Realistic outlook for new lines in London

[MontyP]

Northern line extension beyond Battersea:

• Battersea Power Station
• Battersea Bridge
• Clapham Junction (Mildmay, Windrush, Southwestern, Southern)
• Wandsworth South
• Southfields (District)
• Putney Heath
• Roehampton
• Kingston Vale
• Coombe Wood
• Kingston (Southwestern)

There is a network hole in parts of Southwest London (mainly due to Richmond Park and Wimbledon Common).

The network hole is because no-one lives in Richmond Park or on Wimbledon Common!

The part to Roehampton possibly makes sense (Roehampton is one of the most densely populated parts of London that has no tube/rail services) although I am not convinced that the District Line needs relieving in this way. Maybe via Battersea Village, Wandsworth and Putney instead? As others have said, Kingston is better served by CR2. The mansion owners of Coombe are not going to generate much demand for public transport!

 

[Recessio]

The

Prior to the Wimbledon Loop decision in 2012 the indicative timetable in the 2010 RUS had

• 2tph Bellingham St Albans
• 2tph Catterham St Albans
• (attached)

if the Sutton Trains stayed on the Holborn Slows this would remove all conflicts with anything approaching the Core on the Fasts and the Sussex lines.

in any event very little crosses at Blackfriars Junction on the approach from Elephant & Castle Loughborough Junction & Southwark Bridge Junction are used in preference.

The most obvious contenders to take over the St Albans Services are the Sevenoaks/ Orpington services, both also 8 Car routes and neither operate North of Blackfriars/ Kentish Town in the off peak.

if they were to go through then the only moves from the Fasts to Slow would be the SE Peak Extras from Gillingham/ Maidstone.

That makes more sense, to me. Although, would the 8 cars need to be borrowed permanently from the Sevenoaks/Orpington services to run a 4tph around the loop - in which case, what runs on the Sevenoaks/Orpington services?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 May 2026 ==

The network hole is because no-one lives in Richmond Park or on Wimbledon Common!

The part to Roehampton possibly makes sense (Roehampton is one of the most densely populated parts of London that has no tube/rail services) although I am not convinced that the District Line needs relieving in this way. Maybe via Battersea Village, Wandsworth and Putney instead? As others have said, Kingston is better served by CR2. The mansion owners of Coombe are not going to generate much demand for public transport!

One thing that would be nice in SW London would be more "orbital" services - the tramlink does an admirable job from Croydon to Wimbledon, and the rounders to a minor extent - but really going to/from anywhere west of Wimbledon normally involves going inwards to Earls Court or Clapham Junction or changing in Central London. (or using local buses instead of rail). Example, the best route from Surbiton to West Drayton is via Tottenham Court Road...

 

[Mr. SW]

Bus Superloop covers some of that but there could be improvements such as taking the tram to Kingston, Richmond and thence to Hounslow, Twickenham or Brentford. A long way to go from Croydon but connectivity needs to be seriously looked at in terms of train frequency and interchange facilities, which would be covered by a thoroughgoing effort at Metroising the south London system, but it may mean sacrifices such as having to transfer instead of going straight through to your destination.

 

[The Ham]

Bus Superloop covers some of that but there could be improvements such as taking the tram to Kingston, Richmond and thence to Hounslow, Twickenham or Brentford. A long way to go from Croydon but connectivity needs to be seriously looked at in terms of train frequency and interchange facilities, which would be covered by a thoroughgoing effort at Metroising the south London system, but it may mean sacrifices such as having to transfer instead of going straight through to your destination.

Trams may not be about end to end travel, rather a series of overlapping journeys (much in the same way that almost zero people travel Plymouth to Scotland using XC).

If there's decent frequencies on connecting lines the delay associated with changing becomes much lower (see what happens with the tube in the central area, where is not uncommon for users to change lines as the next train is a matter of minutes away).

As such, if a full rail line isn't likely to be justified (or at low frequencies) a higher frequency tram service could be just as useful.

