Will Crossrail2 Be Built In The Next 40 Years?

[Chester1]

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.

They are already lobbying strongly in favour of CR2 and the need to listen to them depends on the size of the Tory majority. Unless its wafer thin CR2 won't matter to their majority and MPs only lobby really hard when they think their seats are at risk at the next election. The benefits of the project for central government have to be balanced with alternative uses for the money. Central government needs CR2 less than London so can afford to drive a hard bargain. They know they can force the London boroughs to pick up most of the bill through TfL. CR2 will happen at some point and in some form, its not a case of central government having to pay £16bn or it will be cancelled. The Tories are gaining support it in the regional cities for the first time in decades and they will prioritise infrastructure projects that encourage that trend.

 

[The Ham]

They are already lobbying strongly in favour of CR2 and the need to listen to them depends on the size of the Tory majority. Unless its wafer thin CR2 won't matter to their majority and MPs only lobby really hard when they think their seats are at risk at the next election. The benefits of the project for central government have to be balanced with alternative uses for the money. Central government needs CR2 less than London so can afford to drive a hard bargain. They know they can force the London boroughs to pick up most of the bill through TfL. CR2 will happen at some point and in some form, its not a case of central government having to pay £16bn or it will be cancelled. The Tories are gaining support it in the regional cities for the first time in decades and they will prioritise infrastructure projects that encourage that trend.

Southampton, Eastleigh and Portsmouth (all likely to see improvements) are not safe seats or if they are they are not Tory seats.

Having been too a hustings along the route that is served by the SWML and a fairly safe Tory seat the mood wasn't just let's support the Tories as we've always done, what are the others saying and are they worth considering.

The Tories will still win that seat, but I think that it's going to be as substantial as it was last time. It wouldn't take much of a swing for the Tories to get twitched and think that need it in their next manifesto.

The other thing to consider is that London (although had a Mayor) had a lot of seats up for grabs and so is still worth providing promises to (especially when it comes to the next mayoral election).

 

[Olaf]

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

Ahh, OK thanks.

 

[Olaf]

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

Unless there is a shuffle of existing, or new resources, I guess that is what will have to happen. You could ask NR for a refund on their GBP 2.6 Billion (and growing) over-spend and ask that those resources be applied. Or could ask that travellers on franchises in the south stop having to cross subsidise provincial franchises and then see if those funds can be utilized. In practical terms the answer is make do with what you have.

I am not denying that the services are overcrowded, I am just asking where the funding will come from; any additional expenditure on rail is taking it away from Road, Defence, Welfare or Health care.

 

[Olaf]

My apologies it should have read despite but dispute.

Yes, see that now. No need to apologise.

 

[Olaf]

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.

No, I was asking a question since you seemed to be talking about buses, but as it was an aside, and the subject is off-topic, I am not interested in pursuing it.

 

[The Ham]

Unless there is a shuffle of existing, or new resources, I guess that is what will have to happen. You could ask NR for a refund on their GBP 2.6 Billion (and growing) over-spend and ask that those resources be applied. Or could ask that travellers on franchises in the south stop having to cross subsidise provincial franchises and then see if those funds can be utilized. In practical terms the answer is make do with what you have.

I am not denying that the services are overcrowded, I am just asking where the funding will come from; any additional expenditure on rail is taking it away from Road, Defence, Welfare or Health care.

The thing is that Crossrail 2 would allow more trains to run on part of the national network that is paying a premium to the government (even after the NR grant is taken into account).

The maintenance costs of Crossrail 2 would be the liability of TfL, so there would be a reduction in the NR maintenance costs as the shared elements get split between the two.

The network further out​ (say south and west of Woking) would see more trains which would mean an increase in track access charges but the maintenance costs wouldn't go up proportionally (track replacement would be more frequent, but signals wouldn't necessarily need more frequent maintenance, at least not proportionally to the increase of services, nor would bridges, embankments stations, etc.).

