tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59257034520514534682024-02-27T15:51:44.479+00:00UK RailProposals for sensible investment in UK RailStephen Colebournehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01454237967846880639noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-44427517159153183102018-12-17T02:08:00.000+00:002018-12-19T23:40:48.415+00:00Sutton Link tram - Option 4<p>
The <a href="https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/trams/sutton-link/">Sutton Link</a> is a proposal by TfL together with the London boroughs of Merton and Sutton for a new high-capacity connection between Sutton town centre and Merton. The link is proposed to use a tram or bus rapid transit (BRT).
</p>
<h4>TfL's options</h4>
<p>
TfL have presented three options to consultation:
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPiz2SGZYpfJd0ZP-7CGzfTDmVy_XoASEJqF2hOb2dXmK1-gqVs7ipuvFmTANgRy-oKG8KImiISAkbK7MVqd7C7SqCYaAEoYyn2khZMYw3bidEmea0TmAdKG6UM3PLN07mdZjN7jT4oE4r/s1600/sutton-link-options-1-2-3-map.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPiz2SGZYpfJd0ZP-7CGzfTDmVy_XoASEJqF2hOb2dXmK1-gqVs7ipuvFmTANgRy-oKG8KImiISAkbK7MVqd7C7SqCYaAEoYyn2khZMYw3bidEmea0TmAdKG6UM3PLN07mdZjN7jT4oE4r/s640/sutton-link-options-1-2-3-map.jpg" width="452" height="640" data-original-width="1131" data-original-height="1600" /></a></div>
<p>
Option 1 runs from Sutton to South Wimbledon via Rosehill, avoiding the centre of Morden.
Unfortunately, South Wimbledon is not a major destination, so demand on this section is likely to be only for passengers changing to the Northern line.
However, the actual terminus is likely to be at Nelson Gardens, a public park 130m short of South Wimbledon tube station (I don't know this for certain, but it is my interpretation of the consultation documents).
My opinion is that South Wimbledon is not sufficient a destination to justify the proposed investment. In addition, my view is that not enough passengers would find the interchange to the Northern line at South Wimbledon attractive, nor would they want to use the interchange to the existing tram to travel to Wimbledon.
Option 1 is a dud.
</p>
<p>
Option 2 runs from Sutton to Colliers Wood via Rosehill, totally missing the centre of Morden.
While Colliers Wood is a bigger destination than South Wimbledon, it is still not a major destination justifying a tram at this point.
The option as a whole simply looks like two separate schemes joined together, with a low likelihood of generating through journeys.
Colliers Wood would make sense as a branch of the existing Croydon tram, with services from Colliers Wood to Croydon, but it makes no sense as a route to Sutton. Option 2 is a dud.
</p>
<p>
Option 3 runs from central Wimbledon to Sutton by taking over most of the existing underutilised railway line.
Unlike options 1 and 2, this gets passengers directly into Wimbledon as well as Sutton, providing a key end-to-end link.
One of the key success points of the Croydon tram is that passengers use it to travel from Wimbledon to Croydon.
Replicating that success will be key to passenger numbers on the Sutton Link, and that means it absolutely must run from central Wimbledon to Sutton. While option 3 is the best of the three TfL options, it fails to reach Rosehill and Angel Hill, which are seen as key destinations for the scheme.
</p>
<h4>A better choice - option 4</h4>
<p>
I find all three options presented by TfL to be weak. I struggle to see any of the three generating enough passenger journeys or funding.
