My ideas for Crossrail 2

[London Trains]

I would have a Crossrail 2 core like this:

Wimbledon
(Tunnel starts)
Earlsfield
Clapham Junction
Battersea
Vauxhall
Lambeth
Waterloo
Blackfriars
Bank
Liverpool Street
Shoreditch High Street
Columbia Road
London Fields
Hackney Central
(branch towards Rectory Road which surfaces immediately)
Clapton
Lea Valley
(Tunnel Ends)

At the southern end, trains would run to Sutton, (via the Wimbledon loop, with a new flyover from it to the up slow before Wimbledon. New platforms would be built at Sutton, underground, with the line having no connection to the current lines), Epsom (extra sidings south of the station since there will still be SWR through trains), Chessington South (extra platform), Hampton Court, Shepperton (extra platform) and Twickenham (2 dedicated platforms).

At the northern end, trains would run to Chingford, Enfield Town and Cheshunt (extra terminating platform), all of the current LO services.

The line would have a very high frequency of 36tph right from the start, with the service pattern being:

6tph Epsom to Enfield Town
6tph Chessington to Enfield Town
6tph Shepperton to Cheshunt
6tph Twickenham to Cheshunt
6tph Hampton Court to Chingford
6tph Sutton to Chingford

There are many advantages:

• The SWR metro network doesnt lose its services to Waterloo (the current plan is likely going to cause mass changing at Clapham Junction and Wimbledon).
• This wont overload the Northern line (the current plan will cause changing at Tooting/Balham to the Northern Line for the City).
• It wont ruin services at Earlsfield (the current plan leaves it with less services and means longer distance ones have to stop).
• Due to my plans for higher service levels on the SWR network than the current CR2 plans, the Kingston loop and Shepperton branch wont need SWR services. The only part of my plans sharing with SWR will be Raynes Park to Epsom (the SWR services from Dorking/Guildford will join the fast lines after Raynes Park, and will only call at Worcester Park between Epsom and Wimbledon).
• Epsom, Sunbury, Kempton Park, Upper Halliford and Shepperton will move into Zone 6.
• I'd move Kingston, Hampton Wick, Teddington and Surbiton into Zone 5 as well.
• The Sutton loop has an amazing improvement in services and journey times.
• The Waterloo and City line can be closed as it will become completely obsolete - and even with a Blackfriars call this line will have a faster journey time than the W&C ever did.
• 8tph services are removed from Liverpool Street.
• 4tph services are removed from the 2 track section through Clapton (and since the station will be replaced the Overground station can close, meaning all services in that section run at the same speed).
• Upgrades between Tottenham Hale and Broxbourne that were going to be done for CR2 can still be done, but run into Liverpool Street with the spare paths.

The only disadvantage I can see is that it does not relieve HS2 passengers at Euston, but I have a NW-SE Crossrail 3 plan that will relieve it. I wont go into much detail about that here though.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

Its a nice proposal, but your missing one of they key points about Crossrail 2 which is relieving the Victoria Line, which as a regular user of the Victoria desperately needs relief.

Your proposal won't relieve the Victoria Line at all from the northbound side as it doesn't serve Kings Cross, the West End or Victoria or go near any of the Victoria Line and Piccadilly Line stations in North London which is where the main source of overcrowding comes from. In fact its possible that this proposal could actually make overcrowding on the Victoria Line worse with the more frequent trains from the southwest, your likely going to get even more people changing trains at Vauxhall and considering the Victoria can barely cope with the current level of passengers, it certainly woun't be able to cope with all the additional passengers from new journeys created.

Your route does open up a nice route into the city of London from North East London which I imagine would be well used, but personally I think it misses the one of the major points of Crossrail 2 which is providing relief for the Victoria Line, and this proposal doesn't do that.

Also another thing to consider with Crossrail 2 is that your point about Crossrail 2 overloading the Northern Line at Balham I don't think is true. A significant proportion passengers travelling on the Northern Line in the morning change at Stockwell for the Victoria Line. The interchange at Balham will actually help relieve the Northern Line Mordern branch as many of the passengers who used to change at Stockwell will now change at Balham for Crossrail 2 giving passengers at stations such as Clapham North and Common the chance to actually board a train. And while I do agree there will be significant amounts of people changing from Crossrail 2 to Northern at Balham that will be offset by people changing from the Northen to Crossrail 2, likely more will change from the Northern to Crossrail 2.

