Could South Central Metro services be "Crossrailed"?

[Sad Sprinter]

As a thought experiment, if the Southern locals from Victoria were going to be put onto a Crossrail line, where could a portal potentially be placed? Seeing as the line is on a viaduct for the first couple of miles, the earliest point would have to be Clapham Junction - perhaps in the space where that large advertising board is today? Anywhere south of Balham, such as on Tooting Common (good luck with that), would mean missing out the Crystal Palace Line and presumably Wandsworth Common station. If you do that, would a Crossrail serving the Mitcham and Norbury routes even be worth it?

Just a thought, not a serious proposal.

 

[JonathanH]

Just a thought, not a serious proposal.

Hasn't 'Bald Rick' suggested in the past that there isn't any suitable alignment under London for any more underground lines now?

The question is really about what is trying to be relieved by getting lines in a tunnel. Victoria isn't really overloaded in the same way as the routes into Waterloo (although Victoria underground station has been in the past). Crossrail 2 already relieves that in part so it isn't easy to see why the Balham routes would need relief.

The other point regarding South Central Metro is that the Croydon works were meant to improve connectivity to that centre. Other works could be done that simplify the network which could still be serviced from Victoria. All the flat junctions suppress the service that could be offered without tunnelling.

 

[Bald Rick]

No space for a portal at Clapham Jn, it was looked at for Crossrail 2.

More precisely, you can fit a portal in, just, but you can’t serve it with the logistics to build it. How to build a railway is often forgotten about by those proposing them!

And a portal there does nothing for capacity on the line. You’d want the portal, or at least extra tracks, to be much further back; to at least Balham Jn, and probably Streatham Common.

On the point about space underground - realistically there isn’t any left under central London (West End, City) To build another Crossrail after CR2. Strictly speaking there is if you go very deep, but then you get into difficulty with the amount of time it takes to get people to/from street level at the stations, which means that journey time savings disappear, and passengers would prefer to use existing routes. It is also technically challenging to dig that deep in London, specifically in terms of the construction logistics, emergency access and ventilation.

 

[adamedwards]

Is Victoria - Marble Arch - Paddington and then out to join the suburban lines into Euston possible with the tunnels under Hyde Park? Connects to crossrail one at Paddington where there is only one deep tube line, the Bakerloo. Saves on platforms at Victoria. The snag is that only some Euston passengers will want to go to that end of Oxford st. I suspect too much crayon and not enough money!

 

[JonathanH]

Is Victoria - Marble Arch - Paddington and then out to join the suburban lines into Euston possible with the tunnels under Hyde Park? Connects to crossrail one at Paddington where there is only one deep tube line, the Bakerloo. Saves on platforms at Victoria. The snag is that only some Euston passengers will want to go to that end of Oxford st. I suspect too much crayon and not enough money!

That sounds like a line just for the sake of building one. Victoria to Paddington already has two reasonable underground routes plus buses and there isn't exactly much commercial reason to have stops at either Hyde Park Corner and Marble Arch or indeed further west.

What is the business case for such a line?

 

[adamedwards]

The logic of cross London lines is by saving on trains turning round you save on stock but also you open up new journeys or make existing journeys easier. In reflection my crossrail 3 probably ought to go to Marylebone so you could join up Amersham and High Wycombe local trains with those south of the river. Passengers heading for the west end can stay on the train and avoid a tube journey, walking from say Hyde Park Corner. The problem is it's not as good a route as Crossrail 2 or Thameslink. But who knows when we need to really deal with car dependacy in Westminster.

 

[Bald Rick]

The logic of cross London lines is by saving on trains turning round you save on stock but also you open up new journeys or make existing journeys easier. In reflection my crossrail 3 probably ought to go to Marylebone so you could join up Amersham and High Wycombe local trains with those south of the river. Passengers heading for the west end can stay on the train and avoid a tube journey, walking from say Hyde Park Corner. The problem is it's not as good a route as Crossrail 2 or Thameslink. But who knows when we need to really deal with car dependacy in Westminster.

