please empty your brain below

A neat summary.
I like the short sentences.

There are some important questions there.

Whether or not the line then goes ahead depends on finding the money.
That is still a big hurdle.
But it is good to get the desired route fixed first.
I'm not sure that the Dalston-only option would mean "no connection between Crossrail 2 and the east/west Overground".

Crossrail 2 would head north from Dalston Junction, so any "Dalston Junction" Crossrail 2 station almost certainly connect with Dalston Kingsland, given that it's only a few hundred metres away and on the same route.
There's still the odd kink between Wimbledon and Clapham Junction, seemingly designed to feed half of Surrey into the Northern Line (which I would have thought was crowded enough already) and leave Earlsfield, currently one of SWT's busiest stations, with a skeleton service

[The Dalston Junction option] "would mean no direct link from Hackney to the West End, and no connection between Crossrail 2 and the east/west Overground."

Dalston is in the LB Hackney, less than half a mile from Hackney town centre (the Town Hall, Hackney Empire, Mare Street), and is on both the east/west and north/south overgrounds. The entrances to Kingsland and Junction are about 150metres apart: given that fire regulations require all new underground stations to have two exits anyway it should be feasible to provide direct interchange from XR2 to both of them.
A (relatively) minor change is to extend the tunnel beyond Alexandra Palace. This would cost a bit but would avoid taking a lot of land in the Heartlands area, where major development is scheduled, and a school has recently opened. Re-locating that wouldn't have been cheap even if accepted.
"Who cares" ...oh I think the voices of (Kensington &) Chelsea are well heard. They even managed to fight back against the mighty CCZ Western Extension, have already more than their fair share of NB4L converted bus routes and blocked-off a public road at Chelsea Harbour. As for any "new developments" think with the Battersea Power Station project and all the other that have occured/will occur locally we can all be assured of one thing and that is the lack off any "affordable homes" being added to the current stock available for "real Londoners".
It's interesting that the second map shows Seven Sisters as having a "national rail" symbol, as the station will be part of the Overground from 2015, as you can see from my ("DG inspired") 2015 Under-and-Overground Map.

http://www.ukfree.tv/styles/images/2014/dg_2015.svg

I can see the attraction of making Dalston Junction the interchange. Given that it's almost sited with Dalston Kingsland it would link well to TWO overground lines, with a combined station (I would expect).
They are probably aiming for Dalston Junction so that they can finally find a purpose for that white elephant bus station.
I was under the impression (perhaps wrongly, I do that sometimes) that the Lea Valley line that is used for the Stansted Express wasn't taken into the Overground because it has already been "decided" that CR2 will take the Tottenham Hale-Waltham Cross route to allow for this underused and light-industrial section of the Lea Valley to become homes.

That's also the reason for the Stratford-Angel Road ("STAR") can't-wait-for-Crossrail-2 project...
http://www.enfield.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/7885/star_-_improving_enfields_transport_links ?
Ned: A "white elephant" is another way of saying "we only dream within budget nowadays"?
I'm also not sure that the Hackney-only option would mean "no connection between Crossrail 2 and the north/south Overground".

Crossrail 2 would head from Angel to Hackney, and the route would pass Haggerston, so there's the possibility of a station there.
"Who cares that locals have some of the worst access to rail transport in Zone 1?" Probably not the range rover- and jag-owning denizens of Chelsea :-) Stereotyping aside, if the funding issues mean that certain stations have to be cut it would make sense to prioritise the less economically prosperous areas for new transport links.
I've been pondering the be question of Dalston Junction and Hackney Central.

First, they are both two stations. Hackney Central is an interchange with Hackney Downs. Dalston Junction is co-located with Dalston Kingsland.

The Angel → Dalston Junction → Stoke Newington option seems a very sensible one. With the Overground line finding a T-junction at Dalston, the line following up the A10 would seem a sensible option.

But from my visiting the area, it would seem that the Town Hall would be a better location for a station. Unless the line goes to Totteham Hale where S.N. Overground (as it will be) staiton would be a useful interchange with the Enfield/Cheshunt Lines.

As for Hackney Central it seems that being four Overground stops from Liverpool Street (the next CR2 station west) might just a "good enough" service?
i admit, Hackney and Dalston are further apart than Farringdon & Barbican or Liverpool Streev & Moorgate, but is there any potential here for a Crossrail station being so big that they can serve/link up two places with one station? Just a thought ...
Geoff - Hackney and Dalston are about half a mile apart! Now that would be a long station.

Dalston seems best choice as Hackney C already has links to most of the other stations served by a CR2 to the north, and has a good link to CR1 at Liverpool St.