 

[Domh245]

The SWR metro network doesnt lose its services to Waterloo (the current plan is likely going to cause mass changing at Clapham Junction and Wimbledon).

What do you think happens to all the passengers that arrive at waterloo (hint - they don't all work within walking distance of the station)

 

[London Trains]

What do you think happens to all the passengers that arrive at waterloo (hint - they don't all work within walking distance of the station)

They change onto the Waterloo and City, Jubilee and Northern lines (I doubt many change onto the Bakerloo to be honest). With my plan, everyone who would change onto the W+C would stay on the train. Anyway, Waterloo is much better setup for changing than Wimbledon, and Clapham Junction is majorly overcrowded already, so making more people change at Wimbledon or Clapham Junction is a bad idea. My plan will reduce the amount of people changing at Wimbledon (Sutton loop onto SWR), Clapham Junction and Waterloo.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

They change onto the Waterloo and City, Jubilee and Northern lines (I doubt many change onto the Bakerloo to be honest). With my plan, everyone who would change onto the W+C would stay on the train. Anyway, Waterloo is much better setup for changing than Wimbledon, and Clapham Junction is majorly overcrowded already, so making more people change at Wimbledon or Clapham Junction is a bad idea. My plan will reduce the amount of people changing at Wimbledon (Sutton loop onto SWR), Clapham Junction and Waterloo.

I think quite a lot probably do change on to the Bakerloo. A lot of people work in Oxford Circus and some in Piccadilly Circus and many trains into Waterloo in the morning don't stop at Vauxhall meaning passengers cant change at Vauxhall for the Victoria Line so naturally they change for the Bakerloo at Waterloo. Also considering the Bakerloo is far less crowded I reckon some people will choose to change for the Bakerloo anyway.

I do agree that Waterloo is a better station for changing than Wimbledon and Clapham Junction but like I said before most of the crossrail 2 passengers will be making direct journeys that weren't previously possible as a lot of them will be travelling direct to Victoria and Tottenham Court Road, which previously could only be done by changing at Vauxhall or Waterloo. So personally I don't think there will be extremely large amounts of people changing at stations such as Wimbledon.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Awful lot of stations for a Crossrail, perhaps it would be better as a simple Underground line?

I think there should be a Crossrail via the City and one via the West End. The West End one going via Balham and Norbury and the City one going via Wimbledon.

 

[JonathanH]

Awful lot of stations for a Crossrail, perhaps it would be better as a simple Underground line?

I think there should be a Crossrail via the City and one via the West End. The West End one going via Balham and Norbury and the City one going via Wimbledon.

There isn't funding for one line, let alone two.

 

[Ianno87]

They change onto the Waterloo and City, Jubilee and Northern lines (I doubt many change onto the Bakerloo to be honest). With my plan, everyone who would change onto the W+C would stay on the train. Anyway, Waterloo is much better setup for changing than Wimbledon, and Clapham Junction is majorly overcrowded already, so making more people change at Wimbledon or Clapham Junction is a bad idea. My plan will reduce the amount of people changing at Wimbledon (Sutton loop onto SWR), Clapham Junction and Waterloo.

City bound passengers on the current Crossrail 2 proposal would change onto Crossrail 1 at Tottenham Court Rd.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

There isn't funding for one line, let alone two.

Well exactly, however, a man can dream?

 

[London Trains]

City bound passengers on the current Crossrail 2 proposal would change onto Crossrail 1 at Tottenham Court Rd.

Would they though? Would it not be quicker to change at Tooting or Balham (even quicker if they choose Balham) onto the Northern line?

 

[London Trains]

There isn't funding for one line, let alone two.

This sub forum is called "speculative ideas, " obviously most of the ideas on the subforum are very expensive and wouldnt have funding.

 

[Ianno87]

Would they though? Would it not be quicker to change at Tooting or Balham (even quicker if they choose Balham) onto the Northern line?

No, the Northern line is very slow, especially from Tooting.

