Crossrail 2 plans

[alexjames]

Just to make my personal position clear, I have long since taken the view that CR2 should have been built many years ago.

But the political reality is that it has little prospects of getting funded any time soon. Any discussion, here or elsewhere, of the details is crayonista fantasy. We are dealing with a government that has recently authorised a spend of £100 billion or more on HST2. That authority was given after massive Treasury resistance. That objection would be, inter alia, on the usual grounds that it generates little or no continuing tax revenue and is thus undesirable. By way of contrast, a new motorway generates loads of tax revenue via excise duties on road fuel. Or will until electric vehicles become popular which is some way into the future. And, of course, the Treasury is collectively aware that HST2 is merely a pretext to cover the Tory party’s wish to repay its key donor group, the UK building and civil engineering sector. Take their contributions out of the Tory party’s income and expenditure account and you will find a very large deficit.

Elected politicians can, of course, overrule the Treasury. But any reading of UK political history will bring you to the conclusion that repeatedly doing so is likely to end unhappily. The point that most politicians miss, along with many other people, is that policy grade Treasury staff are vastly more intelligent and capable than they are.

 

[The Ham]

Just to make my personal position clear, I have long since taken the view that CR2 should have been built many years ago.

But the political reality is that it has little prospects of getting funded any time soon. Any discussion, here or elsewhere, of the details is crayonista fantasy. We are dealing with a government that has recently authorised a spend of £100 billion or more on HST2. That authority was given after massive Treasury resistance. That objection would be, inter alia, on the usual grounds that it generates little or no continuing tax revenue and is thus undesirable. By way of contrast, a new motorway generates loads of tax revenue via excise duties on road fuel. Or will until electric vehicles become popular which is some way into the future. And, of course, the Treasury is collectively aware that HST2 is merely a pretext to cover the Tory party’s wish to repay its key donor group, the UK building and civil engineering sector. Take their contributions out of the Tory party’s income and expenditure account and you will find a very large deficit.

Elected politicians can, of course, overrule the Treasury. But any reading of UK political history will bring you to the conclusion that repeatedly doing so is likely to end unhappily. The point that most politicians miss, along with many other people, is that policy grade Treasury staff are vastly more intelligent and capable than they are.

Politics will certainly come into any decision, however chances are there'll be a lot of people within government for whom Crossrail 2 would likely see an improvement to their own journeys.

Not only does it benefit Central London, but also Outer London as well as potentially quote a large area of commuter belt services (Guildford, Basingstoke, Woking as well as possibly Southampton, Portsmouth and Salisbury).

It should also be remembered that the SWR franchise had been used as a Cash Cow for a number of years. As such the potential to provide extra capacity to relieve pressure on trains which are very busy, so that extra people can travel would likely be quite a bit draw.

Even if the percentage earned per 1,000 passengers is smaller with more passengers it could well be that there's more money coming in to the DfT overall.

 

[mrgreen]

Given the expensive Crossrail1 problems with multiple signalling and integration with existing lines, would it be best to revert Crossrail2 to being a self-contained line, maybe using sub-surface size rolling stock. Would make the project way cheaper, quicker and lower risk. Though obviously reducing the benefit.

 

[jon0844]

Don't buy rolling stock from Bombardier might be a good move!

 

[The Ham]

Given the expensive Crossrail1 problems with multiple signalling and integration with existing lines, would it be best to revert Crossrail2 to being a self-contained line, maybe using sub-surface size rolling stock. Would make the project way cheaper, quicker and lower risk. Though obviously reducing the benefit.

It is a great shame about the problems with the original Crossrail, however to compare is faults with a future scheme just as it has the same name would be miss guided.

Firstly it doesn't need to interface with non Network Rail infrastructure (Heathrow Tunnels) nor does it interface with the GWML both of which have signal systems which aren't quite standard. As such the number of systems which needed to be interfaced with will be less.

Not only that, but it wouldn't be that hard to change over to the core signalling system over the rest of the network as we could start doing so now. Whilst this would increase costs it would also allow more services to run across the rest of the network and so could be cost neutral overall.

When it was being originally consulted on the extra cost from it being a regional metro service the extra cost wasn't that much more, however it would bring much wider benefits.

Also if you scale back the project you then have to look for other projects to provide other capacity improvements. For instance Crossrail 2 adds 6tph West/South of Woking from Waterloo following the removal of metro services, that's on top of the extra metro services across the SWR network. To provide all that via other means would probably cost at least half of the total Crossrail 2 budget again. Making Crossrail 2, as it stands, a very good value project. Even if the costs doubled it would probably still be better value than trying to do each bit separately.

 

[deltic]

Just to make my personal position clear, I have long since taken the view that CR2 should have been built many years ago.

But the political reality is that it has little prospects of getting funded any time soon. Any discussion, here or elsewhere, of the details is crayonista fantasy. We are dealing with a government that has recently authorised a spend of £100 billion or more on HST2. That authority was given after massive Treasury resistance. That objection would be, inter alia, on the usual grounds that it generates little or no continuing tax revenue and is thus undesirable. By way of contrast, a new motorway generates loads of tax revenue via excise duties on road fuel. Or will until electric vehicles become popular which is some way into the future. And, of course, the Treasury is collectively aware that HST2 is merely a pretext to cover the Tory party’s wish to repay its key donor group, the UK building and civil engineering sector. Take their contributions out of the Tory party’s income and expenditure account and you will find a very large deficit.