As such, I present option 4 (in red below), which combines the northern part of option 3 with the southern part of options 1/2, using a novel route to link them:
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgANh9_bhL0FxYo1T0DyeAhGVmlgw98tBo-Hv7qOZ6WNn1WVwZhEjiuhELEKOoLjimnS0FPakoWr9pcPjWzA-pMHQDw_RBT1Z5PyNgv7nH2MkXJNJaMz3cT_JlLfoafcyeeQQv6DM-AzMWi/s1600/Options1234.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgANh9_bhL0FxYo1T0DyeAhGVmlgw98tBo-Hv7qOZ6WNn1WVwZhEjiuhELEKOoLjimnS0FPakoWr9pcPjWzA-pMHQDw_RBT1Z5PyNgv7nH2MkXJNJaMz3cT_JlLfoafcyeeQQv6DM-AzMWi/s640/Options1234.png" width="377" height="640" data-original-width="942" data-original-height="1600" /></a></div>
<p>
Here is more detail of the central section:
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGU1D4wLJls9_OyXiuEi7xcgFbGu154Ox71F_PDZgtEO3PbFBVOEhV17HM34BkiqX9uqivAhJnnH-vGvnT1G6bSLHVpQWF5wQG5zw3zBoj1koErUIMaT_5vN_-s7LIO0SVrfm75phyyFbM/s1600/Option4.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGU1D4wLJls9_OyXiuEi7xcgFbGu154Ox71F_PDZgtEO3PbFBVOEhV17HM34BkiqX9uqivAhJnnH-vGvnT1G6bSLHVpQWF5wQG5zw3zBoj1koErUIMaT_5vN_-s7LIO0SVrfm75phyyFbM/s640/Option4.png" width="407" height="640" data-original-width="956" data-original-height="1502" /></a></div>
<p>
Routes that combined rail and on-street sections were considered and rejected by TfL in their analysis partly because of the difficulty of reaching street level from rail level. Option 4 solves that problem by making the connection alongside Morden Park, where there is plenty of available land and the height difference is minimal.
For more pictures, see the <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/jodastephen/albums/72157703759982795">photo album</a>.
This picture shows the area alongside Morden Park:
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/jodastephen/45220371654/" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4910/45220371654_196fba35bd_k.jpg" width="400" height="267" data-original-width="800" data-original-height="533" /></a></div>
<p>
Option 4 then continues south down the A24 to Merton College, which is also the site of local leisure facilities. The A24 is a dual carriageway at this point, but this road width is completely unnecessary, so taking half the road for the tram will not be a problem.
From there, option 4 follows Green Lane to Rosehill, where it joins the option 1/2 route via Angel Hill to Sutton.
</p>
<p>
Option 4 has a number of key benefits. Firstly, it serves Merton College and leisure facilities, generating lots of local journeys.
Secondly, it serves Rosehill and Angel Hill, which I believe are seen as key to the scheme by TfL and local politicians.
Thirdly, it frees up a lot of land.
</p>
<p>
For completeness, the map includes option 4a and 4b as variants. Option 4a omits Merton College and has a more difficult ramp from rail level to street level. Option 4b avoids Green Lane to serve more of St Helier Avenue. In both cases, my view is that the main option 4 is simpler and more beneficial.
</p>
<h4>Money</h4>
<p>
The harsh reality of a scheme like the Sutton Link is that it needs to be funded at a time when TfL finances are hugely stretched.
But this part of London is well established and has limited development options (and development is where the money mainly comes from).
The main sites earmarked are apparently as Rosehill.
But option 4 offers something different to all three TfL options - lots of spare land.
</p>
<p>
With option 4, the existing railway line from Morden South to West Sutton would close. While not all would be available for development (due to limited access), a large amount would be available. It is the money from developing this land that would, in my view, provide the only realistic funding stream for the whole Sutton Link scheme.
</p>
<h4>Summary</h4>
<p>
Option 1 and 2 from TfL would be expensive and unsuccessful.
Option 3 is better in that it serves Wimbledon town centre, but doesn't serve Rosehill.
</p>
<p>
I strongly believe option 4 outlined above is a much better choice.
It gets the benefit of a fast, traffic free route into central Wimbledon, while still serving Rosehill and Angel Hill.
And it has the key bonus of providing development land suitable for funding the entire scheme.
</p>
<p>
I encourage you to <a href="https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/trams/sutton-link/">respond to the consultation</a> before the 6th January 2019 deadline!
</p>
Stephen Colebournehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01454237967846880639noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-63151500803055494302017-11-07T00:31:00.000+00:002017-11-07T00:31:24.097+00:00Crossrail 2: TfL has a plan B. Will it work?<p>
Public news on Crossrail 2 is very limited, however it is slowly becoming clear that TfL has a plan to try and move the project forward. Whether it succeeds or not, depends on the Government.