It would be very unpopular politically to deny central Hackney a final chance of a tube(-ish) station! For that reason they'll probably go with Hackney C.
Sheesh - judging by some of the comments here it sounds like the decision making process is more to do with 'politics' than it is about genuine logistics and practicality. Gawd help us :(
(Which makes me think it's probably fortunate that none of it will make the slightest difference to me)
I think that adding Clapton/Stoke N stations are a must (or at least good passive provision, although i know that means they may never get built), in terms of helping those areas. Both, on the original plan, would be even better, but...

I also think it would be crazy to build it without one of the Chelsea stations. To me, when building large new infrastructure it is more important to be adding transport options/stations to unserved areas than solely connecting the dots of existing stations .

But i'm sure the bean counters will take the cheaper option, and omit Chelsea and Clapton/SN entirely.

Final thought: Although it might make the line a bit wiggly on map and slightly slower journeys from outer stations, is there any technical reason why an Angel-Dalston-Hackney Central-onwards alignment could not be used? Over the original plan of the post Angel split it cuts out allot of tunneling/cost. Why does it have to be Dalston or Hackney ?
@6:35 p.m.: As I took a train from Tottenham Hale to Liverpool Street this afternoon, I had a proper good look out of the window.

Going south, there's plenty of room for an out-of-tunnel CR2 as the line first crosses the Warwick Reservoir and then Walthamstow Marches. There's even some light industrial to the south-east of the line (until Mount Pleasant Hill) that be used.

CR2 line would also be use Hackney Downs (the park) for tunnel accessing during construction (if necessary).

A problem here for Hackney Down/H Central stations is that HS1 is built right over the Overground line here.

Interestingly if the Angel->Dalston Junction/Kingsland->Stoke Newington->Tottenham Hale route were used, it would probably have the CR2 tunnel exit at the edge of Markfield Park, which would take out the Parliamentary-Train-only "Tottenham South Curve".

The main people, it seems like, would lose out if Dalston/Stoke Newington were chosen are passengers going from Chingford...Clapton into Central London.
@Briantist
"It's interesting that the second map shows Seven Sisters as having a "national rail" symbol, as the station will be part of the Overground from 2015"

The Overground IS part of National Rail - shown on the BR timetable, obliged to sell tickets from Wick to St Ives, trains required to meet NR standards, displaying the "electric swastika" at all stations.

Having read the Consultation response documents, I'm pleased to hear that the station at Seven Sisters will meet up with South Tottenham Station at the other end, so as to provide an interchange to the Barking-Gospel Oak Overground line!
@timbo: The BR symbol has been purged from all the Overground-only stations I've been to, such as (in the last few days) Shoreditch High Street and Blackhorse Road.

The whole point of the Overground is that is is run by TfL, Not National Rail.

On the Overground maps (in the trains, on the platforms, in the stations) the BR symbol is used to show interchange with non-Overground train services.

@timbo: Looky here. The red bidirectional-rails symbol is shown as I described:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/london-overground-network-map.pdf

I thought TfL only had to display the double arrows at stations owned by Network Rail but managed on a long lease (89 years?) by TfL and it's chosen contractor, LOROL? This includes stations like Penge West and Sydenham but not former London Underground East London line stations like Wapping or Surrey Quays, nor former British Rail stations on the Broad Street to Dalston Junction line which closed long before privatisation. I can only assume Blackhorse Road is run by London Underground and as a result doesn't legally require NR branding. Obviously LU operated stations which feature NR services provided by privatised operators will advertise the fact with the double arrows and not the individual company names.
@Briantist
"The whole point of the Overground is that it is run by TfL, Not National Rail."

National Rail doesn't run trains. The Overground is an operator, like SWT or FCC or Merseyrail, which runs trains on the National Rail network. The difference from most NR services is that the operator (Serco) is paid by TfL to run the service, rather than by the DpT, and that TfL, not the operator, keeps the revenue.

However, it is still part of NR, however much TfL would like to pretend otherwise. You will find the Overground services in the GB rail timetable, but not the Underground. The trains have NR-standard yellow faces and are numbered in the NR rolling stock library (Classes 172 and 378) The track is owned by NR

*so* far off-topic, *so* far...
Sorry DG:
Dragging it back on topic, how will XR2 appear on the Tube map, if at all? If it does, we will have the highly misleading appearance that the fastest way of getting from Twickenham to Richmond will be via Wimbledon and Earls Court!

