please empty your brain below

'London's population is getting larger, faster, and people need to get around. The capital's population could be 20% higher by 2030, so either we build more railway capacity or our existing services will become wildly overcrowded.'


Or we find a way to stop London's population growing so fast - which is probably even more difficult than finding the money for a new tube line.
I'd choose whichever option has a better chance of being built. There are far too many transport projects that go nowhere at all (pardon the pun), and we need anything we can get.

Besides, the timespan's not so bad. I'll bet they're still doing HS2 work when they start digging.
Just start building it. This country spends far too long talking about infrastructure projects, instead of getting the job done. This adds to the cost, and we have to wait years before we see any results. Also start work on increasing airport capacity. A high speed rail link Heathrow-Gatwick. Electrify the rail line to London-Cornwall, start building not just talking.
I thought I was going to die waiting for Crossrail 1; I'll definitely die waiting for Crossrail 2 !
Another option. Build a tram system along the route and limit traffic. Too radical? Thought so.
I have to agree with John Just get on with it, the whole thing with the Regional route.
Since when has Alexandra Palace, Turnpike Lane, Seven Sisters been North East London.

Seems to me that North East London is being bypassed.

Yes lets keep the East Londoners down as usual!
Agent Z - in the last 20 years various parts of East London have had the Jubilee line extension, the DLR, the East London line extension and shortly will have Crossrail.

Not to mention having the Olympics on the doorstep, with all the work done at Stratford as a result of that and Westfield.

A bit over the top to suggest East Londoners as a whole are being kept down as usual!
Ironic that the proposed northern route runs from Seven Sisters to Alexandra Palace. There used to be an almost identical line from Seven Sisters to Palace Gates with stations at West Green and Noel Park (Wood Green High Road). It was closed to passengers in January 1963. I travelled on the last train, but I don't think I'll still be alive to travel on the new first train!
A further extension from Ally Pally to Muswell Hill might be worth considering.

http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/w/west_green/
After two really dire commuting experiences last night and this morning, this can't happen too soon. But I think I probably will die waiting.

Both projects have some very odd features. On the metro version, who is going to use the Wimbledon-Tooting stretch? Locals already have South Wimbledon station. There is an interchnage between the SW suburban network and CR2 at Clapham Junction, and the SWT route between Wimbledon and CJ is much more direct and thus faster. I doubt that many people from the SW suburbs wanting the Northern Line will appreciate the double change at Wimbledon and Tooting - better to change at Waterloo (although this stretch makes a lot of sense in the regional version, as there would be no need to change at Winmbledon)

On the regional plan, why the odd duplication up the A10 corridor, meaning each station only gets half the service? Surely one tunnel calling at Dalston and/or Hackney, and at Seven Sisters and/or Tottenham Hale would be cheaper?
Thanks DG. A neat summary, and included at least one thing that I had missed elsewhere.

The metro option having tiny short platforms!? What on earth are they "thinking"? When every other tube and railway line in London is rammed, and would benefit from longer trains...
Well whoever made the animated fly through obviously does not like Piccadilly Circus - it gets missed off the Metro option as well.
I think this would be best suited as a regional line. Think Crossrails as being the Paris RER style and the tube being the metro.
Surely that's the point - which do we need more on that axis: another metro/tube/DLR/U-bahn or another RER/Crossrail/S-bahn?
Pic Circus has still not been confirmed as being in either option as it will be very difficult to build! Pbv easier in the Metro option as smaller footprint.
Thanks for the heads up DG! This is what I said in my survey comments:

'If Metro trains won't be staffed, please ensure plenty of station staff to support safety. This is vital for a busy urban line.

Also, please design the trains to better cater for the elderly, sick and disabled, who make up at least a fifth of the population. New Victoria and Hammersmith & City/Met Line trains are actively painful to travel on if you have a physical disability. It was particularly pointless making the seats shorter as people's legs take up the same amount of room when sitting, and this causes untold discomfort to those of us needing good seating support.'
Astounded that the Metro version of the Chelsea-Hackney line doesn't even, really, go to Hackney...

Obviously the Regional version wins hands down. The Metro version looks like a cheaper mistake that it will only cost an absolute fortune when the need for an upgrade becomes overwhelming apparent, as it almost certainly would within six months of opening. Like the 1983 tube stock on the Jubilee Line (with single doors, on predictions of decreased tube usage in the future) it would be an expensive mistake....and utterly inexplicable given predictions of *increased* population and public transport usage in the capital.

