Crossrail 2 route alterations

[59CosG95]

Hi all,

If any of you took part in the Crossrail 2 consultations, you should've got an email from TfL about the new changes. For those that didn't, here's the changelog: http://crossrail2.co.uk

From Monday 9 June we will be consulting again, on proposed changes along the route at these locations. These are:

• The location of a station in Chelsea
• An extension from Alexandra Palace to New Southgate
• The route alignment in Dalston and Hackney

To have your say on our proposals, visit the TfL consultation website. The consultation closes on Friday 25 July.

 

[infobleep]

Thanks. Looking at the maps I think serving Dalston Junction might be good for the Overground links. As there are already fast services between Clapham Junction and Victoria, I think it wouldn't hurt to travel via Chelsea.

As for South of Wimbledon. It needs to serve at least two of the three lines shown that fast mainline services west of Surbiton, and slow ones from Woking and Basingstoke too, can finally stop at Clapham Junction during peak rush hour. An increased service during the day would be nice too.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I'd have thought the Hampton Court and Shepperton (and possibly Chessington) branches would have been a better fit than Twickenham via Kingston. I don't think the Twickenham services would result in a large number of passengers switching to CR2, as the services to Waterloo via Richmond would be significantly faster. Twickenham station doesn't have a lot of space for turnback facilities either does it(?), whereas turning back at a 'true' terminus would be more efficient.

 

[fgwrich]

I'd have thought the Hampton Court and Shepperton (and possibly Chessington) branches would have been a better fit than Twickenham via Kingston. I don't think the Twickenham services would result in a large number of passengers switching to CR2, as the services to Waterloo via Richmond would be significantly faster. Twickenham station doesn't have a lot of space for turnback facilities either does it(?), whereas turning back at a 'true' terminus would be more efficient.

Or Given Crossrail 1s main purpose seems to be about taking people from a fair distance out in the suburbs and connecting them to Central London, then what about using Woking as a terminus and taking over the SWT Woking to Waterloo stoppers?

 

[The Ham]

Or Given Crossrail 1s main purpose seems to be about taking people from a fair distance out in the suburbs and connecting them to Central London, then what about using Woking as a terminus and taking over the SWT Woking to Waterloo stoppers?

That may still be on the cards, as the Surbiton line has an arrow indicating that it will continue onwards from there. Although that could be for the services to Hampton Court or Guildford via Effingham Junction (although that's less likely than to Woking as its further) or a mixture.

I could see that having half the Woking stoppers (for instance) going via Crossrail 2 as a good thing, alternitively (if there's spare paths post Crossrail 2) have two service an hour from Woking go via Crossrail 2 whilst retaing one of the existing Waterloo services. Such a pattern maybe useful on the other routes too.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'd have thought the Hampton Court and Shepperton (and possibly Chessington) branches would have been a better fit than Twickenham via Kingston. I don't think the Twickenham services would result in a large number of passengers switching to CR2, as the services to Waterloo via Richmond would be significantly faster. Twickenham station doesn't have a lot of space for turnback facilities either does it(?), whereas turning back at a 'true' terminus would be more efficient.

It depends on where people are heading, if there is demand enough for people going to Euston then there maybe enough demand to justify the service. Although as to Clapham Junction only takes upto 10 minutes longer than the direct service then there will still be those that use it as it will still be quicker than waiting for the next direct service (although that is unlikely to be the main people who use the service).

Also by the time you get to Strawberry Hill it is then quicker going the other way around, so only those heading to stations from one half of the loop to the other half of the loop will losse out (although depending on the new service pattern, see below, they may not)

The other possibility is that by diverting the SWT's services which currently run around Via Strawberry Hill to other routes (i.e. extra services on any combernation of; Kew Bridge, through services to London from Guildford via Ascot, Walton on Thames via Virginia Water, Reading, or any othere service which would benefit from the extra paths into Waterloo freed up from Crossrail 2 entering the tunnels near Wimbledon) that there could be an increase in frequency form other places. This could benefit a lot more people who then do not have to wait so long for the next train or who will see the capacity of their services increase.