The logic of cross London lines is to provide better connectivity (more direct or connecting journey opportunities), reduced journey times, and most importantly significantly increased capacity, all of which enable economic growth through development. Saving on stock doesn’t really come into it, accepting that the case for the original Thameslink reopening in 1988 was made on that basis.

The issue with any line aiming to take the Southern metro lines into Victoria is where the southern portal could be. Wandsworth Common is the only realistic place that doesn’t involve widespread residential demolition, and the very best of British luck to anyone who tries that.

 

[DanNCL]

Disregarding the issues regarding space underneath Central London, there’s also practicality to take into account.

The east - west Crossrail route worked as there was an obvious route on both sides of the new alignment to run services through to, the GEML and GWML. The same wouldn’t be the case with a north - south Crossrail route to link the South London lines, as whilst there’s the obvious choice of the Balham lines to feed into it at the south, there isn’t any obvious choice at the North end with both the ECML and MML already feeding into Thameslink instead.

There will always be a need for a large quantity of inner suburban services to terminate in Central London from south of the Thames as there isn’t the same quantity of inner suburban routes North of London. This is ultimately because of how the tube network developed into a network focussing on areas north of the Thames, meaning there wasn’t the same need to build mainline suburban routes to the north of the river as there was to the south.

 

[Backroom_boy]

There will always be a need for a large quantity of inner suburban services to terminate in Central London from south of the Thames as there isn’t the same quantity of inner suburban routes North of London. This is ultimately because of how the tube network developed into a network focussing on areas north of the Thames, meaning there wasn’t the same need to build mainline suburban routes to the north of the river as there was to the south.

Suggesting that any possible future CR after CR2 would link to a tube line; eg. BAKERLOO to the southeast?

 

[cle]

Suggesting that any possible future CR after CR2 would link to a tube line; eg. BAKERLOO to the southeast?

This is a lot more realistic and deliverable than CR2. At least to Lewisham, but then Hayes/Beckenham Junction offers other benefits (4tph released for other services, a new service to Beckenham) - in a sense, it's a Hayes line Crossrail?! Threading through the centre, one seat rides at frequency, releasing terminus paths... etc.

 

[London Trains]

Realistically the next Crossrail should be connected to the Southeastern network, and probably has to be connected to a tube line north of London since there are very few Crossrail suitable lines.

My idea would be:

Met Line all branches/Chiltern Aylesbury via Amersham - Wembley Park - (Tunnel Portal between Willesden Green and Kilburn) - West Hampstead - Finchley Road - Camden Town - Euston - Farringdon - Bank - London Bridge - Canada Water - Deptford - Lewisham - (Tunnel Portals north of Ladywell and at Hither Green) - Hayes/Dartford via Sidcup/Orpington via Chislehurst

If space underground is an issue then Bank could be replaced with a "City" station at St Paul's Cathedral.

Could simply take the Metropolitan Line name, just rebrand it as a Crossrail Line, not LU.

 

[Bald Rick]

If space underground is an issue then Bank could be replaced with a "City" station at St Paul's Cathedral.

space is very much an issue underground. Certainly no space in Bank / Moorgate / Liverpool St area, and I’m given to believe none in the St Paul’s / Holborn area either. There are a lot of deep telecoms tunnels around there. (Proper tunnels, not conduits). Plus of course Crossrail, the Central line, the Picc line, the bomb shelters / prospective limited stop Central line stations, etc.

 

[cle]

Realistically the next Crossrail should be connected to the Southeastern network, and probably has to be connected to a tube line north of London since there are very few Crossrail suitable lines.

That's basically my Bakerloo spin

Two branches of SE, with the Beckenham spur (admittedly not really used) - but having Beckenham on the tube map will be quite the game changer for the area.

And would take 2tph out of Charing Cross, and 2tph from Cannon St.

I'd imagine / hope they'd all head towards Dartford with at least 2 via Greenwich - the Ladywell fasts could be Kent services I guess, as they do the Lewisham avoid. And if the pathing has to be literal replacing, then the CS/Lewisham/Hayes 2tph needs to run via Sidcup? Not sure how tight.