-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Should we build Crossrail 2?
- Thread starter The Ham
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
richard1976
Member
Think they need to finish Crossrail 1 before they even think about Crossrail 2
samuelmorris
Established Member
Yes it needs doing. Sooner than planned would be preferable but I don't consider that realistic, especially in light of how Crossrail 1 turned out. Thinking about how long it'll be before it happens, if it happens, by then it'll be almost as essential as Crossrail 1 is/will be. 12 years (probably 15 in practice, if it happens at all) is a long time for passenger demand to grow, and despite Brexit / the general poor performance of the rail industry of late, I do still believe demand will grow year on year. If HS2 isn't canned, Crossrail 2 will be especially important.
I think it's a real shame they can't roll expertise, contractors and machinery off of CR1 and straight on to CR2.
Yes - As long as TfL are paying for it!
I cannot see how it could generate more than a minimal benefit outside the TfL area. On the other hand, this is the sort of thing that congestion charge/low emission zone/etc... fees should be set aside to pay for.
I would point out that it's due to, by removing metro service, provide 8tph which are likely to run to places beyond Woking.
These could run to quite a range of places, pretty much anywhere within the SWR network, such could include (end points of) Bristol, Exeter, Weymouth, Southampton, Portsmouth, Alton, Reading, Basingstoke, etc. That's quite a spread of places well beyond the TFL area (although for at least some of them there's a need for additional infrastructure to increase services, such as grade separated junctions at Woking and Basingstoke).
LOL, you can't be serious. TfL's total income is £7bn a year and CR2 will cost £30bn. Central government doesn't allow TfL to borrow at those levels. You realise central government collects taxes from Londoners too, right? Like >95% of taxes collected in this country are collected by HMRC. Also, 30% of of UK tax is paid by people living in Greater London! So some central government money can be spent on London projects.
You can argue about apportionment all you like between North/South/London and I agree some more money should be spent on big projects elsewhere, but more to the point, it's okay to borrow for infrastructure building as long as you can show an ROI that generates GDP growth greater than the interest payments.
I tell you what, let's devolve income tax, stamp duty, capital gains and VAT to the regions and see how much money they all end up with to spend.
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 32,940
As The Ham has said, there are well documented benefits for the entire Wessex area, provided by freeing up at least 8 tph on the main fasts. Network Rail firmly believe that if Crossrail 2 is not built then they will need to provide extra track capacity between Surbiton and Waterloo to keep up with expected numbers into Waterloo.
The idea is that TfL will pay more than 50% of the cost including levys (as per CR1 and is being continued to CR2 unfortunately the CR2 business rates levy is being used to fund CR1 overruns).
Massive benefits on SWML and WAML corridors for those outside London including journey time reductions for those travelling beyond Waterloo/Liverpool Street.
CR1 needs to be completed and the ticket revenue* starting to come in before CR2 can move ahead. Cash flow wise £2.5bn a year construction spend is probably the limit of a sensible financial model.
*GW suburban routes are an absolute goldmine from this December...
Class 170101
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 8,393
It needs building but would suggest more substanial northern branches to Welwyn Garden City and Hertford East in my view. CR2 will also be needed to relieve pressure on Euston once HS2 arrives I would have thought otherwise there will be big queues onto other modes once off a HS2 train at Euson.
I would build Crossrail 2 as planned and Crossrail 3 from NW to SE, and maybe even Crossrail 4 as a new North-South line.
Waterloo (and the approach) is already a nightmare with train-jams. The only sensible solution is to tunnel in as planned.
Also a considerable amount of the passengers who would use this line are actually heading to their jobs in the City and Canary Wharf, so instead of changing at Waterloo (on the wrong side of the Thames) to get on the Tube, they would be travelling in further to the centre and probably changing on to the Elizabeth line etc, therefore reducing traffic on the legacy tube lines.
Also the majority of the commuters are going to reasonably well paid jobs that result in taxation for the Treasury.