</p>
<h4>Plan B</h4>
<p>
There was supposed to be a consultation on Crossrail 2 in late Autumn last year, 2016.
It was stopped at the last minute, when the Government asked for more details on the business case.
</p>
<p>
So, TfL went away and produced a business case with the goal of funding half the cost of the project.
But when the meeting with the Transport Secretary came in July 2017, it was clear that they hadn't entirely seen eye to eye.
</p>
<p>
What has become clear since is that TfL has now been asked to fund half the cost <b>during construction</b>.
This is a much harder task, as TfL is already at maximum borrowing, and much of the money coming in for the next 15 years or so is allocated to paying off Crossrail 1.
</p>
<p class="quote">
One of the asks the government made of us was to pay for half the costs of Crossrail 2 in real time, so not simply paying it after the event, but paying during the course of construction. We think that's onerous and difficult, but we're trying to meet the needs of the government.<br>
<a href="http://www.cityam.com/275224/london-mayor-confident-crossrail-2s-revised-funding-plans">Sadiq Khan</a>
</p>
<p>
The Crossrail 2 team needed a Plan B.
</p>
<p>
Based on various snippets of information, I believe that the Plan B involves splitting the project into at least 2 phases.
Phase 1 would need to be quick to build and relatively cheap.
Once phase 1 is open, money from farepayers starts flowing in, and that can be used to fund phase 2.
</p>
<p class="quote">
We've looked at the way you construct this, so what cash you have to spend at different stages of construction to ensure that you don't have to pay everything upfront for the whole scheme all at once. So what you do is you pay enough money to get certain sections of it delivered first of all, and then you pay some more further on.<br>
<a href="http://www.cityam.com/275224/london-mayor-confident-crossrail-2s-revised-funding-plans">Mike Brown, TfL commissioner</a>
</p>
<p>
Other reports have mentioned a <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/a1257c0a-a4f2-11e7-b797-b61809486fe2">10 year delay</a> in Crossrail 2, which fits with this Plan B. ie. a 10 year delay to full completion of the project, not the opening of the first phase.
</p>
<h4>But what is Plan B?</h4>
<p>
The short answer is we don't know. However we can do some thought experiments.
</p>
<p>
Crossrail 2 as a whole is designed to tackle numerous problems (too many in fact, but that is a discussion for another day).
Specifically it is intended to tackle overcrowding on the Northern line, Piccadilly line, Victoria line, overcrowding at Euston, and enable perhaps 80,000+ houses in the Lea Valley and 50,000+ south of Chessington.
But meeting these goals makes the scheme expensive.
For phase 1, the project has to be viewed entirely differently.
</p>
<p>
<b>Phase 1 needs to deliver the highest farepayer revenue for the lowest cost in a short time period.</b>
</p>
<p>
Enabling housing development is a good thing, but it tends to have a long payback period, as houses don't pop up overnight.
Thus, our thought experiment suggests that house building would not be a big driver of phase 1, so no need to focus on either the Lea Valley or Chessington.
</p>
<p>
Whereas providing extra capacity at Euston by 2033 is repeatedly mentioned as being necessary.
Thus, our thought experiment suggests that Euston is required in phase 1.
</p>
<p>
A lot of work has already been done at Tottenham Court Road as part of the Crossrail 1 project, and at Victoria as part of the upgrade there.
Thus, our thought experiment suggests that the Euston - Tottenham Court Road - Victoria section will be part of phase 1.
</p>
<p>
Other leaks have suggested that Chelsea's station may be for the chop.
Thus, our thought experiment should probably exclude that.
</p>
<p>
Now it gets interesting.
Phase 1 cannot consist just of Euston - Tottenham Court Road - Victoria because two things are missing.
There is no depot to maintain the trains and there is nowhere for the tunnelling machines to work from.
Thus, phase 1 must extend either north of Euston or south of Victoria.
</p>
<p>
Heading north is cheap. All the <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/299935/response/747714/attach/3/image001.png?cookie_passthrough=1">cheap stations to build</a> are in the north.
