Would CrossRail 2 affect the SWT Metro lines?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rail.Fan

Member
Joined
4 Nov 2015
Messages
27
Location
Kent
I was wondering if Crossrail would end up affecting the SWT Metro lines since it will be going to many of the destinations. But I realised CrossRail 2 won't be going to London Waterloo so that made me question if the SWT Metro routes would be lost. Does anyone know if this is what will happen?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Railman10

Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
32
Location
LONDON
I was wondering if Crossrail would end up affecting the SWT Metro lines since it will be going to many of the destinations. But I realised CrossRail 2 won't be going to London Waterloo so that made me question if the SWT Metro routes would be lost. Does anyone know if this is what will happen?

Certain routes will go on to Crossrail 2. I suggest you look up the TfL Crossrail 2 website where you will find full information. crossrail2.co.uk

It's a complex scheme, so advise getting it from the horses mouth, as it were.
 

SpacePhoenix

Established Member
Joined
18 Mar 2014
Messages
5,492
It's possible that TfL will take over some of SWT's metro routes, it'll be a case of waiting to see what lines they take over.
 

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,582
I was wondering if Crossrail would end up affecting the SWT Metro lines since it will be going to many of the destinations. But I realised CrossRail 2 won't be going to London Waterloo so that made me question if the SWT Metro routes would be lost. Does anyone know if this is what will happen?

Yes. Most of the SWML metro routes will go into the Crossrail 2 tunnels at Wimbledon, but there will still be services that call at Wimbledon, Earlsfield, Clapham and Vauxhall. One of the objectives is to free up capacity into Waterloo for longer distance services.

The peak time proposals have
Chessington branch: 4tph, all CR2
Epsom Branch: 8tph, 4-6 to be CR2 stopping at Ewell and Stoneleigh (I'd bet on 4tph CR2 here)
Hampton Court Branch: 4tph all CR2
Shepperton Branch: 6tph from Shepperton, of which 4 CR2. From Kingston, 10-12 tph of which 6-8tph CR2. Probably 8tph.

So 20tph CR2 and 8tph Waterloo Metro. Plus additional CR2 services starting at Wimbledon.

More trains on each branch, more services from further out into Waterloo (with many stopping at Wimbledon for interchange)
 

David Emmott

Member
Joined
26 Nov 2015
Messages
866
Yes. Most of the SWML metro routes will go into the Crossrail 2 tunnels at Wimbledon, but there will still be services that call at Wimbledon, Earlsfield, Clapham and Vauxhall. One of the objectives is to free up capacity into Waterloo for longer distance services.

As a former frequent user of Earlsfield, I wonder if the frequency would be drastically reduced. Is the idea a Wimbledon - Waterloo shuttle or a reduced service of the present through trains to Kingston, Shepperton etc?
 

samuelmorris

Established Member
Joined
18 Jul 2013
Messages
4,957
Location
Brentwood, Essex
Whether it'll go ahead on-time is up for debate, but I'm pretty confident Crossrail 2 or a scheme very much like it will go ahead eventually, it just isn't an option to reduce the pace of capacity projects on London's rail network and crossrail systems seem about as good a method as any of achieving said capacity increases. The only thing that I can foresee potentially scuppering Crossrail 2 at this stage is if there was some major catastrophe with Crossrail 1 a.k.a. the Elizabeth line, between now and opening.

I'm intrigued by the 4tph commitments on these branches, as far as I knew most of these were only 2tph even during peak hours, so that's quite a substantial increase - I suppose as a direct result of no longer being bottlenecked into Waterloo. On that basis I am definitely all for it, though I'm more concerned about the northern half than I am the southern at this stage - it seems less certain how that's going to end up, and where all the capacity is going to go at the other end. Turning round 20tph+ of full-size trains requires quite some infrastructure.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
12,455
Location
Another planet...
There's no shortage of route options for CR2 to the South West. The bigger issue might well be capacity at the other end of the core section bury that's a part of the world I'm far less familiar with. If Chessington is included on CR2 I wonder if the second, unused platform at Chessington South might be needed? Perhaps even extension of the line, if not all the way to Leatherhead as was originally planned but to an M25 Parkway? :idea:;)
 

