I have seen a couple of similar suggestions but more concerned with linking Basildon / Southend with North Kent.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Realistic outlook for new lines in London
- Thread starter Alxxxs
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
BritishGuy54
Member
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2019
- Messages
- 37
I believe that would be the Ken-Ex Tramlink proposals.
I’m not entirely confident in trams being the way to go, but perhaps heavy rail might be more preferred overall.
I could see a Fenchurch St - Gravesend service via Rainham (London) & Grays, as well as a Southend Central - Gravesend link that is less frequent?
Maybe Tilbury Town gets an extra set of platforms?
When I first looked at a map of the area I was immediately crayoning in an extension from Tilbury Riverside to Gravesend. At 12 I wasn't up to speed with the practicalities of gradients and geology
Doesn’t St Pancras fulfil this journey flow quite well, today - with Stratford Intl for the many connections?
Hot take but I think East London, Essex and Kent are now the best served areas and more would be over provision. Time to focus on South.
The figures in the Stansted Airport planning application are:
The AM peak is 42.5% of capacity towards London, with capacity going away from London at 22.9%.
The PM peak is 51.2% of capacity going away from London, with capacity going towards London at 31.4%.
So your statement is incorrect.
Indeed, but the morning peak on Stansted Express has commuting flows from Bishops Stortford and Harlow Town, though at much lower levels than before the pandemic. That capacity is now helping commuters nearer London with the Cheshunt calls.
No it isn't. Your assertion only works if the other 67 trains in your calculation are all empty! The service can have average loadings of two-thirds and have no standing passengers at all, if the loads are well spread across all trains. Average loadings need to be approaching 100% before there are significant numbers of standing passengers. Many commuters are adaptable: if particular services are crowded then those that are able to do so will shift their journey times to less busy trains.
Even if London funds 40%, that means that 60% needs to be funded nationally. 60% of the cost of Crossrail 2 is still a big number. Nationally there are already big financial commitments to HS2, EWR and Trans-Pennine. Governments are going to do well to maintain funding for those, they are not going to be adding another new big project to the list any time soon.
BritishGuy54
Member
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2019
- Messages
- 37
Unless HS1 opens a station at Dagenham or Rainham, not particularly.
A lot of inner east London (Newham) has great connections.
But once you get to parts of Redbridge, Barking & Dagenham, Havering, Thurrock, etc. the connections are mostly radial with lackluster interconnectivity between areas.
More north-south rail connections in East London crossing the Thames would be good for the future.
I could see a new c2c spur to Gravesend as a good option and alternative to road crossings, as well as some kind of option linking Dagenham and Belvedere via tube?
I think that with Silvertown, and with DLR to Thamesmead, it will be better than today. Most of the newer crossings (DLR x 2, JLE. CR1...) are further west for obvious reasons.
And yes Stratford might be a backtrack, but it's so fast from there to Ebbsfleet - for instance - that it's still a highly effective way to route from Essex to Kent. Abbey Wood is another. I can't see much more rail-based demand. Links are excellent, really.
And yes Stratford might be a backtrack, but it's so fast from there to Ebbsfleet - for instance - that it's still a highly effective way to route from Essex to Kent. Abbey Wood is another. I can't see much more rail-based demand. Links are excellent, really.
BritishGuy54
Member
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2019
- Messages
- 37
With the DLR to Thamesmead, knowing the TfL is considering further spurs south to Abbey Wood and north to Barking is good.
But I don’t know about everything east of that point. I’m wondering if a new line north-south from Romford down to Belvedere, and maybe linking with Greenwich could be interesting… which could be an entirely new line, or a Jubilee/Bakerloo line extension spur.
I think a new line with two branches (one to Romford, other to Bexley), meeting in North Greenwich, and and snaking into the West End via Kennington could be intriguing. From there, maybe going straight north up from Queen’s Park to Hendon Central and linking northwest London north-south directly.
