Crossrail 2 consultation

Looking at the metro option, it appears Crossrail 2 could be a DLR light rail type operation with the Bank tunnels instead of a tube line. Why are they not considering a tube line?

This is what I sent them (it's a "real life" RIPAS!):

1) The ideal location for the junction at the northern end would be Euston St Pancras (or "Euston Cross" as the Railway Lords would have it, or "HS London Central" as I have proposed); as compared to Angel. Are you able to show a strong case for the Northern arm deviating east to Angel?

Perhaps a better plan would be to make a major interchange station for the northern arm at Highbury & Islington, then take that route onto its northerly alignment towards Seven Sisters there. H&I would be extensively rebuilt as a major radial/orbital interchange/terminal station.

In place of the Dalston Jct station on the northern arm, the eastern arm would have a double-ended station with links connecting to Dalston Jct as its western access/egress and Hackney as its eastern.

I would STRONGLY propose NOT to make the same mistake as with TL - this time, make sure you provide 4 platforms @ EuStP - so that each route to the north has a distinct platform; and that southbound, the station is bifurcated for efficiency and to buffer operational variances from the inbound branches. Allow access from both northbound platforms to both branches - an added element of service resilience. Likewise, allow either branch access to either southbound platform. This means crossovers at the eastern end of EuStP for both directions.

A similar arrangement may be well advised at Clapham Jct and/or Wimbledon too.

2) [to be read in conjuction with potential projects and issues referenced at 3 and 4 below]. Ensure passive (or active) provision is made at Alexandra Palace to connect CR2 to both GN suburban routes - WGC and Hertford North. At present, both routes are limited to 6-car 75mph trains (class 313). In the future, perhaps 7-car trains with SDO might be used through to Moorgate. Otherwise longer trains have to be routed to Kings Cross or onto TL.

Activation of this connection would be seen as an operational congestion relief measure for Kings X, and to a lesser extent for TL.

3) The present limitations of the GN&C as a peak period terminus for the City can be partially overcome by resignalling and SDO. However, at the end of such investments, it will remain a substandard terminus for peak period commuter trains. At 2) above, provision is proposed for allowing 10- and later 12-car trains to be worked from WGC and Hertford North (after platform lengthening) through onto CR2.

BUT, mention has been made of severe crowding on the Northern Line City Branch during peaks. There is the complication of the capacity of Camden Town to act as an interchange station for the partial separation of the Northern Line branches. A complementary project is therefore proposed at 4) below. This project is aimed at drawing off a substantial proportion of the High Barnet/MHE branches' City traffic, and thereby reducing the pressure on Camden Town and the section through Euston.

4) A complementary project to CR2 is proposed. It involves restoration of the Northern Heights Railway in a manner sensitive to the current recreational value of the former alignment. Cross platform (elevated level) interchange is proposed at Finsbury Park. Trains would run from East Finchley through to Moorgate, using LU S7/8 stock or an updated 6- or 7-car LO train. Interchange with the GOBLIN is a desirable element in the design of the project.

Interchange with CR2 is proposed for Highbury and Islington - with a major upgrade of this station to suit. This link provides for ongoing access to the City for GN commuters now travelling on CR2.

The possibility of extension south from Moorgate could also be considered. A "metro" frequency service of up to 20tph is envisaged.

Modern emergency egress standards demand a tunnel size which can economically be applied to "squarer" stock. Essentially they would provide for wider cars with more standing space per metre of platform length. The cars would have a better passenger "ambience" than tube cars.

While 4 x 30m articulated pairs are used to illustrate the option, it would not surprise me to find that the actual provision is more like a "square EVO" articulated train. However it's looked at, basically 120m auto-trains form part of the "metro" concept (cf 132m 8-car tube trains).

My gut feeling preference is for the regional option but I haven't had time to look in detail yet.

Except that a lot of Victoria line passengers start their journey with a bus ride from the Alexandra Palace area to Finsbury Park.

The proposed route is also likely to reduce the loadings on the Moorgate line.

It's not just about relieving the Victoria line, although it will do that.

It is also about the Piccadilly line which Crossrail 2 will meet at Turnpike Lane.

If I understand you correctly Hackney would have no connections whatsoever defeating one of the underlying objectives of the scheme.

I believe that the Alexandra Palace branch came out with the highest BCR on all the modelled routes!

Do I detect that some Finsbury Park advocates are a bit upset with these proposals?

I saw one who wanted it because he is an Arsenal fan!!!

Lord Adonis and co have done marvellous work on this and I hope I live long enough to see the full regional route realised.

