Do we actually need more Crossrails?

[Sad Sprinter]

After the troubles of the Liz Line, and the mess that is the Crossrail 2 plan that is now most likely never going to get the light of day, I have to ask-is there any other ways we can boost transport capacity in London without Crossrails?

Crossrails have a major flaw in that, while one line on one side of London may be ripe for a metro service, the line on the other side probably would not. SW/NE, E/W and SE/NW allignments all run from areas with high frequency metro services, to lines where there is little in terms of inner suburban services. Furthermore, Crossrail's run into the problem of fitting into the complexity of rail routes in South London, and being able to serve either the City or West End, detrimental to passengers on routes such as the Eastern division, which has a terminus for each part of Central London-or adding patronage to other lines in the case of Crossrail 2, to allow passengers to continue reaching the City.

There must be other ways to boost capacity without Crossrails, such as:

-Extend the Victoria Line from Stockwell to Tooting Broadway, calling only at Balham and Clapham Common. This would suck up passengers that would already chnge onto the Victoria Line at Stockwell, so wouldn't add per se any new passengers onto the Victoria, but would keep more of the Northern Line free for passengers to the City.

-Build a fast tunnel from New Malden to Lewisham, via Waterloo and London Bridge. Connecting SWML and SEML fasts in a new tunnel would allow four dedicated tracks into Waterloo for SWML mainline locals and clear the route into Charing Cross for more Kent locals without having to build long Crossrails underneath London.

-Extend the Met to SE London.
This can be done by building a new alignment from Neasden, parrelling the MML to Finchley Road, then running in deep level via Baker Street, Marble Arch, Charing Cross, Aldwych, City Thameslink, Cannon Street and Waterloo. Surfacing to take up the Hayes and Orpington Lines. This would at least allow 8tph off peak to be distributed among the remaining suburban lines into London Bridge, and would connect two already busy surban networks (as oppossed to building a SEML to WCML/CML Crossrail)

-If CR2 must be built, would it not be cheaper to run along the ECML slows to the Hertford Loop? It would service Haringey and Alexandra Palace, areas that will be served by the Southgate arm of CR2 and would avoid the costs of tunneling and extra branch.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Might another Thameslink, more similar in concept to the WCML-WLL-BML Southern service, be of more potential benefit? What significant flows are there across London which presently have to faff about with a change?

 

[gordonthemoron]

Paris has 5, Berlin has 2, London has 1 and another coming next year. Why are we always so backward

 

[Clip]

Paris has 5, Berlin has 2, London has 1 and another coming next year. Why are we always so backward

Because people think the money would be better spent on doctors and nurses

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Paris has 5, Berlin has 2, London has 1 and another coming next year. Why are we always so backward

I don’t think it’s a case of being backward at all. Remember Paris as a whole is poorly served by the Metro which just serves Paris proper (and is more like an underground tram if anything) so the RER is needed to go to Paris’s outer suburbs where the metro doesn’t reach. The London Underground has been doing the RER’s job decades beforehand.

 

[NorthKent1989]

Paris has 5, Berlin has 2, London has 1 and another coming next year. Why are we always so backward

Technically London will have two Crossrails: Thameslink was the first one and covers the South-North alignment.

Also London does have semi orbital suburban lines that serves zones 2 and beyond, easing the need to go thru Central.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Paris has 5, Berlin has 2, London has 1 and another coming next year. Why are we always so backward

Really London has quite a lot more than that - the District and Metropolitan Lines are basically full-size S-Bahnen, that they are operated by LU (and Merseyrail, say, is a National Rail TOC) is a historical accident.

That and LO, which is a textbook S-Bahn too.

 

[Bald Rick]

After the troubles of the Liz Line, and the mess that is the Crossrail 2 plan that is now most likely never going to get the light of day, I have to ask-is there any other ways we can boost transport capacity in London without Crossrails?

