Chelney protected route

Does anyone find the Mayor's response in a recent Question Time interesting?

I am aware of the issue you have raised and the potential impact of the HS2 alignment on rail
access to the existing waste transfer station. The current proposals for HS2 sever this access and
it is not clear at this point whether an alternative is going to be provided. I know the London
Borough of Hillingdon has made representations to the Secretary of State on this matter and I
would share their concerns.

I have made it clear that although there is a great case for investing in a high speed rail network,
which has the potential to generate major benefits for both London and the UK, my support on
the proposal being consulted on is conditional on a number of issues being addressed, which are
set out below:

1. Environmental effects - I am seeking changes to the design of the route to ensure any
impacts on west Londoners are properly addressed, preferably by tunnelling the whole route
through London;

2. Euston dispersal - I am seeking a commitment from the Government that their proposals for
HS2 will include a package of measures for addressing the impacts at Euston, including
delivery of the first phase of the Chelsea Hackney Line (Crossrail 2) between Clapham
Junction and Seven Sisters;

3. Old Oak Common - I am seeking a commitment that complementary rail and other transport
enhancements for Old Oak Common are included in the core HS2 scheme to ensure it is
accessible to the wider area, and;

4. HS2-HS1 connection - I am asking that the Government consider alternative options that do
not impact on North London Line services or limit the potential for these services to be
enhanced in the future.

-------

Seven Sisters isn't on the protected route...

Hopefully it'll still use the Wimbo branch and also go via ClJ for a WLL interchange, but please... Seven Sisters? Yea.. We're kinda duplicating the Victoria line now... oh wait, victoria relief line thingy. like CR copycatting central line thingy. Please. Just make the Central Hainault loop only, and give Epping to CR2 though overhead power lines would be expensive so make it a tube, saves a lot of cash which can go into a proper replacement train for tube stocks 1972-1992 and a new stock. hopefully built by Alstom as they build PROPER trains that don't break down once each month... (lately the S8 has broken down multiple times a week)

Errm, why does everything new in London have to go to Stratford, even 6 years after the Olympics?

Simple - because a lot of transport in East London already goes via Stratford.

My morning commute down the WAML to Canary Wharf is simplest done by changing to the (pretty slow) train to Stratford and Tottenham Hale and then getting the DLR to Canary Wharf. It's quicker to do this than to go into Liverpool Street and back out again from Bank on the DLR. Not only that, but it also means that I'm not adding to the congestion in zone 1.

What would make the commute even better would be if the journey between Tottenham Hale and Stratford was a fast and more frequent service, and then I think even more people would do it.

What's telling is that I don't go home via Stratford because the interchange is "too hard", so I generally go home via Bank.

Anyone that travels through East London knows that Stratford is an incredibly useful interchange. The Olympics and Westfield has nothing to do with it.

South London should definitely be looked at.

I think that converting the Epping Branch to CR2 and then going onward to Stansted via Harlow and Bishops Strotford would be possible. But I agree that making some of the SWML (metro lines) part of CR2 and running to Heathrow would be of greater benefit still. If built to NR profile trains with a similar 10-12 car design as CR1, a station could well be located between East Putney on the Wimbledon Branch and Putney NR station forming an interchange. This would reduce crowding on the Wimbledon branch and also give the benefit of allowing the line to progress onto Heathrow via Richmond and Twickenham (with a few intermediate stops too).

Interesting development is this idea of CR2 to Seven Sisters. I think it really needs careful consideration, and doubtless it will be subject to all sorts of analysis before it is carried forward.

Seven Sisters suggests taking over some or all WA inners but this would leave a lot of stations between Seven Sisters and Liverpool St unservef by the new line, creating unnecessary interfacing of 2 services. How would the Chingford route fit into this? I feel the Enfield and Chingford routes are natural pairs to some extent but any new route for these lines through central London would do better to sort out the junctions at Hackney and work southwards from there.

What is clear is that the Cambridge and Stansted services should and could easily go onto CR2 but it would need to go hand in hand with 4-tracking the line between Coppermill Jn and Broxbourne. It would nicely sort out the current problem of inner and outer services sharing lines. However this requires a re-think of the southern destinations. Ideally I would take the line via Victoria and then onto some combination of outer suburban services, thereby making the whole line regional, rather than a mish mash of local/regional services.

If it abstracts enough demand from the Victoria line to the north, would it not become feaseble to tag the Chingford branch onto the Victoria? Or, has been suggested elsewhere, reroute the North London through <-Stratford-Lea Bridge Road-St James'-Central-Wood Street->

Perhaps even both if someone places TfLs budget on a sucessful betting spree

I'm seeing a Heathrow to Stanstead via Central London service.

