National Infrastructure Commission - do CR2

Apologies - the text says "More work should also be done on the costs and benefits of individual central London stations." That reads to me as if some may be open to question but I accept that's my interpretation.

The relevant text is in Recommendation 4 in the "Transport for a World City" report.



One clear issue with not building the New Southgate branch is the possible loss of depot and siding space at the north end of the line. I'm not familiar enough with the land near the WAML to know if a depot and substantial sidings could be built there so you don't end up with an unbalanced fleet allocation and a lot of light running from the south in order to start services in the North.

I never quite grasped the concept of the New Southgate Branch.
An expensive project such as Crossrail 2 needs to deliver some good results and therefore must be done properly.
A proper railway that is both frequent and direct all the way through to Enfield (Via Tottenham Hale), will take lots of stress off the Victoria Line and help boost interest in the North and North East.
Less is more in some context.

There is miles of Brownfield Land between Tottenham Hale and Enfield, portions of it are left derelict. I myself used to travel along the WAML and the site was sewer, both in appearance and smell, it was worse when passing Angel Road.
Whilst I agree that the Picadilly Line needs a relief line, it too will get an upgrade which will increase capacity.
Why would sending all 24 trains up to Enfield be considered a waste? Surely we should be encouraging more people to travel by train in these outer boroughs. During the peaks, trains are stuffed with commuters and School children as a result of the countless number of schools near the line and all throughout the day many locals will travel to and from Tottenham Hale to either get to Westfield Statford or to Stanstead Airport.

While that brownfield land could potentially be used for a depot strategy, train depots require large amounts if it in long and broad strips capable of processing fixed formation 12 car trains. Oddly spaced or smallish plots are of no use. By contrast housing developers are past masters at shoehorning buildings into pretty much any situation.

Besides if you are going to send 24tph all the way up the Lea Valley you will need a serious number of travellers to fill the trains - which means lots of residential development. In this respect with reservoirs on one side and the Edmonton line a short distance to the west the potential number of passengers is not as great as with CR1 and the GEML.

The thing is the current service along the Lea valley is overcrowded partly because the current infrastructure precludes a decent service being offered. Using that to justify a 24tph CR2 service is nonsense - the reason the GEML was an ideal outlet for CR1 was it already had a 6tph off peak and something like 10tph in the peaks with the trains being overcrowded. In some respects the STAR proposals are a useful stepping stone - the improved service the planned extra infrastructure allows will mean that the planners of CR2 will get a better idea of the potential revenue / costs further service upgrades under CR2 would generate.

However we should also not forget that the NIC have not closed the door on another CR2 northern branch - they key being to find something that has low costs or has lots of redevelopment potential en route. It is unfortunate that the alignment of CR2 and topography dies not allow an easy connection onto the Edmonton / Endfield line as sending some CR2 trains there would make a lot of sense in terms of service frequency uplift.

Thus while the Lea valley is indeed a sensible place for CR2 to aim for it does not follow that it is the best place to send all 24tph