Thursday, 12 November 2015

Crossrail 2 Swirl

This article outlines Crossrail 2 Swirl, an alternative to the flawed "Balham Bulge" plan put forward by TfL (Transport for London) in South West London. As we'll see, Swirl is both cheaper and more effective than TfL's plan.

Update 2015-12-10: This article is effectively part 1 of 2. The Swirl plan below proposes a fast line tunnel under Wimbledon. The Swirl-Max plan proposes how Swirl can be extended to serve Balham, Tooting and Streatham. See also my previous articles on Crossrail 2. And follow up on journey times.

TfL plans for Crossrail 2

This map outlines the current TfL plan for Crossrail 2 between Clapham Junction and Wimbledon, via Balham.

As can be seen, the "Balham Bulge" route from Wimbledon to Clapham Junction via Balham is very indirect. In addition, the chosen tunnel portal site to the north east of Wimbledon, requires the demolition of most of Wimbledon town centre, including the Centre Court shopping centre (everything along the purple line on the map is demolished). The Swirl plan removes the ineffective Balham Bulge and avoids the need to demolish Wimbledon town centre.

For more details on why a Balham routing will not be effective, see the previous article on how TfL's plans make the Northern Line overcrowding worse not better.

Crossrail 2 Swirl

Crossrail 2 Swirl is a proposal to alter the route and design of Crossrail 2 between Clapham Junction and Wimbledon. Instead of serving Balham or Tooting, Swirl serves Earlsfield, hence the name - "SW EARLsfield".

To provide the total capacity increase needed for South West London, Surrey and Hampshire, a total six tracks are needed from at least New Malden to Clapham Junction. To provide this, Swirl proposes a tunnel from the A3 between New Malden and Raynes Park all the way to Clapham Junction and beyond, giving four tracks on the surface and two tracks in tunnel. Between the junction at New Malden and the A3 tunnel portal, six tracks would be provided by removing the fast line platforms at New Malden.

The A3 tunnel portal site has a key advantage over TfL's Gap Road site in that it has excellent road access. Being able to send heavy vehicles down the A3 to the M25 will have major benefits for local roads.

All fast line services from Surrey, Hampshire and beyond would run via the new tunnel under New Malden, Raynes Park and Wimbledon. No underground stations are needed on this section as these are the fast lines. The existing four tracks through Raynes Park on the surface would be used for Crossrail 2 and outer suburban services to Waterloo.

At Wimbledon, the existing six platforms would be retained. A new footbridge would be needed to cope with increased usage, but the rest of the town centre would be completely unaffected. Crossrail 2 trains would use the existing slow line platforms. The outer suburban services to Waterloo would use the existing fast line platforms, providing a cross-platform interchange. This will allow passengers to change to a high frequency Waterloo service (TfL proposes an interchange to a much lower frequency Waterloo service).

In order to provide a high frequency service through the core of Crossrail 2, it is necessary to turn back some trains at Wimbledon. This would be achieved using the existing Thameslink platforms, with the tram evicted to run at street level. Thameslink services would share the platforms.

The key part of the Swirl proposal is the very large Weir Road industrial site between Wimbledon and Earlsfield. This would be used to "swap" usage of the tunnel. The fast tracks would be taken out of the tunnel and back to the surface to use the existing surface tracks to Clapham Junction. The same site would also be used to take the Crossrail 2 tracks down into the tunnel. As a result, Earlsfield station would be replaced with a sub-surface station.

Note that the proposal is for a single tunnel all the way from New Malden to beyond Clapham Junction using a single Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM). While this may seem strange, the costs associated with tunnelling tend to be at the tunnel portals, with the distance that the tunnel is driven being a secondary consideration. As such, it is cheaper to have a single TBM rather than two separate tunnels. The "swap" at Weir Road involves a relatively simple cut and cover box that would be built after the TBM had passed through the site.

The Crossrail 2 Swirl proposal has minimal impact on the branches that can be served by Crossrail 2 in outer London. As such, the map of services below shows the same branches as TfL's official scheme:

However, unlike the TfL scheme, none of the outer suburban (green) services need to stop at Earlsfield or Raynes Park, providing a faster journey for many passengers. It should be noted that only those outer suburban services to Twickenham would stop at new Malden.

