My thoughts on why Crossrail should not have been built

[Bald Rick]

Crossrail was first thought of in the 1930s and has had several false starts. If there was something better to solve the problems it is designed to solve, you would have thought that 'they' would have worked it out in the intervening 8 decades.

In any event, the Crossrail tunnels actually cost rather less than £4bn.

Although to be fair, CERN wasted their money on the Large Hadron Collider. There's been one on the road outside my house these last few weeks, at least I think that's what it is....

 

[Class 170101]

There was another scheme that did the rounds during the early years of the last decade called Superlink
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superlink_(railway_network)

At the time it was led by Michael Schabas and Chris Stokes. It was meant to be more of an Regional RER type scheme than an urban London based scheme but it did not find favour with the Mayor of London.

 

[quantinghome]

There was another scheme that did the rounds during the early years of the last decade called Superlink
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superlink_(railway_network)

At the time it was led by Michael Schabas and Chris Stokes. It was meant to be more of an Regional RER type scheme than an urban London based scheme but it did not find favour with the Mayor of London.

Superlink was planned to be even more expensive than crossrail; presumably not the kind of alternative the OP had in mind. Also, crossrail is looking a bit more like Superlink now it's going to Reading and plans for WCML.

 

[Class 170101]

It would have been more expensive but the argument was that the BCR was better than Crossrail it also claimed to provide more capacity than the current Crossrail scheme. I got the feeling it might have do so but it was never going to get the support of the mayor of London as most of the benefits were to services not under the Mayor's remit rather than services under his remit.

 

[Kettledrum]

OK, I'm going to be brutally honest here:

I don't see the point of Crossrail. It's basically just a second Central Line. I'm sure there were lots of more cost-effective solutions to overcrowding. The money would be spent better up north.

The Large Hadron Collider was cheaper to build than Crossrail, and is longer and cheaper.

So I think that we shouldn't have bothered with Crossrail and should have spent the money on these railway lines.

It takes ages to get infrastructure projects approved and off the ground. Way longer than in many other countries. As part of the decision making process, the project is scrutinised and reviewed over and over again by some of the finest transport brains in the country - including by some on this forum.

Whilst you might not agree with the whole Crossrail project, you can be assured that the decision to build was informed by lots of information and intelligence. It's the total opposite to the way the Beeching decisions were taken in the past, using poor quality evidence and forecasting.

Population and business growth meant that doing nothing was not an option for Crossrail - but it's got to the stage where doing nothing is not an option for the North either.

 

[Camden]

OK, I'm going to be brutally honest here:

I don't see the point of Crossrail. It's basically just a second Central Line. I'm sure there were lots of more cost-effective solutions to overcrowding. The money would be spent better up north.

The Large Hadron Collider was cheaper to build than Crossrail, and is longer and cheaper.

So I think that we shouldn't have bothered with Crossrail and should have spent the money on these railway lines.

If every tube is full, and you can't run any more of them, then what else can be done except build another line to take the strain.

I'm sure there could have been something more efficient.

Like?

You might be being "brutally honest" as you see it, but you haven't made any intelligent points as yet. Your argument seems to be based solely on resentment, not fact or need.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

I'm sure there could have been something more efficient.

I've worked your plan out - what you propose to do is to remove the need for Crossrail by moving all the jobs to somewhere that has un-crowded and underutilised transport infrastructure (say, for example, Inverness?).

This is a cunning plan with a zero infrastructure cost and deals with unemployment outside London at a stroke!

Genius!

 

[TheNewNo2]

And yet Crossrail's tunnels are shorter and smaller, but were pricier to build.

It really annoys me how much infrastructure people get in London compared to the north. It really is very frustrating.

I've worked your plan out - what you propose to do is to remove the need for Crossrail by moving all the jobs to somewhere that has un-crowded and underutilised transport infrastructure (say, for example, Inverness?).

