My ideas for Crossrail 2

[Bald Rick]

Would it? The amount of tunnel is less than would be required for CR2. There is only 1 more tunnelled station on my route (which I might change by removing the Lea Valley station - doesn't serve much, and moving the southern portal to after Earlsfield).

I’m afraid you have counted wrong. Crossrail 2 has 9 / 10 mined stations, and at least three of those are subject to debate. It’s the stations that cost the money; the tunnelling itself is cheap. You have 16.

Then you have the small matter of significant additional upgrades on the branches to accommodate all these trains. For example, you would have to completely rebuild the Sutton loop to cope with 6tph.

I also forgot to mention - 36tph isn’t possible with the dwell times necessary to shift the number of people on and off main line trains.

Remember, at both Bank and Waterloo, the Waterloo and City line platforms would be demolished. Additionally, at Bank, the platforms could run parallel to the Central Line ones at the same level, and at Waterloo, with the W+C gone, it may be possible to have the platforms under the main shed of the NR station.

Remember, you need to build these things, they don’t just magically appear. Also remember, there’s a lot more underground than existing tube lines. And finally, remember the passengers using these underground stations will want to get to street level.

 

[si404]

Not again! Why does this come up every few months?

Because Crossrail 2 trying to do everything it can practically do has left it with a controversial route. Not because people want to protect various areas (though some do) from the construction, but because people disagree with the various choices made and want a do-over:

• SW vs South Central
• Northern line interchange vs Earlsfield (I think they've got this wrong, but not enough to want them to do a load of replanning)
• Euston vs City
• choice of Northern branches (that New Southgate one really is misunderstood. I personally think it's great)

 

[stuu]

Remember, at both Bank and Waterloo, the Waterloo and City line platforms would be demolished. Additionally, at Bank, the platforms could run parallel to the Central Line ones at the same level, and at Waterloo, with the W+C gone, it may be possible to have the platforms under the main shed of the NR station.

Have you looked at geographic maps of where the tunnels actually are at different locations? The W&C at Waterloo are perpendicular to the main platforms and basically at basement depth.

Bank has all sorts of problems with building extra platforms, with all existing underground structures (famously including bank vaults, which may or may not be the real reason for the curves on the Central line). The various high rise buildings can have very deep piles, 30m+ so the sites within the city are pretty limited

 

[Bald Rick]

Because Crossrail 2 trying to do everything it can practically do has left it with a controversial route. Not because people want to protect various areas (though some do) from the construction, but because people disagree with the various choices made and want a do-over:

• SW vs South Central
• Northern line interchange vs Earlsfield (I think they've got this wrong, but not enough to want them to do a load of replanning)
• Euston vs City
• choice of Northern branches (that New Southgate one really is misunderstood. I personally think it's great)

But, but, but... the Crossrail 2 business case (which I accept hasn’t been published), tackles all this and demonstrates that the route chosen is overwhelming the right one to meet the objectives it has been set. This case has been independently reviewed at least twice, and the independent reviews reached the same conclusion.

 

[si404]

the objectives it has been set.

The problem people have are these objectives themselves. Not that they don't want Euston or the SW inners relieved, but that they shouldn't have been objectives on the same scheme. The big three of Lea Valley, Euston and SWML kind of locked in the route. I used to see comments like "tail wagging dog" a lot.

Personally, the time to moan has loooooonnnnnnng gone, and while I had (and still have) no problems with the rough shape, I was persuaded by others a long time ago that the objective of relieving the Northern line was too much and unlikely to be as successful as hoped (but at the same time, the idea of flooding the Northern line is as over-pessimistic as the idea it will relieve the Northern line as much as they say is over-optimistic), I gave them my views at a consultation and I'm not fussed if they ignore them or not. It's not that major a change (ditto Chelsea or not), so might still happen, but I don't hold out hope as that objective has been set, and who cares if it won't be met, so long as they tried!

It should be noted that CR2 themselves relented and played about with the SW branches so that more places kept residual Waterloo service as people complained about SW+West End. But again, that was a long time ago, back when they could - plus it was fiddling around at the edges and that stuff is still pretty malleable even now.