Benefits

The Swirl proposal has the following benefits compared to the TfL plan:

  • £1.5bn cheaper (estimated)
  • Much better service for Earlsfield
  • Better services to Surrey, Hampshire and beyond
  • No need to demolish the entire centre of Wimbledon
  • Tunnel portal with direct access to the A3 for lorry traffic
  • Does not worsen the overcrowding on the Northern Line

The cost estimate is very rough, but there is no doubt that Swirl has a lower cost than TfL's plan. The total length of tunnel from New Malden to Clapham Junction is just 1km longer than the indirect tunnel from Wimbledon to Clapham Junction via Balham. This has an extra cost of about £100m. The sub-surface station at Earlsfield should be cheaper to build than the tunnelled station proposed for Balham, saving perhaps £100m. The tunnel "swap" is again a relatively simple construction, perhaps £200m. The primary difference is therefore is the large amount of work avoided at Wimbledon.

At Wimbledon, TfL is currently planning on demolishing the entire town centre. The main covered shopping mall, Centre Court, and many more buildings would be demolished to allow an additional four platforms to be built along with a long cut and cover box. The disruption caused will be immense. It is very hard to estimate the cost of this work, however £2bn does not seem like an unreasonable estimate. By contrast, Swirl requires minor changes to the existing station, plus some new tram tracks, for a far lower cost.

The Swirl plan provides better services to outer suburban services such as Surbiton, Claygate, Walton and Guildford. This comes from the ability to provide more services now that the outer suburban trains do not need to serve Earlsfield. These services will also save time without the need to stop at Earlsfield.

Swirl provides a better service to long distance services from places such as Portsmouth, Basingstoke, Winchester and Southampton. The benefit here is that the fast services will run via the new tunnel between New Malden and Earlsfield. The new tunnel will have a higher speed limit than the existing fast tracks on the surface. As such there would be a small journey time saving (which cost-benefit calculations tend to place a high benefit value on).

At Earlsfield, the new sub-surface station can be constructed south of the existing station and double ended (two exits, one at each end). This would provide an exit from the station to the far end of the Weir Road site. Assuming that the Weir Road site is still used for a train depot, there is no reason why the depot cannot be covered with a concrete deck. This allows the site to be used for massive development, with enhanced value thanks to the new station entrance/exit.

Additional notes

Update 2015-11-29: This section was added to provide some additional notes on Swirl primarily for TfL and Network Rail.

Swirl proposes the "tunnel swap" occurs at the Weir Road site. This is because it is known that the site is large enough at 1km long. However, there would be cost benefits to perform the swap north of Earlsfield alongside the cemetery. This is a much narrower site however. If the prison becomes available for redevelopment, it may be possible to use that site to make this alternate swap location more practical.

Swirl proposes the tunnel portal next to the A3 at New Malden. This is good for road access, but not the easiest in construction terms. The next possible portal site is north-east of Berrylands station, on the east side of the river north of some housing. That site has less good road access, but is completely off the railway, potentially making it easier to construct. A proper engineering analysis would be needed to compare the two sites.

Swirl has two elements - a fast line tunnel under Wimbledon and serving Earlsfield instead of Balham. It should be noted that the fast line tunnel part of Swirl is compatible with serving Balham, although the author does not believe that to be the best approach.

Relieving the Northern Line

Update 2015-12-10: Since serving the Northern Line is critical to Crossrail 2, the Swirl plan has been extended into the Swirl-Max plan, which serves Earlsfield, Balham, Tooting and Streatham. Swirl-Max is the version to be submitted to the TfL consultation.

Originally, this article proposed that the Northern Line could be relieved by extending the Northern Line Extension (West End branch) from Battersea Power station to Cedars Road on the Clapham/Battersea border and on to Clapham South and/or Balham. This option has now been dropped as further analysis showed it would not work.

Summary

Crossrail 2 Swirl is a detailed plan to provide a better solution for South West London, Surrey and Hampshire. It proposes a single tunnel from New Malden to Clapham Junction and beyond, with a tunnel "swap" between Wimbledon and Earlsfield. This avoids the need to destroy Wimbledon town centre, and saves around £1.5bn in the process. See the Swirl-Max plan for how Balham and Tooting would be served.

The October 2015 consultation is now closed, but readers are encouraged to continue to speak to politicians and others in power to fight for a better option for Crossrail 2. Use the term "Fast Line Tunnel" or "Crossrail 2 Swirl".