But, many of the farepayers would currently be using the tube (Victoria or Piccadilly), so this wouldn't be new money for TfL. (Fewer passengers on the tube balanced by more passengers on Crossrail 2, thus not much genuine new money.)
</p>
<p>
Heading south is more expensive. Clapham Junction, Tooting Broadway and Wimbledon are all in the <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/299935/response/747714/attach/3/image001.png?cookie_passthrough=1">top 2 bands of cost</a>.
But, a lot of the fare revenue would be moving from the South West suburban to TfL.
Another key aspect is that the depot was planned to be Weir Road, Wimbledon.
</p>
<p>
So, our thought experiment only gets us so far.
Overall, I believe that phase 1 would need to include Clapham Junction to get revenue from the south.
And just building Clapham Junction to Euston would be enough to get a decent amount of extra fare revenue.
</p>
<p>
Beyond the Clapham to Euston section, its pretty much total guesswork.
I could make a case for these and many other routes: to Streatham Hill (surface) via Balham (underground), Wimbledon (surface) via Earlsfield (surface), Lea Valley via Tottenham Hale, the Shoreditch High Street development site (surface) via Angel (underground).
We'll just have to see.
</p>
<h4>Summary</h4>
<p>
Crossrail 2, as planned, was too expensive for the Government, and it has basically told TfL to figure out a cheaper approach.
TfL's plan B looks to be a two (or three) phase approach, getting fare revenue in as soon as possible to pay for phase 2.
My thought experiment suggests Clapham Junction - Victoria - Tottenham Court Road - Euston will be in phase 1, but there needs to be something else to reach a depot and tunnelling site.
</p>
<p>
Thoughts welcome!
</p>
Stephen Colebournehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01454237967846880639noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-18725447095912730922017-01-19T23:29:00.000+00:002017-01-20T14:22:23.702+00:00Metropolitan Line Southern Extension?<p>
The Transport Secretary, Chris Grayling, recently <a href="http://www.londonreconnections.com/2017/overgrounded-how-londons-dream-of-rail-devolution-died/">killed off</a> the plan to allow the London Mayor to take over the Network Rail lines in South East London. This was despite a high benefit:cost ratio and broad agreement between all groups concerned earlier in 2016.
</p>
<p>
Given this, and the difficulty more generally of providing enough capacity in south London, this blog considers an alternative plan to provide additional capacity for South East London.
</p>
<h4>Metropolitan Line Southern Extension</h4>
<p>
South East London has a reasonable network of rail lines, and they reach two good central London terminals at Cannon Street and Charing Cross. But the time is fast approaching when that network is simply beyond capacity. Rather than look at Crossrail 3, or other super-expensive solutions requiring a new tunnel across Central London, it is time to consider extending the Metropolitan Line. Such an approach would complement the proposed <a href="https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/how-we-work/planning-for-the-future/bakerloo-line-extension">Bakerloo Line extension</a> to Lewisham.
</p>
<p>
Having looked at the options, an extension to Abbey Wood seems to make the most sense. In this scenario, the Elizabeth line (Crossrail 1) would extend to Dartford (or beyond) using the existing tracks:
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigpeJsCcAtYpvvowjzJ_VJ-q_8ZCFnkxM2HJfVpqUYd5hfbbr9FUXTvomdHN_CShrXgno5uwsHFPFMCNpXZ1uCaguW_qH5wHVBqfv3Ziav_4pFNbkwR387YDCq1NkKlNG_yaJTE-M4q8hP/s1600/MetSEExtend2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigpeJsCcAtYpvvowjzJ_VJ-q_8ZCFnkxM2HJfVpqUYd5hfbbr9FUXTvomdHN_CShrXgno5uwsHFPFMCNpXZ1uCaguW_qH5wHVBqfv3Ziav_4pFNbkwR387YDCq1NkKlNG_yaJTE-M4q8hP/s640/MetSEExtend2.png" width="640" height="352" /></a></div>
<p>
The full route would be as follows:
</p>
<ul>
<li>Aldgate - rebuilt, interchange with District line</li>
<li>City Hall - new underground station</li>
<li>Bermondsey - underground interchange with Jubilee line</li>
<li>Surrey Quays - underground interchange with Overground</li>
<li>Deptford</li>
<li>Greenwich - interchange with DLR</li>
<li>Maze Hill</li>
<li>Westcombe Park</li>