Via Crossrail 2, it is 6 stops (Clapham Jn, Chelsea, Victoria, TCR (change), Farringdon, Liverpool St. Appealing if you are already on a Crossrail 2 train with seat etc)

 

[JonathanH]

This sub forum is called "speculative ideas, " obviously most of the ideas on the subforum are very expensive and wouldnt have funding.

Yes, as someone pointed out the other day, maybe it ought to be split into 'realistic speculative ideas' and 'fantasy speculative ideas'.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Yes, as someone pointed out the other day, maybe it ought to be split into 'realistic speculative ideas' and 'fantasy speculative ideas'.

Funnily enough, that was me. But I think its the best thing to do. I like to read every proposal but I know others focus on empirical merit.

 

[Purple Orange]

Yes, as someone pointed out the other day, maybe it ought to be split into 'realistic speculative ideas' and 'fantasy speculative ideas'.

Who defines realistic? I’d say cross rail 2 is fairly realistic. London has a history of building a new significant railway project every couple of generations. Since the mid 60s there has been the Victoria & Jubilee lines, DLR, Elizabeth Line, then we have the significant engineering project that is Thameslink and HS1, then developing London Overground. Then we already have HS2 work taking place.

 

[si404]

City bound passengers on the current Crossrail 2 proposal would change onto Crossrail 1 at Tottenham Court Rd.

While Moorgate would indeed be slower via the Northern Line (about 3 minutes if Balham, 6 minutes if Tooting - a minute slower than changing off CR2 at Angel), it's not all The City.

You can change to the Central at TCR for Bank, and with the Northern line interchange at Tooting, they take the same time (so if the interchange was at Balham, it would be quicker via the Northern). And London Bridge obviously skews in favour of the Northern Line.

Appealing if you are already on a Crossrail 2 train with seat etc)

Absolutely - totally concur here. But if you are a Wimbledon-Bank passenger (and so standing on CR2), or going to London Bridge, you'd at least think about changing onto the Northern at Tooting. Likewise if you are a South Wimbledon - Tottenham Court Road passenger, you'll stay seated on the Northern line and change the cross-platform interchange at Kennington, rather than use a multi-level interchange at Tooting Broadway onto a train that's standing room-only - even though changing at Tooting is quite a bit faster.

I'm pretty skeptical that CR2 via Tooting would generate much relief of the Northern line - though less due to a load of passengers changing onto the Northern line at Tooting (many of these passengers will simply take the residual Waterloo services they lobbied hard for during the early stages of planning and then take the W&C or Jubilee), but more a lack of passengers changing onto CR2 at Tooting (northbound, am peak for both). I think there's going to be some relief - but I don't think it's anywhere as much as assumed - and unlikely to be enough to justify the big diversion of the bulk of CR2 passengers east via the 'Tooting turns'. Add in the benefits of doubling Earlsfield frequency with a CR2 station, rather than reducing it (and adding stops on Woking, Guildford, etc services to make the reduction less extreme) and there's a good case for replacing the Northern line interchange with a station at Earlsfield.

And the 'Balham bulge' is worse on all counts - less transfer of Northern line passengers to CR2, more CR2 passengers boarding the Northern line for the City, a longer diversion for the bulk of CR2 passengers. Balham only makes sense if it was a branch (terminate 10tph there, rather than at Wimbledon) that might get extended in the future.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

While Moorgate would indeed be slower via the Northern Line (about 3 minutes if Balham, 6 minutes if Tooting - a minute slower than changing off CR2 at Angel), it's not all The City.

You can change to the Central at TCR for Bank, and with the Northern line interchange at Tooting, they take the same time (so if the interchange was at Balham, it would be quicker via the Northern). And London Bridge obviously skews in favour of the Northern Line.
Absolutely - totally concur here. But if you are a Wimbledon-Bank passenger (and so standing on CR2), or going to London Bridge, you'd at least think about changing onto the Northern at Tooting. Likewise if you are a South Wimbledon - Tottenham Court Road passenger, you'll stay seated on the Northern line and change the cross-platform interchange at Kennington, rather than use a multi-level interchange at Tooting Broadway onto a train that's standing room-only - even though changing at Tooting is quite a bit faster.