 

[Kilopylae]

One thing that would be nice in SW London would be more "orbital" services

Could the Elizabeth line be extended out from under Heathrow to one of the SWR lines - somewhere like Felton or Sunbury? The further you're willing to pay to take it the more useful it is: Esher or Surbiton (for Wimbledon access) would be best. This could run as a shuttle to Hayes or Southall using old Class 360s and use the sidings or terminating platforms - maybe 1tph true Elizabeth line could be extended from central London to SWR-land via Heathrow and 3tph as the Class 360 shuttle.

 

[zwk500]

Could the Elizabeth line be extended out from under Heathrow to one of the SWR lines - somewhere like Felton or Sunbury? The further you're willing to pay to take it the more useful it is: Esher or Surbiton (for Wimbledon access) would be best.

Yes, although Staines or Weybridge are the most likely destinations. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathrow_Southern_Railway

This could run as a shuttle to Hayes or Southall using old Class 360s and use the sidings or terminating platforms - maybe 1tph true Elizabeth line could be extended from central London to SWR-land via Heathrow and 3tph as the Class 360 shuttle.

In one fell swoop, you've destroyed the entire conceptual purpose of the Elizabeth Line. EL is about linking people *directly* into central London, with a consistent high-frequency metro pattern.

 

[The Ham]

Could the Elizabeth line be extended out from under Heathrow to one of the SWR lines - somewhere like Felton or Sunbury?

Whilst that could be possible, you run the risk of SWR delays being inherited onto the Elizabeth Line.

The general plan is currently to have the Heathrow Express services/paths head to the SWR area to limit that risk.

There's two options, either the metro SWR services (London Waterloo via Clapham Junction, Twickenham, Richmond, Hounslow and Staines) or the outer suburban services south/west of Woking (2tph to Guildford and 2tph to Guildford).

The metro services wouldn't fit with the express nature of the paths between Heathrow and Paddington, especially as these could be paired with the Elizabeth Line if that was an acceptable risk.

Otherwise, the EL and Merro would have their end point as Heathrow and passengers cities change there.

The outer suburban services would be a better fit with regards to rolling stock (a class 450 type train is often used for limited stops and stopping service - see the Alton and Basingstoke Stoppers for examples of this).

 

[The exile]

The network hole is because no-one lives in Richmond Park or on Wimbledon Common!

Are wombles not entitled to public transport provision?

 

[Recessio]

Are wombles not entitled to public transport provision?

I thought they already had Underground, Overground, and Wombling Free services?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 May 2026 ==

Bus Superloop covers some of that but there could be improvements such as taking the tram to Kingston, Richmond and thence to Hounslow, Twickenham or Brentford. A long way to go from Croydon but connectivity needs to be seriously looked at in terms of train frequency and interchange facilities, which would be covered by a thoroughgoing effort at Metroising the south London system, but it may mean sacrifices such as having to transfer instead of going straight through to your destination.

Superloop is fabulous and successful so far, but still gets stuck in traffic. Some segregated routing would be great, but then if you're going to build a BRT or guided bus way, you might as well do it properly and build a tram.

Was always surprised by the vociferous opposition to the West London Tram route, such a major bus corridor as the Uxbridge Road seems ideal territory...

 

[The exile]

I thought they already had Underground, Overground, and Wombling Free services?

True - and if they go free, the business cases just won’t stack up.

 

[MontyP]

Bus Superloop covers some of that but there could be improvements such as taking the tram to Kingston, Richmond and thence to Hounslow, Twickenham or Brentford. A long way to go from Croydon but connectivity needs to be seriously looked at in terms of train frequency and interchange facilities, which would be covered by a thoroughgoing effort at Metroising the south London system, but it may mean sacrifices such as having to transfer instead of going straight through to your destination.