Stoke Newington surely needs a tube link as badly as Hackney, though.....
Why can't the Wimbledon bit go to Sutton instead of following SWT?

Why does the Tottenham Hale branch need more services? The Seven Sisters to Cheshunt always seems more crowded to me.
I confess I can't understand this metro option. Why limit it to four cars? Do it at least at tube length, or not at all.

To me it feels like the metro option has simply been set up to fail - which is probably why TfL have suggested it. It feels very much like a "someone's going to ask us what we'll get if we do this cheaper, so let's shave a few million off the price and show what you'd get" Sell the benefits of spending a little more money. But still, is a 6 car metro service that much more expensive than a four car?
Thanks for summary - only intelligent piece on it so far.
Set up to fail is right. No-one can possibly take the metro option seriously. This will be a proper full-scale Crossrail - the consultation is a publicity exercise, nothing more.
....why cram even more people into TCR and Victoria? most services into Victoria call at Clapham Junction anyway.
Stops at Sloane Square and Bond Street would make a much better distribution of traffic.

And yes, Stoke Newington needs a station too
The metro option would be an automated (hence DLR like) line with platform screen doors running at up to 40 trains an hour. The trains are not 4 carriages long, but 4 units long. As they are articulated units, this means they are as long as existing tube trains.

Anyway I support the regional option anyway as it gives really great travel time reductions to lots of suburban stations
It would be curious to build Crossrail 2 as a conventional metro style service, the clue is in the name!

It seems strange to have Tottenham served by both branches of CR2
Will the regional trains be driver free too? I mean there's no need for them to have one in the segregated sections.
Messiah - ... and what has any of that done for the ordinary people of East London?

Olympics? New lines? All very nice but the surrounding areas are still dumps. All that has happened is that developers have built more and more ugly appartments so that more and more "poor social housing people" can be moved in and keep the area "deprived". These are the slums of the future.

They keep on about these boroughs being the most deprived but they do nothing about it. Why has Newham or Tower Hamlets got 30,000 people on their social housing waiting lists? Has Richmond or Kingston - No - they want to keep these eggs in one basket.

If they had really wanted to improve the area they missed the opportunity to create a pleasant area in the Olympic Park with some nice houses with gardens and the rest parkland, but that doesn't make money. Legacy? your having a laugh!
I submitted these comments to the Consultation:

1) The ideal location for the junction at the northern end would be Euston St Pancras (or "Euston Cross" as the Railway Lords would have it, or "HS London Central" as I have proposed); as compared to Angel. Are you able to show a strong case for the Northern arm deviating east to Angel?

Perhaps a better plan would be to make a major interchange station for the northern arm at Highbury & Islington, then take that route onto its northerly alignment towards Seven Sisters there. H&I would be extensively rebuilt as a major radial/orbital interchange/terminal station.

In place of the Dalston Jct station on the northern arm, the eastern arm would have a double-ended station with links connecting to Dalston Jct as its western access/egress and Hackney as its eastern.

I would STRONGLY propose NOT to make the same mistake as with TL - this time, make sure you provide 4 platforms @ EuStP - so that each route to the north has a distinct platform; and that southbound, the station is bifurcated for efficiency and to buffer operational variances from the inbound branches. Allow access from both northbound platforms to both branches - an added element of service resilience. Likewise, allow either branch access to either southbound platform. This means crossovers at the eastern end of EuStP for both directions.

A similar arrangement may be well advised at Clapham Jct and/or Wimbledon too.

2) [to be read in conjuction with potential projects and issues referenced at 3 and 4 below]. Ensure passive (or active) provision is made at Alexandra Palace to connect CR2 to both GN suburban routes - WGC and Hertford North. At present, both routes are limited to 6-car 75mph trains (class 313). In the future, perhaps 7-car trains with SDO might be used through to Moorgate. Otherwise longer trains have to be routed to Kings Cross or onto TL.

Activation of this connection would be seen as an operational congestion relief measure for Kings X, and to a lesser extent for TL.

3) The present limitations of the GN&C as a peak period terminus for the City can be partially overcome by resignalling and SDO. However, at the end of such investments, it will remain a substandard terminus for peak period commuter trains. At 2) above, provision is proposed for allowing 10- and later 12-car trains to be worked from WGC and Hertford North (after platform lengthening) through onto CR2.

