Chelney protected route

...I still think it's unnecessary. Interchange isn't a dirty word - it's the bedrock of our transport network. The rule to work to is one change to get anywhere in town from any given tube station. Passengers arriving at Euston will have one stop on the NvB or Vic to get to CR2 at KX, or 3 stops south on the NvCX to get to it at TCR (or 4 to get to it at Victoria on the Vic).

I do. They're ok at present, but given the redevlopment of Euston will finally add the interchange passageway, it'll be fine. I guess...in an ideal world you'd move the platforms a few hundred metres east (so they were outside the station proper) so you could have two proper passageways (one at each end)...but you can't have everything.

Why the big anti-Euston position? There are already increasing numbers of passengers using Euston as it is and it is the major Inter-City station in London (total passengers [including surburban] entering or exiting being 30m in 2009/10, compared to 29m at Paddington and 25m at King's Cross). The need for a Crossrail 2 station at Euston has nothing to do with getting to King's Cross and everything to do with giving access to the current services (and future HS2 trains) from Euston. Once HS2 is built, Euston will probably struggle to cope with passenger dispersal, without Crossrail 2 and even with the link into Euston Square being provided.

Maybe the King's Cross station should be dropped, after all there will be easy interchange to CR2 via the Victoria (to Euston), Northern (to Euston or Angel) or SSL (to Euston Square).

...just that's it's unnecessary, and will make CR2 slower than it needs to be, both by adding a stop as well as somewhat of a diversion (should be heading south west from KX to TCR, but to go via Euston will require it to be heading south from Euston paralleling the NvCX branch). My point is that the Victoria line core between KX and Victoria will be massively relieved by CR2, even if it doesn't serve Euston directly. Everyone north of KX on the Vic wanting Victoria or points south (and vice versa) will find it beneficial to switch to CR2 at KX or Victoria. There's something like 28tph on the SSL, 28tph on the Vic, and 20tph on the NvB (that's 76tph between Euston and KX! - Which is, as I remind you, just a 5 minute walk).

Distributing changing passengers in and out of 2 massively popular stations is useful too.



Any proposal passing through Clapham Junction is going to relieve services already using it but yes there could be a real crush with people changing onto the line for the West End - even though many Clapham Junction services head for Victoria already. However if the Northern Battersea extension is further extended to Clapham junction then that will probably be the difference between overloading and crowded (as well as providing a relief option for Waterloo). Seems the DLR to Victoria might be off the agenda now - one idea was that that too could end up at Clapham Junction. Certainly 3 lines through the station won't each get swamped.



hi pjs.

I agree about Crossrail 2 knitting together the 2 Hackney stations. A similar thing is likely re: the 2 Dalston stations and possibly Kings Cross/St. Pancras International + Euston/Euston Square or kings X/Euston as one.

CR2 will probably get a couple of main branches at either end just outside the central area, with other branches further out likely. CR1 and Thameslink 2000 both look set to have 2 main branches just outside the centre and at least one extra branch further out.

CR1 splits to 2 outside the centre in the east, with the proposed WCML branch (instead of the original Kingston proposal - the OOC turnback may only be temporary) this will be mirrored in the east. Thameslink 2000 will also split outside the centre, to Elephant and Castle and London Bridge in the south, and with the additional ECML branch in the north. T200 will have lots of destinations further out therefore lots of branches and some services will be 8-car trains so not all 12-car but only 12-car through the central core. CR2 will incorporate HEX as a branch at least.

With CR2 a split at KXSP was considered, with a branch up the ECML off the Dalston-Hackney-Leytonstone branch. Maybe the Seven Sisters route (certainly Stansted will be a destination) will branch off the Leytonstone route somewhere between KXSP and Hackney?