(Similar to Woolwich/Lewisham on the existing map)

@timbo: (Also sorry DG)

The CR1 "tube map" is here

http://74f85f59f39b887b696f-ab656259048fb93837ecc0ecbcf0c557.r23.cf3.rackcdn.com//assets/library/image/2/original/2020_network_map.jpg

It's a bit wrong because it's missing the new Overground Lines (LST->Cheshunt, LST->Chingford, Upminster->Romford and West Ealing->Greenford)

The last two are intersting as they join up with Crossrail 1 stations (Romford, West Ealing) which are on the CR1 "tube map".
(also, it seems there is an Airport at Blackfriars in 2020)
@ Roger W - of course the line is a political construct. The removal of the old split tunnel idea in N London is very sensible. Forcing a choice over stations between Dalston and Hackney C is unfortunate and IMO wrong. The whole idea of CR2 is a dog's breakfast as it's trying to be too many tings to too many people and thus is fatally flawed in its conception. I am less exercised about what happens in Chelsea but that will also boil down to power, money and influence and who shouts loudest about disturbance, property values and who can bung the Mayor the biggest development based contribution.

Providing effective transport seems a long way down the list. It's more about where external money can be squeezed from. What a pity the Mayoral Election is not until 2016 and that the safeguarding for this line has to be sorted out before then.
@timbo: I've been thinking about the tube map once CR1 gets added, and I really think that it's time to go back to the drawing board.

The map needs to be redone, keeping the same familiar colours and symbols, but with the express lines having primacy.

By "primacy" I mean that CR1 (and CR2) should be stright lines going horizontal and vertical.

Next the "fast" lines should be prioritised: the Victoria, the Central and the Jubilee (perhaps not in that order).

The slower, more stop-y lines should then fit around this pattern.

The map these days is rather a mess. IMHO, of course.
oi, you two, get a room :)
All right, back on topic, one of the problems with XR2 is that what is really needed, well before 2035, is several new lines, like the RER. But XR2 is the only show in town, so anyone who thinks their local transport needs improvement in their lifetime wants it to serve them. (XR1 and Thameslink 2000 suffered the same fate when in the planning stage, HS2 is also suffering from it to some extent)

The subject is academic for me anyway - I expect to have my own personal hole in the ground long before work even starts on XR2.
Timbo: which new lines are you thinking of??

There are plenty of British rail lines out of London that are similar to Réseau Express Régional.

They just don't go underground in the middle!
@Briantist
What other serious, official, proposals for new lines in London are there? AS far as I am aware, the only prospect of a congestion problem in London being fixed this side of 2050 is if you can persuade TfL to route XR2 there. There are no plans for an XR3!
Here's my Crossrail 1 showing Crossrail 2 map: http://ukfree.tv/styles/images/2014/cr1.svg

Having carefully looked at the 2014 Crossrail 2 proposals for an extension from Alexandra Palace to New Southgate I would politely suggest that this extension is not the correct one.

New Southgate is already served well: firstly it connected to "New Barnet to Finsbury Park" national rail line which has a Crossrail 2 connection at Alexandra Palace. Secondly New Southgate is less than 0.5 miles from Arnos Grove Piccadilly line station.

A station at New Southgate would also be a less use if cross-platform interchange is to be provided at Turnpike line between Crossrail 2 and the Piccadilly line.

"NORTHERN HEIGHTS"

If there is an extension than that must follow existing railway lines (to cut costs) then please join the disused "Edgware, Highgate and London Railway" instead, using the alignment from Alexandra Palace "(Muswell Hill branch)" to Muswell Hill, bypassing the old Cranley Gardens station, and following the line around Highgate Wood, and then (rather than using Highgate high-level station) go north via the Northern Line sidings to East Finchley station.

This would provide a much-needed rail link to Muswell Hill (removed) and a useful interchange at East Finchley to the Northern Line, making Crossrail 2 much more useful as a cross-town link.

"PALACE GATES"

I also note with interest that the "Metro" part of Crossrail 2 follows the closed and removed "Palace Gates" line. However, there is no station planned for West Green: this seems a bit of an oversight as the area on West Green Road seems in desperate need of a reliable transport link.

"ST ANN'S ROAD"

Looking at the route north of Angel, I read with interest in the 2013 response that the alignment of the "metro" line at Seven Sisters station. If the 2014 alignment chosen would allow the Crossrail 2 station to be constructed between Overground "South Tottenham" station and the south-eastern end of the Victoria Line station, then it would seem to make a lot of sense to re-open the St Ann's Road station on the Overground line between South Tottenham and Green Lanes, to increase the catchment of Crossrail 2.


"DALSON"

It isn't really clear if the Crossrail 2 2014 proposal has the Crossrail 2 station is Dalston joining up the Dalston Kingsland and Dalston Junction Overground stations.

I would strongly support such an alignment, but as High Speed 1 is an underground tunnel here, this might not be possible.

"RICHMOND TO TWICKENHAM"

It seems very odd, at the far south east of Crossrail 2 to stop at Twickenham and not provide a link to Richmond. Can I assume that an Overground line extension from Richmond to Twickenham – all of four minutes travel – will be provided in the future to address this rather glaring "missing link".










TridentScan | Privacy Policy