This is a cunning plan with a zero infrastructure cost and deals with unemployment outside London at a stroke!

Genius!

It would also help decrease London rents!

 

[The Planner]

To be fair, unless you argue with other sensible ideas or thoughts instead of an outright statement you are going to be caught with your pants down on a forum like this.

 

[Busaholic]

Didn't the Large Hadron Collider crash after a few days, then rendered inoperable for a couple of years. Can't imagine the same fate for Crossrail.

It could also be said that Crossrail will take lots of traffic off the Hammersmith and City, relieve long-distance overcrowding on the Jubilee to Canary Wharf with the the interchange at Green Park and ease pressure on the 205 bus route!

 

[telstarbox]

Bond Street, Oxford Circus and Totty Court Road, after CrossRail do you think it will get slightly quieter at these stations, stay about the same or just get worse?

The change to people's commutes will be interesting, to say the least. I am of course not a London area commuter, so it's all academic to me, but it's interesting to look at from an outsider perspective.

[sarcasm]Of course, if we have no room below ground, there's only one solution left. Monorail, monorail, monorail... [/sarcasm]

In the short term Oxford Circus might become quieter as Central passengers transfer to Bond Street or TCR, and there are fewer Bakerloo passengers from Paddington. It's about a five minute walk from Oxford Circus to the other two (without crowds!) Also, the new stations will have entrances closer to Oxford Circus than the existing ones.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Didn't the Large Hadron Collider crash after a few days, then rendered inoperable for a couple of years. Can't imagine the same fate for Crossrail.

It sprung a leak. CrossRail are using Bombardier stock, so I can well imagine the same fate for CrossRail.

 

[najaB]

Didn't the Large Hadron Collider crash after a few days, then rendered inoperable for a couple of years. Can't imagine the same fate for Crossrail.

AISTR, while it did have teething problems that wasn't why it shut down after the initial investigations were complete. As initially built, it only had approximately half-power available, the two-year shutdown had always been on the cards to install the full-power magnetic system.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I agree, pure particle physics research is a useless. After all, it's not like it's brought anything useful. Except PET and MRI scans. Oh and ion beam cancer treatments. Then I suppose there's X-ray crystallography. Protein analysis with synchrotron light sources...

Stop telling the truth - never let facts get in the way of a good beatch

 

[Techniquest]

Bond Street, Oxford Circus and Totty Court Road, after CrossRail do you think it will get slightly quieter at these stations, stay about the same or just get worse?

The change to people's commutes will be interesting, to say the least. I am of course not a London area commuter, so it's all academic to me, but it's interesting to look at from an outsider perspective.

[sarcasm]Of course, if we have no room below ground, there's only one solution left. Monorail, monorail, monorail... [/sarcasm]

In the short term Oxford Circus might become quieter as Central passengers transfer to Bond Street or TCR, and there are fewer Bakerloo passengers from Paddington. It's about a five minute walk from Oxford Circus to the other two (without crowds!) Also, the new stations will have entrances closer to Oxford Circus than the existing ones.

I must admit I've never walked along that bit of London so I never knew they could potentially be walked in that time.

It'll be interesting for sure to see how it goes, I reckon it will go quieter to begin with at Oxford Circus but we'll see. It's not normally too bad for me when I interchange there as I usually move to the Victoria line, but I can only imagine the crowds in Central London on the Central line. It was busy enough at 0700 at Gants Hill a couple of Monday mornings OK, and Stratford looked...fun! Mind you the rammed solid pair of 315s that thankfully emptied out looked nasty!

 

[AM9]

Didn't the Large Hadron Collider crash after a few days, then rendered inoperable for a couple of years. Can't imagine the same fate for Crossrail.

It could also be said that Crossrail will take lots of traffic off the Hammersmith and City, relieve long-distance overcrowding on the Jubilee to Canary Wharf with the the interchange at Green Park and ease pressure on the 205 bus route!