How would you get the tram to Kingston? By taking over the slow lines from Wimbledon? That wouldn't work as these are also used for suburban services to Epsom and Surbiton. Or on-street running to New Malden and take over the heavy rail from there? Or on street running all the way to Kingston? I don't think any of the roads are wide enough for those options. I need to dig out an old map of the pre-1952 tram network to see how it reached Kingston then.

 

[Mr. SW]

How would you get the tram to Kingston? By taking over the slow lines from Wimbledon? That wouldn't work as these are also used for suburban services to Epsom and Surbiton. Or on-street running to New Malden and take over the heavy rail from there? Or on street running all the way to Kingston? I don't think any of the roads are wide enough for those options. I need to dig out an old map of the pre-1952 tram network to see how it reached Kingston then.

This was only intended as rhetoric to provoke discussion, not as serious suggestion.

The West London Tram was a no-brainer proposal to replace the 207/607 bus routes from Shepherds Bush to Uxbridge. Unfortunately it was promoted under the aegis of the then Daily Mail bogeyman and hate-figure Ken Livingstone. But this alone did not kill it.

There were some faults in the routing and service which were not adequately explained. This was taken up by the local raging pop-eyed arch-nimbys with too much time on their hands. Particularly in Ealing.
Firstly: they assumed that the tram would be in addition to the bus routes and not replacing them, hence leading to unacceptable levels of congestion.
Secondly: there were going to be some temporary traffic diversions, such as re-routing traffic around Haven Green, just north of the Broadway (of Monty Python fame). This was assumed to be permanent and not up for discussion.
Thirdly: there was the usual thing of assuming the trams would be those wheezy, clanking things of ye olden tyme not the slinky multi-sectioned vehicles with floating suspension. (cf. reviving railways where the nimbys assume they are going to reintroduce Thomas the Tank engine with all the soot and chuffing noises of a dimly-remembered yesteryear.)
Fourthly: Objections just for the sake of it.
Fifthly: The feeling that some objectors get of deeply held self-satisfaction that a badly-worded letter in the local paper some gives them some tingly warmth to know that their little missive has destroyed something that would have been useful and convenient for thousands of others.

Rant over.

 

[MontyP]

This was only intended as rhetoric to provoke discussion, not as serious suggestion.

Fair enough, I think the provision of a better service for Kingston is almost worthy of a topic in itself.

 

[Mr. SW]

Indeed.

 

[Kilopylae]

In one fell swoop, you've destroyed the entire conceptual purpose of the Elizabeth Line. EL is about linking people *directly* into central London, with a consistent high-frequency metro pattern.

The purpose of this extension would be to link the SWR lines to West Drayton and the GWR/Elizabeth line without needing to go via central. The possibility of peak-time EL through services would be an added bonus (and probably not an especially well-used one, as it wouldn't be faster than Waterloo).

You don't have to brand it as EL.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The purpose of this extension would be to link the SWR lines to West Drayton and the GWR/Elizabeth line without needing to go via central. The possibility of peak-time EL through services would be an added bonus (and probably not an especially well-used one, as it wouldn't be faster than Waterloo).

If you extend the Elizabeth line from Heathrow, then it won't link to West Drayton because West Drayton lies beyond where the Heathrow spur leaves the GWR lines. If you want to link Heathrow to SWR land (which I agree would be a very good thing to do), then you don't need to bring the EL into it at all: Just tunnel into Heathrow from the South, and run your service from SW London to Heathrow and terminate there. A separate service would make more sense both because of not importing disruption and because the trains you'd need for an orbital service are likely to be a fair bit shorter than EL trains.

Actually, if you really want an orbital service and you had the money to build a new tunneled line, I'd consider a service that runs to Heathrow from SWR-land, and then continues to West Drayton, Brunel University, then Uxbridge. That would really open up connectivity, almost certainly get a lot of custom, and link West Drayton But that's for a different thread.

