Will Crossrail2 Be Built In The Next 40 Years?

[sk688]

And ill refer the poster to my post on the previous page with the map of the old oak common station and surrounding area and will ask if they think thats enough connections on NW London to get anywhere they want?

Yep , that would definitely be enough . Just a shame OOC is such a trek from where I currently live

 

[sk688]

Okay, North Greenwich got a tube service out of the Millennium Dome, too far away for 90% of the SE London population, but to cite the cable car as an example of SE London having money thrown at it is risible. Another piffling Boris Johnson ego trip that only happened because of the Olympic Games being held in Stratford, which the last time I looked is very much north of the river. If the wretched Garden Bridge ever gets built, will that count as SE London having money thrown at it, as one end would land in a SE postal district?

The Bakerloo's passenger figures, by the way, show that parts of NW London get a better service than they may deserve!

Sorry , living so far near the edge of NW london , means almost everything seems like Central / South or East London , which is why I had difficulty considering Harlesden and OOC as NW London , as I consider that Inner/Central London

 

[Olaf]

I agree to an extent. I think having a few smaller projects on the go at any one time is not too bad and easier for NR to handle. For example EGIP, NW Scheme and possibly Birmingham area infills. But when combined with TPE, MML and the motherload of GWML plus Elizabeth line - wow that is a lot. It sounds great to a rail enthusiast like me - but just too much for NR probably.

I think they will/would get better but politicians have little patience especially when things go wrong. Oh well

Yes, I agree with that; I do not think work will enhancements will stop entirely, funds will be release for the smaller NR enhancements, and some of the bigger projects run by JVs, but I don't think there is going to be sufficient clarity, and Government actions indicate that is the stance they are taking, to be able to commit to funding as freely as was the case in previous CPs.

Transport is so far avoiding the worst of the proposed funding cuts with some departments expected to take up 40% cuts, but at the sometime I think there will be a re-balancing of funds towards roads as well.

 

[Olaf]

Leaving aside the social good of being able to move around the country affordably and easily.....
Do we actually have any evidence that passenger numbers are peaking, and if they are peaking, it is anything but an example of the railway simply not being able to carry more people at the times they wish to travel?

Yes there trend has been there for slow-down of growth in the South West and then the other south of Thames franchises. This last quarter there was negative growth on the SWML.

There will be 'unserviced demand' on the South of Thames franchises - I think a few years ago it was estimated at 10% on the South Central. However there has also been a sharp decline in top paying jobs in the City over the last 18 to 24 months as the Banks have tended to come to the conclusion that growth is not going to return and so have been shutting down entire sections of their businesses. Not all of those lost jobs would be those of users of the medium distance commutes, but I suspect it is a factor.

 

[Olaf]

For leisure travel that may be true, but the main driver for infrastructure investment is the volume of peak traffic, much of which is commuter and/or business journeys. Just stepping back with an argument announcing that 'it's tough luck, - it's too busy so don't use the trains' would have significant economic, environmental and social, (hence political) impacts. It therefore isn't a viable solution.

The solution in these cases is called yield management and the ATOCs are authorised to use it.

 

[Olaf]

There's a paradox about the willingness of the Treasury to spend on rail.
Crossrail 1 (and the NR electrification and other CP5 schemes) were an attempt by the Coalition gov to kick-start the economy after the crash and recession.
It also conserved key skills and sections of the construction industry.
I think the notion was that once the economy recovered, funding would revert to private investment rather than government debt.
We're still waiting for the economy to recover properly, and now there's Brexit.
I don't see NR having another £38 billion (£11 billion on enhancement projects) to spend in the next 5 years.
HS2 is the next big ticket item, and NR/TfL will only get crumbs from that budget.

I agree with what you say. The factor that has changed the stance that is being taken was the near GBP 4 Billion cost over-run arising out of the failed Electrification projects and all the additional expenditure that has brought about.

 

[The Ham]

Yes there trend has been there for slow-down of growth in the South West and then the other south of Thames franchises. This last quarter there was negative growth on the SWML.