Another big change to traffic flows will be enabled by the Crossrail intercange at Farringdon. Here Thameslink passengers will have rapid access to the GWML services, Canary Wharf, and Stratford, (possibly quicker than via HS1 SE trains).

 

[petersi]

There is to a Bond Street station entrance in Hanover square which is only 3 minutes walk from Oxford station

The reason I belie they did not link to Oxford Circus station is avoid adding to the congestion there

 

[tbtc]

If Beeching had closed Crossrail, you'd all want it open

But, seriously, it's a line linking two of London's busiest termini, linking two of Europe's main financial districts, linking two Airports (well, London City is a stone's throw from Custom House)...

...what's not to love about it?

The north needs investment, and it's starting to happen with Lancashire and Transpennine electrification and other projects, but there's no way that investment should come forward instead of Crossrail.

Look at TfL's annual passenger numbers: 20 million at Bond Street, 99 million at Oxford Circus and 37 million at Tottenham Court Road. Dividing this crudely by the number of lines at each station gives 62 million passengers using the Central line at just these three stations - about the same as Manchester Piccadilly (24m), Leeds City (28m) and Liverpool Lime Street (13m) put together and all on a twin track railway

Good points.

I'm all for investment in Yorkshire, believe me, but the numbers in/around London make investment in heavy rail much more compelling. If these three stops on the Underground have the same passenger numbers as (arguably) the three main stations in northern England then the question isn't "should we build Crossrail" but instead "how the heck has it taken us so long to build it".

It is often stated that Crossrail is an answer to overcrowding (which it is, and I have no problem with that). But it does nothing at address the major underlying problem, that the economy of the South East is growing at an exponential rate that will become unsustainable (if it isn't already). It is argued that this is damaging to the UK as a whole

I agree with you regarding the state of the UK economy; I just think that rail has to reflect modern day demand, and I don't think that it's rail's job to tackle these much wider issues that may take generations to change.

There was another scheme that did the rounds during the early years of the last decade called Superlink
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superlink_(railway_network)

At the time it was led by Michael Schabas and Chris Stokes. It was meant to be more of an Regional RER type scheme than an urban London based scheme but it did not find favour with the Mayor of London.

I was in favour of Superlink when I first heard of it - much more ambitious - but I think that the "simpler" version probably makes more sense now - I think it'd get quite messy to have all of the different branches - given the concerns that people are having about Thameslink disruptions screwing up services across a large swathe of the south east.

If every tube is full, and you can't run any more of them, then what else can be done except build another line to take the strain

Agreed - this one line will relieve pressure on three busy east-west links (the northern section of the Circle Line, the central section of the Central Line and the eastern section of the Jubilee). It'll relieve pressure on the DLR, on SE, it'll provide Heathrow and Canary Wharf with heavy rail services into the heart of London (and to each other).

I don't think that there is any alternative (or ever has been, really)

 

[DarloRich]

OK, I'm going to be brutally honest here:

I don't see the point of Crossrail. It's basically just a second Central Line. I'm sure there were lots of more cost-effective solutions to overcrowding. The money would be spent better up north.

The Large Hadron Collider was cheaper to build than Crossrail, and is longer and cheaper.

So I think that we shouldn't have bothered with Crossrail and should have spent the money on these railway lines.

:roll: thanks for that incisive commentary. You haven't even outlined anything to support your supposition. :roll:

Evidence - present your supporting evidence.

 

[TheNewNo2]

One of the great things about democracy is that, in principle, matters are decided by reasoned debate. For instance someone (perhaps) thought "I'd like to go from Reading to Shenfield directly", and, over the years, they persuaded people that this was a good idea. They then had studies performed which showed the politicians that it was a good idea and they said "ok". They showed it to engineers who said "we can do that".

You are welcome to be against Crossrail for whatever reason you like, however if your stance is to just say "nuh uh" to all the evidence that has been produced showing it's a good idea, you'll be treated with exactly the respect you deserve.

