Crossrail 2 line diagrams

The trains will be running on overhead power supplies so the W&C option is not possible (the route at Bank would take out the moving walkways so not really an option anyway).

Ideally a station at Piccadilly Circus would feature but not possible for heritage/space reasons.

Can you provide a link or reference to these new choice of routes?

The Alexandra Palace route is rather bizarre, given that a secondary role of Crossrail Line 2 was to relieve pressure from the eastern Central Line.

I'd prefer a Japanese style medium profile linear motor metro for the metro option instead of small profile tube or large profile SSL size. Leaving out Piccadilly Circus would be a mistake. Surely there is some "out of the box" solution for this station?

There simply isn't the space at Bank for a new tube line, let alone a full size one. Getting the DLR down there was an achievement in itself.

Agree with stephenk; TfL's Ally Pally branch seems to be bereft of logic.

I don't see why Crossrail 2 can't address the both the Lower Lea Valley and Central line.
Let the Central keep the Hainault loop, and have one branch of Crossrail 2 work its way to Woodford for interchange, then take over all stations to Epping (6-12tph?)
Have another branch rise on the marshland south of Tottenham and add extra Hertford and Stansted/Stortford services (can't take any away from Liv St as the City commuters will, rightly, moan).

Even at a comparable-to-Crossrail-1 24tph peak you'd probably still have spare capacity after the above two; perhaps send some trains up the Hertford Loop as well; there's some railway land south of Finsbury Park on the Moorgate branch for a portal.

I suspect the reason it been missed is that the existing station would not be able to handle the increase in passenger numbers without a TCR style rebuild inc larger ticket hall etc. That would mean demolishing some very, very expensive property at ground level so it's a straight run from Victoria to TCR to Euston (for HS2).

I'd prefer the regional scheme with the Alexandra Palace branch being used to turn back South London services (to keep higher intensity in the core), and possibly with a Stansted branch.

I prefer the Regional.

• Wimbledon - Tooting needs a better service and the current FCC service might as well not exist
  
• King's Road needs better transport links too
  
• Victoria - Euston needs congestion relief
  
• 16 SWT services serve Wimbledon for Dorking, Woking, Guildford via Cobham, Guildford via Epsom, Hampton Court, Chessington South, Shepperton and the loop via Kingston/Richmond. When these are all broken down, I think some branches don't get enough tph. Therefore, additional Crossrail trains would be incredibly useful.
  

Metro is a big no no on the Lee Valley lines as it has to do track sharing. Tottenham Hale is only going to be three track as the cost of four tracking out weighs any benefits.

And the level crossings, 17 between Tottenham Hale and Hertford East. Add another 9 by Bishops Storford means Automantic Metro a la Victoria is out.

The Regional Scheme makes sense as it spreads the benefits wider for not that much cost overall.

Yes but this report is a serious attempt to push for the development of Crossrail 2. Basing it on an dream Tube railway is madness, your plan would be too expensive and not not help Liverpool Street problem out.

Metro's work best over smaller distances, where as the regional scheme is designed to actually be much more. Going up the Lea Valley in tunnel that'll drive the cost up past acceptable when you factor in multiple underground stations in an easily pass the £20bn mark meaning its unaffordable and will be kicked into the long grass and left to wait another 10 years before coming back. Part of the reason the regional scheme assumes four tracking is because then the price tag of rebuilding the current stations is not on Crossrail 2's bill lower the costs and making it a cheaper win.

The whole point of the metro scheme is to relief the current lines, go further out and all you'll do is overload it with passengers further out and risk doing very very little to actually solve the issues involved.

Not necessarily. A medium profile metro would cost significantly less to tunnel per km, and stations would also be cheaper to build as they are smaller. Capacity would be only be slightly less than heavy rail due to potential operation at a higher frequency than a regional system (circa 34tph instead of 24tph). Reliability would also be higher due to lack of integration with the rest of rail network. Automated metros of 52km exist (Dubai), so your length argument is not particularly valid.

Until there is a development master plan for the Upper Lea Valley, the area that needs to be covered by either solution is currently unknown. Also, will the development areas be close to existing rail lines that would be taken over by regional services?

