A Crossrail 3 Idea: Victoria to West Hampstead/Chiltern line

[DynamicSpirit]

I'm wondering if this would work as an idea for a future Crossrail 3: As shown in the map:

Tunnel from Victoria, heading up to Hyde Park Corner, Marble Arch, Edgware Road, Kilburn High Road, where the line would divide. One tunnel would head up to West Hampstead, Golders Green and on to possible destinations in North London, perhaps around and a bit beyond Finchley. The other would head NW and emerge to join the National Rail Chiltern line, probably somewhere near Willesden Green.

This line would then absorb quite a few of the Southern metro services from Victoria, turning them into cross-London trains. Some of those could then provide a stopping service to West Ruislip along the Chiltern line via Wembley Stadium, or take over the Marylebone-Aylesbury services.

I'm conscious that in previous discussions, it's been said in these forums that once Crossrail 2 is built, there will be no room under central London for any more railway tunnels. I think this proposal avoids that problem by steering the line a bit further West, so it avoids the places that are most crowded with multiple existing tube lines, while still providing lots of new interchanges. At Victoria, it would route completely to the West of the existing Victoria line - so it could presumably be built with platforms at the same depth as the Victoria line, avoiding conflicts with Crossrail2 (which crosses the Victoria line there so I would assume must be planned to be built at a different depth).

Thoughts? I don't think there's any doubt that this would be useful, but would it be possible/practicable to build?

 

[brad465]

I suspect a big challenge will be where the tunnel portals go. Nowhere between the river and Clapham Junction looks suitable. It might be possible to tunnel from the bottom of Grosvenor bank and take out the western carriage sidings and high-end platform numbers, but this would be very disruptive and is on the wrong side for metro services as things stand. There might be some industrial estate land that could be used around Neasden for the NW portal, with the station becoming a large hub in conjunction with existing lines and the new West London Orbital.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

If this did happen I reckon it’d be the beginning of the end for Marylebone.

You’d probably end up with these Crossrail 3 trains serving all stations to Aylesbury and to High Wycombe or Princes Risborough, and then Oxford and Birmingham services running from Old Oak Common or something, non stop to High Wycombe, Princes Risborough or beyond.

I don’t however consider that altogether a bad thing.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 15:17 ==

I suspect a big challenge will be where the tunnel portals go. Nowhere between the river and Clapham Junction looks suitable. It might be possible to tunnel from the bottom of Grosvenor bank and take out the western carriage sidings and high-end platform numbers, but this would be very disruptive and is on the wrong side for metro services as things stand. There might be some industrial estate land that could be used around Neasden for the NW portal, with the station becoming a large hub in conjunction with existing lines and the new West London Orbital.

I think you could possibly do it by closing Battersea Park‘s existing station and having the slow lines run straight into a portal where the slow lines and platform space is now, serving Battersea Park underground.

 

[brad465]

If this did happen I reckon it’d be the beginning of the end for Marylebone.

You’d probably end up with these Crossrail 3 trains serving all stations to Aylesbury and to High Wycombe or Princes Risborough, and then Oxford and Birmingham services running from Old Oak Common or something, non stop to High Wycombe, Princes Risborough or beyond.

I don’t however consider that altogether a bad thing.

If Marylebone closed it might be possible to have the northern portal basically takeover the current station approach area, with Marylebone having Crossrail platforms more or less underneath the existing station converted into a large concourse with shopping/markets, etc. However this would mean for around a year or two absolutely no trains could run through here, so would at a minimum require Old Oak Common to be ready with Chiltern services. This isn't unreasonable though given such a scheme being proposed now is unlikely to lead to shovels in the ground before OOC opens to non-HS2 services.

I think you could possibly do it by closing Battersea Park‘s existing station and having the slow lines run straight into a portal where the slow lines and platform space is now, serving Battersea Park underground.

Having a better look there is another possibility: start the tunnels between Wandsworth Common and Clapham Junction, where some football pitch land on the slow line side could be bought up for this. This would be far less disruptive than any portal devised further towards Victoria, however would come at the cost of longer tunnelling and at least two more stations having underground platforms. On the plus side though, this could allow Battersea Park's above ground platforms to close, and Clapham Junction could be remodelled to allow more fast trains to call, if two platforms in each direction are able to share an island for this purpose.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If Marylebone closed it might be possible to have the northern portal basically takeover the current station approach area, with Marylebone having Crossrail platforms more or less underneath the existing station converted into a large concourse with shopping/markets, etc. However this would mean for around a year or two absolutely no trains could run through here, so would at a minimum require Old Oak Common to be ready with Chiltern services. This isn't unreasonable though given such a scheme being proposed now is unlikely to lead to shovels in the ground before OOC opens to non-HS2 services.