31 comments:

  1. It is an elegant, alternative proposal to this part of the CR2, which I agree has many advantages over TfL's current plan. What will you do next with it? Will you send it to TfL for comment? Could you make your analysis a little stronger by 1] a very clear table of comparable times to all relevant destinations. 2] firm up the costs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will be communicating Swirl to any and all interested parties I can find. It will form the basis of my consultation response, although it will have more of an impact if others also mention "Crossrail 2 Swirl". I'm happy to work on another article with a broader analysis of journey times. On costs, it is hard as the TfL public data is incomplete. I have an FOI request in to try and get more information.

      Delete
    2. I will certainly champion your proposal. I wish you luck with acquiring the necessary info through your FOI. Alas, I sense that TfL have already made their mind. Your proposal also needs to go to MPs for places such as Portsmouth, Basingstoke, Winchester and Southampton... as it clearly has benefits for their commuters.

      Delete
    3. The post on journey time analysis is now up: http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/crossrail-2-journey-time-modelling.html

      Delete
  2. In my view the current plans for CR2 aims to solve three pressing issues 1] the need to support regeneration through the Lea Valley 2] how to disperse traffic at Euston generated by HS2 and 3] how to improve capacity in south west London. However, TfL’s proposal, in my view, is a ‘Frankenstein’ of a solution that, given that CR2 will be using-up almost all of any available budget, for new rail in London, for perhaps more than a generation to come, is flawed.

    CR1 will be a success as it connects, directly, to the three main areas that commuters need/want to get to, West End, City and Canary Wharf. It benefits from being an east to west orientation. In this respect CR2 only has one stop and is far more like a ‘Thameslink’ in nature.

    I would take your Swirl design and from Earlsfield continue CR2 on a route across south London to Canary Wharf. From Earlsfield, to Stockwell [relieving both Victoria and Northern lines as it would take all east bound traffic to Canary Wharf ], Camberwell [ a new Thameslink station], Old Kent Road [ Bakerloo extension], Surrey Quays [LO], Canary Wharf [some funding, much obliged], North Greenwich, City Airport[funding? yes please] Barking Riverside [planned new station], finally connecting to C2C at Dagenham Dock. Far more commuters will benefit from direct access to Canary Wharf from south West London [and now those from Essex] and there are a range of connections to places commuters want to get to.

    I know I stray into 'crayonista' mode and I could go on about why Cr2 is currently flawed... but thank you for listening...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your analysis of CR2 sucking up all funding for years is well made, but there are clearly limits to how far the scheme can now be challenged. I believe Swirl stays with in the limits (because TfL itself just changed the route to Balham). I have also argued for a second central London stop at Green Park or in the Leicester Square area, something I may return to.

      In my opinion, the route you mention is too far south to attract enough traffic, especially off peak. As such it would have a poor BCR. See my older "wink" option article for my views on a more radical change to CR2 (which I'm not actively pursuing at the moment).
      http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/crossrail-2-wink-option.html

      Delete
  3. Minor points: change Extisting to Existing, in your third image.

    And smooth the kink in the fast line tunnel in your diagram, in the second image.

    Finally:
    Try and speak to strategic transport officers in the various local authorities, to see if they will champion this excellent plan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the minor points. The trouble with the local authorities is that LB Wandsworth is going to prefer Tooting then Balham, and LB Merton seems to quite like destroying Wimbledon (not sure why yet). That leaves LB Sutton and LB Kingston.

      Delete
  4. The Swirl route is a great idea and I mostly agree with it. The only problem I have is that I see no reason why Crossrail 2 must terminate at Epsom. I live in Dorking and the existing SouthWestern and Southern service are slow and stop at every station. So extending Crossrail 2 to Dorking and even Horsham would mean slightly quicker journeys to central London and easier access to the West End/Kings Cross :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I chose to keep the issue of Swirl (which is primarily about Earlsfield and Wimbledon) separate from the question of where CR2 should serve.

      Basically, there are lots of options as to where CR2 services should go and where Waterloo services should go. Swirl just follows Network Rail's current proposal, but at consultation events they have indicated that the current destinations are just their current thinking on the matter. Send in a consultation response if you want to suggest Dorking!