There will be 'unserviced demand' on the South of Thames franchises - I think a few years ago it was estimated at 10% on the South Central. However there has also been a sharp decline in top paying jobs in the City over the last 18 to 24 months as the Banks have tended to come to the conclusion that growth is not going to return and so have been shutting down entire sections of their businesses. Not all of those lost jobs would be those of users of the medium distance commutes, but I suspect it is a factor.

I would suggest that party of the issue with lines like the SWML is that there's been very little in improvements over the last few years in terms of weekday services.

Yes there's been Sunday improvements, yes there's been station bridges, WiFi and extra car parks, but not a lot in terms of extra seats or more services.

There also hadn't been any noticeable changes on nearby (other TOC's or underground) networks, other than the Southern strikes which will have a negative impact.

With that background, on an already very busy network the lack of any significant change in passenger numbers isn't surprising.

Implement something like Crossrail 2 and/or the Southern Approach to Heathrow (especially if the latter links to OOC and therefore HS2, meaning journeys to the north don't involve plodding via Reading and Birmingham or fighting across London on a packed tube train) and passengers will have more space and better journey times to a wider range of places. That will lead to a significant level of growth.

 

[infobleep]

I broadly agree with Olaf's view that wider economic issues and Brexit are what will set the agenda. The government is keen to avoid excessive spending commitments to give itself headroom to cope with the costs of Brexit. I am afraid that I fully expect London's economy to decline in the near future. I don't know if that will then pull the national economy down but it will not take much to go wrong in the Brexit negotiations for businesses to pull out of the UK. If we start to lose valuable City trading and also tech / science jobs centred in the South East then we're sunk really. That will pull down commuting and travel demand which directly affects the forecasts on which all transport investment is based. It will also affect London's ability to part fund CR2.

I also think the spat between Khan and Grayling is not helping matters. The fact that CR2 is portrayed as a TfL / City Hall scheme will set Grayling's teeth on edge given his strident dislike of devolved schemes / government. For as long as he is SoS then we stand no chance of progress. He has also called for a "land value capture" tax / mechanism as part of CR2's funding. Whether that is viable I don't know but it looks like an almightly delaying tactic to me.

The crucial next moves are

a) does government approve the CR2 business case?
b) does the government show any willingness to proceed and allow TfL to seek powers for construction?
c) would the government allow TfL / City Hall to raise funding for a smaller scheme, perhaps across the centre and partly into NE London and to Wimbledon?
d) will the government preserve the scheme's safeguarding if there is a delay?

I am afraid I don't see construction starting for at least 20 years. I also think the scheme will go back into the "reassess options" stage which will unleash all sorts of debate currently lurking in the background.

Oh and while I completely sympathise with a desire to see schemes elsewhere in the UK proceed they won't be happening either if the economy catches a cold and Mrs May is PM.

If the economy goes down in London and less people need to travel into London then that possibly solves the problem of overcrowding.

OK people wanting to change trains at Clapham Junction during the morning and evening high peaks might not be able to do that, like they can't now, bar the recently introduced 18.24 from Clapham Junction to Haslemere that is and the use of local services.

There would of course still only be 4 trains an hour from Surbtion to Wimbledon during the morning high peak as opposed to 6 that run outside of it. but tough luck. Go and live somewhere else if you don't like it and if you can't do that then tough.

Personally I don't want the economy to go down and I'd like CR2 to be built.

 

[infobleep]

To be fair, the routemaster thing was a Boris vanity project which allowed him to crow about the good old days with open platforms, mmm, so much for that idea. The colour coding of bus routes has been successful in many other places, including overseas, so what is so special about London that it wouldn't work here? Also, what is the problem with coding a great number of routes anyway?

I think if an organisation, such as TfL disagree with the elected person, in this case Boris Johnson, they should be allowed to publicly say I don't think this is a good idea.