Building it that way does have the advantage of minimising new tunnels, since you can in effect use the existing line from Marylebone. But if all trains go that way, you're losing the ability to run a branch up towards Finchley. It would mean all CR3 trains would have to run along Chiltern lines, which might mean you struggle to find enough places for the trains to go at the Northern end. Also Marylebone isn't such a useful interchange as Edgware Road for the station in that area, since it lacks Circle/H&C connections.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 15:52 ==

If this did happen I reckon it’d be the beginning of the end for Marylebone.

You’d probably end up with these Crossrail 3 trains serving all stations to Aylesbury and to High Wycombe or Princes Risborough, and then Oxford and Birmingham services running from Old Oak Common or something, non stop to High Wycombe, Princes Risborough or beyond.

I don’t however consider that altogether a bad thing.

The thought had occurred to me too. Marylebone is a lovely station, but arguably the least useful/worst connected of all London termini, so in practical terms I agree that it probably wouldn't be a bad thing if all Chiltern services went instead to CR3/OOC.

 

[brad465]

Building it that way does have the advantage of minimising new tunnels, since you can in effect use the existing line from Marylebone. But if all trains go that way, you're losing the ability to run a branch up towards Finchley. It would mean all CR3 trains would have to run along Chiltern lines, which might mean you struggle to find enough places for the trains to go at the Northern end. Also Marylebone isn't such a useful interchange as Edgware Road for the station in that area, since it lacks Circle/H&C connections.

I'd like to think that a new Crossrail station at Marylebone would combine with Baker Street nearby to provide an enlarged interchange, similar to how the Elizabeth Line serves Liverpool Street and Moorgate in one station.

 

[Snow1964]

Towards the end of WW2 there was a rail route plan for London.

There was a priority route 8 (basically Vauxhall, Victoria, West End, Euston, Kings Cross, Highbury, which was actually built in form of Victoria Line)

Route 12B was lower priority, but was proposed from Clapham Junction, Royal Hospital Road, Sloane Street to Baker Street and onwards

Route 3 linked the approaches to London Bridge via City, followed Central line to about where Elizabeth lines Bond Street (Hanover Square station) has been built, then curved up to Marylebone joining route onwards.

Effectively joining combination of bits of these 3 lines (listed above) proposed 81 years ago. But would make sense to have more crossrail routes

 

[The Pelican]

This 2011 London Reconnections article discusses BR's 1980s proposals for a variety of Victoria or Blackfriars Crossrail lines to a series of northern termini including Paddington and Kings Cross St Pancras.

What If: Crossrail 1980

The link across London would provide through trains, cut-out inconvenient interchanges between train and underground or taxi, and thus save ...

londonreconnections.blogspot.com

Arguably, the best route for a crossrail line from the North West of London would be to follow the fleet line corridor, from a rebuilt (or redrilled) Charing Cross Jubilee Line through Fleet Street, City Thameslink and then either Fenchurch Street or London Bridge.

 

[Wolfie]

Building it that way does have the advantage of minimising new tunnels, since you can in effect use the existing line from Marylebone. But if all trains go that way, you're losing the ability to run a branch up towards Finchley. It would mean all CR3 trains would have to run along Chiltern lines, which might mean you struggle to find enough places for the trains to go at the Northern end. Also Marylebone isn't such a useful interchange as Edgware Road for the station in that area, since it lacks Circle/H&C connections.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 15:52 ==



The thought had occurred to me too. Marylebone is a lovely station, but arguably the least useful/worst connected of all London termini, so in practical terms I agree that it probably wouldn't be a bad thing if all Chiltern services went instead to CR3/OOC.

Re your last para, Fenchurch Street is up there too.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 16:32 ==

I'd like to think that a new Crossrail station at Marylebone would combine with Baker Street nearby to provide an enlarged interchange, similar to how the Elizabeth Line serves Liverpool Street and Moorgate in one station.

That should be a given. See also the plans for Euston/Kings Cross/St Pancras on CR2.