 

[London Trains]

For the Wimbledon loop, I personally believe the District Line taking over the Wimbledon to Sutton section would be preferable to the Northern Line or Tramlink taking over parts of the line - ideally the Northern Line would head to North Cheam instead, with stops at Morden Park (see below), Stonecot Hill, St Anthony's Hospital and North Cheam.

For the District Line extension, obviously the most difficult and expensive part by far would be the tunnel to get it across the SWML in Wimbledon, but from there it shouldn't be too difficult - I'd have the tunnel surface right in the middle of the industrial estate south of Wimbledon, with the entire industrial estate redeveloped and a new station placed in the centre of the development. From there the line would rejoin the Wimbledon loop, serving all of the same stations as now, except I'd move Morden South station north of the A24 and rename it "Morden Park", with a new development replacing Morden Sports Ground (note - I am not suggesting to redevelop Morden Park itself, just the small rectangle of land directly next to the railway), and at Sutton it would terminate on the old Post Office site, with the physical connection between the Wimbledon loop and Sutton to Epsom line severed.

 

[The Ham]

If you want to link Heathrow to SWR land (which I agree would be a very good thing to do), then you don't need to bring the EL into it at all: Just tunnel into Heathrow from the South, and run your service from SW London to Heathrow and terminate there. A separate service would make more sense both because of not importing disruption and because the trains you'd need for an orbital service are likely to be a fair bit shorter than EL trains.

If you really wanted the SWR Metro services to Heathrow to extend beyond, pair them with the Western Approach to Heathrow services to/ from Reading.

Whilst this wouldn't be faster than the current Reading to Waterloo services, however that's not where the benefits task, there would be new station pairings for Slough, Maidenhead, Twyford to/from Staines and Waterloo.

The full list of stations os:
Ashford (Surrey)
Feltham
Whitton
Twickenham
St Margarets
Richmond
North Sheen
Mortlake
Barnes (Where the Hounslow Loop merges back in)
Putney
Wandsworth Town
Clapham Junction
Queenstown Road
Vauxhall

--- And ---

Ashford (Surrey)
Feltham
Hounslow
Isleworth
Syon Lane
Brentford
Kew Bridge
Chiswick
Barnes Bridge
Barnes (Rejoins the Main Line)

 

[Recessio]

For the Wimbledon loop, I personally believe the District Line taking over the Wimbledon to Sutton section would be preferable to the Northern Line or Tramlink taking over parts of the line - ideally the Northern Line would head to North Cheam instead, with stops at Morden Park (see below), Stonecot Hill, St Anthony's Hospital and North Cheam.

For the District Line extension, obviously the most difficult and expensive part by far would be the tunnel to get it across the SWML in Wimbledon, but from there it shouldn't be too difficult - I'd have the tunnel surface right in the middle of the industrial estate south of Wimbledon, with the entire industrial estate redeveloped and a new station placed in the centre of the development. From there the line would rejoin the Wimbledon loop, serving all of the same stations as now, except I'd move Morden South station north of the A24 and rename it "Morden Park", with a new development replacing Morden Sports Ground (note - I am not suggesting to redevelop Morden Park itself, just the small rectangle of land directly next to the railway), and at Sutton it would terminate on the old Post Office site, with the physical connection between the Wimbledon loop and Sutton to Epsom line severed.

I certainly agree that District would be preferable over Northern or Tramlink - however, I think that tunnelling would be difficult to do if you're also going to fit Crossrail 2 underneath Wimbledon station as well. You'd essentially have 2 sets of tunnels criss-crossing underneath the SWML. I think you'd also either need to start tunelling the District north of the station, which would require new expensive underground Undergound platforms (if you get what I mean) for the District line, and I think straight platforms would be difficult if tunneled to reach that industrial estate so you'd then have curved platforms which is never ideal. Or, you start the tunnels roughly where the current platforms 1-4 are, but then again you'd need to squeeze in CR2 tunnels and platforms somehow. This is why I think the least-worst option is to just try and improve the existing Thameslink service without building new track, and then extend the Northern line to North Cheam.