I'm pretty skeptical that CR2 via Tooting would generate much relief of the Northern line - though less due to a load of passengers changing onto the Northern line at Tooting (many of these passengers will simply take the residual Waterloo services they lobbied hard for during the early stages of planning and then take the W&C or Jubilee), but more a lack of passengers changing onto CR2 at Tooting (northbound, am peak for both). I think there's going to be some relief - but I don't think it's anywhere as much as assumed - and unlikely to be enough to justify the big diversion of the bulk of CR2 passengers east via the 'Tooting turns'. Add in the benefits of doubling Earlsfield frequency with a CR2 station, rather than reducing it (and adding stops on Woking, Guildford, etc services to make the reduction less extreme) and there's a good case for replacing the Northern line interchange with a station at Earlsfield.

And the 'Balham bulge' is worse on all counts - less transfer of Northern line passengers to CR2, more CR2 passengers boarding the Northern line for the City, a longer diversion for the bulk of CR2 passengers. Balham only makes sense if it was a branch (terminate 10tph there, rather than at Wimbledon) that might get extended in the future.

I think the Northern Line needs a new line for itself only, not merged in with CR2. Perhaps a Chessington-Wimbledon-Tooting-Balham-Clapham-Camberwell-Bank Underground or something like that.

 

[London Trains]

many of these passengers will simply take the residual Waterloo services they lobbied hard for during the early stages of planning and then take the W&C or Jubilee

My plan has a lot of merit here. All of CR2 (other than Epsom to Raynes Park) can be completely separated from SWR as there are no destinations lost that the current SWR trains serve. Additionally my plan has higher frequencies on the lines than the current CR2 plans so no SWR services are needed for relief.

 

[swt_passenger]

My plan has a lot of merit here. All of CR2 (other than Epsom to Raynes Park) can be completely separated from SWR as there are no destinations lost that the current SWR trains serve. Additionally my plan has higher frequencies on the lines than the current CR2 so no SWR services are needed for relief.

Where were you when NR and TfL were spending 15 years designing Crossrail 2? You could have saved them so much time...

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Where were you when NR and TfL were spending 15 years designing Crossrail 2? You could have saved them so much time...

Was it really 15 years? Seems like a bit of a botch job in the early 2010s to combine the Chelsea to Hackney Line and sort out SWML overcrowding. The two are completely seperate issues, particuarly as the C&H was at its core designed to be about serving areas without an Underground.

If we had built the C&H in the 90s as planned, surely we'd be looking at a Waterloo to City Crossrail instead of what we have now.

 

[JonathanH]

Who defines realistic? I’d say cross rail 2 is fairly realistic. London has a history of building a new significant railway project every couple of generations. Since the mid 60s there has been the Victoria & Jubilee lines, DLR, Elizabeth Line, then we have the significant engineering project that is Thameslink and HS1, then developing London Overground. Then we already have HS2 work taking place.

Yes, however, there are reserved routes for Crossrail 2 around which much planning has already been made. While I note that the Jubilee line might once have been expected to run via a different route after Charing Cross, the maze of tunnels under London means that a complete reroute of Crossrail 2 is probably not realistic at this stage.

 

[Ianno87]

Was it really 15 years? Seems like a bit of a botch job in the early 2010s to combine the Chelsea to Hackney Line and sort out SWML overcrowding. The two are completely seperate issues, particuarly as the C&H was at its core designed to be about serving areas without an Underground.

No it wasn't. Came from the 1989 Central London Rail study to relieve crowding on the North East-South West (i.e Picc / Vic) axis. Going to Chelsea/Hackney themselves was just a "bonus" bolt-on.

 

[swt_passenger]

Was it really 15 years? Seems like a bit of a botch job in the early 2010s to combine the Chelsea to Hackney Line and sort out SWML overcrowding. The two are completely seperate issues, particuarly as the C&H was at its core designed to be about serving areas without an Underground.

Well I’d include talking about Chelsea Hackney as part of the same overall concept. But the basic point is that it’s been planned to the nth degree already, and no amount of amateur speculation here is going to change its basic route at this stage.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

No it wasn't. Came from the 1989 Central London Rail study to relieve crowding on the North East-South West (i.e Picc / Vic) axis. Going to Chelsea/Hackney themselves was just a "bonus" bolt-on.