Crossrails have a major flaw in that, while one line on one side of London may be ripe for a metro service, the line on the other side probably would not. SW/NE, E/W and SE/NW allignments all run from areas with high frequency metro services, to lines where there is little in terms of inner suburban services. Furthermore, Crossrail's run into the problem of fitting into the complexity of rail routes in South London, and being able to serve either the City or West End, detrimental to passengers on routes such as the Eastern division, which has a terminus for each part of Central London-or adding patronage to other lines in the case of Crossrail 2, to allow passengers to continue reaching the City.

There must be other ways to boost capacity without Crossrails, such as:

-Extend the Victoria Line from Stockwell to Tooting Broadway, calling only at Balham and Clapham Common. This would suck up passengers that would already chnge onto the Victoria Line at Stockwell, so wouldn't add per se any new passengers onto the Victoria, but would keep more of the Northern Line free for passengers to the City.

-Build a fast tunnel from New Malden to Lewisham, via Waterloo and London Bridge. Connecting SWML and SEML fasts in a new tunnel would allow four dedicated tracks into Waterloo for SWML mainline locals and clear the route into Charing Cross for more Kent locals without having to build long Crossrails underneath London.

-Extend the Met to SE London.
This can be done by building a new alignment from Neasden, parrelling the MML to Finchley Road, then running in deep level via Baker Street, Marble Arch, Charing Cross, Aldwych, City Thameslink, Cannon Street and Waterloo. Surfacing to take up the Hayes and Orpington Lines. This would at least allow 8tph off peak to be distributed among the remaining suburban lines into London Bridge, and would connect two already busy surban networks (as oppossed to building a SEML to WCML/CML Crossrail)

-If CR2 must be built, would it not be cheaper to run along the ECML slows to the Hertford Loop? It would service Haringey and Alexandra Palace, areas that will be served by the Southgate arm of CR2 and would avoid the costs of tunneling and extra branch.

I think what you are saying is that to avoid building another Crossrail (new tunnelled railway under central London), that we instead build some new tunnelled railways under central London. Or am I missing something?

 

[NorthKent1989]

Quite true that the District, Met and
The Ham&Circle lines are in effect “CrossRail” type lines.

Also forgot to mention the West London line from South Croydon to Milton Keynes

Wasn’t the Victoria line planned out as a CrossRail SE-N route? Sure it was planned to run from Sevenoaks (via Penge) & Purley up to Chingford following the present day Victoria line route?

 

[AlastairFraser]

After the troubles of the Liz Line, and the mess that is the Crossrail 2 plan that is now most likely never going to get the light of day, I have to ask-is there any other ways we can boost transport capacity in London without Crossrails?

Crossrails have a major flaw in that, while one line on one side of London may be ripe for a metro service, the line on the other side probably would not. SW/NE, E/W and SE/NW allignments all run from areas with high frequency metro services, to lines where there is little in terms of inner suburban services. Furthermore, Crossrail's run into the problem of fitting into the complexity of rail routes in South London, and being able to serve either the City or West End, detrimental to passengers on routes such as the Eastern division, which has a terminus for each part of Central London-or adding patronage to other lines in the case of Crossrail 2, to allow passengers to continue reaching the City.

There must be other ways to boost capacity without Crossrails, such as:

-Extend the Victoria Line from Stockwell to Tooting Broadway, calling only at Balham and Clapham Common. This would suck up passengers that would already chnge onto the Victoria Line at Stockwell, so wouldn't add per se any new passengers onto the Victoria, but would keep more of the Northern Line free for passengers to the City.

-Build a fast tunnel from New Malden to Lewisham, via Waterloo and London Bridge. Connecting SWML and SEML fasts in a new tunnel would allow four dedicated tracks into Waterloo for SWML mainline locals and clear the route into Charing Cross for more Kent locals without having to build long Crossrails underneath London.