<li>Charlton - interchange with service to Lewisham & Victoria</li>
<li>Woolwich Dockyard</li>
<li>Woolwich Arsenal - interchange with DLR</li>
<li>Plumstead</li>
<li>Abbey Wood - interchange with Elizabeth line (Crossrail 1)</li>
</ul>
<p>
For comparison, here is the existing map:
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-32oWYSU4u1F7QCixzGbZG385LFf3MoS7YjDwskDMUlRgEYSl4Edi6_aArKsE-FzG20DjgHk215Vxh_4Itgrflc5zZrNNQbDUFbx8P0kaCXO7Dj2ypUyZ_vmkQFDDSagm3Mi7fZN9sSH7/s1600/MetSENow.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-32oWYSU4u1F7QCixzGbZG385LFf3MoS7YjDwskDMUlRgEYSl4Edi6_aArKsE-FzG20DjgHk215Vxh_4Itgrflc5zZrNNQbDUFbx8P0kaCXO7Dj2ypUyZ_vmkQFDDSagm3Mi7fZN9sSH7/s640/MetSENow.png" width="640" height="352" /></a></div>
<p>
The first question to ask is whether it is possible to extend the Metropolitan Line at Aldgate, the current terminus.
</p>
<p>
Given this is a site at the edge of the City, it is certainly tricky, but it seems that it should be feasible. Just south of the existing Aldgate station is a large bus station (behind the buffer stops in the second picture). The extension would use the bus station site to develop the new interchange station using standard top-down construction. To provide space, the Metropolitan line and Hammersmith & City line trains would have to terminate at Liverpool Street during the works, with the Circle line ceasing to run. The goal of the construction would be to build a four platform station - two platforms for the District line above two platforms for the Metropolitan line.
</p>
<p>
The Metropolitan line trains would need to descend from the current level to be beneath the District line. This would be achieved using the site of the existing Aldgate station (the first picture). Once complete, the tracks would be covered over, and the station turned into a bus station. The site of the new station (the existing bus station) would be developed.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8167/7422609092_6d5c2c2da9_k.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8167/7422609092_6d5c2c2da9_k.jpg" width="640" height="360" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7125/7422609448_02ea2995a1_k.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7125/7422609448_02ea2995a1_k.jpg" width="640" height="360" /></a></div>
<p>
Once complete and open, the service patterns of the existing lines would change radically. There would be no Circle line and no Hammersmith & City line. District line trains would all run from Earls Court through Victoria and Tower Hill to Whitechapel. Similarly, Metropolitan line trains from Hammersmith and Harrow would all run through Liverpool Street and on to Greenwich and Abbey Wood. In the west, a shuttle service would run from Edgeware Road to Gloucester Road in place of the existing Circle line. This service pattern eliminates most of the flat junctions from the District and Metropolitan lines, making services much more reliable and able to run at a higher frequency. Note that the loss of services from Liverpool Street to Whitechapel (the current Hammersmith & City line) is mitigated by the Elizabeth line, which runs on exactly that route.
</p>
<p>
Constructing the rest of the proposed extension is relatively easy by comparison with Aldgate station. It would involve two tunnel boring machines and three underground stations. The station at City Hall would be entirely new. The station at Bermondsey would be an underground interchange, designed for ease of use, while the station at Surrey Quays would require a rebuild of the Overground station as well.
</p>
<p>
The Bermondsey interchange is key to the success of the plan, because it provides passengers from the extended Metropolitan line a simple change to reach the West End. Journeys such as Greenwich to Bond Street become a pleasure, with one simple well-designed interchange. This is vital, as it greatly increases the time benefits to passengers, boosting the business case.
</p>
<p>
The final piece of the puzzle will be a tunnel portal location to access Deptford. One possibility would be to use the land of the New Cross branch of the Overground. Such an approach would allow more Overground services to run to Clapham Junction, Crystal Palace and/or West Croydon, but would also require the Metropolitan extension to have a short branch to New Cross.
