The next stage of Crossrail is obviosly Crossrail 2. Probley not due to be completed for at least 25 years, but might as well change talking about Crossrail 1 and move on.
Tied in with this, I would appriciate any information regarding London Underground's proposal of a 'Space Train', where floors would have been lowered and the train would be 1 long joined carriage. Why did TfL drop this idea?
So, why can't Crossrail 2 be built as an underground line using these special Space Trains, testing the viability of the Space Train, which could then be introduced to the LU Network by 2060.
The schedule for the Crossrail 2 north-south underground rail link for London needs to be brought forward, the capital's mayor Boris Johnson said yesterday.
Mayoral agency Transport for London is due to begin consultation this spring on two alternative proposals to build lines from south-west London to the north and north-east of the capital.
But, speaking yesterday at the Mipim international property conference in Cannes, France, Johnson said that the project needed to be accelerated to provide for London’s burgeoning population, which is set to reach a record 8.6 million during his term.
"At the moment it is scheduled to complete in about 2032," he said. "We need to bring that timetable forward, and do stuff on Crossrail 2 in parallel with Crossrail 1".
The mayor said that he had already spoken to Crossrail chairman Terry Morgan about how this could be done, and that he thought the government would be supportive. "George Osborne has taken to the idea with great excitement," he said.
National Infrastructure Planning Association secretary Robbie Owen said that, to speed up Crossrail 2, the Department for Transport should consider using the Planning Act process rather than a Hybrid Bill, "as it includes a 12 month fixed timetable and so overall could be quicker than the Government promoting a bill, particularly as DfT will be busy with two HS2 bills".
OMG can you imagine the grinding of teeth and anti London bile that would be spewed if this is built before phase two of HS2. God forbid if it actually started construction before crossrail one opened. (no real chance anyway).
It is true that it certainly shouldn't happen before HS2, the rest of us are annoyed enough that London gets so much money thrown at it for transport without it getting even more.
Let crossrail 2 go ahead sooner only if London pays for it from a seperate fund than would go to other projects.
If London can fund it itself, then I have no problem. However, there are transport schemes that are in urgent need elsewhere. Leeds doesn't even have a tramline.
London can fund every new project out of its own revenues from next year and most will still whinge.
There were complaints from many about the recent cycling announcement. This is despite the fact it's a rather modest amount compared to cities with good cycling facilities (£2.7m per local authority in London annually), and, more importantly, that money will most likely come from Tfl's and local council budgets. Boroughs and Tfl already set aside cash for cycling, it's just being pooled together and increased. In the latter case, money exists for small projects as Tfl carry a surplus of around £200m+ from the operating budget, plus they hold an annual amount of debt above £700m (for last year anyway).
If you can borrow at 1.5% and will get a return of 3%, doesn't it make sense to borrow the money instead?
In my personal circumstances, it's like my student loan (why on earth would I pay that off any faster than I have to when I would make more from putting money in an ISA?), and stoozing, where I borrow money using cheap balance transfers (typically interest free and 1.5% fees) and put the money in an interest-bearing savings account giving 3%.
Always invest you money where it will have the greatest impact. It may be paying off debt, it may be investing it.
Was just looking again at the London First document and it has some timings. Kingston to TCR reduced from 49mins to 27. When I looked into this a little, it seems a little dubious.
The key metric is that Wimbledon to TCR will be 14 minutes with Crossrail 2. I've looked at the distances compared to the planned journey times for Crossrail 1, and I really struggle to get that time. Here is what I get:
Wimbledon to Tooting = 3 mins
to Clapham Junction = 5 mins
to Chelsea = 3 mins
to Victoria = 3 mins
to TCR = 3 mins
which is 17 mins. Perhaps those three minutes can be found, but it looks like CR2 has faster journey times than CR1, perhaps to beef up support.
And then I looked at the other side, the 49mins today claim. The TfL journey planner gives a shortest journey of 47 mins, not 49. And the main option (via Waterloo and Northern) includes 10 minutes to change to the underground at Waterloo. I reckon most commuters can do it in 4 minutes tops.
Nor is there any mention of the fact that the "West End" can be reached at Oxford Circus via Vauxhall in 43 minutes, again with a pessimistic 9 minutes change at Vauxhall, so say 37 minutes in reality.
It certainly seems to me that journey time reductions are perhaps not quite as big as they seem for the SW part of Crossrail 2 (considering some journeys, such as to Waterloo, Bankside, London Bridge Cannon Street and Embankment are actually going to be longer.