I think that going via Hackney (with connections with Lea Valley Lines) would be useful for connections. But this would increase journey times from Ally Pally, Turnpike Lane, and Seven Sisters.

Lack of station at Essex Road is also an odd omission, as it was included in the Chelney plans. Maybe lack of cross-platform interchange (due to 90degree intersect) made it less cost effective?

I watched the London Assembly session on Crossrail 2. There were people from TfL, Network Rail, London First (Lord Adonis), north London councils plus an academic. It was quite telling, based on the questions posed by several Assembly members, that there is no obvious consensus as to what needs to be done to alleviate problems on the rail network. There was more obvious enthusiasm from TfL and NR for the Regional option despite an acknowledgement that it would be more "difficult" to operate reliably because of the multiple branches. Lord Adonis was extremely pointed about the lack of value of the Metro scheme citing the huge congestion and overcrowding there would be at Wimbledon as a result of people opting to change trains there. There was also dissent about the rejection of some of the proposed branches that would serve other parts of South London and the lack of more capacity in East London. Furthermore there was a subtle dislike of the Regional scheme because it would improve longer distance services into Waterloo and Liverpool St but no offer solace for those Londoners on those corridors who still wished to travel to the terminal stations. Talk about the transport planners not being able to win!!!! I suspect some of the responses from TfL and NR reps will immediately be turned into Mayor's Questions criticising the approach being taken despite the fact we are still at the "lines on maps" stage.

Having looked at the proposal options I find both of them lacking. I think the split branch approach in North London is sub-optimal as is the lack of stations in certain places like Essex Road, Stoke Newington or Stamford Hill. While I understand the desire to run to Alexandra Palace it is somewhat bonkers not to run on to Muswell Hill and possibly North or East Finchley to add vital rail capacity in a part of North London heavily reliant on bus services to get people to tube services at Finsbury Park and Archway. Surely the aim of these schemes should be to add vital extra capacity *and* create new links *and* allow the bus network to be relieved or else achieve some cost savings by being able to reduce peak bus requirements. The other aspect that makes assessment difficult is there is no obvious strategy as to what other lines will be upgraded beyond Crossrail 1, Thameslink and the tube upgrades. If we had a planning process that provided some greater stability that it would be clearer as to whether Crossrail 2 will improve or worsen matters (e.g. DW's comments about demand to the City). I think TfL and NR still have a lot of work to do to get a Crossrail 2 scheme which actually works properly.

Indeed! What is CR2 for? I was taken to task by "Hackneyite" on Diamond Geezer's blog because my submission to the Consultation suggested that the northern arm avoid Angel, and have an interchange at Highbury and Islington (properly reconstructed for purpose) instead - then run north to AP where it takes up the GN suburban routes to Hertford North and WGC.

This in turn relieves the GN&C which becomes the southern part of the Northern Heights East Finchley - FP - Moorgate "metro" service (whether LU SSL or LO matters not). If left as is, XR2's City access is via Angel, a proposed junction station. That will grossly overload the Northern Line City Branch, which would become the most overcrowded on LU (based on the CR2 presentation).

The Northern line split is based on Depots, rather than any other issue. I propose to change the split so that Edgeware - Morden and Barnet - Battersea are the lines, B-B via CX of course. To make this possible, I proposed that Morden depot service both lines' stock - and provide the early entry to service trains for the B-B via CX line, operating as public service trains from Morden to HB via CX. This ensures early morning service at Waterloo, while allowing a slower start from Battersea, in line with the expected client base there. The CX branch would also be served by Highgate Depot/Sidings and the Sidings at High Barnet. I inderstand there may be scope for a new depot near Hill Hill East as well.

This alternative split in turn enables the Northern Heights to provide City access for the stations "north" of East Finchley. It reduces the interchange load at Camden Town. It also provides access to the City for passengers on GN suburbans now diverted to CR2, by change at H&I (rather than Angel).

What irked Hackneyite, apart from my temerity to suggest one arm avoid the blessed Marshlands altogether, was that I'd removed the Dalston - Seven Sisters link, so perpetuating the heavy flow of buses on the A10.  My challenge to him was to show the data. My suspicion is that, while CR2 might cause a modest mode change, most bus passengers are not just travelling that link, but beyond. Only those who would have to change buses anyway might find the rail link more attractive. We need the numbers. I may also be criticised for causing the northern arm to miss "Silicon Angel" (is it called? The hi-tech area). Is that a serious enough issue to dump a more efficient route? After all, HS2 dumped Heathrow because it added a few minutes to every train, and the Piccadilly closed lightly trafficked stations to save a few minutes each run. I think I am justified in cutting out Angel and Dalston from the northern arm, and proposing a proper interchange at H&I instead.