</p>
<h4>Costs and Benefits</h4>
<p>
The benefits of this scheme are not limited to the line through Greenwich, because the scheme would free up paths into Cannon Street. (No services would run from Greenwich to Cannon Street - the line through Greenwich would be transferred from Network Rail to TfL.) Currently, there are 7 trains per hour from Greenwich to Cannon Street between 7am and 9am. These paths would be reallocated to other services, benefiting passengers on other lines, including the routes to Sevenoaks, Hayes, Bexleyheath and Sidcup.
</p>
<p>
Passengers currently using services from Greenwich would still have direct trains to the City, but would have a choice of Aldgate, Liverpool Street and Moorgate instead of Cannon Street. Passengers for London Bridge would get off at City Hall, while passengers for the West End would change at Bermondsey. As such, existing passengers would not see major changes to their journeys causing disbenefits.
</p>
<p>
Costs are always hard to estimate, but a rough guess can be based on 5km of tunnelling, four underground stations and line conversion works on takeover from Network Rail. Say £500m for the tunnels, £1bn for Aldgate, £2bn shared between the other three underground stations, and £1.5bn of other work, suggests a possible total of £5bn. This compares with £3bn for the Bakerloo line extension, so the cost estimate seems sound enough.
</p>
<p>
The cost of extending the Elizabeth line to Dartford would need separate examination. I'd note that initially, the Metropolitan line extension could run to Charlton, rather than Abbey Wood to side-step that problem.
</p>
<h4>Summary</h4>
<p>
This is a proposal to extend the Metropolitan line from Aldgate to South East London, taking over the line from Deptford to Abbey Wood via Greenwich and Charlton. It provides a step change in service to that line, a radically simpler and more reliable service on the District line, and an additional 7 peak-hour paths into Cannon Street for the rest of South East London and Kent. And all for around £5bn.
</p>
<p>
Given that there won't be a TfL run South Eastern Overground any time soon, a plan like this may well be the best way to improve rail services in this part of London. Thoughts welcome!
</p>
Stephen Colebournehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01454237967846880639noreply@blogger.com25tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-74201565041680537842016-11-04T01:23:00.001+00:002016-11-04T01:25:27.952+00:00South London rail devolution<p>
TfL recently published a new document on south London rail devolution in response to a Government request.
This blog examines what it says for South East and South Central London.
</p>
<h4>Rail devolution in south london</h4>
<p>
The <a href="http://content.tfl.gov.uk/rail-devolution-business-case-narrative.pdf">new document</a> provides a narrative and formal business case for devolution from the Department for Transport (DfT) to Transport for London (TfL). The headline benefit/cost ratio (BCR) is 4.3 : 1, which is high value for money, and difficult for DfT to argue with, however devolution is by no means certain, with the new Transport Secretary being more cautious on the topic than his predecessor.
</p>
<p>
The document focuses on a number of themes. It makes the case that long distance travelers will not lose out, something that will be key in making the plan happen. It argues that there is considerable scope for additional housing, currently held back through poor rail services. Fiscal neutrality is claimed, so the Treasury is no worse off. And wide stakeholder support is identifier, with many supporting letters.
</p>
<p>
All in all, considering TfL and the Mayor had just three and a half weeks to pull it together, it is pretty impressive.
The most interesting part however is appendix 5, where the concept of "metro-isation" is examined.
</p>
<h4>Metro-isation of rail in south London</h4>
<p>
Due to history, the tube does not extend far into south London. This results in pressure on mainline rail, with an extensive network of tracks and stations. However, while the network is relatively dense, it is also tangled. Service patterns are complex and low frequency, often only two trains per hour 2tph.
The key question is what would it take to increase frequencies to 6tph on most lines?
</p>
<p>
TfL identifies six points that need to be addressed:
</p>
<ul>
<li>Predictable services</li>
<li>Better connections</li>
<li>More capacity</li>
<li>Shorter journey times</li>
<li>Reliability</li>
<li>Better customer service</li>
</ul>
<p>
For details of each of these, see appendix 5 of the <a href="http://content.tfl.gov.uk/rail-devolution-business-case-narrative.pdf">document</a>.