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,582
On the northern side the four-track section from Tottenham to Broxbourne is needed to meet demand projections, as is then putting the Metro services from that four-track section into a tunnel- essentially maintaining that four track right into central London. Angel Road will get the most spectacular uplift in services- currently it gets on a weekday 11tpd each way, with CR2 and STAR it'll get 10-12tph CR2 and 4tph STAR- that's up to 16tph metro service. What's not clear is where all these trains will terminate (obviously some to Stortford, some to Hertford).

There's also, on the north side, a vague arrow of a branch at Hackney
 

09065

Member
Joined
20 Jan 2013
Messages
77
If I remeber the document correctly, the consultation for the new South Western Franchise asked for comment on TfL taking over suburban services.


It read to me that the shortlisted bidders would have to consider bids that did not include some or all of the future CR2 pathways.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
17,858
On the northern side the four-track section from Tottenham to Broxbourne is needed to meet demand projections, as is then putting the Metro services from that four-track section into a tunnel- essentially maintaining that four track right into central London. Angel Road will get the most spectacular uplift in services- currently it gets on a weekday 11tpd each way, with CR2 and STAR it'll get 10-12tph CR2 and 4tph STAR- that's up to 16tph metro service. What's not clear is where all these trains will terminate (obviously some to Stortford, some to Hertford).

There's also, on the north side, a vague arrow of a branch at Hackney

Of the 15tph on that side, 3 turn back at Tottenham Hale, the rest at Broxbourne. The fact sheet here: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/crossrail2/october2015/user_uploads/ne1.pdf says:

"10-12 Crossrail 2 trains per hour, in each direction, are proposed to call at all stations between Tottenham Hale and Broxbourne" and it mentions turnback facilities at Broxbourne. It also mentions turnback facilities at Cheshunt, but the same number of Crossrail2 trains at both suggests Broxbourne is favoured.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
There's no shortage of route options for CR2 to the South West. The bigger issue might well be capacity at the other end of the core section bury that's a part of the world I'm far less familiar with. If Chessington is included on CR2 I wonder if the second, unused platform at Chessington South might be needed? Perhaps even extension of the line, if not all the way to Leatherhead as was originally planned but to an M25 Parkway? :idea:;)

Yes, 2nd platform at Chessington South, as per the fact sheet here: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/crossrail2/october2015/user_uploads/sw3.pdf which says:

"It is also proposed that a second platform at Chessington South will be brought into use."

No extension to Leatherhead, at least not as part of CR2, is mentioned. If someone else wants it (and wants to pay for it), then TfL and DfT will no doubt be all ears. A station near Chessington World of Adventures would be good, although it would simply have to be named South Chessington South :D
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
So 20tph CR2 and 8tph Waterloo Metro. Plus additional CR2 services starting at Wimbledon.

More trains on each branch, more services from further out into Waterloo (with many stopping at Wimbledon for interchange)

My reading of the fact sheets is 10-12tph remain on the main suburban (metro):

2 Kingston loop
2 Dorking
2 Guildford via Leatherhead
2 Guildford via Cobham
2 Woking stoppers
2 peak only starters from the Kingston line.
 
Last edited:

HarleyDavidson

Established Member
Joined
23 Aug 2014
Messages
2,529
We're watching carefully what happens because if TfL want to take over the Waterloo suburban side of things, we'll be affected by it.

From what I remember TfL want:

Waterloo - Chessington - Epsom & Dorking
Waterloo - Hampton Ct, Waterloo - Shepperton
Waterloo - Waterloo via Kingston
Waterloo - Waterloo via Hounslow
Waterloo - Weybridge Bay

I don't know if they want to take on or are interested in:

Waterloo - Woking Bay or Guildford via Woking/Cobham or Epsom

It also makes me wonder who'll serve which stations if they do.