To compensate to a degree for cutting Dalston out of the northern arm, I also proposed a double-ended station on the eastern arm to serve both Dalston and Hackney - same as Euston St Pancras (CR2) or Moorgate Liverpool St and Barbican Farringdon (CR1).

As to diversion of classic routes into CR2 - in part loss of access to Liverpool St and Waterloo is an issue. It's the same issue as when the GN electrification diverted the inner suburbans to Moorgate in 1976. The scope to run some direct (semi-fast perhaps) trains as well as the longer-distance services remains, so the issue can be resolved with timetabling.

IMHO, a restricted Metro system would not resolve capacity issues at Waterloo or Liverpool St. Trains with lighter loads, some %age of passengers having transferred to the Metro, still need to be terminated. To suggest, ah well, we'll reduce frequency to reduce load on the terminal seems to me to be counter-productive and against the whole ethos of what is sought to be achieved.

Perhaps the truth is that a "metro" line is needed as well as a main line tunnel. It's just that, like CR1 it's not a choice or 2 or 3 tunnels (re the 24hr thread) but of 2 or 0. Here it's not a case of 2 or 4 tunnels, it's either 2 or 0. So in the finest manner of British compromise, we have a wiggly, jiggly substandard tries to satisfy everyone and half succeeds type outcome.

What NEEDS to be put to Treasury is an integrated Master Plan (unfunded of course) with all the cross-dependencies carefully documented like a WTT. Onto that Mastern Plan can be shown the ideal (metro plus express main line tunnels) and the compromise. Plus the balancing acts needed throughout the network, such as the Northern Heights/GN&C I mentioned above. 

With the railway "deserts" Graham identified above, I'm wondering whether like the Paddo-Vic link, buses handle some of them quite satisfactorily? So while they remain rail deserts, they do not lack connectivity. It IS a question. I don't know the performance of the bus sector in those areas, so can't actually make an informed comment.

As to the route missing Westminster, West End and City: this I think is the price of having a route that specifically serves Victoria and Euston - and of course to having a CBD that runs roughly parallel with the River (ie E-W). Any N-S route would miss a lot of the extended CBD unless you wanted to design a zig zag route (just think Wimble - Toot - CJ - Battersea - Chelsea - Vic - Padd - Waterloo - CX - Euston - Blackfriars - Moorgate/Liv st - Dalston - Seven Sisters). Should do the job!

grahamhewett - an interesting response. I suspect TfL and NR would say CR2's purpose is to relieve Euston, cope with HS2 (full scheme), relieve congestion on NE-SW tube links and to provide some sort of solution to burgeoning demand on the lines into Waterloo. The NR rep at the Transport Committee almost sounded despairing as to what Network Rail could do with the South Western lines if CR2 does not materialise. I think they really need to get services into a tunnel and out of Waterloo to add capacity and frequency on the core SW route *and* on the branches. I suspect, though, that you've read all that and are still not convinced ;-) I agree with you that there are significant gaps in the tube network in Central London. There are obviously loads of options but something which ran Barnes - Mortlake - Hammersmith - Olympian - HSK - Knightsbridge - Victoria - Mayfair - Marble Arch - Paddington - Kilburn High Rd - Brondesbury / Kilburn - Cricklewood - Brent Cross - Hendon - Graham Park - Mill Hill Broadway would cover a number of major bus corridors and link to many other lines and open up parts of London as well as support development at places like Brent Cross. Inevitably it won't be built but we can but dream.

Your other salient point is that of station capacity. As you say this is the next looming problem which will use up hundreds of millions of pounds if there is any sort of decent strategy to provide long term relief in the central area but also at key suburban stations. Places like Finsbury Park need a complete rebuild as do tube stations like Leicester Square, Bank, Brixton. I'm sure other people could add to the list. Highbury and Islington is now creaking at the seams because of the vast increase in people interchanging between tube and Overground. Ground level has been partly resolved with recent investment but below ground is a mess and more escalator capacity is urgently needed.