-Extend the Met to SE London.
This can be done by building a new alignment from Neasden, parrelling the MML to Finchley Road, then running in deep level via Baker Street, Marble Arch, Charing Cross, Aldwych, City Thameslink, Cannon Street and Waterloo. Surfacing to take up the Hayes and Orpington Lines. This would at least allow 8tph off peak to be distributed among the remaining suburban lines into London Bridge, and would connect two already busy surban networks (as oppossed to building a SEML to WCML/CML Crossrail)

-If CR2 must be built, would it not be cheaper to run along the ECML slows to the Hertford Loop? It would service Haringey and Alexandra Palace, areas that will be served by the Southgate arm of CR2 and would avoid the costs of tunneling and extra branch.

The point of Crossrails is that they take away slow stopping suburban services away from termini often situated on the edge of cities away from the places actually want to go. I remember there was a CR3 thread on here for a NW-SE line. It would take WCML stoppers(not the Watford DC's) and Chiltern Suburban into a tunnel at somewhere near Wembley, stopping at Willesden Junction, OOC,Hammersmith, South Kensington,Victoria,Charing Cross,a potential Bankside stop interchanging with the Waterloo and City, Fenchurch St,Canada Water rising out of tunnel to take the Overground branch to New Cross then carrying onto Lewisham to split into 2 branches taking over stoppers to Orpington and Sevenoaks and all services to Hayes via Catford and Elmers End. It would only be taking 15 trains per hour through the central core so would not need to be as highly-specified as Crossrail 1 and 2. But it certainly shouldn't be done before improvements in places other than London and the SE (I've lived all my life in the SE so I'm not exactly biased towards the North). Not just the North, but Scotland (Dundee and Edinburgh in particular), the SW, Wales ( I suppose South Wales Metro is a massive improvements but a true metro-style service in the Valleys would be better.) and the Midlands (Cities like Stoke and Derby and a lot of the West Midlands conurbations need transport improvements before we do.)

 

[Bletchleyite]

The point of Crossrails is that they take away slow stopping suburban services away from termini often situated on the edge of cities away from the places actually want to go.

They do have downsides, though. Boarding at a terminus is, the Euston scrum aside (which can be circumvented using RTT), a much more civilised experience than boarding a through train. I don't think the "Tring stoppers onto Crossrail" proposal, now I believe dropped entirely, was as popular an idea as some might think.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I think what you are saying is that to avoid building another Crossrail (new tunnelled railway under central London), that we instead build some new tunnelled railways under central London. Or am I missing something?

No I said Crossrails are essentially flawed because they aren’t balanced. For the costs involved, your not going to be able to have the same level of demand on each side of London-unless you build a South-South Crossrail. I suggested a SWML/SEML fast Tunnel because it opens space at Charing Cross and Waterloo simulataneously for more metro services, as opposed to building two further Crossrails

 

[AlastairFraser]

They do have downsides, though. Boarding at a terminus is, the Euston scrum aside (which can be circumvented using RTT), a much more civilised experience than boarding a through train. I don't think the "Tring stoppers onto Crossrail" proposal, now I believe dropped entirely, was as popular an idea as some might think.

Surely, if you board a through train, the flow onto trains at each station is spread out and therefore you avoid the "scrum effect" that happens at big stations like you mentioned. I can see how the Tring stoppers going into Crossrail 1 could be annoying as I imagine most people want to end up near Euston or that area of London anyway but if you wanted to get into Euston from Tring when the services are routed via Crossrail 3, you could just change at Watford Junction.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surely, if you board a through train, the flow onto trains at each station is spread out and therefore you avoid the "scrum effect" that happens at big stations like you mentioned.

You do, but far worse is having to fight for seats on boarding when at Euston you can near enough always get one 10-15 minutes out.

 

[AlastairFraser]

They do have downsides, though. Boarding at a terminus is, the Euston scrum aside (which can be circumvented using RTT), a much more civilised experience than boarding a through train. I don't think the "Tring stoppers onto Crossrail" proposal, now I believe dropped entirely, was as popular an idea as some might think.

And you could also swap the Milton Keynes stoppers into Crossrail 3 instead of both Tring Stoppers.

 

[AlastairFraser]

You do, but far worse is having to fight for seats on boarding when at Euston you can near enough always get one 10-15 minutes out.