For example will Guildford/Wokingtrains run non stop from either Epsom/Wimbledon or Surbiton to Waterloo after TfL take over, after all with the frequencies they proposing a simple change where necessary would hardly affect the journey time to Wimbledon, Earlsfield, Clapham Jn or Vauxhall.
 

wimbledonpete

Member
Joined
25 Nov 2011
Messages
198
I'd be interested to know what will happen to the level crossings either side of Motspur Park station. With the current service level they can stay down for up to 10 minutes at a time so doubling the service (which I'm all for) is going to cause issues. There'd need to be extensive demolition to replace both of them with bridges or underpasses and just closing them would cause lots of problems.

Appreciate not a big problem in the overall scheme but important locally.
 

09065

Member
Joined
20 Jan 2013
Messages
77
I doubt there would be a doubling of service, merely the trains changing colour (or class)
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
17,858
I'd be interested to know what will happen to the level crossings either side of Motspur Park station. With the current service level they can stay down for up to 10 minutes at a time so doubling the service (which I'm all for) is going to cause issues. There'd need to be extensive demolition to replace both of them with bridges or underpasses and just closing them would cause lots of problems.

Appreciate not a big problem in the overall scheme but important locally.

They are both going to be removed. This fact sheet https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/crossrail2/october2015/user_uploads/sw1.pdf
says:

"The proposed increase to train services mean it is likely that a small number of existing level crossings in the area would need to be removed to increase safety and improve local road connectivity. This could include both the level crossings on West Barnes Lane near Motspur Park station, and Elm Road near New Malden.
Network Rail will work closely with local communities and the local authority to find an appropriate resolution for each crossing. This could mean access across the railway is provided by a bridge or an underpass, or via a diversion around the railway.

We are still at a very early stage in the development of our proposals for Crossrail 2 and the process to understand the work that we need to carry out at the level crossings along the route has not yet started.

When our plans are further developed we will carry out further consultation in the local areas about the potential impacts of closing any level crossings. However, we would welcome early input from the local community as part
of this consultation."


The response to the consultation can be found here:


https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cr..._uploads/crossrail2autumn2015consultation.pdf

I won't paste the relevant bit re the level crossings (pages 79/80) but there was more support for closing them than keeping them open.
 

SpacePhoenix

Established Member
Joined
18 Mar 2014
Messages
5,492
We're watching carefully what happens because if TfL want to take over the Waterloo suburban side of things, we'll be affected by it.

From what I remember TfL want:

Waterloo - Chessington - Epsom & Dorking
Waterloo - Hampton Ct, Waterloo - Shepperton
Waterloo - Waterloo via Kingston
Waterloo - Waterloo via Hounslow
Waterloo - Weybridge Bay

I don't know if they want to take on or are interested in:

Waterloo - Woking Bay or Guildford via Woking/Cobham or Epsom

It also makes me wonder who'll serve which stations if they do.

For example will Guildford/Wokingtrains run non stop from either Epsom/Wimbledon or Surbiton to Waterloo after TfL take over, after all with the frequencies they proposing a simple change where necessary would hardly affect the journey time to Wimbledon, Earlsfield, Clapham Jn or Vauxhall.

Do all those routes only use 455s?
 

HarleyDavidson

Established Member
Joined
23 Aug 2014
Messages
2,529
Do all those routes only use 455s?

Ordinarily these routes are 455/456 only unless a failure occurs.

Waterloo - Chessington - Epsom & Dorking
Waterloo - Hampton Ct, Waterloo - Shepperton
Waterloo - Waterloo via Kingston
Waterloo - Woking Bay or Guildford via Woking/Cobham or Epsom

However there are some variations in the peak times on:

Waterloo - Woking Bay or Guildford via Woking (12 x 450)
Waterloo - Shepperton via Richmond (450)
Waterloo - Waterloo via Kingston (occasional 450)
 

SpacePhoenix

Established Member
Joined
18 Mar 2014
Messages
5,492
Ordinarily these routes are 455/456 only unless a failure occurs.