Waterloo (and the approach) is already a nightmare with train-jams. The only sensible solution is to tunnel in as planned.
Also a considerable amount of the passengers who would use this line are actually heading to their jobs in the City and Canary Wharf, so instead of changing at Waterloo (on the wrong side of the Thames) to get on the Tube, they would be travelling in further to the centre and probably changing on to the Elizabeth line etc, therefore reducing traffic on the legacy tube lines.
Also the majority of the commuters are going to reasonably well paid jobs that result in taxation for the Treasury.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
Yes - next question
samuelmorris
Established Member
Surely the North-South line is basically Thameslink (and to a lesser extent, so too is NW to SE). If anything, the more likely outcome of NW-SE would be the mooted Bakerloo line extension to Hayes, rather than connecting the SE metro line directly to, I assume the WCML commuter services. This might sound a bit biased coming from someone directly benefitting (eventually) from the scheme but I think it's hard to find as much of a benefit from Crossrail-like schemes as we will from 1 - Crossrail 2 is probably the next best option, I think they've got it right in that sense.
I was thinking along the idea of (from NW to SE) Milton Keynes - all stops to Willesden Junction - enter tunnel - Baker Street - Tottenham Court Road - Bank - London Bridge - exit tunnel somewhere around Bermondsey where the lines from LB diverge. Idea being it might take some traffic away from the bottleneck at and to the west of LB.
From my experience of previously commuting into LB and changing onto the tube, a through service into Central London would be very welcome!
A problem with this is that passengers from Milton Keynes and the main towns between there and Willesden Junction won't take an all-stops service to London, they'd stick to the trains to Euston.
samuelmorris
Established Member
The problem I think you'd have is that these lines aren't really beneficial for being able to make journeys from one suburban area, through the capital and out into the other - it's usually quicker to use fast services and change - so much so that this outweighs the convenience gain of not having to change. The real gain is to eliminate changes, or directly serve, more destinations in central london for those people. Crossrail 1 being east-west and CR2 being a fairly shallow gradient southwest to northeast provide plenty of these such opportunities. With more of these routes, you'd have to find several central London stations to serve, which is, as you can see by how well CR1 is progressing, very complex, and will continue to increase in complexity the more that are produced. The gains have to be considerable to justify it, and I think there's definitely a case of diminishing returns here.
Noted with thanks!
How about Watford as the NW terminus instead of MK? I imagine there are plenty of options for the SE terminus (Orpington?)
Need be damned (for now). The underside of London is becoming swiss cheese, meanwhile outside of London only Manchester (and at a push Birmingham) gets the same level of focus on its infrastructure.
Part of "rebalancing" the country needs an acceptance that we're currently building infrastructure in London for demand that should be elsewhere.
Crossrail 2 is estimated at £30bn (read £60 bn!). Bin it off, and give £6bn cash each to Newcastle, Liverpool and Glasgow for exclusive spend on transport, £4bn each for exclusive spend on healthcare and education, and watch their economies fly.
Maybe it would damp down London demand, maybe it would fuel it further, but the country as a whole would find things like Crossrail 2 a lot more affordable with 6 net contributor major cities, rather than 1.5 (with the "1" being rather dubious at that).
Part of "rebalancing" the country needs an acceptance that we're currently building infrastructure in London for demand that should be elsewhere.
Crossrail 2 is estimated at £30bn (read £60 bn!). Bin it off, and give £6bn cash each to Newcastle, Liverpool and Glasgow for exclusive spend on transport, £4bn each for exclusive spend on healthcare and education, and watch their economies fly.
Maybe it would damp down London demand, maybe it would fuel it further, but the country as a whole would find things like Crossrail 2 a lot more affordable with 6 net contributor major cities, rather than 1.5 (with the "1" being rather dubious at that).
Watford is a much better option. Go through to Willesden Junction / OOC and then tunnel towards Paddington to connect with CR1, then perhaps down to Victoria before joining up with Southern / SE Metro world at a suitable location or serving areas like Camberwell and then joining up with existent routes.
