SWML Strategic Study

[swt_passenger]

The 5th track was never investigated in any detail. It’s actually easier, cheaper (and much less disruptive) to build 6.

But then 6 tracking still doesn’t seem to be a suggested alternative?

 

[Bald Rick]

But then 6 tracking still doesn’t seem to be a suggested alternative?

Sorry I should have said, 6 tracking only works with Crossrail 2, 5 tracking doesn’t work at all!

 

[swt_passenger]

Sorry I should have said, 6 tracking only works with Crossrail 2, 5 tracking doesn’t work at all!

Oh, right. That seems a more likely explanation doesn’t it...

 

[LUYMun]

I wrote to my MP, (Maria Miller MP for Basingstoke) over a year ago asking for her to support Crossrail 2. Got a disappointing reply.

What did she exactly say in her reply? Curious to know.

 

[The Ham]

What did she exactly say in her reply? Curious to know.

I don't know what she said, however another local MP was supportive of extending Crossrail (via Reading) to Basingstoke as they thought that it would provide capacity to the SWML by giving people an option to get to The City of London.

That was until I pointed out that it would still be faster to go via Waterloo and change trains, to which the DfT agreed when the MP forwarded it to them to confirm.

 

[DerekC]

The 5th track was never investigated in any detail. It’s actually easier, cheaper (and much less disruptive) to build 6.

I have a copy of a preliminary assessment of a 5th track from Esher to Waterloo carried out in 2011-14. It looks at two options for embanked sections where the right of way isn't wide enough - one with the 5th track on a concrete deck on bored piles and the other extending the embankment. It assumes demolition of the Nine Elms viaduct, demolition and rebuilding of the LBSC viaduct and the Wimbledon flyover, an independent tram station at Wimbledon allowing the current platforms to be reallocated. Total costs were estimated at between £1.215 and £1.266 Billion - which seems cheap at half the price! Track layouts as below.

Now why would building two more tracks be cheaper than one?

 

[Ianno87]

.

Now why would building two more tracks be cheaper than one?

I'd guess they'd only be outwards of Wimbledon, and Crossrail 2 does the hard work inwards of there.

 

[kevin_roche]

What did she exactly say in her reply? Curious to know.

I will look for her letter. I'm not sure I kept it though.

 

[zwk500]

Now why would building two more tracks be cheaper than one?

This may not be correct, but possibly 6 tracks allows for a much simpler S&C setup compared to the drawings you showed. Simplifying the S&C would remove A LOT of cost.

 

[Bald Rick]

Now why would building two more tracks be cheaper than one?

Firstly, as @Ianno87 says, the length of 6 track is only New Malden to Wimbledon, compared to the 5th track which was Surbiton to Nine Elms.

Secondly, line diagrams don’t help explain the level of disruption. For 5 tracks there would need to be extensive slueing of all the tracks at various locations to keep it within (roughly) the existing boundary. But there’s also extensive Civils works needed at Wimbledon (Durnsford Rd flyover is rebuilt), Earlsfield, and through the cutting south of Clapham. Extraordinarily disruptive locally, and to the train service. In comparison, tracks 5 and 6 are ‘simply’ built either side of the formation, and largely done separate from the existing railway. Clearly there is some work to tie it in, and Raynes Park is a big job, but all that can be done under cover of the disruption needed to rebuild Wimbledon for Crossrail 2.

Thirdly, the 5th track work was very cursory, and there was no construction methodology done (there never is at that stage of development). It is easy to sssume that you can fit extra tracks in the boundary fence where there is space, but actually building the thing needs more space. Lots more space.

 

[infobleep]

There is a good summary of the situation on the Ian Visits website.

Crossrail 2 critical to prevent overloading of trains into Waterloo

Anyone who has squashed onto a train heading to Waterloo in the morning knows that the line is packed, and a report from Network Rail has looked at what can be done to improve things, in the short term, and up to 2050.

www.ianvisits.co.uk

Interesting how they are looking to cut services right now but in the study, predict capacity limits will be reached by the mid-20s. That's from 2025 I imagine and we are over halfway through 2021.

I'm not saying services don't shouldn't be cut right now but they will need some plan and metrics in place to consider how they increase them again in line with rising passenger numbers and that needs to be in the final plan they draw up, ain't it doesn't have to be ridges dates.

 

[The Ham]

Interesting how they are looking to cut services right now but in the study, predict capacity limits will be reached by the mid-20s. That's from 2025 I imagine and we are over halfway through 2021.