      Ideally, Dorking wants the Mole Valley Link - http://ukrail.blogspot.com/2013/03/mole-valley-link.html - but I doubt that is coming any time soon!

      Delete
  5. Stephen,

    Would sending the 4 Hampton Court trains to Dorking via your mole valley link instead be feasible?

    There are strong local rumours of a new dual carriageway linking the M25 to the A3 in the vicinity of your mooted link. See http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=35090

    I wonder whether a rail link built at the same time is feasible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the link. I'm not surprised by the suggestion of a new road there, as its an obvious route. The Hook junction will need an upgrade too though, especially to allow A3 northbound to Esher. Building a new rail link at the same time would make sense and could also stimulate development. Not sure I've got the time to campaign for it mind you!

      If the Mole Valley Link did exist, my choice would be to send all Dorking to Waterloo trains via it, but to Waterloo, not CR2. I'd extend CR2 from Epsom to Effingham Junction to handle Ashstead. Running CR2 to Dorking strikes me as just a little bit too far for a primarily metro service.

      With the development going on, there will also be a fair chance of extending the Chessington South branch, so it would be possible to get two new routes to Leatherhead, not one.

      Delete
  6. This is very interesting and insightful but the lack of any solution for the problems suffered by the Northern Line is a flaw.
    It's vital to remember WHY Crossrail 2 is being built - it's to improve transport links to major hubs - and one consideration has to be St George's Hospital which has over 10,000 people going there every day; all having to rely on Tooting Broadway, there are no other stations in reasonable walking distance. Surrounding roads are chaotic dangerous bottlenecks.
    The Balham Bulge does NOTHING to address this and has not been thought through, but there is another overground option that could possibly be added to your Swirl solution - by utilising the underused line between Wimbledon & Kings Cross/London Bridge and building a St George's Station on the line that runs a few hundred yards from St George's Hospital front entrance, so many problems could be easily solved (this line also seems to have an option to link to Balham) - OK, so it is overground, but that's what is good about your Swirl proposal - joined-up thinking!
    Or have I missed the point?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The article includes a brief paragraph on relieving the Northern Line at the end. However, I've been looking at a wide range of options there. I hope to publish my thoughts within the week.

      There is no doubt that St.Georges is a major destination and better access would be welcome. As you say, an extra station on the Wimbledon to Streatham line would be practically outside the hospital and is a good idea. However, although that line is underutilised, the line from Streatham to London is not. As such, it is all a question of how to get sufficient train services to any new station.

      What cannot work is diverting all CR2 trains from Kingston/Chessington/Epsom via that route. It is simply too big a diversion, adding too much to journey times. (And shorter journey times is how schemes like this are justified to the treasury). Stay tuned though, as two of my options for Northern Line relief include this line.

      Delete
    2. Just to update this comment. I published a separate blog - Swirl-Max - which extends the Swirl plan with a branch to serve Balham, Streatham, Tooting and Haydons Road, with a surface station on the A24 to serve St.Georges. I believe that the Swirl-Max plan (which was my consultation response) meets, and in fact exceeds, TfL's goals for the project with respect to Northern line relief (and would provide better Victoria line relief as well).

      http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/crossrail-2-swirl-max-relieving.html

      Delete
  7. The Sussex Area Route Study published in September proposes an increase in the number if trains on the Wimbledon loop to 3-4 per hour to cope with the pressures from Streatham to London. There are real issues about future capacity into central London from this part of South London. It has missed out on both Crossrail2 and the Bakerloo extension. The TfL answer seems to be to build Crossrail2 and then see whether there is then capacity on the Victoria Line which would allow it to be extended southward. In the meantime, it looks like more and more buses on the A23.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Fascinating alternative proposal which you have clearly spent a lot of time on. As a Wimbledon resident, the news that our entire town centre is to be demolished to facilitate tfl's plans has come as a great shock. Wimbledon will become a dirty, noisy major construction site for the next 15/20 years with the loss of hundreds of thriving businesses and thousands of jobs. Traffic is already gridlocked here but with these works, traffic will quite literally grind to a halt. Your plan for a tunnel portal on the A3 would solve this problem. The current proposals provide no benefit for Wimbledon or its residents (at least for the next 20 years). I will certainly be telling all my contacts to look up your Blog and to write to tfl suggesting they consider this cheaper option which would avoid the need to wipe Wimbledon off the map. Agree with you that the local Merton Council seems to want major redevelopment in Wimbledon but Merton needs to realise it will lose hundreds of thousands of pounds in lost business rates while all the work is going on and those businesses may never return. I imagine most Wimbledon residents will be hightailing it down the A3 to resettle in Surrey once they realise the full extent of what is proposed.

