Should we build Crossrail 2?

[The Ham]

Please note that this should be (yet another) debate about North vs South (there's plenty of them).

Yes there's an argument (and I am happy to support it) that in general there's a need for more investment across the country and not just in and around London. However please note that such investment doesn't necessarily mean infrastructure investment, as a lot of capacity improvements can be made with fairly small infrastructure costs in some locations. However to make an impact in London, almost certainly means new lines rather than platform extensions, chances to signals and a few loops/restoration of extra tracks. The latter are often a lot cheaper than a new line, especially one which is likely to need to be placed in a long tunnel with stations within the tunnel.

As such should there be investment to significantly improve rail capacity around the whole country?

Yes, most definitely.

Would that mean an equal (however you define equal as) amount of money being spent across the country?

No, most certainly not.

As £30bn in London would get you a train line which is busy and paying it's way whilst just £3bn on infrastructure in another region elsewhere could result in fairly quiet trains sand extra subsidy needed. However invest £3bn in that same region, with a good chunk of it on new rolling stock and station improvements (money which isn't directly spent by government and so doesn't show up on the spending by the government) and the return would be a lot better and provide nearly as much of a capacity improvement, just much more spread out (which could benefit more people).

 

[Camden]

Please note that this should be (yet another) debate about North vs South (there's plenty of them).

It isn't. You asked a question whether Crossrail 2 should or shouldn't be built, and asked for reasons. I answered it shouldn't, and answered why. When someone didn't get the thrust of the explanation, I clarified.

Granted, my reason may be more intellectual than the simplistic "yes we need it/no we don't" or "it's fair/isn't fair" pointless-go-rounds, but it is valid and is an on topic answer. It's about making a choice to not build it, regardless of "need", on the basis that the "need" may not be desirable.

Liverpool, Newcastle and Glasgow may be north of London but that is incidental to that they are untapped coastal major cities where £10bn each would go a very long way to improving profitability, while spending £30bn on C2 is just feeding an insatiable monster, and which in reality will provide little in return other than fare revenue while allowing other country losses to accrue.

Further, the income from those three cities can later boost the affordability of C2 if, in thirty years, it's deemed still necessary.

 

[DarloRich]

Need be damned (for now). The underside of London is becoming swiss cheese, meanwhile outside of London only Manchester (and at a push Birmingham) gets the same level of focus on its infrastructure.

Part of "rebalancing" the country needs an acceptance that we're currently building infrastructure in London for demand that should be elsewhere.

Crossrail 2 is estimated at £30bn (read £60 bn!). Bin it off, and give £6bn cash each to Newcastle, Liverpool and Glasgow for exclusive spend on transport, £4bn each for exclusive spend on healthcare and education, and watch their economies fly.

Maybe it would damp down London demand, maybe it would fuel it further, but the country as a whole would find things like Crossrail 2 a lot more affordable with 6 net contributor major cities, rather than 1.5 (with the "1" being rather dubious at that).

it shouldn't be one or the other! However if it is then London. Sorry.

 

[DarloRich]

Yes there's an argument (and I am happy to support it) that in general there's a need for more investment across the country and not just in and around London. However please note that such investment doesn't necessarily mean infrastructure investment, as a lot of capacity improvements can be made with fairly small infrastructure costs in some locations. However to make an impact in London, almost certainly means new lines rather than platform extensions, chances to signals and a few loops/restoration of extra tracks. The latter are often a lot cheaper than a new line, especially one which is likely to need to be placed in a long tunnel with stations within the tunnel.

agreed smaller changes can deliver vast improvements "in the north" - however we need to be sensible. 12 car trains into Leeds would be wasted. They are full into London. That is a difference many here refuse to acknowledge perhaps because it doesn't easily meet their north v south narrative.

As I have said many times: I didn't appreciate how much different and just how mind bogglingly busy commuting down here is. It is only when you live it you see it and experience it. However busy Leeds and Manchester are it isnt a patch on the south east.

 

[kevin_roche]

Yes, TfL should pay most of the cost, but since there is a benefit for other rail users going to Waterloo they should also bear some of the cost.

 

[Chester1]

I think it should be built but not in its current proposed form. £30bn is far too much for one project in one city and smaller intial scheme would be better. Relieving Wimbledon-Waterloo should be the priority and then demand can be reassessed. Paddington Crossrail to Wimbledon would allow upto 12tph to be extended from Shenfield and Abbeywood instead of terminating.