Elected politicians can, of course, overrule the Treasury. But any reading of UK political history will bring you to the conclusion that repeatedly doing so is likely to end unhappily. The point that most politicians miss, along with many other people, is that policy grade Treasury staff are vastly more intelligent and capable than they are.

Have you any experience of working in or for the Treasury? Tax receipts of transport schemes while taken into account in economic appraisals are not the key concern to the Treasury. They are more interested in the impact of investments on economic growth and affordability and the ability (or usually inability) of the relevant government department to manage that investment. Treasury has been surprisingly supportive of spending in the rail sector despite escalating costs and overruns.

Given the international nature of most major civil engineering companies they are not a source of funding for the Tory party. Housebuilders yes, but they are not beneficiaries of HS2.

 

[hwl]

Politics will certainly come into any decision, however chances are there'll be a lot of people within government for whom Crossrail 2 would likely see an improvement to their own journeys.

Not only does it benefit Central London, but also Outer London as well as potentially quote a large area of commuter belt services (Guildford, Basingstoke, Woking as well as possibly Southampton, Portsmouth and Salisbury).

It should also be remembered that the SWR franchise had been used as a Cash Cow for a number of years. As such the potential to provide extra capacity to relieve pressure on trains which are very busy, so that extra people can travel would likely be quite a bit draw.

Even if the percentage earned per 1,000 passengers is smaller with more passengers it could well be that there's more money coming in to the DfT overall.

One of the key metrics is that it supports building over 200k+ new homes in the southeast.

 

[kevin_roche]

Firstly it doesn't need to interface with non Network Rail infrastructure (Heathrow Tunnels) nor does it interface with the GWML both of which have signal systems which aren't quite standard. As such the number of systems which needed to be interfaced with will be less.

Not only that, but it wouldn't be that hard to change over to the core signalling system over the rest of the network as we could start doing so now. Whilst this would increase costs it would also allow more services to run across the rest of the network and so could be cost neutral overall.

I think the current plan is to move the whole of the Crossrail 2 Infrastructure both in the tunnels and existing lines to ETCS. This seems to have been a good move on Thameslink. Perhaps by the time it is finished it will be available as Level 3 which might run 32tph or more.

 

[Glenn1969]

Has CR2 actually got the green light now? My view is it is needed and should definitely happen but with a levelling up agenda projects in other areas of the country (Castlefield, TRU, other electfication) should be given a higher priority for investment

 

[kevin_roche]

Has CR2 actually got the green light now? My view is it is needed and should definitely happen but with a levelling up agenda projects in other areas of the country (Castlefield, TRU, other electfication) should be given a higher priority for investment

No, it must go through the government spending review in the summer.

 

[Chester1]

Has CR2 actually got the green light now? My view is it is needed and should definitely happen but with a levelling up agenda projects in other areas of the country (Castlefield, TRU, other electfication) should be given a higher priority for investment

The government is only prepared to loan half the cost and on the condition that local government / TfL / a property levy funds the other half. TfL cannot afford to push ahead with Crossrail 2 until Crossrail 1 opens and its finances recover from Khan's ill judged fare freeze.

 

[hwl]

The government is only prepared to loan half the cost and on the condition that local government / TfL / a property levy funds the other half. TfL cannot afford to push ahead with Crossrail 2 until Crossrail 1 opens and its finances recover from Khan's ill judged fare freeze.

And there isn't a selected scheme design or act of parliament either. So 3-4 years post any spending review.

 

[Bald Rick]

I think the current plan is to move the whole of the Crossrail 2 Infrastructure both in the tunnels and existing lines to ETCS. This seems to have been a good move on Thameslink. Perhaps by the time it is finished it will be available as Level 3 which might run 32tph or more.

The key constraint on capacity for CR2 (and CR1) is not the signalling, but the emergency access shafts. It will be 30tph max.

 

[Bald Rick]

And there isn't a selected scheme design or act of parliament either. So 3-4 years post any spending review.

As with any project of this scale, even after initial design development is complete (as I believe it is for CR2) it takes a minimum of 2 years to prepare all the necessary documentation for a hybrid bill (or Development Consent Order) submission, and a minimum of a further 2 years to progress through the consents process. And that assumes no ‘pause’ for further funding decisions (of which CR2 needs a further two after the spending review). Realistically a minimum of 5 years from a spending review decision to being in a position to start digging.

 

[The Ham]

As with any project of this scale, even after initial design development is complete (as I believe it is for CR2) it takes a minimum of 2 years to prepare all the necessary documentation for a hybrid bill (or Development Consent Order) submission, and a minimum of a further 2 years to progress through the consents process. And that assumes no ‘pause’ for further funding decisions (of which CR2 needs a further two after the spending review). Realistically a minimum of 5 years from a spending review decision to being in a position to start digging.

As always an informative post. All I can say is that I hope that there's few of any delays.

One thing which is likely to help is that it looks like others (chiefly Southern Approach to Heathrow) will benefit from junction improvements at Woking and Basingstoke and so the benefits from the extra SWR services could be added to the CR2 numbers without the need to add those costs to its construction.

 

[Bald Rick]

As always an informative post. All I can say is that I hope that there's few of any delays.

One thing which is likely to help is that it looks like others (chiefly Southern Approach to Heathrow) will benefit from junction improvements at Woking and Basingstoke and so the benefits from the extra SWR services could be added to the CR2 numbers without the need to add those costs to its construction.

Not so, the benefits from investment in the Woking capacity improvement stick with that project, and the improvements from Heathrow southern link stick with that project. One particular issue is that there are some ‘programme wide’ benefits that only occur if all the projects happen; where they land in a business case is an interesting point.