(all part of my effort to work out how to relieve the Northern line as part of Crossrail SSW)
Was just looking again at the London First document and it has some timings. Kingston to TCR reduced from 49mins to 27. When I looked into this a little, it seems a little dubious.
There's also the fact that it only shows the current time for Dalston Junction to Tottenham Court Road, ignoring the fact that the journey time will be reduced when Crossrail 1 opens.
Good point. When Crossrail opens, Whitechapel will take some of the strain from Canada Water.
I expect them both to be even more rammed by then. Frequencies will definitely need to increase. If they can do 2tph, surely they fill the other 2tph (cycle is 15 min on ELL).
Even still, 20tph (of 5-6 cars) through the core may one day not be enough.
^^Crossrail 2 is something that London really needs right now, shame it will not be open until 2020 (after several deacades), overall I would pick the Regional option.
Also they should include the Epping Branch of the Central Line.
How can they do that without having poor service on all three northern branches?
I see they are going with Lilac for this line, to go with the purple of the other.
Interestingly there will only be moderate reductions in crowding on the Victoria line, though the Piccadilly gets crowding nearly wiped out thanks to that Ally Pally route.
I assume lengthening short metro platforms later would be impossible.
The metro route could be extended later at both ends, maybe as more orbital routes, to avoid too great an increase in central London passenger numbers.
(I will keep an eye on the London Assembly Transport Committee questioning of TfL about it, next week.)
Are they saying the metro platforms are the length of four 'DLR-articulated-units' (where the DLR uses two or three of them for its trains)?
Metro estimated at 9.5 - 16bn
38500 passengers per hour each way on 40 tph
Slightly quicker core journey times despite one extra station
Regional estimated at 12-20bn
45000 passengers on 30 tph
Slightly slower journey times in core area.
- Would have though that the capacity improvements on West Anglia need to happen even if the Metro option is chosen
Been following these threads for a while but this is my first post and I am no expert so play nicely.
Just looked at the consultation docs for CR2 and was shocked that under either regional or metro schemes, levels of over-crowding for the Victoria and Northern-Bank lines are barely improved at all. Surely a scheme that doesn't deliver extra capacity into the square mile (and take traffic away from Bank), while relieving these lines is a wasted opportunity?
Would it be cost effective to split the new line at say Clapham Junction and have the Eastern branch heading to Waterloo, onto Liverpool St (potentially via London Bridge on the line from Waterloo East?) and onto the neglected bits of the transfer map in North East London like Stoke Newington and Essex Road?
It just seems amazing that the requirement to have CR2 pass through Euston for HS2 should trump all other requirements, given we're unlikley to see any major tube/rail investment in London beyond this for perhaps 20-30 years. While I know that some of you curse the idea of multi-branch routes, I get the impression that whatever isn't wrapped up in the CR2 banner is unlikely to see the light of day for a very long time.
Just looked at the consultation docs for CR2 and was shocked that under either regional or metro schemes, levels of over-crowding for the Victoria and Northern-Bank lines are barely improved at all. Surely a scheme that doesn't deliver extra capacity into the square mile (and take traffic away from Bank), while relieving these lines is a wasted opportunity?
Graphs for the Regional option and the Metro option both show a clear drop from the impact of "Committed & possible further investment" of 12% and 10% respectively.
Both the Regional and Metro options also lead to massive reductions in overcrowding on National Rail.
NL Bank branch will continue to remain the only N/S route through the City, so I'm not surprised it still remains the most crowded line. Ultimately, there needs to be another line through the City N/S, but one with a longer central core and more stations than Thameslink. The VL is more puzzling, I wonder if there would be greater reductions if the core route went to Seven Sisters instead of splitting at Angel?
BL Bank branch will continue to remain the only N/S route through the City, so I'm not surprised it still remains the most crowded line. Ultimately, there needs to be another line through the City N/S, but one with a longer central core and more stations than Thameslink. The VL is more puzzling, I wonder if there would be greater reductions if the core route went to Seven Sisters instead of splitting at Angel?
With the Victoria line, I'm not so sure on the Northern section as both branches hit the line at different stations. It is probably due to the slightly different routes through the West End and Victoria lines greater number of Stations.
In fact the one weakness of the Crossrail 2's is the lack of station at Piccadilly. If it is difficult to build there, how about swinging the line a bit further South and having a Station under Haymarket/Trafalgar Square with a travelator link to Charing Cross tube.