Waterloo - Chessington - Epsom & Dorking
Waterloo - Hampton Ct, Waterloo - Shepperton
Waterloo - Waterloo via Kingston
Waterloo - Woking Bay or Guildford via Woking/Cobham or Epsom

However there are some variations in the peak times on:

Waterloo - Woking Bay or Guildford via Woking (12 x 450)
Waterloo - Shepperton via Richmond (450)
Waterloo - Waterloo via Kingston (occasional 450)

If them routes go over to TfL will that leave any routes under SWTs that just uses 455s/456s?
 

HarleyDavidson

Established Member
Joined
23 Aug 2014
Messages
2,529
I don't know, if TfL take the suburban routes I might be redundant unless I can opt to stay on SWT or whatever the franchise is. I most certainly don't want to work for TfL under any circumstances.
 

wimbledonpete

Member
Joined
25 Nov 2011
Messages
198
They are both going to be removed. This fact sheet https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/crossrail2/october2015/user_uploads/sw1.pdf
says:

"The proposed increase to train services mean it is likely that a small number of existing level crossings in the area would need to be removed to increase safety and improve local road connectivity. This could include both the level crossings on West Barnes Lane near Motspur Park station, and Elm Road near New Malden.
Network Rail will work closely with local communities and the local authority to find an appropriate resolution for each crossing. This could mean access across the railway is provided by a bridge or an underpass, or via a diversion around the railway.

We are still at a very early stage in the development of our proposals for Crossrail 2 and the process to understand the work that we need to carry out at the level crossings along the route has not yet started.

When our plans are further developed we will carry out further consultation in the local areas about the potential impacts of closing any level crossings. However, we would welcome early input from the local community as part
of this consultation."


The response to the consultation can be found here:


https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cr..._uploads/crossrail2autumn2015consultation.pdf

I won't paste the relevant bit re the level crossings (pages 79/80) but there was more support for closing them than keeping them open.

Very interesting, thank you for that.
 

infobleep

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
10,271
I don't know, if TfL take the suburban routes I might be redundant unless I can opt to stay on SWT or whatever the franchise is. I most certainly don't want to work for TfL under any circumstances.
May I ask why that is?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
 

Goldfish62

Established Member
Joined
14 Feb 2010
Messages
5,493
I don't know, if TfL take the suburban routes I might be redundant unless I can opt to stay on SWT or whatever the franchise is. I most certainly don't want to work for TfL under any circumstances.

You wouldn't actually work for TfL. You would work for a TOC on behalf of TfL rather than DfT. You would be TUPE'd across on existing T&Cs and receive a TfL staff pass as well as your Priv. What is not to like?

However, if it's about DOO, then yes, that's far more likely under TfL.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
We're watching carefully what happens because if TfL want to take over the Waterloo suburban side of things, we'll be affected by it.

From what I remember TfL want:

Waterloo - Chessington - Epsom & Dorking
Waterloo - Hampton Ct, Waterloo - Shepperton
Waterloo - Waterloo via Kingston
Waterloo - Waterloo via Hounslow
Waterloo - Weybridge Bay

I don't know if they want to take on or are interested in:

Waterloo - Woking Bay or Guildford via Woking/Cobham or Epsom

It also makes me wonder who'll serve which stations if they do.

For example will Guildford/Wokingtrains run non stop from either Epsom/Wimbledon or Surbiton to Waterloo after TfL take over, after all with the frequencies they proposing a simple change where necessary would hardly affect the journey time to Wimbledon, Earlsfield, Clapham Jn or Vauxhall.

Don't forget Waterloo - Windsor.

It shouldn't make any difference which stations are served, eg AGA still serves Hackney Downs which is an LO station.
 