</p>
<p>
The most interesting parts are where the current and potential service patterns are shown.
These are of course speculative by TfL, requiring investment in new trains, signalling and turnbacks, but they give a good idea of the plan TfL has in mind. This is the concept for South Central London:
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLXZ4k8aTRQYoix-0-ocQ2tbxrHFV2BpGjK8VUB8GXXyrFgcMbZsPMQw5kLE3N7_mVlhsldoFjT2_gdPrzByeIaOmtKIcqecoZesc-EmZQ5lf7emPv3M9a24R5-PRrREJ-j6-JQqCQ6Hay/s1600/DevolutionFutureSouth.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLXZ4k8aTRQYoix-0-ocQ2tbxrHFV2BpGjK8VUB8GXXyrFgcMbZsPMQw5kLE3N7_mVlhsldoFjT2_gdPrzByeIaOmtKIcqecoZesc-EmZQ5lf7emPv3M9a24R5-PRrREJ-j6-JQqCQ6Hay/s640/DevolutionFutureSouth.png" width="640" height="383" /></a></div>
<p>
Click the diagram to enlarge it, and <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4-7XdvDSQUMENzRTf_31J6emj0ypL_gHHjd3UwzrpB5pGXSc5MXEQ4kzcVOovrs4zfPm22UIWI7mR2NNCZLKaOg1t9fZusknN037_sMHSRnL_zgVAaBNOzikJmBQHYnjbyy-LMH6yxAc9/s1600/DevolutionCurrentSouth.png">click here</a> for the current service pattern.
</p>
<p>
The most significant would be an enhanced station at Streatham Common, with new platforms on the high-level tracks from Streatham to Sutton. This would provide the key interchange necessary to allow people to move across south London. Additional turnbacks would be needed at Belmont (for a healthcare campus), Wallington, Cheam and West Croydon, with two additional platforms likely at East Croydon through other planned work (a turnback is a location where trains can terminate and head back the way they came from).
</p>
<p>
This provides a summary of the key services:
</p>
<ul>
<li>Balham to Victoria - from 14tph today to 18tph</li>
<li>Streatham and Tulse Hill to Blackfriars - from 4tph today to 8tph</li>
<li>Tulse Hill to London Bridge - stays at 8tph</li>
<li>Crystal Palace, Gipsy Hill, West Norwood and Streatham Hill to Victoria - from 4tph today to 6tph</li>
<li>Crystal Palace, Gipsy Hill and West Norwood to London Bridge - from 2tph today to 4tph</li>
<li>Selhurst, Thornton Heath, Norbury and Streatham Common to Victoria - from 6tph today to 8tph</li>
<li>Selhurst, Thornton Heath, Norbury and Streatham Common to London Bridge - from 2tph today to none</li>
<li>Sutton to Streatham and Tulse Hill - from 4tph today to 8tph</li>
<li>London Overground, from 4tph today to 6tph on each of the three routes in South Central</li>
<li>Leatherhead and Epsom semi-fast services - unaffected</li>
</ul>
<p>
The key trade-off is the loss of direct services from Selhurst, Thornton Heath, Norbury and Streatham Common to London Bridge. Passengers get a more frequent service to Clapham Junction and Victoria instead, with the new Streatham Common interchange allowing passengers to change to reach London Bridge and Blackfriars.
</p>
<p>
Is it feasible?
For the most part, it should be with new trains and signalling. However, Herne Hill will certainly be tight, with 8tph of Thameslink services crossing 13tph of South Eastern services on the flat. There will also be some slightly awkward timetables where 6tph services and 4tph services share the same tracks. In this respect, the 6tph frequency on the Crystal Palace and Streatham Hill to Victoria route looks odd, when 8tph would be easier to timetable.