As such there would no more NR network to maintain (although TfL may need to take on some elements or at least share the costs of done elements), there would be more NR income and even the bits of the network that would be busier wouldn't see a significant increase in maintenance costs.

All in all, it is likely that it would save NR money whilst making the franchise more money at a time when the metro services would become​part of TfL.

One final thought, rail travel may have the same number of people (individuals) using it but still see a reduction in the number of passengers using it. If 100% of commuters​ used to work 5 days a week but now 95% do with the other 5% working 4 days a week in the office (be that a reduction in hours, withing from home or compressing hours into less days, be that because of children, approaching retirement or just wanting a better quality of life) that would mean that for every 100 people in a train previously there are now only 99. The more the numbers of people who work flexibly guess up the more the numbers of passengers goes down.

Increase flexibly working to 15% and you see a 3% fall in passengers. Increase it so that people are only in the offer 3 days a week and it's another 1% for every 5% of people who do it. It is why Friday morning trains are often noticeable​ quieter than the rest of the week.

It could very easily be that 5% of people are in the office 3 days a week (2% reduction) and an average of 20% of people are in the office 4 days a week (4% reduction), giving a 6% reduction in passenger demand. That is then coupled with a small increase in rail travel over the same time and the overall result is a small reduction in the number of people traveling.

The very companies that have large (generally​) office based staff are the same that are now offering flexible working to all staff, making it a very main stream thing.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

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.

I don't think brown would be a particularly nice colour to paint trains. On the other hand, for the Northern Line... black tube trains... that would just look so cool...

 

[The Ham]

I don't think brown would be a particularly nice colour to paint trains. On the other hand, for the Northern Line... black tube trains... that would just look so cool...

All they need is to be controlled by black buttons that glow blackly when pressed and then they would be very cool.

 

[CdBrux]

The thing is that Crossrail 2 would allow more trains to run on part of the national network that is paying a premium to the government (even after the NR grant is taken into account).

.....

Nice to see a clearly reasoned posting here

 

[Olaf]

The thing is that Crossrail 2 would allow more trains to run on part of the national network that is paying a premium to the government (even after the NR grant is taken into account).

The maintenance costs of Crossrail 2 ...

All in all, it is likely that it would save NR money whilst making the franchise more money at a time when the metro services would become​part of TfL.

I thinking a few invalid assumptions.

One final thought, ...

That is a lot of guess work.

Based on the numbers available, a refresh of the projections may be needed for some routes including the SWML to bring the analysis for CR2 and SWML up to date.

 

[SF-02]

To get anything Grayling has to go. Depends on chancellor too if the Tories win of course. Hammond has been very quiet. Reports of rift with May.

 

[Olaf]

To get anything Grayling has to go. Depends on chancellor too if the Tories win of course. Hammond has been very quiet. Reports of rift with May.

I expect that he will be promoted, so your wish is likely to become true, but you do not know whom you might get in his place.

Do not expect any change on issue of transfer of rail services to TfL, though there might be a compromise on DOO to free-up resources to focus elsewhere. The latter, if compromise agreed, will be returned to at future date.

 

[HSTEd]

Hey if passenger numbers start falling after CR2 is constructed then at least you might be able to get abit of money back by selling bits of the aboveground stations that become redundant!

 

[Olaf]

Hey if passenger numbers start falling after CR2 is constructed then at least you might be able to get abit of money back by selling bits of the aboveground stations that become redundant!

Those over-station rafts are already part of the property development revenue priced in to the TfL contribution to initial construction costs.

 

[The Ham]

I thinking a few invalid assumptions.




That is a lot of guess work.

Based on the numbers available, a refresh of the projections may be needed for some routes including the SWML to bring the analysis for CR2 and SWML up to date.

First up which of my assumptions do you think are incorrect?