I suppose so but I thought standing was good for you and people would prefer not to sit on ironing boards

 

[Bald Rick]

No I said Crossrails are essentially flawed because they aren’t balanced. For the costs involved, your not going to be able to have the same level of demand on each side of London-unless you build a South-South Crossrail. I suggested a SWML/SEML fast Tunnel because it opens space at Charing Cross and Waterloo simulataneously for more metro services, as opposed to building two further Crossrails

“Crossrails” do 3 things transport wise (for London in this example)

1) additional transport capacity into the central activity zone (CAZ)
2) improve connectivity for passengers from outer London and beyond direct to CAZ destinations
3) relieve existing transport links in the CAZ, typically the tube

A SWML / SEML Tunnel does only one of those things. It also has the rather significant side effect of providing more capacity to Waterloo / London Bridge, but no means of getting the resultant passengers away from those stations. 75% of passengers who arrive at Waterloo today use another public transport trip to continue their journey; without a Crossrail then the existing public transport will not be able to cope.

 

[Killingworth]

Not quite answers to the original question, but why another Crossrail?

Round-rail, fantastically expensive, maybe in tunnels under the M25 (!) to connect with umpteen interchanges on radial routes.

There were many who thought the M25 wasn't needed at the price it cost. Originally some parts only had 2 lanes, but now there are parts where even 4 aren't enough. I bet a rail twin would have a big effect on commuting patterns.

Cross-Thames from Tilbury to Gravesend or similar would open up some interesting traffic flows, passenger and freight. I know, any paths would conflict with inadequate and non-existent junctions to shift much on either side. Gazing across from Southend Pier to Kent and realising how long it takes to get those few miles by road or rail it looks too much like an outer London project just waiting to be done.

 

[PeterC]

Not quite answers to the original question, but why another Crossrail?

Round-rail, fantastically expensive, maybe in tunnels under the M25 (!) to connect with umpteen interchanges on radial routes.

There were many who thought the M25 wasn't needed at the price it cost. Originally some parts only had 2 lanes, but now there are parts where even 4 aren't enough. I bet a rail twin would have a big effect on commuting patterns.

Cross-Thames from Tilbury to Gravesend or similar would open up some interesting traffic flows, passenger and freight. I know, any paths would conflict with inadequate and non-existent junctions to shift much on either side. Gazing across from Southend Pier to Kent and realising how long it takes to get those few miles by road or rail it looks too much like an outer London project just waiting to be done.

The trouble with orbital routes is that they all require two changes to get anywhere. Crossrail on the other hand makes far more possible with just one. While railfans seem to love changing trains ordinary passengers don't.

If I was going to get the crayon box our for an orbital tunnel around London I would put it under the North and South Circulars.
A line roughly following the M25 would be more beneficial for freight, taking traffic from between London Gateway and Dagenham away from Overground lines and also intercepting Felixtowe traffic on the GEML.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

After the troubles of the Liz Line, and the mess that is the Crossrail 2 plan that is now most likely never going to get the light of day, I have to ask-is there any other ways we can boost transport capacity in London without Crossrails?

Crossrails have a major flaw in that, while one line on one side of London may be ripe for a metro service, the line on the other side probably would not. SW/NE, E/W and SE/NW allignments all run from areas with high frequency metro services, to lines where there is little in terms of inner suburban services. Furthermore, Crossrail's run into the problem of fitting into the complexity of rail routes in South London, and being able to serve either the City or West End, detrimental to passengers on routes such as the Eastern division, which has a terminus for each part of Central London-or adding patronage to other lines in the case of Crossrail 2, to allow passengers to continue reaching the City.

There must be other ways to boost capacity without Crossrails, such as:

-Extend the Victoria Line from Stockwell to Tooting Broadway, calling only at Balham and Clapham Common. This would suck up passengers that would already chnge onto the Victoria Line at Stockwell, so wouldn't add per se any new passengers onto the Victoria, but would keep more of the Northern Line free for passengers to the City.