BUT, mention has been made of severe crowding on the Northern Line City Branch during peaks. There is the complication of the capacity of Camden Town to act as an interchange station for the partial separation of the Northern Line branches. A complementary project is therefore proposed at 4) below. This project is aimed at drawing off a substantial proportion of the High Barnet/MHE branches' City traffic, and thereby reducing the pressure on Camden Town and the section through Euston.

4) A complementary project to CR2 is proposed. It involves restoration of the Northern Heights Railway in a manner sensitive to the current recreational value of the former alignment. Cross platform (elevated level) interchange is proposed at Finsbury Park. Trains would run from East Finchley through to Moorgate, using LU S7/8 stock or an updated 6- or 7-car LO train. Interchange with the GOBLIN is a desirable element in the design of the project.

Interchange with CR2 is proposed for Highbury and Islington - with a major upgrade of this station to suit. This link provides for ongoing access to the City for GN commuters now travelling on CR2.

The possibility of extension south from Moorgate could also be considered. A "metro" frequency service of up to 20tph is envisaged.

Agent Z - It has given a lot of people in East London improved transport links.

You seem to be talking about a wider social program rather than the location of Crossrail 2 now.
This whole 4 cars/4 units thing... wouldn't it have been easier if TfL had simply given a train length, then said "this length is equivalent to..."

Oh well, too late now!
dwdownunder

Briefly, Highbury and Islington has been considered and rejected.

Your proposal for a joint station Dalston/Hackney Central is interesting but I believe that would be an extremely expensive project. It would also be somewhat larger than the proposed Euston/St P/KX one.

I like your proposal for provision for WGC and Hertford North at AP. However, the need for this may become clearer or not when we see how travel patterns alter after implentation of Thameslink services on ECML.

I remain unconvinced on the need for any renewal of Northern Heights and see no case for extending beyond Moorgate.

These,again, would be extremely expensive projects for little gain.
Hackneyite:

H&I has been considered and rejected by whom? After all, this is a consultation, so how can that be an acceptable response?

Who are the "we" who are going to see how travel patterns change with TL?

And in what capacity are you unconvinced concerning the Northern Heights? Much is made about the sheer level of overcrowding on the City Branch - which will remain unresolved. Here I am offering a complementary set of solutions (divert the GN suburbans onto CR2, releasing the GN&C for a "metro" operation to relieve the Northern Line) ... and you're unconvinced? Surely a lot of numbers need cruching before anyone could arrive at a conclusion.

As to extensions beyond Moorgate, I've already been involved in an exchange of ideas through DD's RIPAS board and through LR. Rough preliminary estimates show a positive BCR for the concept worked through to the LT&S via Fenchurch St (new low level) using costings supplied by Graham Hewett. We certainly took a long hard look at this, and it wasn't just joining up dots on the map.

However, if the line's just a "metro", those numbers will need reworking.
Hackneyite: further to my last post, if the GN suburbans are transferred onto CR2, the route MUST traverse Highbury & Islington. Otherwise, GN suburban traffic to the City (previously terminating @ Moorgate) will access via Angel and the already overloaded Northern Line City Branch.

The decisions about all these projects need to be taken in tandem, as they comprise a rebalancing of loadings across a significant part of the LU, LO and NR networks in NE/N London.
DW down under

If I understand your proposal correctly, you would sever the link between Dalston and Seven Sisters.

But surely one of intentions of the line is to improve connectivity for Hackney.

With the current proposals there could then be a reduction of buses on the A10 corridor.
The northern arm would indeed not provide a direct link between Dalston Jct and Seven Sisters. A change would be needed, either at Euston St Pancras, or at Highbury & Islington (ELL/NLL - Vic). It's not a case of Hackney isn't served, but that the service it gets isn't so well integrated.

What data is there to show that this is a high volume corridor, which the proposed CR2 northern arm link could abstract a high percentage of traffic from current alternatives?

BTW, you haven't answered my questions.
DW

I'm not a transport economist.

However, I do know a lot about transport issues and spend most of my life within the boroughs of Hackney, Haringey, and Islington.

This is probably not the place to debate your proposals at length.
Hackneyite.

You can follow up using either London Reconnections or District Dave's. Both have current threads on the topic.

DW
DW

Noted!
The only real practical long term solution is to look at lines that can bypass London altogether. For example reinstating 7.5 miles of track between Bedford and Sandy opens up the possibility of trains from Peterborough to Clapham Junction and beyond. That will cost considerably less than £12 billion.

How many people are obliged to take the tube when they are only passing through London?
Crossrail 2 - RIP 31st Oct 2020










TridentScan | Privacy Policy