 

[samuelmorris]

agreed smaller changes can deliver vast improvements "in the north" - however we need to be sensible. 12 car trains into Leeds would be wasted. They are full into London. That is a difference many here refuse to acknowledge perhaps because it doesn't easily meet their north v south narrative.

As I have said many times: I didn't appreciate how much different and just how mind bogglingly busy commuting down here is. It is only when you live it you see it and experience it. However busy Leeds and Manchester are it isnt a patch on the south east.

It seems as busy as the platforms and trains can be just as crowded until you appreciate that even at peak time it's a 3-car DMU that runs every 45 minutes, versus a 12-car train running every 5 or 10, which puts it into perspective. Rail travel usage would still be disproportionately low too, and I suspect that's a good part of why.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The funding understanding for HS2 was that the annual spend would be similar to Crossrail (1) and follow it in sequence.
So we have to (a) finish CR1, (b) build HS2 and its links with NPR, and only then (c) build CR2.
Dates and costs have of course ballooned out of sight with overruns before any of the benefits have accrued, so we're talking early 2030s at best for CR2.
Otherwise the public debt will get out of control (if it isn't already with Brexit etc).
And isn't London shrinking now with the flight of city jobs because of Brexit?

 

[Bald Rick]

There’s no chance of building Crossrail 2 earlier than the current programme. It’s not in the formal planning stages yet - that’s 4-5 years - then at least 10 years construction (see Crossrail 1), then at least a year of testing / commissioning (see Crossrail 1). Anything before 2035 is fanciful.

I think it should be built but not in its current proposed form. £30bn is far too much for one project in one city and smaller intial scheme would be better. Relieving Wimbledon-Waterloo should be the priority and then demand can be reassessed. Paddington Crossrail to Wimbledon would allow upto 12tph to be extended from Shenfield and Abbeywood instead of terminating.

And how do you build this line from Paddington to Wimbledon? How would the existing Elizabeth Line stations cope with all the extra passengers?

And even if you can do that, it would extend journey times from the SWML suburban belt to most of central London, rather than reduce them (which CR2 does). Which would make the business case rather ’interesting’.

 

[The Ham]

And how do you build this line from Paddington to Wimbledon? How would the existing Elizabeth Line stations cope with all the extra passengers?

And even if you can do that, it would extend journey times from the SWML suburban belt to most of central London, rather than reduce them (which CR2 does). Which would make the business case rather ’interesting’.

Probably the best you can hope for (with regards to services between SWR area and Paddington) is the Southern Approach to Heathrow running services from Guildford/Basingstoke through Heathrow to Paddington.

 

[Bald Rick]

Probably the best you can hope for (with regards to services between SWR area and Paddington) is the Southern Approach to Heathrow running services from Guildford/Basingstoke through Heathrow to Paddington.

Indeed, and that certainly isn’t Crossrail 2, nor a realistic alrernative to it!

 

[S-Bahn]

The titles are West Midlands and West Yorkshire, neither have "greater', and while the former is arguably a functional city area, the second is not.
.

Here's the link for the data. I used the Urban area data as it better reflects the catchment areas around the main Hub.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

[The Ham]

Indeed, and that certainly isn’t Crossrail 2, nor a realistic alrernative to it!

If anything both are very much needed.

 

[S-Bahn]

This is a relevant point to make, because you seem to be getting confused between physical size (volume) and contribution (profit). It is highly debatable whether London does in fact make a profit, or whether if you strip away "the City" and the money shuffling whether it's actually a black hole.

Meanwhile, Greater Cambridge with its mere population of under 300,000 is one of the most profitable areas in the UK, and Leeds - in West Yorkshire - population just 780,000, enjoys one of the highest sets of earnings in the north.

It may be clear that at the moment demand is greatest in London, but that neither contains the evidence you think it does nor does it mean that state of affairs should carry on forevermore.

Your view of London's history vs elsewhere is somewhat rose tinted. Prior to the mid-eighties, London was in a very sorry state, and it continued to lose population every year from 1951 to the mid to late nineties. Your portrayal is of a place that naturally "won". While being the seat of government always helps, in fact its turnaround is simply the effect of urban design, policy and investment.