 

[59CosG95]

Or Given Crossrail 1s main purpose seems to be about taking people from a fair distance out in the suburbs and connecting them to Central London, then what about using Woking as a terminus and taking over the SWT Woking to Waterloo stoppers?

Good idea, but how long does each SWT stopping service wait in Woking before departing for Waterloo again? If CR2 is more frequent, an extra platform might be required. And I don't know how another can be squeezed in...

Meanwhile, on the north of town, extending to Stansted would be a very good idea to put on the cards. It would attract more people in the West Anglia Main Line catchment area to use the service, while benefiting lots of air travellers. Also-I don't really see how New Southgate can be a terminus; where is the space (I reiterate)?

 

[cle]

Woking may well get its flyover, so could be a good time to do bigger works.

Surbiton would probably then become a pinch point - as you'd have 2-4tph from Hampton Court and Woking (slow) wanting to use the slow lines, but then very soon afterwards these slow lines become the semi-fast lines (and CR2's tunnel becomes the slows).

New Malden would add at least 8tph (probably more) so it would need to be sorted by then.

 

[The Ham]

Woking may well get its flyover, so could be a good time to do bigger works.

Surbiton would probably then become a pinch point - as you'd have 2-4tph from Hampton Court and Woking (slow) wanting to use the slow lines, but then very soon afterwards these slow lines become the semi-fast lines (and CR2's tunnel becomes the slows).

New Malden would add at least 8tph (probably more) so it would need to be sorted by then.

As soon as Woking gets it's flyover expect Southampton, Portsmouth and Salisbury (at the very least) to start demanding extra services.

 

[infobleep]

What might happen to Earlsfield? Currently it is served by stopping service, although some bypass it in the peak hours, especially Woking services in the morning peak. If more fast trains are using the paths they are less likely to want to stop them at Earlsfield. Perhaps it might close or just see a reduction in the number of services stopping there if they are not keen on closing it.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[joeykins82]

I can't see Earlsfield closing, but nor can I see the wholesale transfer of all SWML stopping services from Waterloo in to CR2; there's a big flow from the SWML to the city and sending everyone via the west end would put a lot of strain on CR1 and the central line from TCR to Bank/Liverpool St. Likewise if all West Anglia Metro services go to CR2 then the city workers who chose to live on those routes will be up in arms over losing their direct Liverpool St services. There'll need to be a mix somehow.

Where is the biggest pinch point on inner SWML services? Is it Waterloo itself?

 

[RichardN]

Where is the biggest pinch point on inner SWML services? Is it Waterloo itself?

Inbound trains are busiest between Clapham Junction and Vauxhall, where large numbers of passengers disembark mainly to get the Victoria line.

(Same is true for outbound trains.)

 

[joeykins82]

I was referring to ability of the infrastructure to accommodate trains, not passenger loadings.

 

[swt_passenger]

For another debating point, any existing services such as the present Kingston Loop rounders will still end up on the main suburban side won't they? So any remaining capacity on the main side inbound from Wimbledon could find itself being useful for additional loop services for the Windsor side.

 

[RichardN]

I was referring to ability of the infrastructure to accommodate trains, not passenger loadings.

OTOH the pax that transfer to the Vic line are likely to be the users who will switch to Crossrail2. They've got to make sure that Tottenham Court Road via Crossrail2 is an attractive choice compared to changing to the Northern line at Waterloo.

I'd imagine the dwell times at Clapham Junction are probably as big a bottleneck as Waterloo.

 

[infobleep]

The biggest bottleneck appears to be between Surbiton and Clapham Junction. During the morning peak you even have stopping services using the fast lines through the section between Surbiton and Clapham Junction because the slow lines can't accommodate them. This of course means they miss out Wimbledon; Earlsfield; Clapham Junction and Vauxhall. In addition the fast services that might like to might stop at Clapham Junction can't due to capacity of trains.

In the evening it is similar except that some Woking stopping services can stop at the above stations, when they can't in the morning. However the fast services definitely still can't stop at Clapham Junction.

Hopefully CR2 will allow such things to happen but might impact of number of trains stopping at Earlsfield.