The City is growing fastest around Liverpool Street (esp. Bishopsgate) and the Northern and East fringe. Old st-L'pool st-Aldgate/TH and into SE/S London would be best. If the Met/northern SSL could ever been extend into SE London, taking over a rail line or two, that would have a massive impact since that's 10,000s not going to London Bridge and changing. If Crossrail split the CW branch could have double the frequency and probably take over another branch south of AW.
I've always envisaged the Eastern route as best. The cheapest version would be a Metropolitan express with a new deeper line going Baker Street - Euston - King Cross - Moorgate/Liverpool Street - Aldgate - Tower Hill - London Bridge - Elephant & Castle.
Or you could extend it further down the Walworth road or miss out the Elephant and head straight for the Old Kent Road until to could take over the Greenwich line as far as Charlton.
Or I'd use it as part of a new North South Tube from Muswell Hill and through Crouch End to Highbury and the Angel before skirting the City to the East to London bridge and the Elephant before going to Camberwell and Denmark Hill.
No, I am not. I just assume it would take a different route. Considering that crossrail 2 is due to reduce overcrowding on Waterloo services to just 10% of trains arriving, we can pretty much count out any route for Crossrail 3 going through Waterloo, there will be lots of other station pairs to choose from, even multiple station pairs.
Please read again, crossrail 2 delivers a lot of rail commuters from the North and South direct to Tottenham court road, where they can either walk to work or get the central or corssrail 1 line to work. This means the Charing cross branch of the Northern line will lose a lot of passengers.
No, I am not. I just assume it would take a different route. Considering that crossrail 2 is due to reduce overcrowding on Waterloo services to just 10% of trains arriving, we can pretty much count out any route for Crossrail 3 going through Waterloo, there will be lots of other station pairs to choose from, even multiple station pairs.
Please read again, crossrail 2 delivers a lot of rail commuters from the North and South direct to Tottenham court road, where they can either walk to work or get the central or corssrail 1 line to work. This means the Charing cross branch of the Northern line will lose a lot of passengers.
Not sure if anyone agrees, but I do not agree with the current plans for Crossrail 2 for three reasons:
1. Although the Victoria to Euston/Kings Cross corridor will be relieved, the Waterloo to Euston/Kings Cross has not been. This means that even if such a Crossrail route was built, the SWML locals would be diverted onto CR2 so where the proposed CR3 route would head south of Waterloo is a question.
CR2 could use be a Victoria Metro via Balham-ECML route, which would mean the stations of Harringey, Hornsey and Alexandra Palace, being so close to the Piccadilly Line will deem the current Ally Pally arm of CR2 unnecessary.
2. If SWML services use the Victoria alignment, then there is no scope for a Crossrail linking the Victoria Metro routes. Unless they are routed via Waterloo, which begs the question why passengers travelling into Waterloo/Victoria want their terminals swapped around.
3. The obvious one, SWML passengers go to Waterloo for the easy connections to Bank and Canary Wharf. Not to mention the officies set up around Waterloo/London Bridge because of the proximity to the station. You mention passengers for the City/CW can switch onto CR1 at TCR. Fair enough, but then this is a large amount of unnecessary extra capacity on CR1.
4. Will Victoria be able to handle the HUGE increase in passenger numbers?
Actually you make a valid point. The elegance of Crossrail 1's effect on existing services is that they don't actually change the routing of current trains. Trains going to Paddington still do. Trains going to Liverpool Street still do.
With Crossrail 2, trains into Liverpool Street go to Euston/St Pancras and trains into Waterloo go to Victoria. Not every stakeholder might be satisfied with that.
If I had my way with it, I'd re-extend it back out to Highgate and run it as a high-frequency metro, which would be more suited to the infrastructure. The Welwyn services can go onto Thameslink once the KingsX connection has its track laid.
Mill Hill East to Edgeware is doable, with some effort. It is also worth doing IMHO, the line would pass over Mill Hill Broadway Thameslink, and potentially disperse some passengers onto the faster Thameslink service. Just as it is quicker for many to tram to Rochdale and Train into Manchester CC then it is to Tram the entire route, I could see people Northern Lining north or changing from their tube at Edgeware at Broadway.
We are talking about nice-to-haves here. While it's all good fun, and pushes everybody's model railway buttons and wastes our afternoons scrolling around google maps (who, me?), it's all getting a bit off topic for CR2!
"London's Transport Infrastructure" tends to be the catch-all thread for this sort of thing.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
SkyscraperCity Forum
139.4M posts
1.1M members
Since 2002
A truly global community dedicated to skyscrapers, cities, urban development, and the metropolitan environment. Join us to share news, views and fun about architecture, construction, transport, skylines, and much more!