Honestly I do wonder if part of the reason the District Railway ultimately ended up signing the agreement with the C&SLR and SR, and didn't end up taking over that side of the Sutton Loop, was due to the difficulty in getting the trains over to it!

 

[London Trains]

I certainly agree that District would be preferable over Northern or Tramlink - however, I think that tunnelling would be difficult to do if you're also going to fit Crossrail 2 underneath Wimbledon station as well. You'd essentially have 2 sets of tunnels criss-crossing underneath the SWML. I think you'd also either need to start tunelling the District north of the station, which would require new expensive underground Undergound platforms (if you get what I mean) for the District line, and I think straight platforms would be difficult if tunneled to reach that industrial estate so you'd then have curved platforms which is never ideal. Or, you start the tunnels roughly where the current platforms 1-4 are, but then again you'd need to squeeze in CR2 tunnels and platforms somehow. This is why I think the least-worst option is to just try and improve the existing Thameslink service without building new track, and then extend the Northern line to North Cheam.

Honestly I do wonder if part of the reason the District Railway ultimately ended up signing the agreement with the C&SLR and SR, and didn't end up taking over that side of the Sutton Loop, was due to the difficulty in getting the trains over to it!

I was disregarding Crossrail 2 with my idea, given how unlikely it is to happen now - I agree that it would be extremely difficult to tunnel across the SWML with Crossrail 2 also there. In terms of the tunnelling, I'd suggest something along the lines of putting the platforms (only 2 platforms as I would have any services not running through to Sutton terminate at the new station in the industrial estate) into a cut and cover box in their existing location, with a short bored tunnel from the end of the platforms taking the line under Wimbledon Bridge and the SWML, and rising to the surface in the industrial estate.

For significant additional capacity on the SWML without Crossrail 2, I'd look at carrying out a package of alternative changes - 6 tracking New Malden to Wimbledon as per Crossrail 2 (a couple of properties at the end of Merton Hall Road would therefore have to be demolished for my District Line extension, as there is only space for 7 tracks between Elm Grove and Merton Hall Road), which I would then continue through Wimbledon station with Platforms 9 and 10 converted to SWML platforms (5/6 would become the Up Slow and Semi-Fast platforms, 7/8 the Up and Down Fast platforms and 9/10 the Down Semi-Fast and Slow platforms). Thameslink services would terminate at a new bay platform built on the car park alongside the railway (which is quite far away from the existing station, but would be accessed through a new footbridge at the northern end of the station, which could have new station entrances where the Network Rail building on Alexandra Road and the church on Queens Road are), and the trams would terminate outside the station at a new terminus built on a deck over the SWML where Wimbledon Bridge House currently is. After Wimbledon, I'd suggest a fast line tunnel all the way to Waterloo (with the portal before Gap Road so the Up Slow flyover doesn't have to be altered), and 2 or 3 extra platforms at Waterloo where Cab Road and Station Approach Road currently are.

 

[The Ham]

I was disregarding Crossrail 2 with my idea, given how unlikely it is to happen now - I agree that it would be extremely difficult to tunnel across the SWML with Crossrail 2 also there. In terms of the tunnelling, I'd suggest something along the lines of putting the platforms (only 2 platforms as I would have any services not running through to Sutton terminate at the new station in the industrial estate) into a cut and cover box in their existing location, with a short bored tunnel from the end of the platforms taking the line under Wimbledon Bridge and the SWML, and rising to the surface in the industrial estate.