If nothing could done about the bottleneck then a large number of passengers would not use CR2 as to reach it would need to catch a stopping service from either Guilford or Woking and that might add on too much time to your journey than going into Waterloo as you might do now and using the tube.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[The Ham]

I can't see Earlsfield closing, but nor can I see the wholesale transfer of all SWML stopping services from Waterloo in to CR2; there's a big flow from the SWML to the city and sending everyone via the west end would put a lot of strain on CR1 and the central line from TCR to Bank/Liverpool St. Likewise if all West Anglia Metro services go to CR2 then the city workers who chose to live on those routes will be up in arms over losing their direct Liverpool St services. There'll need to be a mix somehow.

Where is the biggest pinch point on inner SWML services? Is it Waterloo itself?

I would imagine that once Crossrail 2 is built those inner suburban services which are currently run by SWT's with a 2 hour frequency would be looked at to see if they could be upped to three trains an hour. Those services will then be split between Crossrail 2 and Waterloo.

There may even need to be extra works beyond the Crossrail 2 tunnels to accomidate extra services, however as it would be included in the Crossrail 2 budget as officially SWT's would probably still be provided with the same number of paths or even a slight reduction. However as they would be needing to run fewer inner suburban services these could be used for some of their other services (i.e. 3tph from Sailsbury).

 

[RichardN]

I think it is much more likely that some routes will switch to crossrail for all trains with a change at Wimbledon if you want to go to Waterloo.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

What might happen to Earlsfield? Currently it is served by stopping service, although some bypass it in the peak hours, especially Woking services in the morning peak. If more fast trains are using the paths they are less likely to want to stop them at Earlsfield. Perhaps it might close or just see a reduction in the number of services stopping there if they are not keen on closing it.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Earlsfield sees massive passenger flows. From Wikipedia, 5.7 million in 2012-13, which works out at nearly 16K per day! It's had extensive building works done over the last couple of years, and there are no other stations within easy walking distance that most of those people could use instead.

So I think we can be fairly sure the station will be staying, and used by those suburban routes that don't transfer to CrossRail, though I'd guess it'll be hard to avoid some frequency reduction. Despite that, there could be some benefit to Earlsfield with CR2 because trains calling there could be less crowded. From what I've seen, trains to Waterloo in the morning peaks are already packed out before they reach Earlsfield, making it hard for the crowds waiting there to get on. I'd imagine CR2 would substantially alleviate that problem.

 

[59CosG95]

The upshot of most (if not all) of SWT's inner suburbans going into CR2 services will mean that more outer suburbans will stop at Wimbledon, giving increased connectivity there e.g. Alton or Basingstoke commuter services. Doubtless the whole Desiro fleet will have dual-voltage capability by then, and the 455s will have nearly reached their expiration date, so the whole SWML inner-suburban services might get wired, as CR2 will probably use OHLE anyway. Since some of the 458/5s don't have DV capability, the Windsor lines won't be wired for a while yet.

 

[edwin_m]

The signaling is also an issue for converting the Waterloo inners to 25kV - it was the last big scheme to use traditional relay interlockings and panels circa 1990. I don't know what it's expected lifetime is but I suspect immunizing it would be less cost-effective than replacement.

 

[swt_passenger]

There may even need to be extra works beyond the Crossrail 2 tunnels to accomidate extra services...

Definitely. As mentioned in another recent thread, option F7 in the London and SE RUS already covers this as follows:

This option would effectively create a six-track SWML from Raynes Park/Surbiton, with two tracks for inner suburban services being in a new underground tunnel extending beyond Wimbledon.

I think they are already on the case...

 

[glbotu]

Are there any plans for extensive Wimbledon re-development. I mean, it's a nightmare to change at at the moment, and it doesn't have a 30tph metro*** service running through it. I can see there might be a reasonable bit of space for the District Line/Crossrail interchange, but where are they going to squeeze in the intercharge for Tramlink and SWML? I know this is quite far away, but it definitely is something that needs consideration.