I'm not saying services don't shouldn't be cut right now but they will need some plan and metrics in place to consider how they increase them again in line with rising passenger numbers and that needs to be in the final plan they draw up, ain't it doesn't have to be ridges dates.

What has to be borne in mind is that the target is to seat everybody from Woking, so as to not exceed the capacity of the train (due to "not being able to stand for more than 20 minutes"), as such not the same as the same number of passengers as pre Covid.

That said pre Covid want really all that great, with the maps showing trains with people not standing between Basingstoke and Farnborough probably only due the fact it's average loadings and the 4tph which served Farnborough had plenty of seats over at least some of that section.

 

[infobleep]

Crossrail 2 is very much a London centric project, which also benefits Surrey, Hampshire, Hertfordshire (+ Essex and Cambridgeshire).

This has always been the case, and TfL, Mayor, DfT and Treasury are very much aware of the fact. Hence the proposed 50:50 split of funding.

The benefit I see of Crossrail 2, without any changes at Clapham Junction, is for more fast commuter trains into Waterloo. I doubt the commuters on these fast trains will be able to make use of Crossrail 2, unless there is a connection onto it somewhere, which isn't far outside of London.

Perhaps that is no different to Reading and Crossrail 1. I'm not sure.

I love the idea of being able to get onto Crossrail 2 and avoid Waterloo.

 

[Horizon22]

The benefit I see of Crossrail 2, without any changes at Clapham Junction, is for more fast commuter trains into Waterloo. I doubt the commuters on these fast trains will be able to make use of Crossrail 2, unless there is a connection onto it somewhere, which isn't far outside of London.

Perhaps that is no different to Reading and Crossrail 1. I'm not sure.

I love the idea of being able to get onto Crossrail 2 and avoid Waterloo.

Yes this is a bit of a difference with Crossrail 1 v 2. The former will go through Paddington so everyone will be able to change eventually. The latter (planned route) goes through Clapham Junction and Victoria the former of which of course not all peak trains of course call at so you couldn't even change for Victoria, Not sure CR2 would ease capacity enough to allow every fast train to call at Clapham Junction either as its somewhat unrelated in that regard.

 

[The Ham]

Yes this is a bit of a difference with Crossrail 1 v 2. The former will go through Paddington so everyone will be able to change eventually. The latter (planned route) goes through Clapham Junction and Victoria the former of which of course not all peak trains of course call at so you couldn't even change for Victoria, Not sure CR2 would ease capacity enough to allow every fast train to call at Clapham Junction either as its somewhat unrelated in that regard.

However the study looks at what could be done to allow all trains to call at Clapham Junction.

It's discussed in section 6.2.9 and there's diagrams at figure 27, figure 27 (there's two with the same number I'm not repeating myself) and figure 28.

 

[Horizon22]

However the study looks at what could be done to allow all trains to call at Clapham Junction.

It's discussed in section 6.2.9 and there's diagrams at figure 27, figure 27 (there's two with the same number I'm not repeating myself) and figure 28.

Indeed, just saying they're not directly related to one and other. If that's the case though it definitely makes Crossrail 2 more attractive proposition for the wider Southeast.

 

[The Ham]

Indeed, just saying they're not directly related to one and other. If that's the case though it definitely makes Crossrail 2 more attractive proposition for the wider Southeast.

Even without the improvements at Clapham Junction, Crossrail 2 would allow 7 extra mainline services (i.e. those beyond Woking) which would be quite a bonus, that's nearly +50% for every service which sees 2tph

Those current services being roughly:
Basingstoke Stoppers
Salisbury/Exeter
Southampton
Bournemouth
Alton
Portsmouth
Portsmouth/Portsmouth line

That could put everywhere on a 20 minute frequency, and make it almost a turn up and service.

Now it's likely that Portsmouth would struggle to have that many services, likewise it's likely that there would be calls for other routes to see other improvements (although lines like to Reading would probably be limited by level crossing capacity).

However I suspect we're likely to see some of the thinking as to what will run to where on the beyond Woking report when that's published.

 

[Horizon22]

Oh of course, Crossrail 2 would have the benefit of opening up capacity and should form a major part of service provision along the SWMR; I think the report rather shies away from this but perhaps they are being realistic about funding for it in the near future. Still extra services are only going to be reliable as your worst pinch point. Regarding the extra mainline services, I was more referring to the change onto Crossrail 2 yet avoiding Waterloo that @infobleep was talking about earlier as being ideal - these services wouldn't benefit from that without a Clapham Jct call.