I don't disagree that areas outside London need significant investment in infrastructure.
However using the 2011 census stats.
Greater London has a population of 9,787,426
Greater Manchester = 2,553,379
Greater West Mids = 2,440,986
Greater West Yorks = 1,777,934.
It's clear that demand is greatest in London and taxation raised in London subsidises other areas too.
Unfortunately in our post-industrial economy, that means that areas that lost out due to the decline of manufacturing (which hit northern cities more than it did London as manufacturing was less critical to London as it was the admin hub for the empire), need significant investment, but that doesn't mean that London should be held back to pay for it.
And in the case of infrastructure investment, the Government can ask the Bank of England to create the money in the same way they do for QE. There really is no fundamental problem with creating £ sterling for CAP EX.
samuelmorris
Established Member
If such a scheme happened, Watford Junction would be far more likely than MKC - the only other option further out I imagine would be Tring.
Really? Even with all the calamities that have befallen it, CR1 is still going to come in 20% over-budget, perhaps 30% at a push. Why would CR2 be so much more? (other than inflation).
As for the population figures, I think it's argued (and I would agree) that proportionately these other regions are still under-served. Thinking of all the London terminus stations during peak hours many with 20+ tph combined with all the tube and London bus usage, and compare it to the services available in those other areas, I don't think it's necessarily comparable. The only way that problem will be solved is a considerable increase in public spending allocated to public transport. Not likely in the next decade given the political situation we're heading towards at the moment.
Crossrail 1 core tunnel is 23km (2x11.5km), Crossrail 2 will be 32km (2x16km). CR2 will also need a very complex rebuild of Wimbledon station including land acquisition, and four tracking of the line from Tottenham Hale to Broxbourne with associated land acquisition. Nine underground stations in the CR2 core vs eight for CR1.
samuelmorris
Established Member
I agree it will be more, but one might argue the rebuilds of the existing central TfL stations were also extensive. That and the 40% extra length doesn't justify triple the price to me, or even double.
Indeed - Euston post-HS2 without Crossrail 2 doesn't bare thinking about.
There is no doubt that CR2 need some fine tuning (especially on the northern branches) but the general plan is in place and the longer we delay the more experience and skills learned from CR1 will be lost and the most the price keeps going up.
Last edited:
Class 170101
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 8,393
Should your last sentence actually refer to CR2 and CR1 instead of HS2 and HS1?
Class 170101
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 8,393
I think Construction resources would dictate that anyway.
Woops. Good spot. I have edited the post.
The titles are West Midlands and West Yorkshire, neither have "greater', and while the former is arguably a functional city area, the second is not.
This is a relevant point to make, because you seem to be getting confused between physical size (volume) and contribution (profit). It is highly debatable whether London does in fact make a profit, or whether if you strip away "the City" and the money shuffling whether it's actually a black hole.
Meanwhile, Greater Cambridge with its mere population of under 300,000 is one of the most profitable areas in the UK, and Leeds - in West Yorkshire - population just 780,000, enjoys one of the highest sets of earnings in the north.
It may be clear that at the moment demand is greatest in London, but that neither contains the evidence you think it does nor does it mean that state of affairs should carry on forevermore.
Your view of London's history vs elsewhere is somewhat rose tinted. Prior to the mid-eighties, London was in a very sorry state, and it continued to lose population every year from 1951 to the mid to late nineties. Your portrayal is of a place that naturally "won". While being the seat of government always helps, in fact its turnaround is simply the effect of urban design, policy and investment.
When Liverpool, Newcastle and Glasgow are individually bigger than some (wealthy) capital cities, and each lies in its own coastal region rich in varied natural resources useful in the modern age, the notion that modest investment of £10bn each couldn't rapidly double or even triple their net contributions just isn't credible, especially when we know the contributions are currently half of what they should be.
Last edited:
- Status