwick with an option to extend to Reading, thus doing away with many of the coach links.

 

[si404]

HEx/Crossrail extension to Staines is on the cards as a proposal still. Though it's worth pointing out that after Airtrack's collapse, WRAtH (Western Rail Access to Heathrow) is the new one BAA are pushing, so Staines is a long way off.

WRAtH will deal with Reading - Heathrow services, reducing the benefits of Airtrack via Bracknell. It will link to the GWML slows (and thus be run by Crossrail TOC, perhaps even as extensions of the limited-stop T5 services, though the latter mostly as an operational convenience).

And to be fair to the level-crossing problems, they are down much of the time on the Richmond line, so adding 2tph there won't help, and the Camberley services terminate at Ascot so as not to add more to Egham area level crossings.

 

[RobShipway]

I know from living in the Bracknell area that it has been suggested many times to Network Rail, that either the railway line goes over a bridge or under through a tunnel under the roads being crossed or the rod goes over or under the railway, which would make it a lot safer for everyone. That should also apply to the crossings near Staines, which with the propect of a Crossrail service via Staines to Reading or down to Windsor & Eton Riverside I would have thought that NT would also be able to find the funds to resolve the crossings issue and save further lives.

 

[Chris125]

Listening to the speech made by Boris after his steam trip, he announces that the prospective route for Crossrail 2 will be announced in a couple of weeks time.

Chris

 

[The Ham]

also in recent news on Crossrail 2

http://www.transportxtra.com/magazines/local_transport_today/news/?ID=33330

TfL’S plans for Crossrail 2 could boost the business case for a major upgrade to the West Anglia Main Line between London, Stansted Airport and Cambridge, Network Rail believes.

NR says there is currently no business case for four-tracking the Lea Valley route and replacing the line’s level crossings with bridges or subways. But it says this could change if TfL proceeds with plans for Crossrail 2

 

[465fan]

I'd definitely take the option running from Tottenham Hale to Bishops Stortford and Hertford East on the Lea Valleys. Personally, its about time those routes (via Enfield Lock and Seven Sisters) received decent upgrades.

The line specifically from Tottenham Hale to Bishops Stortford is a candidate for four tracking, particularly as traffic grows and capacity (often restricted by the Stansted Express) continues to be stagnant.

Whether or not you would run it to Alexandra Palace is somewhat irrelevant; few gains to the cost of staging.

Preserving the right to run slow trains almost every 2 minutes, and still having fast trains to Stansted, Cambridge etc, you create the options for future growth.

I would run the route from Epping to Loughton (which would be the terminus of the Central Line), before diverging and tunneling past Chingford (interchange for the Chingford branch) and then Tottenham Hale. This part of the Network would then join in with trains from Bishops Stortford and Hertford East. So, 4 off peak trains per hour from Epping, 4 from Hertford East and 4 from Bishops Stortford. Jobs a good'n.

As for "South of Tottenham" - well, let's see.

I would tunnel down immediately: stations would be Stoke Newington, Dalston Junction, Angel, St Pancras International (Thameslink interchange), Tottenham Court Road, Green Park, South Kensington, Chelsea Kings Road and Parsons Green. From here, you can run "Crossrail" services towards Wimbledon (and onwards to other destinations), but also complete simple infrastructure improvements to use the Hounslow Loop.

 

[si404]

Preserving the right to run slow trains almost every 2 minutes, and still having fast trains to Stansted, Cambridge etc, you create the options for future growth.

You're someone who did a big lengthy post on Kent's service pattern and took several proposed routes off Thameslink and reduce frequencies as 'there isn't the catchment area' and then you send 24tph up the Lea Valley locals - which have a lot more of their catchment area as marshland and river. :-?

I would run the route from Epping to Loughton (which would be the terminus of the Central Line), before diverging and tunneling past Chingford (interchange for the Chingford branch) and then Tottenham Hale. This part of the Network would then join in with trains from Bishops Stortford and Hertford East. So, 4 off peak trains per hour from Epping, 4 from Hertford East and 4 from Bishops Stortford. Jobs a good'n.