The overcrowding on the NR lines that share the tracks from Hackney to Liverpool Street are not expected to reach more than 3pax/sq m by 2031, and that is only on the Chingford Line. The other lines will have no more than 1-2pax/sq m by 2031. Hardly an issue is it?

An automated metro could also be built in stages, with a more central stage relieving the Victoria Line at Euston in time for HS2 being priority. Outer stages can be progressively built as demand requires and funding is available. A regional system would have to be built in it's expensive entirety to be effective.

Note that Paris relieved RER A with an automated Metro Line 14, not another RER line. Line 14 is now being extended at both ends to relieve other lines. Automated metro needs to be seriously considered rather than seemingly being dismissed as in the biased linked document.

I've often wondered if some District/NLL trains couldn't be extended to Shepperton, or at least to Twickenham (for the rugby) to begin. Though a fair amount would need to be built, including rebuilding Richmond and a dive under/over) the grade separation and railway land around Twickenham itself just seems so tantlising! Didn't the CLR have an ambition to run to it?

But your point of an automatic metro fails to attract the funding a regional system would. Fact is Network Rail knows its going to cost a few £bn to sort out the SWML capacity issue which is what this in part attempts to solve along with creating new links in South London. Your scheme would attract a few £bn less due to much narrower focus on the results.

As for captivity I ran some figures. 09ts figures taken from wiki plus some internal figures over 377's. 12 car metro unit based on some work on figures for the Desiro City rough capacity.

12 cars x 24tph = 288 carriages an hour
8 cars x 32tph = 256 carriages an hour

8 car 09ts max capacity = 1448 people
12 car 377 peak capacity = approx 1500 people
12 car metro units = approx 1500-2000 people

09ts at 32tph = 46,336 people per hour
12 car 377 at 24tph = 36,000 people per hour
12 car metro unit at 24tph = 36,000-48,000

The different wasn't as big as you'd expect but I can't move away from the fact that if you built the metro version any tunnel to relief the SWML could get is very unlikely for many years. So your going to have SWT/NR vs TfL trying to get funding for two separate projects that share a silmar routing part of the way. This is the strength of the regional scheme as something radical needs to happen on the SWML (SWT and Southern routers into London both need this more radical approach) to deal with the growth in passengers. Metro doesn't nothing for this.



This is the start if said plan, plan your transport first the development around it. It's the sensible way.



The big problem is the SWML as nothing short of work costing £bn's is going to fix the problems on that route. The routing a lie could take natural heads towards Liverpool Street via Central London generating traffic. Also the users of GAML hav been asking for faster long distance but metro section blocks this. It solves my issues in one go.



Gettin one stage built is hard enough without increasing th amount of road blocks.



But what you fail to understand is the regional scheme is automatic railway the same way Thameslink and Crossrail will be. I think the point of automatic METRO railway is being looked upon less favourably because it does so much less but costs aren't that different plus regional scheme would have partners in Network Rail and authorities further out giving a better choice than just another Tube line for London.

Which came first Canary Wharf or the Jubilee Line Extension?
Ideology is often different to reality.


A few points:
1) Tunnelling costs are higher for larger profile tunnels, but not directly proportional to diameter.
2) Station costs are considerably higher for longer trains.
3) Medium profile 120m ish trains running at 34tph can carry only slightly less passenger numbers to 200m trains running at 24tph.
4) Thus the increased cost of building a large profile system is only justifiable if the benefits of a more regional train service outweigh the extra construction costs. As "FleetLine" correctly mentioned, funding models may currently support a regional system.
5) I don't have any evidence to support this, but it is likely that a automated metro would have lower operating costs than a regional system.

Both types of systems have their place, but as previously mentioned an automated metro should not be easily dismissed. Don't forget that the Victoria Line (which quickly became a victim of it's own success) was originally intended to be a more regional system, but was far cheaper as a tube line*. This could swing the argument both ways though!

* I'm not advocating a tube profile line, more of a medium profile system (a la Japanese/Chinese linear metros, Bombardier ART). Tube profiles are a bit 19th century.

DLR opened 1987, Canary Wharf developement started 1987. The DLR did regenerate the Isle of Dogs but has never had the same effect in the Royal Docks which in parts is still under developed and derelict 25 years later.

This is the Fleet line that was never built so the office development never took place . The DLR was built and the office development followed.