Planning officers make recommendations and that goes to committee who might over turn them.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Implement something like Crossrail 2 and/or the Southern Approach to Heathrow (especially if the latter links to OOC and therefore HS2, meaning journeys to the north don't involve plodding via Reading and Birmingham or fighting across London on a packed tube train) and passengers will have more space and better journey times to a wider range of places. That will lead to a significant level of growth.

Good points

Personally I don't want the economy to go down and I'd like CR2 to be built.

hear hear

 

[infobleep]

Yes there trend has been there for slow-down of growth in the South West and then the other south of Thames franchises. This last quarter there was negative growth on the SWML.

There will be 'unserviced demand' on the South of Thames franchises - I think a few years ago it was estimated at 10% on the South Central. However there has also been a sharp decline in top paying jobs in the City over the last 18 to 24 months as the Banks have tended to come to the conclusion that growth is not going to return and so have been shutting down entire sections of their businesses. Not all of those lost jobs would be those of users of the medium distance commutes, but I suspect it is a factor.

Dispute this negative growth, they still saw fit to make the 18.17 Waterloo to Haslemere service stop at Clapham Junction. I know the 18.20 Exeter service is often overcrowded but it's been like that for some years, even during the growth years and they didn't stop the 18.17 at Clapham Junction then.

So negative or otherwise, I still think their is merit in the additional infrastructure. It's going to take some time to build and whose to say the growth won't return during the period it is being built. If we wait until there is growth, will it be too late?

 

[Class 170101]

CR2 will almost certainly needed to help with the dispersal of HS2 passengers arriving at Euston otherwise the station will simply fall apart due to overcrowdng. However whether it gets built is another matter.

Even if authority is received, for me this isn't the most concerning constraint. How about the human and technical resources needed to build HS2 and Crossrail 2 in parallel? Are there sufficient numbers of these for these large projects to actually happen in parallel?

They will make the Electrification schemes seem like a walk in the park by comparision.

 

[Olaf]

I broadly agree with Olaf's view that wider economic issues and Brexit are what will set the agenda. The government is keen to avoid excessive spending commitments to give itself headroom to cope with the costs of Brexit. I am afraid that I fully expect London's economy to decline in the near future. I don't know if that will then pull the national economy down but it will not take much to go wrong in the Brexit negotiations for businesses to pull out of the UK. If we start to lose valuable City trading and also tech / science jobs centred in the South East then we're sunk really. That will pull down commuting and travel demand which directly affects the forecasts on which all transport investment is based. It will also affect London's ability to part fund CR2.

Thank you. Yes, I doubt that anyone has, or even expects to have, both a clear view of the overall picture and the detailed repercussions of the combined impact of all that is coming up ... looking at what is happening in the global money markets right now I expect anyone that had models in place will be having to redraw them as we chat.

I expect sectors of the old banking businesses to decline further - we know that parts of their businesses will move into EU states in the next few years - but the new financial businesses are concentrating in London. The downside to the latter is that they will bring revenue but not vast numbers of jobs. A decline in the value of Sterling is already benefiting industry but yes the provinces will be more exposed to any changes than London will be.

What the aggregate impact of all that will be is unknowable at this time and that is before allowing for changes from business use of comms technology and perhaps reductions in various transport subsidies.

I also think the spat between Khan and Grayling is not helping matters. The fact that CR2 is portrayed as a TfL / City Hall scheme will set Grayling's teeth on edge given his strident dislike of devolved schemes / government. For as long as he is SoS then we stand no chance of progress. He has also called for a "land value capture" tax / mechanism as part of CR2's funding. Whether that is viable I don't know but it looks like an almightly delaying tactic to me.

The stance that the DoT took was to prevent all of London's transport coming under one employer and thus exposed to Union activism; it was the renewed political activism of the Unions that scuppered the transfer of services to TfL.

The local tax arrangements will be similar to that for CR1 as far as I understand.

The crucial next moves are

a) does government approve the CR2 business case?
b) does the government show any willingness to proceed and allow TfL to seek powers for construction?
c) would the government allow TfL / City Hall to raise funding for a smaller scheme, perhaps across the centre and partly into NE London and to Wimbledon?
d) will the government preserve the scheme's safeguarding if there is a delay?