 

[Bald Rick]

Not sure CR2 would ease capacity enough to allow every fast train to call at Clapham Junction either as its somewhat unrelated in that regard.

CR2 doesn’t do anything for peak Main line Clapham Jn calls, with the exception that because the slow lines are freed up, some trains that currently go fast line in the peak would instead be on the slows and thus would call. These are those that currently run slow line to Surbiton before swapping to the fasts - post CR2 these would all be on the slows.

 

[DerekC]

Firstly, as @Ianno87 says, the length of 6 track is only New Malden to Wimbledon, compared to the 5th track which was Surbiton to Nine Elms.

Secondly, line diagrams don’t help explain the level of disruption. For 5 tracks there would need to be extensive slueing of all the tracks at various locations to keep it within (roughly) the existing boundary. But there’s also extensive Civils works needed at Wimbledon (Durnsford Rd flyover is rebuilt), Earlsfield, and through the cutting south of Clapham. Extraordinarily disruptive locally, and to the train service. In comparison, tracks 5 and 6 are ‘simply’ built either side of the formation, and largely done separate from the existing railway. Clearly there is some work to tie it in, and Raynes Park is a big job, but all that can be done under cover of the disruption needed to rebuild Wimbledon for Crossrail 2.

Thirdly, the 5th track work was very cursory, and there was no construction methodology done (there never is at that stage of development). It is easy to sssume that you can fit extra tracks in the boundary fence where there is space, but actually building the thing needs more space. Lots more space.

I think the 5 track versus 6 track comparison is a bit of a red herring and all the plans are at preliminary stage anyway. (The 5th track study specifically excluded slueing except where the configuration changes.) According to my reading of the situation you might need six tracks from New Malden to Wimbledon and five tracks from Wimbledon eastwards - viz:

1. As I understand it Crossrail 2 will have separate alignment as far as the tunnel portals somewhere between Wimbledon and Raynes Park (does anybody have detail of that?). Presumably six tracks are going to be needed as far as Raynes Park so that Chessington South and Epsom trains don't interact with the main line, but the SWML strategic study diagrams don't show Raynes Park at all and only four tracks from the Crossrail 2 connection south-westwards. I can understand that six tracks may well be needed as far as New Malden but that doesn't seem to be clear in the plans we are talking about. Does anyone have any info on this?
2. The Crossrail 2 NIC submission says that , even with the Crossrail 2 Regional option (which is what we are talking about) you need five tracks from Wimbledon eastwards, or the equivalent capacity delivered by ETCS + ATO. The SWML strategic study doesn't talk about the fifth track, just concentrating on ETCS (ATO is probably not discussable for IR reasons at present), but presumably it is still there as an option if the learned signallers of NR decide that ETCS won't deliver the capacity.

 

[infobleep]

Indeed, just saying they're not directly related to one and other. If that's the case though it definitely makes Crossrail 2 more attractive proposition for the wider Southeast.

Personally speaking, and maybe this is selfish, I will only see Crossrail 2 as a benefit if I can make use of it and I live in Surrey. So when they say it will benefit people in Surrey, I won't see it as it benefitting me.

I use to regularly boars the 18:46 Clapham Junction to Poole service when it was 5 carriages and it was busy when it left Waterloo, so I'm used to travelling on busy trains

Compared to the 8:24 Clapham Junction to Milton Kynes though, that was a walk in the park. I was going between Harrow and Guildford at the time.

 

[evergreenadam]

I don't know what she said, however another local MP was supportive of extending Crossrail (via Reading) to Basingstoke as they thought that it would provide capacity to the SWML by giving people an option to get to The City of London.

That was until I pointed out that it would still be faster to go via Waterloo and change trains, to which the DfT agreed when the MP forwarded it to them to confirm.

I certainly think Reading to Basingstoke should be electrified, allowing through electric services to Portsmouth and Southampton which I imagine would be quite popular as Reading is such a large economic centre with rail connections to the north, west and east. Dual voltage rolling stock would be required as any extension of electrification is likely to be 25kv overhead rather than DC third rail.

I don’t think Crossrail to Basingstoke would be appropriate as the journey time to Paddington would be too long and the rolling stock poorly suited for long distance commuting.

 

[zwk500]

I certainly think Reading to Basingstoke should be electrified, allowing through electric services to Portsmouth and Southampton which I imagine would be quite popular as Reading is such a large economic centre with rail connections to the north, west and east. Dual voltage rolling stock would be required as any extension of electrification is likely to be 25kv overhead rather than DC third rail.