When Liverpool, Newcastle and Glasgow are individually bigger than some (wealthy) capital cities, and each lies in its own coastal region rich in varied natural resources useful in the modern age, the notion that modest investment of £10bn each couldn't rapidly double or even triple their net contributions just isn't credible, especially when we know the contributions are currently half of what they should be.

1. The City always existed as the financial hub during the Empire. It was ideally placed to continue and expand that role with the decline of Empire, even if that means the downside of having tax havens - blame the politicians for letting that happen - but fundamentally, financial services in Central London are the reasons for the aggregation of the services sector around London in the same way Cambridge University is for all the R&D and tech in that area, due to some clever people following in the footsteps of Newton, Keynes, Turing, etc.

2. The demand for train services is clearly much higher in London.

3. I don't have a rose tinted vision of London. Most of the other major cities and subsequent post industrial areas came about because they were originally built around a main industry that went into decline and vanished, so they were hit harder by de-industrialisation than London. The historical maps of the the South Wales railways are a testament to that.

4. The Government could easily finance national infrastructure projects like HS2/3 and CrossRail and at the same time invest in the rest of the Country - the reasons for not doing so are largely ideological (The Gov crowds out the private sector when it invests in things that the Private sector could handle etc).

5. In terms of creating the necessary finance, the QE programme (current £420 billion to shore up the financial services sector after 2008) could be extended to pay for the investment you are looking for.

6. Someone will undoubtedly chime in regarding "that will cause inflation" - No, the primary drivers of inflation are wage demands and supply shortages, leading to more £'s chasing fewer goods. Creating £ Sterling for investment purposes is a good idea and totally compatible with Modern Monetary Theory.

 

[The Ham]

Someone will undoubtedly chime in regarding "that will cause inflation" - No, the primary drivers of inflation are wage demands and supply shortages, leading to more £'s chasing fewer goods. Creating £ Sterling for investment purposes is a good idea and totally compatible with Modern Monetary Theory.

Although it could lead to some psy demands and labour supply shortages, the overall impact would be fairly low, especially if undertaken during a time of otherwise financial uncertainty (which given its 10 year construction period is fairly likely to include at least one down turn).

The other thing which is often overlooked is that governments when they spend money then get back in the form of taxes a fair chunk of what they spent through taxes. They also will, either directly (through staff constructing) or indirectly (through those staff needing goods and services increasing employment in the wider economy), potentially reduce their social payment bill.

Anyway, given the general level of uncertainty over Brexit would mean that any inflation can just be put down to that (as will a lot of problems for the next 20 years).

 

[kevin_roche]

Probably the best you can hope for (with regards to services between SWR area and Paddington) is the Southern Approach to Heathrow running services from Guildford/Basingstoke through Heathrow to Paddington.

I for one am hoping that the Southern Access to Heathrow gets built and trains run through to Paddington. That solves two other problems for me way before Crossrail 2 could hope to.

Edit: I also want Crossrail 2 to take some pressure off Waterloo.

 

[Flinn Reed]

How about an alternative central London route for Crossrail 2? The current proposal follows the Victoria Line substantially, which copes much better with capacity than some other lines due to its high frequency.

My suggestion would be the existing route initially, from Clapham Junction to Chelsea Kings Road and Victoria, then diverting to Waterloo. Waterloo is the busiest mainline station in London, so could do with an extra underground line for central London connections.

The line would then go under the Thames to a station near Aldwych, this could potentially use the disused Station building on Strand as an entrance, and would have interchange to the Circle/District lines at Temple. I've always thought of Temple as being very ideally located for the areas around Covent Garden/Aldwych/Waterloo Bridge, but never seems to be well used, so an entrance on Strand could be useful.

The line would then stop at Farringdon, this would provide a hub interchange between both Crossrail lines and ThamesLink, opening up more interchange possibilities. The route would then lead to Angel Station, and onwards as per proposals via Dalston Junction.

 

[Bald Rick]

How about an alternative central London route for Crossrail 2? The current proposal follows the Victoria Line substantially, which copes much better with capacity than some other lines due to its high frequency.

My suggestion would be the existing route initially, from Clapham Junction to Chelsea Kings Road and Victoria, then diverting to Waterloo. Waterloo is the busiest mainline station in London, so could do with an extra underground line for central London connections.

The line would then go under the Thames to a station near Aldwych, this could potentially use the disused Station building on Strand as an entrance, and would have interchange to the Circle/District lines at Temple. I've always thought of Temple as being very ideally located for the areas around Covent Garden/Aldwych/Waterloo Bridge, but never seems to be well used, so an entrance on Strand could be useful.