I am afraid I don't see construction starting for at least 20 years. I also think the scheme will go back into the "reassess options" stage which will unleash all sorts of debate currently lurking in the background.

Oh and while I completely sympathise with a desire to see schemes elsewhere in the UK proceed they won't be happening either if the economy catches a cold and Mrs May is PM.

To your points ) to d), the Government is supportive of CR2 but it s looking for maturity and robustness in the TfLs funding plans. That is before getting to finding the balance (what ever that may be given that costs may have to be revised upwards again) from central government funds. Add to that Conservative members proposing to block the scheme based on the 10 year disruption proposed for the center of Wimbledon. However, I do not think it will be pushed back by 20 years; perhaps into the next Parliament, but again I doubt anyone can make a financial commitment at this stage.

 

[Olaf]

Colour coding can only work in a few areas that are, in the main, not connected to each other, otherwise how do you integrate seven routes operating in Barkingside with the fifteen or so routes in neighbouring Romford, given that some buses travel between the two places? You also have the nonsense, if there are too many routes, is that a navy blue or a royal blue bus approaching? It adds unnecessary cost and the prospect of either buses being put onto the wrong routes or a bus journey being cut because only a 'wrong' bus was available.

Is this the 'colour-coding' that has been used on bus-stop route maps in Central London for the last few years?

 

[Olaf]

I would suggest that party of the issue with lines like the SWML is that there's been very little in improvements over the last few years in terms of weekday services.

Yes there's been Sunday improvements, yes there's been station bridges, WiFi and extra car parks, but not a lot in terms of extra seats or more services.

There also hadn't been any noticeable changes on nearby (other TOC's or underground) networks, other than the Southern strikes which will have a negative impact.

With that background, on an already very busy network the lack of any significant change in passenger numbers isn't surprising.

Implement something like Crossrail 2 and/or the Southern Approach to Heathrow (especially if the latter links to OOC and therefore HS2, meaning journeys to the north don't involve plodding via Reading and Birmingham or fighting across London on a packed tube train) and passengers will have more space and better journey times to a wider range of places. That will lead to a significant level of growth.

There has been additional capacity added on specific routes and services, ut that does not explain the decline in numbers (it may be in part due to the change in the Oyster Card users are counted, but does not explain the trend).

Yes there are merits to those schemes, but the point is - where is the funding going to come from?

 

[Olaf]

I think if an organisation, such as TfL disagree with the elected person, in this case Boris Johnson, they should be allowed to publicly say I don't think this is a good idea.

Planning officers make recommendations and that goes to committee who might over turn them.

I think they did. Problem is, the roll of the Mayor of London was intended to adopt similar methods used in the USA and give an individual the powers to push through specific projects. Unfortunately the legislation does not have a means to ensure that an individual elected via the democratic process is up to the job; - that might be the next, but difficult, step to take.

 

[Olaf]

Dispute this negative growth, ...

ORR figures over the last few years.

So negative or otherwise, I still think their is merit in the additional infrastructure. It's going to take some time to build and whose to say the growth won't return during the period it is being built. If we wait until there is growth, will it be too late?

I agree, but it is that difficult obstacle of reconciling abilities with means; funding will dry -up to various degrees over the next few years - we may go back to utility solutions, or it may just be a brief pause - but the shape a size of the obstacles are unknowable at this time.

 

[Jonny]

Crossrail 2 is a good idea but in the present political climate, national government funding might be hard to com by if there is little direct benefit outside the capital (and I would not say that trains built in Derby is a direct benefit). I would expect TfL (and any local authorities in overlapping areas outside the TfL area) to have to pony up at least a large majority (if not all) of the cost if it ever does go ahead.

 

[swt_passenger]

ORR figures over the last few years.

I expect in the context that should have been 'despite'...