In the south as yet I am only aware of alternative options for one main route, with further destinations beyond Raynes Park or thereabouts. Victoria-Chelsea-Parson's Green; Victoria-Battersea-Clapham Junction; Victoria-Chelasea-Clapham Junction. But Clapham Junction as a preference to Parson's Green and keeping the safeguarded route up to Chelsea TH then down to Clapham Junction will mean Victoria-Clapham Junction takes a massive detour. For this reason I can't see it being an option. But maybe we'll get a split after Victoria, one way via Chelsea to Parson's Green, the other via Battersea to Clapham Junction?

I can see possibly a dual-purpose for CR2, with both CR1-style trains and 8-car trains using the core - Epping and the takeover of Parson's Green to Wimbledon are hardly likely to get 12-car Crossrail trains. however the politics of it would point to a fight between those who will get a big CR scheme and those who will get a tube line.

I'm a big fan of the idea of having a CR2 station located in between Euston and KX. It's about 5-600m between the two termani. CR1 station boxes are 200+m long. A travelator (like the one at Waterloo) can easily be 100m, an escalator is roughly 50m. If we combine, two travelators (one either side of the station box) and two escalator ramps and the station box, we achieve the necessary length to have the hypothetical station box situated directly between the two.

I'm also in favour of the DLR being extended to both Clapham Junction via Victoria and to Euston Road with the Northern also to Clapham. This would then create sufficient capacity at Victoria, Clapham, Euston, KX and Waterloo and also a really good interchange outside of zone 1, in South London.

Branching will significantly reduce loadings on both branches west of Bank so I don't see both going ahead, though they are both useful.

Well that did not take long.

Two images of TFL's preferred options for Crossrail 2.

www.transportxtra.com/magazines/local_transport_today/news/?id=28776



The first is for an automated metro line, which is pretty much just the core Chelsea Hackney route between Kings Road and Hackneys Downs, with an extension to Seven Sisters in the North and Clapham Junction to the South.

Then there is their regional metro option.



This is much more interesting. Again we have a core route but with fewer stations in the core because of their size. The tunnel would start at Wimbledon and then divert to Tooting Broadway, where it could intercept traffic from the Southern end of the Northern Line, before going back to Clapham Junction.

At the Northern end it is even more creative and reminds me of the two eastern branches of Crossrail 1. The line diverges into two tunnels at Angel, where one goesto Hackney and then Tottenham Hale before surfacing and taking over the West Anglia line to Hertford East. The other line goes to Dalston, Seven Sisters, Wood Green and then Alexander Palace. This line would intercept traffic on the other branch of the West Anglia, Northern Piccadilly and the Great Northern lines.

It seems to me this is TFL's attempt preempts Network Rails concerns particularly in the South West, while sneakily squeezing a few more suburban stations. Only one Northern Line takes over Suburban rail services, the other intercepts suburban traffic at interchange station, coincidently acting as a new suburban line for TFL.

With that line thickness and scale, I'd suggest that its representing the current triangle instead of anything different.

I'm not sold on either map. Course it'll work; London is too busy for it not to! But the whole thing now looks like one idea with many different ideas bolted on. Its hardly coherant and cant be as the core is still 20 years old and the rest at most one year. Abe one said on here in relation to '74s scheme of taking the Aldwych branch : . I count three dog-legs in the first option, and thats just to incorporate an existing bit of tunnel that isnt even built yet!

Please could someone post a link thats not to transportxtra? Unfortunately its a subscription site

The new map certainly indicates Twickenham terminators from the west - obviously another map drawn by somebody without any local knowledge!

But Shepperton branch pax are desperate for a proper train service to Twick, Richmond & Putney, At the moment, many prefer to take their cars for the journey or part of it at least. Barking madness that most services use the southern chord instead. Loss of revenue to SWT must be significant

Yes - and also keep up the service level on the main line (through Wimbledon) - this came in 1916, with electrification: before then most Shepperton services ran via Richmond.

But dropping King's Road would make it lose the Chelsea part. But Alexandra Palace is nice; but it'll likely use NCL infrastructure instead of Northern Heights