 

[md2016]

Building it that way does have the advantage of minimising new tunnels, since you can in effect use the existing line from Marylebone. But if all trains go that way, you're losing the ability to run a branch up towards Finchley. It would mean all CR3 trains would have to run along Chiltern lines, which might mean you struggle to find enough places for the trains to go at the Northern end. Also Marylebone isn't such a useful interchange as Edgware Road for the station in that area, since it lacks Circle/H&C connections.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 15:52 ==



The thought had occurred to me too. Marylebone is a lovely station, but arguably the least useful/worst connected of all London termini, so in practical terms I agree that it probably wouldn't be a bad thing if all Chiltern services went instead to CR3/OOC.

With your plan I’d ensure the High Wycombe branch also stopped at West Hampstead, given the existing Chiltern essentially runs alongside it, and your plan cuts off access to the Jubilee via the short walk to Baker Street.

All the extra tunnelling to Edgware Road and not using the existing line to High Wycombe, feels like it adds cost and unless you’re going to merge the Edgware Road stations, feels like there would probably be far greater benefits by linking it with Paddington and Crossrail, even if the costs of deep tunnelling would be significant.

Although I’d have thought a larger Baker Street interchange makes much more sense than either of these options. Then routing down using a very similar line to Victoria.

If they need to prove their growth credentials, they could run the line to Bicester, connecting it to Knightsbridge, Oxford Street and Mayfair for more tax free shopping or whatever.

 

[NCT]

There isn't enough civilisation along the Chiltern for a Crossrail. Or, put it another way, Chiltern already has the Metropolitan as its Crossrail.

Assuming Crossrail 2 serving the Lea Valley is a given, on the north side of the river, the next Crossrail candidate is actually an existing Cross route - Shenfield. This route will need a full Crossrail rather than a half Crossrail, same as the Abbey Wood branch.

 

[Bald Rick]

The Crossrail 2 station for Victoria is safeguarded all along the west side. Depth is not just about the running tinnels, but the station boxes and everything that goes with it. Having seen the Victoria expansion works first hand during construction, I personally can’t see how you could build another Crossrail type station down there after Crossrail 2.

Similalry there’s not a lot of space around Edgware Road / Baker St, and finding somewhere for the station boxes there around the Bakerloo / Circle / Met / Jubilee / everything else will I suspect be a great challenge.

The portals are another issue. Not least how you build them without being very disruptive to the train service, for example…

I think you could possibly do it by closing Battersea Park‘s existing station and having the slow lines run straight into a portal where the slow lines and platform space is now, serving Battersea Park underground.

… this suggestion would mean no metro services to Victoria (and thus reduced metro services overall) for several years.

Marble Arch would also need a massive rebuild, as that would be the interchange point for much of the West end and the City.

It would have to take all the Southern Metro services into Victoria, and then some more, to have a viable service in the core.

Having said all that, compared to many suggestions (including by former Mayors) it does have some merit in constructability, because it crosses the edge of the Central Business District rather than crosses it. But that then brings its own issues with potential usage.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The Crossrail 2 station for Victoria is safeguarded all along the west side. Depth is not just about the running tinnels, but the station boxes and everything that goes with it. Having seen the Victoria expansion works first hand during construction, I personally can’t see how you could build another Crossrail type station down there after Crossrail 2.

Would it make a difference if planning for this was done before construction started on CR2 - so there could be passive provision at Victoria (or more optimistically, the box for CR3 platforms put in place at the same time as the box for CR2 is being built?)

Similalry there’s not s lot of space around Edgware Road / Baker St, and finding somewhere for the station boxes there around the Bakerloo / Circle / Met / Jubilee / everything else will I suspect be a great challenge.

Have to admit that's partly why I went for running it through Edgware Road rather than anywhere near Baker Street. You only have the Bakerloo and Circle/H&C lines to consider there, and they are some horizontal distance apart too. (Also influenced by that the areas around Edgware Road and Kilburn High Road are both very busy areas that arguably could do with better links, whereas there are already lots of lines heading North from Marylebone/Baker Street and I doubt any more are needed).

It would have to take all the Southern Metro services into Victoria, and then some more, to have a viable service in the core.

I'm guessing that if most metro trains are no longer terminating at Victoria, that removes a pretty big constraint on the number of services you can run, opening the possibility of higher frequencies on some of the metro routes (though doubtless that would require other work further South)

Having said all that, compared to many suggestions (including by former Mayors) it does have some merit in constructability, because it crosses the edge of the Central Business District rather than crosses it. But that then brings its own issues with potential usage.

Thanks! (I'll take all the non-condemnatory comments I considering how often speculative suggestions get shot down as completely unworkable )

I imagine that if something like this got built, the business/shopping district would quickly expand Westwards to take advantage (compare with how the area around Farringdon station has been transformed over the last 15 years).