 

[The Ham]

Crossrail 2 is a good idea but in the present political climate, national government funding might be hard to com by if there is little direct benefit outside the capital (and I would not say that trains built in Derby is a direct benefit). I would expect TfL (and any local authorities in overlapping areas outside the TfL area) to have to pony up at least a large majority (if not all) of the cost if it ever does go ahead.

Places like Guildford, Woking, Southampton, Portsmouth, Salisbury as well as several places to the north of London are all likely to benefit from Crossrail 2. Yes the benefits won't be as big but still potentially significant. Portsmouth could see a 25% increase in frequencies whilst Salisbury could be 50%.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Places like Guildford, Woking, Southampton, Portsmouth, Salisbury as well as several places to the north of London are all likely to benefit from Crossrail 2. Yes the benefits won't be as big but still potentially significant. Portsmouth could see a 25% increase in frequencies whilst Salisbury could be 50%.

Frankly - a "do nothing" policy for routes into Waterloo (yes I know there are terminal improvements taking place) , would not exactly help the economy longer - let alone mid term. Massive catchment area of London and suburban workers.

 

[infobleep]

Thank you. Yes, I doubt that anyone has, or even expects to have, both a clear view of the overall picture and the detailed repercussions of the combined impact of all that is coming up ... looking at what is happening in the global money markets right now I expect anyone that had models in place will be having to redraw them as we chat.

I expect sectors of the old banking businesses to decline further - we know that parts of their businesses will move into EU states in the next few years - but the new financial businesses are concentrating in London. The downside to the latter is that they will bring revenue but not vast numbers of jobs. A decline in the value of Sterling is already benefiting industry but yes the provinces will be more exposed to any changes than London will be.

What the aggregate impact of all that will be is unknowable at this time and that is before allowing for changes from business use of comms technology and perhaps reductions in various transport subsidies.




The stance that the DoT took was to prevent all of London's transport coming under one employer and thus exposed to Union activism; it was the renewed political activism of the Unions that scuppered the transfer of services to TfL.

The local tax arrangements will be similar to that for CR1 as far as I understand.




To your points ) to d), the Government is supportive of CR2 but it s looking for maturity and robustness in the TfLs funding plans. That is before getting to finding the balance (what ever that may be given that costs may have to be revised upwards again) from central government funds. Add to that Conservative members proposing to block the scheme based on the 10 year disruption proposed for the center of Wimbledon. However, I do not think it will be pushed back by 20 years; perhaps into the next Parliament, but again I doubt anyone can make a financial commitment at this stage.

So it's OK for passengers to be on overcrowded services but not for there to be disruption.

I'm not saying all services are overcrowded but certainly the Surbiton semi fasts and stoppers to Waterloo in the morning peak do see to be quite packed. Maybe that will ease once they all have 10 coaches. Not sure how many of them do at the moment.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

 

[infobleep]

ORR figures over the last few years.




I agree, but it is that difficult obstacle of reconciling abilities with means; funding will dry -up to various degrees over the next few years - we may go back to utility solutions, or it may just be a brief pause - but the shape a size of the obstacles are unknowable at this time.

My apologies it should have read despite but dispute.

 

[Busaholic]

Is this the 'colour-coding' that has been used on bus-stop route maps in Central London for the last few years?

I'm unsure how to reply, because I think you may be making a point rather than asking a question, so I'll restrict it to pointing out that, just because the London Underground map has the Bakerloo Line showing as brown doesn't mean that the trains on it are actually painted that colour, although no doubt some bright spark will suggest they should be.

 

[infobleep]

Frankly - a "do nothing" policy for routes into Waterloo (yes I know there are terminal improvements taking place) , would not exactly help the economy longer - let alone mid term. Massive catchment area of London and suburban workers.

Well they did nothing for some years before the additional rolling stock as it is.

The 18.39 to Poole due to be jam packed them it was only a 5 carriage service.

I felt even then changes were needed. I believe South West Trains wanted to remodel Clapham Junction back in the early naughties but it never happen. Someone with more knowledge might be able to explain that as u can't remember it all.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Well they did nothing for some years before the additional rolling stock as it is.