The line would then stop at Farringdon, this would provide a hub interchange between both Crossrail lines and ThamesLink, opening up more interchange possibilities. The route would then lead to Angel Station, and onwards as per proposals via Dalston Junction.

The time for considering other routes has long gone.

Waterloo is busy, but Crossrail 2 takes a large percentage of those passengers away from it. That’s one of the main points of the scheme.

The disused Aldwych station entrance would be nowhere near big enough for the capacity of a Crossrail Line. Such entrances need to be able to deal with hundreds of people a minute.

 

[Tobbes]

@Bald Rick : what is the GRIP (or equivalent) stage for CR2? Is it ready to go - presumably not?

 

[Aictos]

It needs building but would suggest more substanial northern branches to Welwyn Garden City and Hertford East in my view. CR2 will also be needed to relieve pressure on Euston once HS2 arrives I would have thought otherwise there will be big queues onto other modes once off a HS2 train at Euson.

I agree, CR2 does need to continue to Welwyn GC for the simple reason that there already is railway land on the Up side that can be used for carriage sidings ie the Up Yard and gives connections to stations further north.

Besides there is history in reusing railway land for new purposes see Coronation Sidings which were electrified just north of Hornsey EMUD that we’re ripped up and had the Thameslink depot built on the land.

Plus there already exists connections both north and south of the yard which also helps.

Extending to Hertford East gives connections at Broxbourne and Cheshunt to name just two locations that would offer direct services to South West London and beyond.

In short CR1 and CR2 should have been built and open for service by now!

 

[Bald Rick]

@Bald Rick : what is the GRIP (or equivalent) stage for CR2? Is it ready to go - presumably not?

Sorry I missed this before. It’s a TfL project so it won’t be in GRIP. But from what I’ve seen in the press the feasibility is just about done, but it needs to go through the hybrid bill process which is at least 4-5 years from that point.

 

[camflyer]

I agree, CR2 does need to continue to Welwyn GC for the simple reason that there already is railway land on the Up side that can be used for carriage sidings ie the Up Yard and gives connections to stations further north.

It would be shame to take CR2 all of the way to WGC and not fix the bottleneck at the Digwell viaduct especially if an interchange there would encourage more northbound connections.

 

[jellybaby]

It would be shame to take CR2 all of the way to WGC and not fix the bottleneck at the Digwell viaduct especially if an interchange there would encourage more northbound connections.

You have to limit the scope of CR2 somewhere or it will never happen!

 

[camflyer]

You have to limit the scope of CR2 somewhere or it will never happen!

Ok, send it all of the way to Cambridge to connect to EastWestRail. Job done.

 

[Tobbes]

Sorry I missed this before. It’s a TfL project so it won’t be in GRIP. But from what I’ve seen in the press the feasibility is just about done, but it needs to go through the hybrid bill process which is at least 4-5 years from that point.

Many thanks @Bald Rick - so sixish years before works can commence?

 

[Bald Rick]

Many thanks @Bald Rick - so sixish years before works can commence?

Yes, if someone is willing to pay for it.

 

[Bald Rick]

I agree, CR2 does need to continue to Welwyn GC for the simple reason that there already is railway land on the Up side that can be used for carriage sidings ie the Up Yard and gives connections to stations further north.

There’s spare Railway land on the up side at Grantham. Should it go there?

Put less cynically, Availability of spare land is no reason to judge where a railway should go. It should go where there is an identified transport need, and where the net benefits of that transport need justify the net expenditure necessary. This does not apply to Welwyn.

 

[Class 170101]

There’s spare Railway land on the up side at Grantham. Should it go there?

Put less cynically, Availability of spare land is no reason to judge where a railway should go. It should go where there is an identified transport need, and where the net benefits of that transport need justify the net expenditure necessary. This does not apply to Welwyn.

Unfortunately I see no value in going to New Southgate just to build a depot there.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

We’ve spoken about it quite a bit over the years over on London Reconections and the answer is always the same-build something, but the current CR2 Route is hopeless.

 

[Ianno87]

We’ve spoken about it quite a bit over the years over on London Reconections and the answer is always the same-build something, but the current CR2 Route is hopeless.

Care to elaborate on why it is 'hopeless' in your view?