 

[Bald Rick]

Would it make a difference if planning for this was done before construction started on CR2 - so there could be passive provision at Victoria (or more optimistically, the box for CR3 platforms put in place at the same time as the box for CR2 is being built?)

Victoria was tricky for CR2, various places considered for the station boxes (these are boxes for the entrances / gatelines / escalators / lift shafts / plant rooms etc). They had to be big because of the forecast usage, and it is the devil of a job to find two locations for them to go that are:

a) roughly between 200 and 400 metres apart, so they can be either end of the platform tunnels
b) aligned so they are close to the running tunnel / platform tunnel alignment
c) aligned such that the platfrom tunnels can be very nearly straight, level, and sufficiently seperated
d) that all of the above doesn’t mean digging into existing critical infrastructure such as other railway tunnels, critical telecoms / power tunnels, Bazalgette sewers, Rivers, basements of buildings that contain sensitive kit and are essentially not practical to move (eg embassies, major medical research faciltiies, royal households), and come above ground in places where what is there now can be reasonably demolished (ie not listed, or a skyscraper worth a couple of billion).

But, yes, if it was planned and ready to go by the time Crossrail 2 was back up and running and ready to go through the consent process, it would be easier on a procedural basis. But I reiterate that given the issues CR2 had at Victoria, I don’t know where another station could be built there. As it stands the CR2 safeguarding required all of Victoria coach station and many adjoining buildings, plus the large office block opposite the station all along Buckingham Palace Road, plus Grosvenor Gardens, plus many other adjacent properties. This was what was needed for the forecast CR2 passenger numbers. To build another, parallel, new Crossrail station there of similar size would mean knocking down a good chunk of residential Belgravia.

 

[MotCO]

But, yes, if it was planned and ready to go by the time Crossrail 2 was back up and running and ready to go through the consent process, it would be easier on a procedural basis. But I reiterate that given the issues CR2 had at Victoria, I don’t know where another station could be built there. As it stands the CR2 safeguarding required all of Victoria coach station and many adjoining buildings, plus the large office block opposite the station all along Buckingham Palace Road, plus Grosvenor Gardens, plus many other adjacent properties. This was what was needed for the forecast CR2 passenger numbers. To build another, parallel, new Crossrail station there of similar size would mean knocking down a good chunk of residential Belgravia.

Is there any way the CR2 box at Victoria could also accommodate CR3 (i.e, use the same platforms or add a couple more*), or would this seriously compromise the number of trains that are planned to operate on CR2?

* obviously very easy to say, but to implement.....?

 

[brad465]

To build another, parallel, new Crossrail station there of similar size would mean knocking down a good chunk of residential Belgravia.

OH NO! How could a load of foreign investors and money launderers cope with losing their stately Belgravia homes that they never set foot in?

Crossrail 2 has a weird route IMO, based on the detours for Balham/Tooting and the right angle turn from St Pancras before going back NW further north.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Victoria was tricky for CR2, various places considered for the station boxes (these are boxes for the entrances / gatelines / escalators / lift shafts / plant rooms etc). They had to be big because of the forecast usage, and it is the devil of a job to find two locations for them to go that are:

a) roughly between 200 and 400 metres apart, so they can be either end of the platform tunnels
b) aligned so they are close to the running tunnel / platform tunnel alignment
c) aligned such that the platfrom tunnels can be very nearly straight, level, and sufficiently seperated
d) that all of the above doesn’t mean digging into existing critical infrastructure such as other railway tunnels, critical telecoms / power tunnels, Bazalgette sewers, Rivers, basements of buildings that contain sensitive kit and are essentially not practical to move (eg embassies, major medical research faciltiies, royal households), and come above ground in places where what is there now can be reasonably demolished (ie not listed, or a skyscraper worth a couple of billion).

But, yes, if it was planned and ready to go by the time Crossrail 2 was back up and running and ready to go through the consent process, it would be easier on a procedural basis. But I reiterate that given the issues CR2 had at Victoria, I don’t know where another station could be built there. As it stands the CR2 safeguarding required all of Victoria coach station and many adjoining buildings, plus the large office block opposite the station all along Buckingham Palace Road, plus Grosvenor Gardens, plus many other adjacent properties. This was what was needed for the forecast CR2 passenger numbers. To build another, parallel, new Crossrail station there of similar size would mean knocking down a good chunk of residential Belgravia.

I'm reading from all that that CR2 Victoria is being envisaged as a separate station next to the existing station.