For significant additional capacity on the SWML without Crossrail 2, I'd look at carrying out a package of alternative changes - 6 tracking New Malden to Wimbledon as per Crossrail 2 (a couple of properties at the end of Merton Hall Road would therefore have to be demolished for my District Line extension, as there is only space for 7 tracks between Elm Grove and Merton Hall Road), which I would then continue through Wimbledon station with Platforms 9 and 10 converted to SWML platforms (5/6 would become the Up Slow and Semi-Fast platforms, 7/8 the Up and Down Fast platforms and 9/10 the Down Semi-Fast and Slow platforms). Thameslink services would terminate at a new bay platform built on the car park alongside the railway (which is quite far away from the existing station, but would be accessed through a new footbridge at the northern end of the station, which could have new station entrances where the Network Rail building on Alexandra Road and the church on Queens Road are), and the trams would terminate outside the station at a new terminus built on a deck over the SWML where Wimbledon Bridge House currently is. After Wimbledon, I'd suggest a fast line tunnel all the way to Waterloo (with the portal before Gap Road so the Up Slow flyover doesn't have to be altered), and 2 or 3 extra platforms at Waterloo where Cab Road and Station Approach Road currently are.

First up, why do you think Crossrail 2 is unlikely to happen (I get that or might be 20 years from now)?

Especially given that given what you've listed is almost the same as Crossrail 2 for only the SWR area (I.e. not the cross London and the bit the other side) whist that would be cheaper it also would be significantly less beneficial (let's say it's 1/3 of the cost but only provide 1/6 of the benefits) and so would be poorer value for money.

 

[Magdalia]

First up, why do you think Crossrail 2 is unlikely to happen (I get that or might be 20 years from now)?

Crossrail 2 has no chance of happening without:

• commuting into Waterloo and Liverpool Street returning to pre-pandemic levels
• long term interest rates falling significantly lower than the present 4-5%

I don't expect either to happen.

 

[JonathanH]

Crossrail 2 has no chance of happening without:

• commuting into Waterloo and Liverpool Street returning to pre-pandemic levels
• long term interest rates falling significantly lower than the present 4-5%

I don't expect either to happen.

I think also that:

The railway building budget is accounted for at least the next 20 years by HS2, East West Rail and the Liverpool to Manchester project.

TfL is potentially more likely to target Bakerloo Line Extension than Crossrail 2 in the unlikely event of funding becoming available.

After the debacle of HS2, there will be no political appetite for another large railway project taking multiple years to construct. Smaller projects may be feasible.

 

[Recessio]

Crossrail 2 has no chance of happening without:

• commuting into Waterloo and Liverpool Street returning to pre-pandemic levels
• long term interest rates falling significantly lower than the present 4-5%

I don't expect either to happen.

The route is still safeguarded - that's more than can be said for a lot of HS2's original plan, I don't think it's safe to count it down and out. In fact, in terms of the thread topic of "Realistic outlook for new lines", I certainly don't think it'll be built for decades, but I think it will be built eventually - look at how similar Crossrail 1 was to plans that came decades earlier

 

[The Ham]

Crossrail 2 has no chance of happening without:

• commuting into Waterloo and Liverpool Street returning to pre-pandemic levels
• long term interest rates falling significantly lower than the present 4-5%

I don't expect either to happen.

Greater Angela already is pretty much back to pre pandemic use (January to December 2019 was 86.7 million whist January to December 2025 is 86.1 million the latter having seen 6.1% growth over the same period the year before).

That means that even with some loss of passengers with the Elizabeth Line taking the stopping services between Shenfield and Liverpool Street, that's likely to mean that on a like for like basis it's likely to be very close, maybe sightly higher.

However, we'd need just 1% growth over the following 12 months and it would be higher.

In fact just 3.1% growth between Jan-Mar 25 to 26 (when that data is released) would also mean that pre Covid rolling 12 months had been met.

That means one of your 3 things is either done or is likely to be achieved within the next 7 months (or may have already happened).

I could have only looked at Liverpool Street passenger numbers (deliberately ignoring the impact of the spike from Elizabeth Line use) and say that it's surpassed pre pandemic levels and now is the busiest station on the rail network with just shy of 100 million passengers.

It's also worth highlighting that whilst tube, Overground and DLR use is down vs pre pandemic, the Elizabeth Line wasn't open through Central London pre pandemic and when you factor that in rail based travel within London has increased by around 5.5% higher.