Why complain about the branch to Ally Pally, when you want to create a tunnel of a similar length (though with less stations: 1, not 3) for just 4tph, to take not very many passengers off the Central line. :roll:

 

[465fan]

You're someone who did a big lengthy post on Kent's service pattern and took several proposed routes off Thameslink and reduce frequencies as 'there isn't the catchment area' and then you send 24tph up the Lea Valley locals - which have a lot more of their catchment area as marshland and river. :-?Why complain about the branch to Ally Pally, when you want to create a tunnel of a similar length (though with less stations: 1, not 3) for just 4tph, to take not very many passengers off the Central line. :roll:

I said 12 trains per hour; which would go to variable stations north of Tottenham Hale, such as Epping.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Isnt crossrail 2 seen as a way of helping disperse HS2 crowds, surely it will go via Euston in some way?

 

[ntg]

Isnt crossrail 2 seen as a way of helping disperse HS2 crowds, surely it will go via Euston in some way?

Indeed it will, depending on the scheme chosen it will either stop at a station called Euston-St Pancras (which I suppose will create a large underground complex between Kings Cross and Euston) or it will stop at Euston and Kings Cross-St Pancras, and this is to create the capacity to handle addition passangers from HS2, as well as relieve the Victoria line in general.

 

[mr_jrt]

Still think CR2 needn't serve Euston. It'll relieve the Victoria line by virtue of abstracting the passengers from KXStP, and this way it can concentrate on being a faster express line, making it more attractive to get more passengers to bother changing to it from the Victoria line at KXStP. Euston to KXStP doesn't need a a 4th underground rail link between it, and it'll just be a pointless dogleg slowing the line down.

...but if the only way to fund it is to shoehorn it into HS2, then obviously it'll have to serve Euston somehow, otherwise it'll be a very hard sell to Sir Humphrey, and I think nebulous "network congestion reduction" won't cut it.

 

[cle]

I said 12 trains per hour; which would go to variable stations north of Tottenham Hale, such as Epping.

You've skipped not only Euston but also Victoria?! And Green Park doesn't need a fourth line, whereas Piccadilly Circus could do with another.

And 12tph at the north end is not enough.

They need to balance out, and 12tph is certainly too little for both what will ostensibly be a tube line, but also for the SW suburban branches!

As well as say 4tph to Hertford East, 4tph Bishops Stortford you will probably need a combination of: 4tph Stansted, 2tph Cheshunt, 4thp Enfield Town, 4-6tph Alexandra Palace, 4tph Chingford or so. Cambridge possibly too. Or indeed, taking over the Central line from Leytonstone up to Epping (and extend to Harlow as often discussed) ???

But frequencies will need to match the southern ones, and tube ones - so at minimum 24tph.

 

[si404]

I said 12 trains per hour; which would go to variable stations north of Tottenham Hale, such as Epping.

You said

Preserving the right to run slow trains almost every 2 minutes, and still having fast trains to Stansted, Cambridge etc, you create the options for future growth.

I'm not sure 5 minutely 12tph is 'almost every 2 minutes' - 24tph is every 2.5 minutes and you hint at not wanting the Ally Pally branch (which is a massive congestion reliever provided it's frequent enough and easily accessible).

OK, you gave a 12tph off-peak service:

So, 4 off peak trains per hour from Epping, 4 from Hertford East and 4 from Bishops Stortford. Jobs a good'n.

but my point still stands about there not being that much demand from the Lea Valley slows. If you add Epping (reducing frequency there by your plan) at great expense, then yes, there's scope for more than 12tph.

You've skipped not only Euston but also Victoria?! And Green Park doesn't need a fourth line, whereas Piccadilly Circus could do with another.

Ah but interchange with the JLE is so vital (I've read that from people who should know better) that they wanted a Chelney reroute to go via Green Park. :roll: I'm not sure Piccadilly Circus is essential, but you need a southern exit from TCR as far south as possible to serve that area if you don't have a Piccadilly Circus station. Missing Victoria is madness - I can understand Euston, but not Victoria. As is serving the SWML from the District line, meaning lots of stops added to journeys :roll:

And 12tph at the north end is not enough.

12tph at the north end is enough if you don't serve Epping.

As well as say 4tph to Hertford East, 4tph Bishops Stortford you will probably need a combination of: 4tph Stansted, 2tph Cheshunt, 4thp Enfield Town, 4-6tph Alexandra Palace, 4tph Chingford or so. Cambridge possibly too.