I had a go to see where the DLR could go an came up with this:
Pale Blue is existing. Red is the Authorised route. Pink is Thamesmead Cannon to South Mere. Yellow is South Mere to Abbey Wood. Purple is South Mere to Belvedere. Pale Mauve is the South eastern line to Dartford (Possible Liz Line extension). Mid Blue is Gallions Reach to Barking. Pale Green is Armada Way to Dagenham Dock and King George V to Gallions Reach (It's one scheme). Rust is the original proposed line of the Dagenham Dock branch. There's a short pale yellow line near Arnmada Way to allow Dagenham Dock trains access to Thamesmead etc, and a pale blue line that allows Barking Branch trains to do likewise.
Most of the lines are elevated. Creekmouth has alternative positions.
I've changed the name of the proposed Beckton Riverside to Armada Way and Thamesmead to Thamesmead Cannon.
The problems I've found just by looking is that the Barking Branch goes through the middle of nowhere (by London Standards) and has to be tunnelled at point near the Barking Road Junction with the North Circular and has to perform gymnastics due to the presence of Barking Abbey and other stuff.
The rust-coloured route is roughly the line proposed by DLR/Transport for London. I found by pushing the line north through the sewage works, you could fit a delta junction in to allow trains to run between Thamesmead and Barking Riverside without transfer or reversal at Armada Way.
The line through Albert Island came about as a way of avoiding over-trafficking the existing line via Cyprus. It would have to be almost entirely underground/underwater and strangely curved to get the tunnels round the piers of the existing DLR viaduct to a very shallow sub-surface station at Gallions Reach followed by a very steep incline (i in 30ish /3.33%) to reach a complicated junction just under the abandoned approach to the cancelled Thames Gateway Bridge.
And there's loads of other stuff, but I'm calling a halt there.
Pale Blue is existing. Red is the Authorised route. Pink is Thamesmead Cannon to South Mere. Yellow is South Mere to Abbey Wood. Purple is South Mere to Belvedere. Pale Mauve is the South eastern line to Dartford (Possible Liz Line extension). Mid Blue is Gallions Reach to Barking. Pale Green is Armada Way to Dagenham Dock and King George V to Gallions Reach (It's one scheme). Rust is the original proposed line of the Dagenham Dock branch. There's a short pale yellow line near Arnmada Way to allow Dagenham Dock trains access to Thamesmead etc, and a pale blue line that allows Barking Branch trains to do likewise.
Most of the lines are elevated. Creekmouth has alternative positions.
I've changed the name of the proposed Beckton Riverside to Armada Way and Thamesmead to Thamesmead Cannon.
The problems I've found just by looking is that the Barking Branch goes through the middle of nowhere (by London Standards) and has to be tunnelled at point near the Barking Road Junction with the North Circular and has to perform gymnastics due to the presence of Barking Abbey and other stuff.
The rust-coloured route is roughly the line proposed by DLR/Transport for London. I found by pushing the line north through the sewage works, you could fit a delta junction in to allow trains to run between Thamesmead and Barking Riverside without transfer or reversal at Armada Way.
The line through Albert Island came about as a way of avoiding over-trafficking the existing line via Cyprus. It would have to be almost entirely underground/underwater and strangely curved to get the tunnels round the piers of the existing DLR viaduct to a very shallow sub-surface station at Gallions Reach followed by a very steep incline (i in 30ish /3.33%) to reach a complicated junction just under the abandoned approach to the cancelled Thames Gateway Bridge.
And there's loads of other stuff, but I'm calling a halt there.
Last edited:
Looking at the specific data tables these percentages are quoted as being from "AGA supplied Stansted Express loading data" and the percentages from table 6.7 is based on that data (I.e. including standing capacity) for the 3 hour morning peak (07:00-10:00) and evening peak (16:00-19:00).
As such is only 4tph and doesn't give us a clear picture of all the services into Liverpool Street.
However the percentages for the seating and line capacities are:
Stansted to London
AM 75% and 45%
PM 37% and 22%
London to Stansted
AM 23% and 14%
PM 94% and 54%
These numbers were from 2016.
