Crossrail 2 / Bakerloo extension TV article today

I'd quite like to see the Chelney going to Harlow via a new station on the southern side of Harlow.

Could someone please explain to me what characteristics of Crossrail 2 differ from an LU line apart from Rolling Stock and Tunnel Diameter?

But why not just build a new tube line to the same route, I'm not sure what extra benefits making a NR style line would bring over a tube line to the same standard.

Any tube line is likely to have a lower capacity. We don't have 12 or 16 car tube trains and LU standards do not cater for such train designs. Whether we like it or not existing users of the SWT and GE lines, that would be taken over by Crossrail 2, would likely object to being crammed into tube trains, even new ones. The BBC interviewed commuters at Surbiton and Hertford East - the Surbiton ones wanted more frequent, higher capacity trains. The Hertford ones wanted faster services with fewer stops. That is the antithesis of a typical tube service which is all stations and slow (I know there are some exceptions).

I do not believe we will ever see any major new lines being built as tube lines - either tube or sub surface profile. We will be very lucky to get any extensions to existing tube lines. The ramblings about the Bakerloo extension are just that - I don't see such a scheme ever reaching "top of the pile" for funding. Sorry for the pessimism but that's how I see it.

Actually, CR2 takes a lot of services to Waterloo into the new tunnel. It would relieve congestion on the Northern line, and the Victoria line (how much is Vauxhall used to change?)

Naturally, by diverting services into tunnels, you have released capacity into Waterloo. I don't dispute this. It is why I support the principle of CR2. However, Crossrail 2 will still have to share tracks south of Wimbledon, thus reducing any capacity benefits. How is one going to run 30tph+* into the CR2 core if its southern branches (and maybe its Hertford branch) are going to share tracks with main line services?

If you are going to spend billions on a brand new rapid transit line you should do it properly and segregate it from other rail services.

*Any less would not make sense imho.

I'm no expert on the lines out of Waterloo but IIRC there are around 16tph off peak on the slows south of Wimbledon (4tph to Guildford; 2tph to Chessington South; 2tph to Dorking; 2tph to Hampton Court; 2tph to Shepperton; 2tph to Woking; 2tph to Twickenham via Wimbledon).

I'm making the assumption that Crossrail 2 would not mean the end of slow suburban services from places such as Guildford and Dorking. This would mean CR2 will take over 8tph of the existing 16tph. Branches of CR2 will have a frequent service, maybe double the frequency when compared to now.

So now we have 16tph Crossrail 2 services. But don't forget our residual 8tph non Crossrail services on the slows. So now we have 24tph on the slows south of Wimbledon. This is just off peak and I've ignored the CR2 services to Epsom. Considering 24tph is about the maximum possible frequency on the national network, where is the capacity for additional demand at peak or in the future?

Does Thameslink currently work? Not always, but then again, it is First Group. It has helped, but then again the headways aren't that close, yet it is commonplace for delays. There are many commuter groups not liking the current TOC. It is overcrowded in peaks, and the stock fiasco brought nothing. However, this is better than nothing, and Thameslink is a work in progress. Sooner or later, we could get Caterham-WGC or something remotely like that. And that should be good.



25 years? It should overrun by this time, to be honest. We'd have to wait until CR1 is complete before even a shovel/TBM is placed on the route... Yet, it should be built in my lifetime, hopefully!

City or Docklands bound customers will just head to Tottenham Court road and change to Crossrail 1. The importance of the new tunnels with few stations means vastly reduced journey times.



Image amended by Londonstuff so as to comply with image size guidelines.

And how do you plan to extend the Greenford branch to the WLL, pray? Of course, your scheme would make these routes into a linked up "shuttle", and require accommodation on the SW lines. So please explain how your shuttle trains would be accommodated on those lines, in addition to the peak flow?

Yes:

1) Train length -

2) Platform length -

3) Possibility of double-ended stations with entrances 400-450m apart to widen "pedshed" or "footfall."

4) Through operation of existing trains and/or to existing lines

5) 25kV electrification possible - much cheaper than DC in terms of substations and feeder placement.

6) Passengers/hr/track

... and that's compared to all types of LU lines, SSL and Tube.

7) Trains can be cascaded around Britain, not restricted to London lines

Is that enough for now?

@ dw54

I am a little concerned (but only a little), at your accusatory tone. From where you are, it seems you have infinite knowledge of all things. I agree that your posts display a great deal of knowledge, but you demand to know, "How do you plan to extend the Greenford branch to the WLL, pray? Of course, your scheme would make these routes into a linked up "shuttle",...." There is no need to pray. Here is your answer.

Where have I ever said it was my scheme? It is not. I said it is an idea, but I have never said that it was MY idea. Just as the Ruislip chord proposal is one which has been adopted by the London Borough of Hillingdon, extending the Greenford shuttle to Clapham Junction (at least) was one put up by the London Borough of Ealing some years ago. I do not know how far they got with the proposal, but some years ago, it certainly got into political election material: "Vote for us and we'll ........"

So again, I am not dreaming things up with a map in front of me, I am, as with the Ruislip proposal, reporting fact. Don't shoot the messenger. Whatever your technical knowledge, your knowledge of local politics is not good. The fact that both these proposals were put forward by their respective London Boroughs at some time, (in the case of the RUislip proposal, confirmed by another forum member, for which my thanks), and in the case of the Ealing proposal, it was some years ago.

You seem to be accusing me of making things up. I am not. I repeat, these (neither of them) are my ideas and I have never said they were. So please don't ask me how I propose the Greenford shuttle is extended, because I didn't propose it. All I do know for sure is that L.B.of Ealing proposed it, and the only thing l can add is that it is only in recent years that there has been any bus service from Ealing Broadway to Willesden Junction, which MIGHT have initially been part of L.B.of E's rail route. The fact that the bus route goes via West Ealing and Perivale rather than the more direct route via the North Circular Road, suggests the bus is considered by L.B.of E. to be either a temporary or permanent alternative.

I cannot be certain on one point though. I think from memory the idea was to extend at the Ealing Broadway end to Acton M.L. (still within L.B.ofE and gain access to the WLL via Willesden, which is why I think the bus route idea came about, and then into reality - somebody must have decided there was sufficient demand for an Ealing Bdy - Willesden service)