    ReplyDelete
  9. While the present plans for Wimbledon seem excessive, this goes too far in the other direction. Wimbledon station needs to be knocked down and built again to improve its current levels of use, let alone any extra use brought by Crossrail, so your proposals do not remove the need for lots of work at Wimbledon.

    Your proposal also doesn't seem to remove the need for some Wimbledon building demolition in order to bring the trams to street level without clogging traffic. Have you had any thoughts about which buildings you would demolish under your scheme?

    I am also intrigued, given the unreliability of Thameslink services, about the prospect of other services sharing their platforms without a knock-on effect. Do you have any thoughts about that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Taking the points in turn.

      Wimbledon station does indeed need work to improve it, however it cannot just be "knocked down" as that would block all the lines to SW London, Surrey and Hampshire. I envisage Swirl requiring a new northern footbridge with access to Alexandra Road. If the shopping centre is redeveloped at some point, an additional access to Queens Road could be provided then. Once the new footbridge is in place, the current one would be closed and replaced, including a new station entrance (with passengers using the Alexandra Road entrance and north footbridge during those works).

      I believe that platforms 5, 6, 7, and 8 are wide enough to manage the proposed service (20tph of Crossrail 2 and a similar number of outer suburban with cross-platform interchange. Remember that there would be no suicide barriers as the fast trains would be gone, thus the platforms would feel much wider.

      The trams do need to be brought to street level. The best way to achieve this is to bridge over the SWML south of the station, taking the office buildings behind Little Waitrose. This provides potential to extend the tram up to Wimbledon Village. I argue that demolishing those offices would not be nearly as devastating to Wimbledon.

      On Thameslink, the Swirl plan detailed above proposes 10tph of Crossrail 2 plus 4tph of Thameslink on two through platforms, with Crossrail 2 trains turning around in sidings south of the station. However, the final version of the plan submitted to the consultation (Swirl-Max) proposes to split the Thameslink loop. The 4tph from Sutton would terminate in platform 10 (extended south under the station deck). The 10tph Crossrail 2 would terminate in platform 9 and a new platform 11 built as a bay partly within the length of the existing platforms 9 and 10 (these 10tph would not be heavily loaded, and the northern footbridge would mean that platform 11 would not be too remote). See the Swirl-Max article for more info.

      Delete
    2. I like Swirl. I have proposed to TFL the following solution to the St George's problem. When the tram is moved to street level (up Hartfield Road presumably), instead of just running it round the Wimbledon one-way system, continue it along Queens Road, thence move it onto the Thameslink loop just beyond Haydens road station and then cut it across the end of Lambeth Cemetry into St George's hospital car park. Or continue it along the rail line to terminate at Streatham Road.

      It seems the Haydens Road loop will become unusable under the current Crossrail 2 plans - I was unable to find anyone at the consultation in Wimbledon who knew what wes intended for the loop. The Sutton side could become anoth route for Crossrail 2 trains, terminating at Sutton with turn-back sidings at Cheam - there used to be 4 tracks over this stretch.

      Delete
    3. Extending the tram to St.Georges doesn't solve the problem of the loop, because something still has to serve Tooting (mainline). Taking the tram to Streatham Road doesn't really help either, as it provides journey disbenefits to lots of existing users without offering enough of a better alternative. As such, any tram extension would have to go to Streatham at least, which bumps up the cost.

      The loop will remain unaltered under TfL's current plans. The issue is that TfL intends to have only one platform for the loop at Wimbledon, as now. This will forever limit the capacity of the loop, and as such is a crazy plan.

      Extending Crossrail 2 to Cheam is hard as it would involve a reversal at Sutton. Extending just to Sutton is hard, as adding platforms there is tricky.

      See my Swirl-Max plan to understand how I'd tackle the loop (Haydons Road and Tooting move to CR2, with Mitcham, Hackbridge and the eastern loop getting 4tph not the current 2tph.