That was the proposal for the tube line itself. Of course BR had proposed the North-South Crossrail at the time, which was actually meant to go to Crystal Palace. However, as recently as 2008 the plan was for the Wimbledon to Epping tube line. My point is the entity we now know as Crossrail 2, was a recent evolution of the previous tube plans which had little relevance to the needs of the SWML.

 

[Ianno87]

That was the proposal for the tube line itself. Of course BR had proposed the North-South Crossrail at the time, which was actually meant to go to Crystal Palace. However, as recently as 2008 the plan was for the Wimbledon to Epping tube line. My point is the entity we now know as Crossrail 2, was a recent evolution of the previous tube plans which had little relevance to the needs of the SWML.

Yes, it's evolved to serve both needs (plus regenerate the Lea Valley too). A conventional tube scheme on its own would probably be a fairly weak case, given the subsequent Victoria line upgrade and (eventual) scope to do the same to the Picc.

 

[BayPaul]

It's occurred to me that there seems to be an obvious way of cutting a lot of cost at the southern end. If crossrail 2 remained on the surface until after Clapham, using the existing slow lines, then there would be no need to build very expensive underground stations at Clapham, Wimbledon and Balham. The existing fast lines become semi fasts, with all trains stopping at Woking, Surbiton, Wimbledon and Clapham, and all the fast trains go into tunnel south of Wimbledon, running non stop from Woking to Waterloo. Obviously an extra pair of portals would be needed, so that fast trains can emerge ready to enter Waterloo, whilst Crossrail slow trains dive underground to cross the river (personally and ideally I would run Waterloo, blackfriarsish, TCR, Euston, then existing route, so it serves the city and west end, but I suspect that loop under London would be challenging!).

This would seem to match HS2s logical plan of putting the fast lines underground, rather than running fast through existing stations.

 

[Ianno87]

It's occurred to me that there seems to be an obvious way of cutting a lot of cost at the southern end. If crossrail 2 remained on the surface until after Clapham, using the existing slow lines, then there would be no need to build very expensive underground stations at Clapham, Wimbledon and Balham. The existing fast lines become semi fasts, with all trains stopping at Woking, Surbiton, Wimbledon and Clapham, and all the fast trains go into tunnel south of Wimbledon, running non stop from Woking to Waterloo. Obviously an extra pair of portals would be needed, so that fast trains can emerge ready to enter Waterloo, whilst Crossrail slow trains dive underground to cross the river (personally and ideally I would run Waterloo, blackfriarsish, TCR, Euston, then existing route, so it serves the city and west end, but I suspect that loop under London would be challenging!).

This would seem to match HS2s logical plan of putting the fast lines underground, rather than running fast through existing stations.

Where would the portal come up on approach to Waterloo? The whole line is surrounded by very, very pricey real estate. And you'd somehow need to get into the middle platfoms of the station. And Fast Line trains would no longer be able to stop at Clapham Jn. And you'd lose any ability to relieve the Northern Line.

 

[Bald Rick]

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

Where were you when NR and TfL were spending 15 years designing Crossrail 2? You could have saved them so much time...

This proposal would cost about twice what the current Crossrail 2 would cost, for almost certainly lower benefits. It would also delay the project another 5 years, whilst all the existing designs and safeguarding are put through the shredder and the whole job is started from scratch. And then it would take longer to build.

It also has the significant disadvantage of not being physically possible. There is no space under Bank / Liverpool Street for new high capacity railway stations. Nor at Waterloo.

 

[Purple Orange]

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




This proposal would cost about twice what the current Crossrail 2 would cost, for almost certainly lower benefits. It would also delay the project another 5 years, whilst all the existing designs and safeguarding are put through the shredder and the whole job is started from scratch. And then it would take longer to build.

It also has the significant disadvantage of not being physically possible. There is no space under Bank / Liverpool Street for new high capacity railway stations. Nor at Waterloo.

Agreed. If a tunnel must be built, build it under Manchester!

 

[London Trains]

This proposal would cost about twice what the current Crossrail 2 would cost.

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).

It also has the significant disadvantage of not being physically possible. There is no space under Bank / Liverpool Street for new high capacity railway stations. Nor at Waterloo.

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.