Of those you qouted:
The thing is that Crossrail 2 would allow more trains - IIRC up to 9 extra services an hour through Clapham Junction.

to run on part of the national network that is paying a premium to the government (even after the NR grant is taken into account). - unless there's some new figures SWT has been paying more to the government than they or NR (for their bit of the network) get. It should also be noted that this figure doesn't include the TOC track access charges, which I would assume has already been taken off the NR budget, but if not then that would improve things further

The maintenance costs of Crossrail 2 ... - NR aren't going to pay for the CR2 tunnels or any new bits of track, with CR2 services paying track access charges over the existing lines and possibly taking ownership/maintenance liability of any bits which only serve CR2 services.

All in all, it is likely that it would save NR money whilst making the franchise more money at a time when the metro services would become​part of TfL. - NR are likely to see a reduction in costs, but even if they don't then they will be in receipt of more track access charges from the extra services. The franchise would benefit from the extra services, whilst (even if TfL haven't already taken over metro services) several of the metro services will become CR2 services.

My "guesswork" isn't stating what has happened rather explaining why there could be a small fall in passenger numbers whilst still caring the same people.

 

[edwin_m]

Variable track access charge per train is calculated on the estimation of the extra wear and tear caused by that train, so extra trains are revenue-neutral to Network Rail, or at least they are if the computer model that does the estimating is correct.

Agreed the rail industry as a whole will have extra revenue from anything that generates more passengers. This may cover the extra cost of leasing and operating the extra trains, but won't go anywhere near paying for an expensive new tunnel and underground stations, because it never does. The capital cost has to be justified by the social and economic regeneration benefits of the new route. In principle the government should then recoup this through extra taxes generated by increased economic activity, but it's very difficult to prove whether this actually happens because nobody can say with any certainty what would have happened differently if a scheme hadn't been done.

 

[Olaf]

First up which of my assumptions ...

I think you are making a few invalid assumptions.

 

[The Ham]

I think you are making a few invalid assumptions.

Which ones? As then I can explain my thinking.

 

[The Ham]

Variable track access charge per train is calculated on the estimation of the extra wear and tear caused by that train, so extra trains are revenue-neutral to Network Rail, or at least they are if the computer model that does the estimating is correct.

I hadn't realised that track access charges were supposed to be cost neutral, however that was only a secondary point. The main point was that SWT pays more to the government than it receives and NR receives for it's share of the NR for the franchise area. With any increase in costs due to extra services being paid for by the track access charges.

Agreed the rail industry as a whole will have extra revenue from anything that generates more passengers. This may cover the extra cost of leasing and operating the extra trains, but won't go anywhere near paying for an expensive new tunnel and underground stations, because it never does. The capital cost has to be justified by the social and economic regeneration benefits of the new route. In principle the government should then recoup this through extra taxes generated by increased economic activity, but it's very difficult to prove whether this actually happens because nobody can say with any certainty what would have happened differently if a scheme hadn't been done

The point I was making was in relation to the NR elements. I haven't said that it would repay the capital costs of the project, rather I was explaining that once built it likely wouldn't cost the DfT more and could generate them (in the form of the SWT franchise making premium payments) some extra income over the current situation.

As such the DfT's liability would likely be limited to the extra construction costs and so would be relatively attractive.

That said given the levels of development proposed along the SWML and the already relatively high traffic congestion that there is in the area there is likely to be sufficient extra tax take to offset some of the costs.

One area of taxation which is easier to relate back to rail projects is that of stamp duty, in that increased capacity asks more houses to be built (as most capacity improvements to the roads should be developer funded). As such for every 200 homes built with a purchase cost of £300,000 that's an extra £1 million of tax.

To put that £300,000 (£5,000 in stamp duty) in perspective at many places along the SWML that could just about get you a 3 bed house with many 4 bed house costing double that (£20,000 in stamp duty). I am aware of one area where within close proximity to two SWML stations there is the potential for circa 3500 homes. That could generate £20-£70 million in tax the first time that they are sold (assuming that no properties are sold to purchase them).