-Build a fast tunnel from New Malden to Lewisham, via Waterloo and London Bridge. Connecting SWML and SEML fasts in a new tunnel would allow four dedicated tracks into Waterloo for SWML mainline locals and clear the route into Charing Cross for more Kent locals without having to build long Crossrails underneath London.

-Extend the Met to SE London.
This can be done by building a new alignment from Neasden, parrelling the MML to Finchley Road, then running in deep level via Baker Street, Marble Arch, Charing Cross, Aldwych, City Thameslink, Cannon Street and Waterloo. Surfacing to take up the Hayes and Orpington Lines. This would at least allow 8tph off peak to be distributed among the remaining suburban lines into London Bridge, and would connect two already busy surban networks (as oppossed to building a SEML to WCML/CML Crossrail)

-If CR2 must be built, would it not be cheaper to run along the ECML slows to the Hertford Loop? It would service Haringey and Alexandra Palace, areas that will be served by the Southgate arm of CR2 and would avoid the costs of tunneling and extra branch.

Not sure if I've covered this before but there's definitely some options that I don't feel have been appropriately considered (mostly because our obsession seems to be to very simply take one 'whole network' and hand it over (e.g. Thames Valley stopper, Great Eastern stopper, West Anglia, South West Metro).

Interesting regarding the Victoria Line. The key issue there has always been a somewhat sizeable perception that if the Victoria was extended any further each way it would cause something tantamount to Bedlam with peak loadings. That said, if it is going to be heavily relieved at Clapham Junction by a Crossrail 2 then there are options. I'm not so sure about the Victoria going 'the other way' from Stockwell thus leaving Brixton more isolated; but if they could re-build Brixton in entirety at a National Rail level to enable the London Overground and Southeastern services to call on all lines then that makes it far easier to get to places like Peckham or Clapham.

In terms of a New Malden to Lewisham fast tunnel I'm none too sure about that. One thing I did suggest in the past was to tunnel Crossrail 2 after New Malden and Motspur Park with an Underground grade-separated tunnel so that the main lines are freed up; as well as allowing the Kingston Loop and Shepperton trains to continue towards Waterloo. You would of course have the secondary benefit of being able to introduce a few more 'limited stop' peak trains on the Slow lines creating more connectivity at Wimbledon, Clapham Junction and Vauxhall for places like Walton, Weybridge, Cobham and Woking without making the journey times too excessive as now. Bakerloo line trains taking over to Hayes will create a significant increase in capacity if the timetable is then appropriately devised for the remainder of the Metro.

I would have suggested that Crossrail 2 shouldn't take over from the West Anglia in totality; instead it should have a grade-separated underground junction near Kings Cross; with some trains (still Underground) to Essex Road, Dalston, Clapton and above ground on the Chingford line (8tph) and the rest going (Underground) to Highbury, Finsbury Park, Harringay Green Lanes, Wood Green, Alexandra Palace, Muswell Hill, Finchley Central and then in place of the Northern line to Mill Hill East, Broadway and then Edgware. This would heavily relieve the Great Northern Metro and with the improvements to signalling on the NCL would allow 16tph.

I'd not extend the Met because it wouldn't have anywhere to go South of the river as the Bakerloo will free up the Hayes line. The logical other option is a Tramlink extension from Beckenham Junction up to Shortlands, Bromley South, Bromley North and onto Grove Park via Sundridge Park.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

No I said Crossrails are essentially flawed because they aren’t balanced. For the costs involved, your not going to be able to have the same level of demand on each side of London-unless you build a South-South Crossrail.

That particular problem is easily solved in either of two different ways:

1. Run some trains from the 'higher demand' end through central London then terminate them just beyond the centre. Just like Crossrail will do with trains from the East terminating at Paddington.
2. Have more branches at one end than the other. Again Crossrail does this to some extent too: 2 branches to the East, 1 branch (with a very short spur off it) to the West.

 

[The Ham]

Part of the reason that I support Crossrail 2 had very little to do with the extra capacity within London (although that would bring massive benefits) but rather to do with the extra capacity that it would bring for the areas outside of London.