I don’t think Crossrail to Basingstoke would be appropriate as the journey time to Paddington would be too long and the rolling stock poorly suited for long distance commuting.

I agree it should be electrified, and it will be OLE until just outside Basingstoke (Probably a short section of Dual-systems, with OLE into the bay and 3rd rail about 1/2 mile towards Reading). However I'm not sure that Portsmouth would really show much demand, and Southampton already has the XC services which would need new trains to go electric. However the existing local service of 2tph, + bi-mode potential for freight and XC is an excellent reason to do it unless there's a big structures problem.

XR to basingstoke would be somewhat mad, as you'd be cramming up the bottleneck between Reading Oxford Road Jn and Southcote Jn. Also, if XR2 ever comes along it'd be pointless.

 

[Horizon22]

I agree it should be electrified, and it will be OLE until just outside Basingstoke (Probably a short section of Dual-systems, with OLE into the bay and 3rd rail about 1/2 mile towards Reading). However I'm not sure that Portsmouth would really show much demand, and Southampton already has the XC services which would need new trains to go electric. However the existing local service of 2tph, + bi-mode potential for freight and XC is an excellent reason to do it unless there's a big structures problem.

XR to basingstoke would be somewhat mad, as you'd be cramming up the bottleneck between Reading Oxford Road Jn and Southcote Jn. Also, if XR2 ever comes along it'd be pointless.

Plus it would be no quicker to “the city” as XR Reading - Paddington is already about 50 minutes so maybe add on another 10 for C.London and 25 down to Basingstoke. And yes, CR2 would probably be on the cards bt then.

Electrification yes, that’s a no-brainier.

 

[HSTEd]

I'm of the opinion that stopping all trains at Clapham Junction will be essential in the future - largely people to use the WLL to easily transfer to Old Oak Common for GWML and HS2 services.

That can conceivably nick a significant fraction of XC demand anyway.

 

[Meerkat]

I'm of the opinion that stopping all trains at Clapham Junction will be essential in the future - largely people to use the WLL to easily transfer to Old Oak Common for GWML and HS2 services.

That can conceivably nick a significant fraction of XC demand anyway.

How do you get to OOC from Clapham Junction?
An unfunded aspiration for a station on the WLL that will be a external walk from OOC as I understand it? Not very inviting (just put a people mover from Willesden and stop everything there too….in another thread somewhere…)

 

[The Ham]

I'm of the opinion that stopping all trains at Clapham Junction will be essential in the future - largely people to use the WLL to easily transfer to Old Oak Common for GWML and HS2 services.

That can conceivably nick a significant fraction of XC demand anyway.

Of course much of the SWML could gain access to Old Oak Common if the Southern Approach to Heathrow.

 

[LUYMun]

How do you get to OOC from Clapham Junction?
An unfunded aspiration for a station on the WLL that will be a external walk from OOC as I understand it? Not very inviting (just put a people mover from Willesden and stop everything there too….in another thread somewhere…)

Two new stations will be built on each of the London Overground branches just short of Willesden Junction, one at Old Oak Common Lane on the North London Line for Richmond, and one at Hythe Road on the West London Line for Clapham Junction. They will still offer out of station interchange, but it's much less of a gruelling walk and offer step-free access from the street to the platform. There will also be a terminating bay platform at Hythe Road for terminating Overground trains.

 

[Bald Rick]

Two new stations will be built on each of the London Overground branches just short of Willesden Junction, one at Old Oak Common Lane on the North London Line for Richmond, and one at Hythe Road on the West London Line for Clapham Junction. They will still offer out of station interchange, but it's much less of a gruelling walk and offer step-free access from the street to the platform. There will also be a terminating bay platform at Hythe Road for terminating Overground trains.

These are just proposals, nothing confirmed, nor funded.

 

[Meerkat]

Two new stations will be built on each of the London Overground branches just short of Willesden Junction, one at Old Oak Common Lane on the North London Line for Richmond, and one at Hythe Road on the West London Line for Clapham Junction. They will still offer out of station interchange, but it's much less of a gruelling walk and offer step-free access from the street to the platform. There will also be a terminating bay platform at Hythe Road for terminating Overground trains.

Are those stations funded? It must be getting on for a 500m walk through unfamiliar streets - can’t see it being popular with infrequent travellers. Use the money for an OOC-Willesden people mover if there is any money.
but getting back on topic I don’t think it needs OOC to justify more stops at Clapham Junction