      Delete
  10. Thank you for attending the meeting for local residents yesterday and presenting your proposals. Your constructive suggestions are very much appreciated.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Your tunnel swap diagram appears to show the two fast lines emerging from the Weir Road site onto a route south of the two outer suburban lines going to Clapham Junction and Waterloo whereas currently the fast lines go into Waterloo to the north. I'm not sure if I missed something but how will that work at Waterloo?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The diagram does indeed show exactly what you describe. There are three ways to address the concern.

      1) Extend the short platforms at Waterloo to 12 car, with the fast services remaining on the south side.

      2) Build a flyover between Earlsfield and Clapham Junction to swap the fast services from the south side to the north side.

      3) Alter the Weir Road layout to include a dive under that brings the fast trains out of the tunnel, then through the dive under to the north side.

      I have no particular view as to which of these is the best option.

      Delete
    2. I love the your Swirl proposal but the feasibility and impact needs further assessment.

      1) Reconfiguring services at Waterloo at first glance seems the simplest of the above options to engineer but that would be a big upheaval for such a busy station and I wonder if it could realistically manage such a revolutionary change.
      2)Speed limitations over flyovers like the current one on the eastbound slow line do slow down services, which may not be acceptable on the fast line. Even if a very lengthy one with minimal deviation is feasible, could you also avoid a significant gradient? Could this be built without disrupting existing services?
      3) I have no idea as to the feasibility of a twin track dive under the 2 suburban tracks to the north, but it seems to be a large an undertaking. It would need to be very long to avoid a sharp deviation and the two Suburban lines would then need re-routing across to the south. Both layouts would mesh into existing lines during construction so, assuming it's possible to sequence, I cannot see how disruption to existing services can be avoided both during construction and then prior to Crossrail opening.

      I'm trying to see which of the 3 options would not significantly impact the existing rail services, a requirement stated by TfL for obvious reasons. Although you have no views as to which of the 3 options is the best, do you have an initial assessment or further thoughts addressing my observations?

      Delete
    3. Reconfiguring Waterloo station has been investigated by Network Rail and is feasible with a hefty price tag of £500m. On your other points and final comment, it is true that CR2 will involve disruption to the existing services, all major projects do. However, the experts should work to minimise that. I hope we will see a public report detailing their findings on a fast line tunnel and the various options considered at each end.

      Delete
  12. Stephen - Good to talk to you last night. Suggest "Fast Track Tunnels" as a better name than Swirl. Also suggest, have you have 2 Fast Track Tunnels - one is CJ to somewhere west of New Malden (as you suggest); other is from Battersea Park to south of Balham. Then 4 tracking the Victoria - Euston (following the line of the 1980 BR plan) with underground stations at only Victoria, TCR and Euston. From Clapham Junction, run 2 CR2 tracks (on LBSCR fasts) to Balham and 2 CR2 tracks (on LSWR fasts to Wimbledon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, good to chat. There are clearly other locations in London where a fast line tunnel makes sense. Battersea to Bromley being the most notable, as it would allow a metro local service on that line, but also provide capacity for Crystal Palace and Streatham to Victoria via Herne Hill. Right now, the battle is Crossrail 2 where a fast line tunnel remains a viable option.

      Delete
  13. Just been reading some information on Crossrail 2 and wondered what happened to the Swirl Crossrail 2 plans. Will they be part of a new consultation proposal ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TfL have evaluated Swirl as part of their response to the last consultation. We don't know what their current preferred option is as the project is in limbo until finances are sorted. If the next consultation doesn't recommend Swirl, everyone is free to respond to the next consultation mentioning it!

      Delete
  14. It seems like the crossrail2 website - http://crossrail2.co.uk/route/route-map/ - are only considering Balham and Tooting. I see no mention of Earlsfield in the plans as yet. As a resident of Earlsfield, I am concerned that we might miss out potentially, as locations near to Crossrail 2, will soon become sought after. It certainly seems crazy to demolish half of Wimbledon town centre. Even if Balham and Tooting were the desired routes, it would be good if there was still an easy connection via Earlsfield (as you say a smaller sub-station). There is plenty of industry in Earslfield, that I am sure could be relocated to make way for another station in Earlsfield. It is indeed extremely crowded during peak times and could do with another line to ease congestion.

    ReplyDelete