Also, it's worth noting that whilst inwards of Tottenham Hale the journey time is less than 20 minutes, from Stansted to there is more than 20 minutes and so if the trains are busier than the seated capacity then it would be counted as being in excess of capacity.
Also below is the station usage forthe station in the Upper Lea Valley which stood be served by Crossrail 2, comparing the data from 2016 (the baseline data in Stansted Airport Expansion documents)
Station 2016-17 2024-25 Growth
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tottenham Hale 7.00m 13.85m +97.9%
Northumberland Park 331k 1.05m +217.2%
Angel Road / Meridian Water 33.5k 420k +1,153.7%
Brimsdown 1.04m 1.25m +20.2%
Enfield Lock 1.39m 1.60m +15.1%
Waltham Cross 2.15m 2.40m +11.6%
Cheshunt 2.10m 2.85m +35.7%
Broxbourne 2.05m 2.60m +26.8%
Even the lowest rate of growth (+11.6%) over 8 years is the equivalent to 1.38% annual growth.
However, it does demonstrate that growth rates of 1.4% might be likely, especially given there's been strikes and Covid and WFH negatively impacting those rates of growth.
The total is closer to 60% across all the stations (2016: 16.09m, 2025: 26.02m giving +61.7%) and if we exclude the very high growth of Meridian Water then the increase is still 59.4%. This is nearly 4 times the rate of GDP growth (16.22%) over that timeframe.
As such is worth leaving Crossrail 2 paused for a few more years to see what growth there is.
PIXC data is very specific about the loading values:
96,592 is the number of standard class seats available
211,769 is the number of people in standard class which the trains can carry (i.e. including people standing)
To quote note 1 from RAI0213
"Includes standard class seats and, where permissible, an allowance for standing passengers."
136,692 is the number of standard class passengers carried.
To quote note 2:
"The sum of the number of standard class passengers on each service at its point of highest load. This represents the highest number of passengers that needed to be accommodated."
If I was only looking at seated capacity that's 141% of seated capacity.
By comparing it to the total (including standing passengers) is where the approximate 2/3 value comes from.
The 108 services with passengers standing is a specific data point from the table, as its the 175 as the total number of services (as are the 40 services out of 64 services in the morning peak hour with passengers standing).
The exact column heading are
- Services with passengers standing - Number
- Service provision - Number of services
The data also includes the morning peak hour again the numbers are:
39,476 seats
81,445 total standard class capacity
61,548 standard class passenegers
That's 155% of seated capacity and 75% of standard class total capacity.
As such, yes there's already services with passengers standing and compared to the seated capacity already the average is above 125%.
Only if you count all spending as the same type of spending.
Basically there's two types of spending. To put it into household spending terms:
Credit card spending - stuff people buy which they use for a fairly short period and then get rid of
Mortgage spending - stuff which people buy which has value
Infrastructure spending is the latter, to bring those schemes into household spending terms it's like borrowing to rent a house out (or in the case of TPU borrowing to add a room to an existing house). That's going to generate an income.
As such, as long as the income to the government (which is more than just the ticket sales as increasing GDP also generally increases taxes) is enough the bond markets aren't overly concerned about infrastructure spending (unlike, say, tax cuts).
In the same way me adding £100,000 to buy a larger home for myself isn't going to impact my credit rating very much, whilst having a significant loan to credit limit percentage on my credit card (i.e. several of my cards are maxed out) will have a more noticeable impact on my credit score even if that debt totals much less (say, £20,000).
I'm not looking at 2016 data, the data I'm quoting is for 2024. 2016 is irrelevant because it is before the fleet replacement, and before the changes in working patterns. 2016 data doesn't say anything useful about loadings in 2026.
The Stansted Express is 40% of the peak time train paths on the Lea Valley. We know from the Stansted Airport planning application data for 2024 that evening peak is about half full on seating capacity and morning peak less than that.