***by which I mean high density, high frequency service. Not the "metro option".

 

[swt_passenger]

Are there any plans for extensive Wimbledon re-development. I mean, it's a nightmare to change at at the moment, and it doesn't have a 30tph metro*** service running through it. I can see there might be a reasonable bit of space for the District Line/Crossrail interchange, but where are they going to squeeze in the intercharge for Tramlink and SWML? I know this is quite far away, but it definitely is something that needs consideration.

***by which I mean high density, high frequency service. Not the "metro option".

Whatever the option chosen, the portals will be between Wimbledon and Raynes Park, and CR2 will be underground at Wimbledon in its own new platforms. Hence you'd have to expect massive amounts of underground circulation for interchange - its the only practical way of adding it I think.

Hopefully they won't be rushing to somewhere like Finsbury Park to look for an example of how to do it...

 

[cle]

Hopefully also by then they will have given back the other platform for Thameslink services, and have a proper solution for the trams.

 

[joeykins82]

Or more likely, that'll be a part of the station redevelopment

 

[infobleep]

I don't mind Earlsfield continuing to receive services. I just would like them to sort out the problems at Clapham Junction for fast trains and also some slow trains during the peak that have to us the fast line beyond Surbiton.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[59CosG95]

Whatever the option chosen, the portals will be between Wimbledon and Raynes Park, and CR2 will be underground at Wimbledon in its own new platforms. Hence you'd have to expect massive amounts of underground circulation for interchange - its the only practical way of adding it I think.

Hopefully they won't be rushing to somewhere like Finsbury Park to look for an example of how to do it...

A way to expand would be to put the District terminal platforms down in a cut-and-cover box below their current location, routing the mainline through the old platforms as follows:

1-4: Inner and outer suburban SWT services. A grade separation of the fasts and the down slow will be required at either end of the station.
5-6: Fast platforms, only opened when necessary (or for when train buffs like us want to take some photos )
7-8: TSGN platforms.
9-10: A proper Tramlink terminus!

I also propose covering all these platforms with a new station car park-yes, I know it's a bit Birmingham New Street grim-but it'll be a major improvement for Centre Court and WIM users alike (it'll connect direct to the shopping centre). The concourse will also be extended over the length of the platforms, giving a greater circulation area connected to the shopping centre as well.

Meanwhile, below...
Picture a hall, filtering light down from inbetween the surface tracks (à la London Bridge), directly underneath the mainline platforms.
The 4 District platforms will be below Plats 1-4, while the new CR2 platforms will be underneath this hall, in bored tunnels.

What do you think? Expensive, I know, but the busiest suburban station in London needs a station that can handle huge passenger flows....

 

[jopsuk]

A colossal new car park would mean many more cars trying to get there. Tell me, are they going to teleport in? Because there sure ain't space on the roads for them!

 

[59CosG95]

Whatever the option chosen, the portals will be between Wimbledon and Raynes Park, and CR2 will be underground at Wimbledon in its own new platforms. Hence you'd have to expect massive amounts of underground circulation for interchange - its the only practical way of adding it I think.

Hopefully they won't be rushing to somewhere like Finsbury Park to look for an example of how to do it...

My idea for a new layout:
District line terminal platforms underneath Plats 1-4, connected to new underground concourse.
Plats 1-4: SWT stopping, grade separation using new viaduct SW of station, removing need for old one.
Plats 5-6: SWT fasts.
Plats 7-8: TSGN platforms.
Plats 9-10: Proper Tramlink terminus!
All surface platforms to be covered with new extended concourse in addition to the underground ones, to allow circulation. This in turn is connected to Centre Court and covered with a new car park.

 

[joeykins82]

The current layout at Wimbledon is:

SWML up slow (5)
(platform)
SWML up fast (6)
SWML down fast (7)
(platform)
SWML down slow (8)

There's a flyover between Wimbledon and Earlsfield so that the fast and slow lines are paired. I can't see that layout changing because otherwise you'll have all of the foot traffic to/from Waterloo using one platform and stairwell.

I think it's more likely that the District line platforms will remain in situ as will the SWML platforms. 9-10 will be returned to TSGN/Wimbledon Loop and the tramlink situated somewhere else; either on a new P11-12 adjacent to 9-10 or maybe even underground as part of the CR2 excavation.