I think there is one relevant difference: CR2 brings loads of new trains and new passengers to Victoria - trains that would previously have gone to Waterloo, implying the need to accomodate massive extra footfall. But my suggestion for CR3 involves diverting existing trains that already serve Victoria - so a much lower number of new passengers. Indeed, it may even remove some passengers from the footfall - since many of the people who currently change from NR to the Underground at Victoria would simply stay on their CR3 trains. I'm not sure how much that changes things from a building perspective though.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 23:44 ==

Is there any way the CR2 box at Victoria could also accommodate CR3 (i.e, use the same platforms or add a couple more*), or would this seriously compromise the number of trains that are planned to operate on CR2?

* obviously very easy to say, but to implement.....?

CR2 and CR3 Northbound being on opposite sides of an island platform, and then Southbound on opposite sides of another island platform would be amazing for interchange. So convenient! It would also significantly reduce the number of people heading to the station exits/street level to find their connections.

 

[SynthD]

Indeed, it may even remove some passengers from the footfall - since many of the people who currently change from NR to the Underground at Victoria would simply stay on their CR3 trains. I'm not sure how much that changes things from a building perspective though.

Your proposal goes in a direction the underground doesn’t. That’s good for connectivity, for making new paths, but it’s not as good for the existing ways people leave Victoria. There could be a majority of people heading from the CR3 platforms to the existing lines.

CR2 and CR3 Northbound being on opposite sides of an island platform, and then Southbound on opposite sides of another island platform would be amazing for interchange. So convenient! It would also significantly reduce the number of people heading to the station exits/street level to find their connections.

True, but that near doubles the cost of building before any benefit is seen. Assuming you’re thinking of stacking these two islands to stick to the CR2 safeguarding, that’s a lot of people coming from one area to the rest of the station and beyond, no saving on escalators and lifts to the even deeper lower level.

 

[Bald Rick]

Is there any way the CR2 box at Victoria could also accommodate CR3 (i.e, use the same platforms or add a couple more*), or would this seriously compromise the number of trains that are planned to operate on CR2?

* obviously very easy to say, but to implement.....?

I was assuming that this proposal involved building additional platforms alomgside those proposed for CR2. Hence the need to demolish some of Belgravia.

I'm reading from all that that CR2 Victoria is being envisaged as a separate station next to the existing station.

Depends what you mean seperate station. Clearly the lines are in a different place. There would have to be seperate entrances and exists as well as using new entrances / exits within the footprint of Victoria itself.

But my suggestion for CR3 involves diverting existing trains that already serve Victoria - so a much lower number of new passengers

Three things:

1) you have to plan for growth - it’s inconceivable that such a new line wouldn’t spark significant growth (see the Elizabeth Line, London Overground, etc)

2) One of the principles of removing the metro services from Waterloo was to enable more longer distance services to operate. That would surely be an objective for this proposal too.

3) regardless, if you are putting the same passengers through a different part of the station (as must be the case), you need to provide the space for them at that different part, ie the vertical circulation.

 

[JonathanH]

2) One of the principles of removing the metro services from Waterloo was to enable more longer distance services to operate. That would surely be an objective for this proposal too.

One of the issues there must be the realisation that at Victoria constraints elsewhere mean that additional long distance services can't easily be created given the Brighton line already feeds both London Bridge and Victoria.

Proposals to build a Crossrail for the Southern metro typically seem to stem from a view that the routes via Balham should run at underground frequencies without any thought for what would use the freed up capacity.

The need for two track railway periods would be an issue if the quantum of service increased and the tunnel portal was too close to London.

 

[Snow1964]

Is there any way the CR2 box at Victoria could also accommodate CR3 (i.e, use the same platforms or add a couple more*), or would this seriously compromise the number of trains that are planned to operate on CR2?

* obviously very easy to say, but to implement.....?

If going to build it as cut and cover, top down (similar to Paddington or Canary Wharf on Elizabeth line) where pile the walls then cast ceiling slabs for road, the dig out below.

Could in theory build under an existing Street (Buckingham Palace Road or Wilton Street) and build a 2 level station. Not really the room the build 4 platforms widthways.

There are couple of Central line stations (St Paul's and Chancery Lane) where the platforms are almost stacked above each other. From memory South Kensington and Holborn are partially line this too, to allow 2 platforms in either direction had they ever been expanded to full 4 platforms for one line.

There is logic in having 2 northbound platforms on one level, and 2 southbound on other level as it allows cross platform interchange, rather than CR2 and CR3 paired