dw54 - some intriguing observations there. On the issue of the A10 bus corridor (London Bridge - Enfield effectively) I can tell you that it's very heavily used despite the fact that it is paralleled by the Liv St - Enfield Town line to a reasonable extent. Despite much slower journey times over long distances lots of people opt for the bus because it is cheap and services are extremely frequent plus they fan out to serve different parts of the City and some reach the West End. Similarly there is also intensive bus demand and supply on the Seven Sisters - Manor House / Finsbury Park link despite the Victoria Line. There are also 5 different services, again all frequent, linking Seven Sisters to Turnpike Lane and / or Wood Green. Route 29 which parallels a long section of the Piccadilly Line also runs close to capacity all day long and has the dubious distinction of being more frequent at night at weekends than during the day (every 3 mins compared to every 5 mins). This scale of bus provision is, on one level, incredibly inefficient when rail should really be taking the burden because the demand is there. The bus subsidy budget is also under tremendous pressure meaning TfL have little or no scope to deal with the continued growth in demand - an extra 28m pass jnys forecast for the current financial year. Something will have to give as fuel costs continue to rise and emissions requirements are worsening fuel consumption on many new buses. Hybrids are also expensive and yet there is an air quality crisis. I am not sure quite what the answer is - rail may give capacity but it's hugely expensive to create new capacity. There is no money for buses apart from the New Bus for London which is not really an answer (IMO). You could, in theory, run far more trains on the Greater Anglia route to Enfield Town to make rail more attractive but I suspect there is not the capacity south of Hackney Downs. The ideal would be to send GA trains to Dalston Junction but that's not feasible given the height difference and hundreds of houses in the way. As an aside I really don't think you'd ever manage to restore rail services on the old Northern Heights alignment - you'd be hung, drawn and quartered by the residents of Crouch End, Highgate and Muswell Hill even if you were Rail Dictator of London :-)

Thank you Snoggle for details on bus usage in the Dalston - Seven Sisters corridor. I think that confirms my inclination to take the northern arm by a more direct route via Highbury & Islington to Seven Sisters, and to fully rework H&I as an efficient interchange.

As to the Northern Heights: when proposing this, I prefaced with words to the effect of: "a design sensitive to the current recreational value of the corridor." If one starts from that position, one has a better chance of bringing the interest groups onside. The line would probably be built cut & cover where both railway and linear park cannot share the same space. Other steps, including relocation of mature trees might also be applicable.

I very much doubt that running 33tph with 240m regional trains is anywhere near realistic. Paris RER A manages 30tph with 225m trains and not very reliably - not a huge issue as RER A is self-contained. Tokyo Chuo Rapid manages 29tph with 200m trains, again not particularly reliably, but the line has limited conflicts with other lines.

Also, most double deck trains do not increase overall passenger carrying capacity due to less sets of doors resulting in longer dwell times. In fact in Sydney, there is a plan to go back to single deck metro style trains!

I was going to refer to the demographics of North London as they do have quite a bearing on travel mode choices in the area. I agree that the modes do different things but I would point to the success of Overground where, off peak, fares are barely more than buses and frequencies are pretty much turn up and go plus journey times are faster than buses. I could certainly see an Overground-esque service on the Enfield Town line working well and taking a proportion of people off the buses. It is completely bonkers that trains from Enfield Town run every 30 mins when the 192 bus is every 10 minutes and jammed completely full *all the time*. It is an enormous irony, is it not, that the key bus routes you mention all used to have a "6" prefix and were electrically powered? Regrettably there is no obvious trolleybus or tram lobby within TfL - if there were we could now have a programme of infrastructure investment to "green" the bus network or bring light rail to London's streets. It will have to come at some point because hybrids are not a long standing solution and major rail investment takes far, far too long and is horrendously expensive making it only suitable in specific circumstances. Alongside the Crossrail style projects, which have a value, we must also have a rolling programme of improving / upgrading the rail infrastructure we have and getting as much capacity and usage out of it as possible.

Snoggle. While I agree that some means of ameliorating the issues with buses will need to be found, yesterday's technologies don't cut it. In some cases, a short ALR underground metro line would do (ALR=DLR not connected to Docklands).

Trolley buses are unable to pass one another, and so must be ruled out. Trams again are too inflexible, and unless we're looking at what is effectively a tram-train situation (where railway lines are converted to light rail and connected to CBDs by on-street running) such as Croydon Tramlink and the Manchester system, [or there are wide boulevards into which they can be fitted] they probably have a net zero benefit over hybrid buses.

What could work however, is the latest approach to catenary-free "trolley" bus networks, where the buses charge up batteries at fixed alignment stops along the way and at the termini. With a small diesel for last mile/emergency back-up, you'd have a flexible, usable bus fleet that relocated the pollution from city streets to the countryside around coal and gas power stations, and nuclear waste storage facilities (no free lunches really). Of course, a ramp up of wave energy harvesting, wind energy harvesting, some solar and some more hydro might green that lot up a bit.

Such buses can leapfrog as well as any diesel. Can handle temporary diversions, and detour around emergency incidents with as much ease as any diesel. Can handle loads the same as any diesel. Can be SD, artic SD, DD, tri-artic SD, even artic DD - whatever configuration is appropriate and approved.