 

[matt_world2004]

I think they made a mistake not four tracking crosrail for 24 hour running.

 

[JaJaWa]

I've worked your plan out - what you propose to do is to remove the need for Crossrail by moving all the jobs to somewhere that has un-crowded and underutilised transport infrastructure (say, for example, Inverness?).

This is a cunning plan with a zero infrastructure cost and deals with unemployment outside London at a stroke!

Genius!

Un-crowded and under-utilised? I've lived in cities in the United Kingdom outside London. Their bus network and tram networks hardly copes as is, and they really need proper underground systems to cope the current population, let alone a significant increase.

What form would a new underground railway system take in these places? Oh yeah. Crossrail.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Some of us worked hard from 1992 - 1996 to get Crossrail 1 moving (only for it to be culled by the combination of the 1994 Act and a certain cadre of politicians)

The case was made then (even with a fall in commuting numbers) - the case is even greater now with the rise in economic activity.

And ideas of a "Crossrail" via the Circle line were - and are bonkers

 

[Oswyntail]

...I agree with you regarding the state of the UK economy; I just think that rail has to reflect modern day demand, and I don't think that it's rail's job to tackle these much wider issues that may take generations to change.....

I agree about current rail provision, and the changes to it to reflect current demand. But I also think that massive investment projects can, and should, be used as the drivers of social and economic change. In the case of Crossrail, I suspect that, had an HS2/3 type alternative been developed when it was first mooted, there would not now be the intense problems in the SE for which Crossrail is an answer.

 

[gordonthemoron]

Crossrail/Thameslink should have been done in the 70s, when Paris was building the RER network

 

[JaJaWa]

Crossrail/Thameslink should have been done in the 70s, when Paris was building the RER network

I think Crossrail has greatly benefitted in being so delayed it ended up with TfL rather than a TOC like the earlier Thameslink did however.

 

[AM9]

Crossrail/Thameslink should have been done in the 70s, when Paris was building the RER network

And Thameslink's success in relieving St Pancras' original limited turnaround capability probably helped the case for Crossrail in some small way. Just as Crossrail's inevitable success will drive support for Crossrail 2.
The RER started with incorporating the electrified line to Sceaux plus the building of line A with its emphasis on station capacity which gratefully Crossrail has also treated as a priority. Clearly, Crossrail (1,2 & probably more) will effectively be London's RER, just 35 years late.

 

[telstarbox]

Some of us worked hard from 1992 - 1996 to get Crossrail 1 moving (only for it to be culled by the combination of the 1994 Act and a certain cadre of politicians)

The case was made then (even with a fall in commuting numbers) - the case is even greater now with the rise in economic activity.

And ideas of a "Crossrail" via the Circle line were - and are bonkers

So if that was 20 years ago, how have we managed since? Just maximising capacity on the Underground lines?

 

[matt_world2004]

So if that was 20 years ago, how have we managed since? Just maximising capacity on the Underground lines?

New rolling stock on the Underground, more intense working of the rolling stock currently using the underground improving frequencies, the jubilee line extension, DLR Extensions, Expansion of the East London Line into the national rail network, London Overground increasing capacity, more bus services, The Croydon tramlink, Oyster cards reducing dwell time, etc, etc.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

So if that was 20 years ago, how have we managed since? Just maximising capacity on the Underground lines?

Matt replied very comprehensively - the Underground has transformed capacity - 31/33 tph on the Central and Victoria lines being obvious examples - and to an extent the improvements made (and to come) into Liverpool Street and Paddington when major projects deliver.

Compare to New York - where I was on holiday last week - where the subway delivers at best a 4 min peak headway on the overcrowded 6 line (Lexington Avenue East) - and a 10 min interval on the *8th Avenue local. They are very tight on rolling stock - and have expansion and new trains plans. In fact the local media were urging more investment to keep pace with Europe !