I cant see the Victoria Line coping with additional traffic. Better to divert the Chingford branch via Stratford to Liverpool Street.

Funny how HS2 has changed the thinking behind Crossrail2/Hackney & Chelsea line from a few years ago. Now seems the Tube idea is dead and a second Crossrail line is likely.

I think you've hit the nail on the head with this. What is the point of this? Is it a metro or is it a inter urban railway.

The reason why I think there is likely to be a Heathrow to Stanstead link is the fact that Airtrack lite would be performing a simlar role on the SWT network as the current Stratford to Stanstead service. Linking the two up would balance the needs of both rather than mixing in a more commuter based line. You could even have a slighty different design stock with more luggage space on this. Remember that the Airtrack Lite service is about extending existing services than newer services.

As the Piccadilly Line proves every day people are willing to take the slow route over a fast route so this could work. What I can't say for sure is how Crossrail, Heathrow Express and a Crossrail 2 line would work with each other. But it may give a good choice of routes and possibly see Heathrow used as a way to connect the GWML with the SWML. Hell it may even prove a case for having an underground HS station at Heathrow.

I believe that whatever this line is it needs to be a all stations type services rather than a Thameslink type service.

However perhaps the DfTs other potential schemes to reduce congestion at Euston might go ahead though, namely WCML slow to XR1, and the DC line to the B'loo?

Though without many of the strategic benefits it'd surely be vastly cheaper/cheaper/easier - something that may become important if HS2s works go over budget.

Never let it be said that the transport politikos in this country have planned for tomorrow when they could plan for this afternoon...

/OT

I'm sure Chingford and Enfield town services could be much higher than at present, but no more suitable to Crossrail-type trains than the Epping branch.

With CR2 taking over some outer suburban and Stansted WAML services maybe the Epping branch could revert to NR?



I'd imagine a Cl. Raynes Park-Junction-Victoria CR2 would relieve the Wimbledon branch too.



bit of a swing round between Willesden Junction and clapham Junction/Putney though.

Why the need to have a station at Euston and Kings Cross? It will easily sorted out by a new double ended station with the west end linked into Euston and the east into Kings Cross St Pancras. Hell it's not even an idea as the Fleet Line was going to do the same thing with Cannon Street and Mounment.

As for your Temple Mills, the pre Olympic Park plan for the Hackney - Chelsea Line has a station by Temple Mills. Now that station site is actually filled by the northern transport interchange for the Olympic Park so a station here would be good. It would also help relieve the Central Line at Leyton as well.

I'm not not convinced that going to Leytonstone is the best use of this line. A route taking in Temple Mills, Bakers Arms route seems more logical as the buses are well used despite great transport links. That way to could create a new links to the GOBLIN and relieve the Victoria Line enough to make an extension to the Central Line possible.

As for your idea of running by the Central Line for fast running. This is a non go. For one alot of the route is currently built up so will require some tunnelling at least and a lot of destroying along the line. You'd likely need a tunnel from Before Leyonstone to as far as Woodford to start with. The cost for the benefits will never justify the cost.

I agree that the line needs to serve Hackney with a new Hackney station that serves both the main line stations. The idea of Hackney as a junction station like Whitechapel (but with separate platforms) with a WA routing. The Chingford line should be re route via Lea Bridge Road station with a calling pattern of St James Street, Lea Bridge Road, Leyton Orient, Hackney. Another option is a new Chingford to Hackney - Chelsea link going Chingford - Wood Street, then tunnel to Walthamstow Central, Bakers Arms, Leyton Midland Road, Leyton Orient/Temple Mills, Hackney then on the 'Core' section through Dalston Junction. But I'm not sure Walthamstow is busy enough to justify a second route that terimates there. Then again nothing to stop a routing via Stratford using the WA platforms.

Now that Crossrail is underway, the lobbying groups are building up for the idea of Crossrail 2. Everyone will want a say and there is all to play for. The central route is determined, but it is like several octupus arms are swirling over a map at each end and people are trying to tie them down in a particular position.

We of course are having fun with the different options and trying to make sense of different clues that dribble out to the media. What I think, is that is a developing battle between TFL and Network Rail about the purpose and scope of Crossrail 2. It's quite clear that Network Rail want it to relieve the crush on several important lines. So we get Raynes Park to Clapham for them and possible West Anglia lines and also mentions of a new relief line from Chelmsford to Epping.

Alternatively it seems TFL sees a more within zone 6 role, Initially with Wimbledon and Epping branches, but now we here snippets about seven Sisters. One more rumour for the mill is that Modern Rail had a piece on London Projects and the info from TFL seemed to suggest an automated line like Line 14 in Paris.

Who knows how this is going to pat out, but unless all the money is coming from London taxpayers I suspect the benefits will have to be spread wider.