That seems a little excessive on the branches (and with a lot of construction to serve Enfield and Cheshunt, which would be better staying Liverpool Street). 12tph will be to Ally Pally and 4tph to Hertford East. Another 4tph to Harlow, and a further 4tph to Stansted (Tottenham Hale, Broxbourne and Harlow then all stops). That leaves however many you want (can't see more than 4tph) Stratford - Cheshunt, 4tph Liverpool Street - Stansted fast, 2tph Liverpool Street - Cambridge fast. Off peak you can merge the Harlows and Stansteds into one 4tph service to give 8tph WAML, which can work with 8tph reduced Ally Pallys. Then again, how will that work off-peak at the southern end, unless you have shuttles or peak only-branches (you could drop down to 20tph, but less than that and you are dropping to 2tph)

But frequencies will need to match the southern ones, and tube ones - so at minimum 24tph.

Short turns? And to be fair it was off-peak, so you probably will be down to 16tph in the core (like Crossrail).

 

[cle]

Is Crossrail only 16tph off peak? Didn't know that.

Perhaps an alterantive would be a station at Soho/Cambridge Circus, interchanging with no lines. It would still relieve a lot of tube lines, but I think Crossrails 1 and 2 would be mandated to meet.

But a TCR station under Charing Cross Road would do this job at 12 cars, with a Southern entrance built into that horrid Belgium restaurant. Would relieve Covent Garden tube too, being so close to Seven Dials.

In terms of branches, I'm no expert on the line, I just threw those out as possibilities. It seems Brimsdown is to be a turnback soon for Stratford trains, so that could be a short turn for 4tph?

 

[si404]

Hang on, that's Thameslink that'll be 16tph off-peak.

Crossrail's pre-London & SE RUS service pattern dropped the Shenfield branch from 18tph (6tph Liverpool St HL) to 6tph, and west of Paddington from 10tph to 6tph, which implys a cut down to 18tph or less - maybe even 12tph. Adding in HEx, Reading and maybe the GWML won't change it above that, but won't let it fall below 16tph.

Cambridge Circus might be a bit too far east, but that's about right as a location - if you don't serve Piccadilly Circus, you need to serve the Chinatown area.

James - interchanging with the JLE isn't really needed. Diverting via Green Park or Westminster is going to really slow up the route - especially if regional.

 

[JamesRowden]

After looking on Google maps I think that if Crossrail 2 went via Victoria and Kings Cross then it should have just one station in between the two (since the Victoria line already offers connections to other Underground lines). I think it should be either Tottenham Court Road or Oxford Circus.

Tottenham Court Road would have the advantage of having Crossrail services.

Oxford Circus would connect it with the Bakerloo line (which presently has spare capacity) which runs to Baker Street which has a very quick connection to the Jubilee line (parrallel platforms) and access to all Metropolitan line services. Oxford Circus will also have connections to Crossrail suburban and National Rail services at Paddington and Marylebone via the Bakerloo Line and offer connections to Crossrail suburban and National rail services at Liverpool Street and Stratford via the Central Line.

Oxford Circus and Tottenham Court Road have the Bakerloo Line and Northern Line respectively as routes to Charing Cross and Waterloo but from what I understand there are more capacity issues on the Northern (This might change if the Bakerloo line takes over South London metro service(s) as an extension).

 

[cle]

Why is the Jubilee so particularly important to interchange with once Crossrail 1 is open and takes on a huge amount of Canary Wharf traffic?

 

[JamesRowden]

Why is the Jubilee so particularly important to interchange with once Crossrail 1 is open and takes on a huge amount of Canary Wharf traffic?

I do not think that it is. It is just usefull for Crossrail 2 to have good connections with other routes.

 

[Manchester77]

After looking on Google maps I think that if Crossrail 2 went via Victoria and Kings Cross then it should have just one station in between the two (since the Victoria line already offers connections to other Underground lines). I think it should be either Tottenham Court Road or Oxford Circus.

Tottenham Court Road would have the advantage of having Crossrail services.

Oxford Circus would connect it with the Bakerloo line (which presently has spare capacity) which runs to Baker Street which has a very quick connection to the Jubilee line (parrallel platforms) and access to all Metropolitan line services. Oxford Circus will also have connections to Crossrail suburban and National Rail services at Paddington and Marylebone via the Bakerloo Line and offer connections to Crossrail suburban and National rail services at Liverpool Street and Stratford via the Central Line.

Oxford Circus and Tottenham Court Road have the Bakerloo Line and Northern Line respectively as routes to Charing Cross and Waterloo but from what I understand there are more capacity issues on the Northern (This might change if the Bakerloo line takes over South London metro service(s) as an extension).

Oxford Circus is too busy to cope with the rebuilding it would need for X-rail2. TCR is supposed to be built with provision for Crossrail 2 and would provide interchange between Crossrail 1.