As such, whist not a factor which you allowed for this is above pre Covid use and likely to grow going forwards. Especially over the timelines of 15+ years and ezpecially when we start to factor in the need for extra capacity to distribute passengers from Euston in a post HS2 world.

On rhe other two factors, assuming that London keeps raising money with the levies applied to build Crossrail beyond the current anticipated end dates of the early 2040's then a significant amount of the cost of Crossrail 2 could be funded from that. As such, to a certain amount, the impact of interest rates isn't as significant as it would otherwise be.

It also means that any Elizabeth Line revenue post this debt clearance can help contribute towards other investments.

Crossrail 2 is expected to have s sightly different set of taxes to convert 50% of construction costs (as there's quite a bit more benefits to outside of London rail travel). This is expected to run for 30-35 years.

However if TfL brought in some of the residential taxes earlier and sold them as for investments in public transport, currently budgeted to come from Elizabeth Line income, they ccould divert the Elizabeth Line income to a fund to save up for Crossrail 2. This cos be super charged by the new taxes paying for enhancement projects which would save TfL costs and/or generate extra income by being forwards these projects which otherwise would be during the construction period of Crossrail 2 as that could add money to the savings and reduce early year borrowing (saving on interest payments).

SRW usage is a tougher one to overcome, however as we're taking about at least 15 years (end of business levies for Crossrail debt payment) if not 20 years (so TfL can save 5 years of these and other taxes to reduce the debt needed) then that's potentially only annual growth of up to 1.5% over 16 years to close that gap and significantly lower that the rate of growth seen 2012 to 2016 (2% to 5% growth per rolling 12 months). it's also much lower than the 4.5% seen last year and even this falls to 3.5%, 2.5% and 2% before settling at 1.5% then this would mean that pre Covid passenger numbers would be met in 14 years time.

 

[Magdalia]

Greater Angela already is pretty much back to pre pandemic use (January to December 2019 was 86.7 million whist January to December 2025 is 86.1 million the latter having seen 6.1% growth over the same period the year before).

The aggregate position for Greater Anglia hides some significant differences. The growth is mainly on the rural routes, Norwich-London and the Stansted Express. For commuting traffic in and out of Liverpool Street, from places like Bishops Stortford and Harlow Town, traffic is still about 20% down, and that's what matters for the case for Crossrail 2.

 

[The Ham]

The aggregate position for Greater Anglia hides some significant differences. The growth is mainly on the rural routes, Norwich-London and the Stansted Express. For commuting traffic in and out of Liverpool Street, from places like Bishops Stortford and Harlow Town, traffic is still about 20% down, and that's what matters for the case for Crossrail 2.

However, that's still recoverable over a 10 to 15 year time frame without needing to even breach 2% annual growth.

 

[Magdalia]

However, that's still recoverable over a 10 to 15 year time frame without needing to even breach 2% annual growth.

That only gets us back to where we were before covid, which is nowhere near enough. Crossrail 2 needs bigger growth than that, and starting from pre covid levels, not what we have now.

And we have yet to see what impact artificial intelligence has on London commuting.

 

[The Ham]

That only gets us back to where we were before covid, which is nowhere near enough. Crossrail 2 needs bigger growth than that, and starting from pre covid levels, not what we have now.

And we have yet to see what impact artificial intelligence has on London commuting.

Indeed, however 2% growth for rail is fairly low for most of the last 20 years.

For example the baseline model for HS2 was 2.5% and between 2009 and now we're pretty much on track with this last years numbers for London to the West Midlands (150 passengers in 2025 for every 100 in 2009 vs the 145 that 2.5% growth predicted) and that's the lowest of the three regions for HS2 (North West is 160 and Scotland is 257).

Of course the other factor to consider is not just what was happening at the time of Covid but at the time of the formal launch (May 2013).