I've found on my PC maps I made of the various options from the option report, back right near the beginning of the route selection process. While the best performing option they looked at was the safeguarded Chelney, they took the two very well performing regional schemes and mashed them into a Chimera of the best bits, with some of the other good stuff thrown in, with a pinch of the objectives. Options 6 and 7, from the Metro options both have a Tottenham Hale to Balham line - one taking the Chelsea-Hackey route, the other going via The City and Charing Cross. The latter was significantly worse fairing - sorry CR2 via The City fans! That said, the Lea Valley - City - Charing Cross - SWML regional option did pretty well.

 

[London Trains]

I’m afraid you have counted wrong. Crossrail 2 has 9 / 10 mined stations, and at least three of those are subject to debate. It’s the stations that cost the money; the tunnelling itself is cheap. You have 16.

My plan actually has 15, which can be easily changed to 13.

Crossrail 2 actually has 11/12, not much difference to mine: Tooting / Balham, Clapham Junction, Kings Road Chelsea, Victoria, Tottenham Court Road, Euston St Pancras (which is a ridiculous station to be honest and should be split), Angel, Dalston, Seven Sisters, Turnpike Lane and Alexandra Palace / Wood Green and New Southgate. Additionally it destroys most of Wimbledon's town centre in the process.

 

[si404]

Crossrail 2 actually has 11/12 <snip> New Southgate.

New Southgate is on the surface.

 

[Ianno87]

Euston St Pancras (which is a ridiculous station to be honest and should be split),
[/QUOTE]

No. When the trains are 250m long and Euston/St Pancras are only slightly further apary than that, seperate stations would be ridiculous.

 

[Bald Rick]

My plan actually has 15, which can be easily changed to 13.

Crossrail 2 actually has 11/12, not much difference to mine: Tooting / Balham, Clapham Junction, Kings Road Chelsea, Victoria, Tottenham Court Road, Euston St Pancras (which is a ridiculous station to be honest and should be split), Angel, Dalston, Seven Sisters, Turnpike Lane and Alexandra Palace / Wood Green and New Southgate. Additionally it destroys most of Wimbledon's town centre in the process.

Your list has 15, and then there’s your new station at Sutton.

You also seem to have missed the outcome of the various affordability reviews, much of which was reported at the time, albeit not officially published (2-3 years ago). Kings Road station was scrapped, and a few other stations were living charmed lives.

As for ‘destroying’ Wimbledon Town Centre ... no it doesn’t. Clearly there will be some construction work, but that will be the same if Crossrail 2 runs via Wimbledon, regardless of route either side. Unless you are trying to route it so Sutton, in which case you end up taking a lot more land in Wimbledon.

Please can we leave the design and assessment of such projects to those people who do it for a living? Sorry to spoil the fun.

 

[hwl]

As for ‘destroying’ Wimbledon Town Centre ... no it doesn’t. Clearly there will be some construction work, but that will be the same if Crossrail 2 runs via Wimbledon, regardless of route either side. Unless you are trying to route it so Sutton, in which case you end up taking a lot more land in Wimbledon.

Exactly - Just some low rise late 1980s / early 1990s commercial space demolition. Centre Court had about a third of units empty when I was last in there in January and that was before the scheduled closure of Debenhams (planned Pre Covid) so more than 50% of Centre Court is effectively vacant before any covid related closures. Hence more than enough unit space for everyone currently in there during the CR2 works.
With all the vacant space leaving the owners (effectively a Standard Life pension fund) liable for the business rates they might be happy to off-load half of it sooner rather than later.

Adding 2 extra roads over railway will do wonders for the traffic and make it much nicer to walk and cycle round too.

Please can we leave the design and assessment of such projects to those people who do it for a living? Sorry to spoil the fun.

Amen! or just make discussion predicated on accepting a given fact base? Not being in full possession of facts/actual data and coming in with pre-conceptions seems to be the biggest issues that cause these threads (and then get really upset that data and analysis doesn't agree with them)