HarleyDavidson

Established Member
Joined
23 Aug 2014
Messages
2,529
You wouldn't actually work for TfL. You would work for a TOC on behalf of TfL rather than DfT. You would be TUPE'd across on existing T&Cs and receive a TfL staff pass as well as your Priv. What is not to like?

What's not to like.... LONDON & ITS INHABITANTS!

I very rarely use my boxes, my TOC pass or Priv Oyster, they can shove their TfL pass where the sun don't shine, as I don't want one or need one.

And as for working on behalf of TfL, sod that I'll take redundancy and move to another TOC.
 

Barn

Established Member
Joined
3 Sep 2008
Messages
1,434
Rejecting a TUPE transfer is a resignation, not a redundancy...
 

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,582
What's not to like.... LONDON & ITS INHABITANTS!

I very rarely use my boxes, my TOC pass or Priv Oyster, they can shove their TfL pass where the sun don't shine, as I don't want one or need one.

And as for working on behalf of TfL, sod that I'll take redundancy and move to another TOC.

Make sure you're working for a depot not in London/not working the inner suburban services? As said, if they're moving depots to TfL there would have to be an associated reduction in staffing for there to be redundancy on offer. It's more likely with drivers at least that they'll look to increase the numbers.
 

Goldfish62

Established Member
Joined
14 Feb 2010
Messages
5,493
What's not to like.... LONDON & ITS INHABITANTS!

I very rarely use my boxes, my TOC pass or Priv Oyster, they can shove their TfL pass where the sun don't shine, as I don't want one or need one.

And as for working on behalf of TfL, sod that I'll take redundancy and move to another TOC.

You mean the very same people that currently use your trains?

I have to say you've lost me on this one.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Rejecting a TUPE transfer is a resignation, not a redundancy...

Quite. And you don't take your seniority with you.
 

HarleyDavidson

Established Member
Joined
23 Aug 2014
Messages
2,529
Rejecting a TUPE transfer is a resignation, not a redundancy...

Should have been an or in there not an and. Don't you just love predictive text.:roll:

They may find that they have a problem with finding enough driver's anyway, because of the number of them putting in transfer requests to depots away from London, depots such as Fratton, Salisbury and Bournemouth are becoming increasingly popular.

I'll wait and see what happens, but if push comes to shove, I'll move, take redundancy or go to another TOC. I won't work for TfL.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
17,858
I'll wait and see what happens, but if push comes to shove, I'll move, take redundancy or go to another TOC. I won't work for TfL.

Two things, both mentioned up thread.

1) you wouldn't be working for TfL. You would be working for a private firm (such as LOROL, or MTR Europe) contracted to TfL. In the same way that you you currently work for a private firm contracted to DfT.

2) redundancy wouldn't normally be an option. Under TUPE your job and terms and conditions transfer to the new operator. They would only offer redundancy if the number of drivers required was reduced. I think in the event of a TfL specified operation, quite the opposite would be the case, as has been seen with LOROL and MTR.
 

HarleyDavidson

Established Member
Joined
23 Aug 2014
Messages
2,529
I'll be employed by the next SWT franchise holder, which is neither of the two previously mentioned companies.

Most of my colleagues have said that they'll be staying with SWT or next franchise and not go to TfL either, so it looks like they'll be looking for new drivers in London.

Besides whose going to work for TfL on SWT money? TfL pay their drivers approximately 20% more than SWT do. I do not want a 20% pay rise at the expense of the guards.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
17,858
I'll be employed by the next SWT franchise holder, which is neither of the two previously mentioned companies.

Most of my colleagues have said that they'll be staying with SWT or next franchise and not go to TfL either, so it looks like they'll be looking for new drivers in London.

Besides whose going to work for TfL on SWT money? TfL pay their drivers approximately 20% more than SWT do. I do not want a 20% pay rise at the expense of the guards.

What if SWT retain the franchise, but part way through the franchise, the specification and monitoring of the suburban part is transferred to TfL? You'd still be an SWT employee.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top