However over a 40 year period chances are they will all be sold another 2 times (£60-£210 million). Which although is about 0.5% of the £16 billion that the project will cost this is only at two stations. Although that is highly unlikely to be replicated at every station CR2 will be benefiting a very large area (possibly even as far a field as Exeter) and so stamp duty could cover a significant amount of the cost of the scheme.

 

[muddythefish]

Not a single penny of public money should be allocated to Crossrail 2 until the Northern HS3 is given the go-ahead

As some failed prime minister said, enough is enough when it comes to public funding of southern infrastructure.

 

[Busaholic]

Not a single penny of public money should be allocated to Crossrail 2 until the Northern HS3 is given the go-ahead

As some failed prime minister said, enough is enough when it comes to public funding of southern infrastructure.

Not a single penny of public money should be allocated to Crossrail 2 until it is proved that a full Thameslink service can be operated without disruption on more than the odd day.

 

[Olaf]

Not a single penny of public money should be allocated to Crossrail 2 until the Northern HS3 is given the go-ahead

As some failed prime minister said, enough is enough when it comes to public funding of southern infrastructure.

Still no firm, and fully costed proposals for HS3. There is no indication that the demand will justify the expenditure, nor of what negative impacts it would have on conurbations at the extremities or avoided altogether by the route(s) - whatever they may be.

You are also suggesting that London, the leader of the two Alpha++ cities, and thus CapitalOne, which has unfilled demand be put second place to a group of cites which rate at best Beta- with no significant unfulfilled demand that could not be met by existing infrastructure nor a similar balance between services and manufacturing to that in the capital thus of questionable aggregation benefits.

 

[muddythefish]

You are also suggesting that London, the leader of the two Alpha++ cities, and thus CapitalOne, which has unfilled demand be put second place to a group of cites which rate at best Beta- with no significant unfulfilled demand that could not be met by existing infrastructure nor a similar balance between services and manufacturing to that in the capital thus of questionable aggregation benefits.

If you could put that in simple English I might be able to reply.

 

[plcd1]

Not a single penny of public money should be allocated to Crossrail 2 until it is proved that a full Thameslink service can be operated without disruption on more than the odd day.

If you're going to use that type of argument then don't spend money on the railways or transport system full stop. There are always incidents, breakdowns, staff shortages, the public doing daft things etc etc across the country whether on the roads, on air services, on trains or on buses. You didn't specify the root cause of the disruption so I assume it covers all possible causes and therefore all modes are susceptible on that basis.

Crossrail 2, as at its last iteration, would have a high degree of separation therefore minimising the risk of "knock on" disruption which I assume is your concern about Thameslink.

 

[Olaf]

If you could put that in simple English I might be able to reply.

Try studying the subject.

 

[The Ham]

Personally if CR2 isn't going to be going ahead any time soon then at the very least (just for the south western franchise) there would need to be changes to Basingstoke and Woking junctions (£0.2 billion upwards) and the southern approach to Heathrow (£0.7-£1.8 billion).

That would allow it to be seen if passenger numbers grow when investment is made but at a much lower risk. However, that would do nothing for the Tube or north. As the extra cost of doing the regional option over the metro option was about £7 billion then opting building the 5 track at £1 billion which brings a lot less in benefits (even just for the south western franchise would appear to be wasteful.

 

[Feathers44]

Try studying the subject.

Sadly, many of us have jobs and careers of our own so lack the time to study up on other people's topics. So don't be patronising.

 

[Chester1]

Sadly, many of us have jobs and careers of our own so lack the time to study up on other people's topics. So don't be patronising.

He is saying in an OTT style that London is the most important city in the world and therefore deserves the investment while the Northern cities are minor therefore don't. It is the sort of comment that means I have little sympathy when Londoners complain about the cost of living. I am quite happy living in Greater Manchester and having 90% of what London has to offer at half the cost. I have lived in London too. Rebalancing the economy is better than funding more infrastructure for a city that cant function properly and consquently makes life unaffordable for many. If London wants another new railway it should pay for it.

 

[HSTEd]

If Manchester wants another new tram line it should pay for it.
See where this argument leads?