The 18.39 to Poole due to be jam packed them it was only a 5 carriage service.

I felt even then changes were needed. I believe South West Trains wanted to remodel Clapham Junction back in the early naughties but it never happen. Someone with more knowledge might be able to explain that as u can't remember it all.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

Sea Containers in their expansive ideas (no problem there) - came up circa 2002 with a plan to completely relocate Clapham Junction and do all sorts of interesting ideas. The franchise went to SWT ......so while there have been some welcome changes - the sheer difficulty of arranging the packed lines and constraints seem to urge something more radical like Crossrail 2 - very radical , but then the original LSWR at the turn of the last century - with no centrist policy imposed , put in grade seperated junctions , pioneered the Waterside electrics , rebuilt Waterloo etc etc....we need another Sr Herbert Walker frankly .....great operator and visionary business planner.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Crossrail 2 is a good idea but in the present political climate, national government funding might be hard to com by if there is little direct benefit outside the capital (and I would not say that trains built in Derby is a direct benefit). I would expect TfL (and any local authorities in overlapping areas outside the TfL area) to have to pony up at least a large majority (if not all) of the cost if it ever does go ahead.

Places like Guildford, Woking, Southampton, Portsmouth, Salisbury as well as several places to the north of London are all likely to benefit from Crossrail 2. Yes the benefits won't be as big but still potentially significant. Portsmouth could see a 25% increase in frequencies whilst Salisbury could be 50%.

Given the Conservative manifesto made no specific commitment to Crossrail 2 compared to HS2 and Northern Powerhouse rail then they could be preparing to delay or withdraw support for the project unless TfL is prepared to fund the majority of the scheme.

However as The Ham points out Crossrail 2 has significant benefits beyond London and I can't see many Hampshire, Wiltshire, Hertfordshire and Essex Tories being too happy when they realise that many of the improvements to services into London won't happen if Crossrail 2 is not built, and I can see them siding with the London mayor against the government.

 

[Chester1]

Given the Conservative manifesto made no specific commitment to Crossrail 2 compared to HS2 and Northern Powerhouse rail then they could be preparing to delay or withdraw support for the project unless TfL is prepared to fund the majority of the scheme.

However as The Ham points out Crossrail 2 has significant benefits beyond London and I can't see many Hampshire, Wiltshire, Hertfordshire and Essex Tories being too happy when they realise that many of the improvements to services into London won't happen if Crossrail 2 is not built, and I can see them siding with the London mayor against the government.

Those areas are solidly Tory though and the government can take them for granted, they won't switch to Labour. The government has more bargaining power than TfL and local government and if it doesn't want to pay half then it won't. I think they will give just enough central government funding to make CR2 happen. As long as its built the money saved through paying less than half is politically better spent elsewhere.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Those areas are solidly Tory though and the government can take them for granted, they won't switch to Labour. The government has more bargaining power than TfL and local government and if it doesn't want to pay half then it won't. I think they will give just enough central government funding to make CR2 happen. As long as its built the money saved through paying less than half is politically better spent elsewhere.

I agree those seats have 0% chance of going Labour, however when Tory MP's start getting letters from commuters about overcrowding on services into London and they realise that without Crossrail 2 the options for increasing capacity into London are limited then they will start lobbying and putting pressure on the government to get on with project. Depends on how much the government wants to keep its MPs onside over Brexit.

 

[D365]

I believe South West Trains wanted to remodel Clapham Junction back in the early naughties but it never happen. Someone with more knowledge might be able to explain that as u can't remember it all.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

Sea Containers in their expansive ideas (no problem there) - came up circa 2002 with a plan to completely relocate Clapham Junction and do all sorts of interesting ideas.

A quick google search found me a Telegraph article from 2001 about the plans, First Group apparently also had something similar. It reads like their plans were to build something that sounds very similar to Crossrail 2 up to Kings Cross, via Victoria.