Another 40% is the Cambridge trains. Of these, only 6 out of 12 in the morning peak are 10 cars, and only 5 out of 12 in the evening peak are 10 cars. Clearly there is lots of unused capacity here, because there are 6 morning trains and 7 evening trains where 5 cars are adequate for current demand. I don't travel in the morning peak but I do have experience of the evening peak 10 car trains to Cambridge. I have yet to travel on a 10 car evening peak Cambridge train where the front unit has been more than about a third of seating capacity. Taking these together it is clear that the Cambridge line trains are also running at only about 50% of potential seating capacity that could be provided if all trains were 10 cars.
80% of the service is only half full. Even if the other 20% are full the available line capacity is only 60% utilised.
You are right that there are 2 sorts of spending, and I don't look on both of them in the same way.
But whether spending is on the credit card or the mortgage, there is still debt interest to pay. The UK has a huge debt interest bill that is already bigger than any public expenditure except the NHS. We don't need to go into why that is, but the consequence is that our creditors charge us 4-5% interest to borrow more, or to roll over our existing debt.
To pursue your analogy, people may want to move to a bigger house, but they can't afford to do so if they can't afford the interest payments on the bigger mortgage. And they are less likely to get a good mortgage deal if they are already maxed out on their credit card. Similarly, the UK may want to build lots of new railway lines, but can't afford to do so because it can't afford the interest payments on the debt that would be required to fund the construction.
The data I was looking at was the 2016 data (which had very similar percentages to those quoted by yourself which was why I didn't go looking for other data) I've now found the 2024 data.
Towards London
seating capacity (total capacity)
AM peak
2016 75% (42%)
2024 42.5% (29.0%)
PM peak
2016 37% (22%)
2024 31.4% (21.6%)
Out from London
seating capacity (total capacity)
AM peak
2016 23% (14%)
2024 22.9% (15.7%)
PM peak
2016 94% (57%)
2024 51.2% (34.8%)
As you rightly say there's been a lot of changes. As such making direct comparisons is complex. Not least due to the 50% uplift in capacity. However, it does appear that from 2016 to 2024 there's been a 15% fall in passenger numbers.
However, between q4 2024 (October to December) and q4 2025 Greater Anglia saw a 3.3% increase in rail use.
I won't compare the previous quarter as:
a) that's not likely to be the data period in which the data is from (listed as an Autumn day)
b) whilst July to September didn't have any actual strikes the resolution was only sorted in August.
c) because of the above two you'd rightly point out the growth rate of 6.3% between the last half of 2024 and the last half of 2025 isn't representive
However that would likely mean that in 2025 that instead of a 15% fall from the 2016 data it might be a 12.2% fall.
Obviously that doesn't allow for growth not being even across all services (which could be higher or lower on the specific services).
Although,
The one thing which I did find was that for each new home the council are anticipating 0.05 rail passengers (departures) in the AM peak for each dwelling in the Upper Lea Valley.
Across 89,000 homes that's 4,660 additional people, if we assume a 2/3 to 1/3 split with the larger percentage heading towards London that's roughly 3,000 extra passengers (or about 300 extra for each of the 10 services, which would mean that the AM peak of total capacity would be around 55% of all capacity compared to the current 22% (or 82% of seating only capacity).
That's across the 3 hour peak, when looking at the peak hour (which is typically 40% to 50% of the three hour total) that 82% of seating capacity is likely to end up being around the 98% to 133% range.
Given that housing is expected in 2041 and I'm suggesting that Crossrail 2 is likely to be beyond that (2040 to 2050) when more housing is likely to be brought forwards, even with zero other growth and expanding the capacity of the other services and assuming that all services are equally loaded as the Stansted Express services (pre lengthening) the loadings could be high enough to mean that (especially if other parts of the capacity case for Crossrail 2 are on track or above the assumptions made in the model - for example Elizabeth Line services between Liverpool Street and Tottenham Court Road are in need of capacity relief) Crossrail 2 could be delivered.
The point I'll keep coming back to is that is worth seeing what the 2026 to 2028 data shows as if that's favourable then it could be delivered (again later than originally planned).
Especially if Elizabeth Line passenger numbers track at least 10 years ahead of predictions, as that's going to mean that TfL have more cash to fund their projects and so they could do things like the DLR and Bakerloo Line extensions earlier/quicker.