At the time travel between London and the East of England was around the 120 million mark and had seen growth and drops in the previous few years so was around the 105 million to 112 million between 2007 and 2011 (with the low point in 2010) that still averaged 2.9% growth.

Compare that with 2025 which is 128 million (so already above what was seen in in the year to March 2013 - although they are likely to have been using the previous year's data due to the time needed to create the information for a full launch in May 2013).

Between 2024 and 2025 there was growth of 5.7% and whilst this was much lower than previous year (15.3%) that was still basically being is back from Covid (interestingly basically the same annual passenger numbers as the low in 2011 to the 2013 numbers but withthe growth in just one year).

Whilst 5.7% is unlikely to be sustainable getting somewhere around 3% (same as the 2006 to 2013 period) probably is and that's still less than the average growth of 3.55% growth between 2013 and Covid.

By saying that wecould get to pre Covid numbers by 2030 by not having to breach 2% growth I was saying that target should be easy to reach, and so there's scope for there to be some growth.

Doing some digging from the East of London there's two lots of growth assumed, the first is baseline growth of up to 1.3% (so even lower than 2%) the second was the delivery of 100,000 new homes in the upper Lea Valley and Hertfordshire.

Specifically 20,000 between 2020 and 2026. However, due to the pause on Crossrail 2 (so there's not the potential capacity due in rail just around the corner as well as Covid slowing construction) it's made it hard houses to be delivered, with only around 2,000 being delivered.

As such between 2013 and 2020 (limited housing) the model expected 9.5% growth (7 years of 1.3% growth) what was seen was 23.2% so way more than expected and sightly more than expected over 16 years of growth (i.e. to 2029).

As such meeting the pre Covid numbers in 2030 probably isn't too far off what the modeling was expecting if house building doesn't pick up significantly (and that's only likely if Crossrail 2 is unpaused).

If growth is sustained at rates much higher than 2% (for example with the large house building in place the annual growth rates were 2.6%) so if we see ongoing growth of over 3% between now and 2030 with limited house building then arguably we'd be ahead of the Crossrail 2 model for eastern side.

From 2013 to 2025 the 1.1% to 1.3% growth rate would have expected 114 to 117 by 2025 (up from 100 in 2013) and whilst that's currently only 106 if 2026 and 2027 see sightly lower but similar growth rates (circa 5.4%) to 2025 (5.72%) then the actual would be close to what the model was expecting.

However, scale this out to 2030 with an average rate of 3% each year between 2026 and 2030 and we'd be at 123 passengers per 100 in 2013 vs 1.1 growth predicting 120 with 1.3% predicting 125.

As such, if we see growth rates fall from the current 5.72% (highly likely) but still be above 3%, then things on the eastern side of London also could be good enough to justify unpausing Crossrail 2.

Clearly, there's a need to reach pre Covid numbers and then a bit more, however as I hope the above shows, as well as the other points I raised in my post covering other areas of concern, that's entirely possible and so Crossrail 2 isn't quite a dead in the water as some imply.

Yes it may not start until 2040 or even 2050, but that's not that much different to 2013 to early 2030's if it gets unpaused within the next 5 years.

 

[Magdalia]

Of course the other factor to consider is not just what was happening at the time of Covid but at the time of the formal launch (May 2013).

The lines out of Liverpool Street have had a massive uplift in capacity since 2013 with the introduction of new rolling stock and 240 metre trains, a much quicker and cheaper way of delivering new capacity than spending £billions on Crossrail 2.

In 2013 there was still an assumption that low economic growth was a temporary thing, not a rut that nobody would know how to get out of.

It is telling that the Stansted Airport expansion is going ahead on the assumption that existing capacity can cope with the growth.

Yes it may not start until 2040 or even 2050, but that's not that much different to 2013 to early 2030's if it gets unpaused within the next 5 years

Politically, the chances of that are zero. This government isn't going to do it, and the government elected in 2028 or 2029 isn't going to do it either. Government's are going to struggle just to keep on spending on the projects that have already started.