</p>
<p>
In South East London, this is the concept:
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhq1sTnVbgsNLuSUevIwl_p-rPHrWezNaaog1kfQV_6Tailt_3HmEoder9HHXH6TRcAOBJUkmatTTq-8wQtG2mN0qu9NVsTXrd3NkYnOXLwJ6YoVObAwuVOIAg3h4cAPbx4YZ4Sgwzm9scH/s1600/DevolutionFutureSouthEast.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhq1sTnVbgsNLuSUevIwl_p-rPHrWezNaaog1kfQV_6Tailt_3HmEoder9HHXH6TRcAOBJUkmatTTq-8wQtG2mN0qu9NVsTXrd3NkYnOXLwJ6YoVObAwuVOIAg3h4cAPbx4YZ4Sgwzm9scH/s640/DevolutionFutureSouthEast.png" width="640" height="394" /></a></div>
<p>
Click the diagram to enlarge it, and <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGe3qY5V8RlPCsEWxoxkm6WZd1fj-7-2-i90fAtWsk-uYqjBkMo23rlZo5QniA1O5sHcrPI-Natkv_JC_c7k-4VfP-xK6omTb_flDZnJ7ZypiC1mapr4oID6Ldzdtr_EpyMwhl_x7k3Fae/s1600/DevolutionCurrentSouthEast.png">click here</a> for the current service pattern.
</p>
<p>
Again, there would need to be investment - extra tracks around Penge East to allow fast trains to overtake slower ones, Cannon Street, Lewisham and Dartford enhancements, plus better signalling.
</p>
<p>
The service pattern is not as neat as South Central in places, but that is probably because it has been developed more. It does provide a solid 6tph to the Greenwich, Bexleyheath and Sidcup lines. From Victoria to Orpington via Herne Hill would move to 6tph, and also 6tph Victoria to Lewisham via Peckham Rye.
</p>
<p>
Is it feasible? Well Cannon Street certainly sees a big increase in services, but far from impossible with the right investment. And off-peak it shows no trains from Sidcup to Dartford, which would need fixing. However, it looks like a fairly solid plan off-peak, and harder to judge in peak.
</p>
<h4>Summary</h4>
<p>
The document shows TfL are still pushing hard for rail devolution for South East and South Central London, and for good reason - there is the potential to make a big difference in service, driving growth and housing. The specific concept frequency maps are interesting, but obviously only outline at this point. Nevertheless, were they to come to pass, they would be a major improvement on current services.
</p>
Stephen Colebournehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01454237967846880639noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-695665184179925072016-03-24T07:51:00.000+00:002016-03-24T07:51:04.224+00:00Crossrail 2 and Merton<p>
Crossrail 2 continues to progress. The National Infrastructure Commission <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/crossrail-2-national-infra-com.html">has backed it</a>. And the chancellor has <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35822020">provided money</a> for the next stage of planning. The next few months will be key for how Wimbledon and Merton will be impacted over the next 20 years.
</p>
<h4>Crossrail 2 and Merton</h4>
<p>
Crossrail 2 is coming to Merton and that potentially means big changes for Wimbledon, Raynes Park and Motspur Park. While it may be tempting to try and stop the scheme, the passage of the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35887469">HS2 third reading</a> yesterday in parliament indicates clearly how ineffective the "stop HS2" campaign has been.
Given this, I argue that it would be wise for Merton residents concerned about Crossrail 2 to fight for improvements to the project, rather than trying to stop it altogether.
</p>
<p>
Sadly, the Crossrail 2 team only put forward one option at consultation. However there are four basic approaches which could be adopted at Wimbledon. This table summarises the impacts of each option:
</p>
<table border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" class="tbl" style="text-align:center">
<tr>
<th width="27%">Option</th>
<th width="18%">Option 1:<br />Demolish to the south</th>
<th width="18%">Option 2:<br />Demolish to the north</th>
<th width="18%">Option 3:<br />Deep tunnel platforms</th>
<th width="18%">Option 4:<br />Fast line tunnel</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Total amount of demolition in Wimbledon town centre</th>
<td style="background-color:#FFCCCC">Major</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFCCCC">Major</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFE5CC">Some</td>
<td style="background-color:#E5FFCC">None</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Demolish Centre Court shopping centre</th>
<td style="background-color:#FFCCCC">Yes</td>
<td style="background-color:#E5FFCC">No</td>
<td style="background-color:#E5FFCC">No</td>
<td style="background-color:#E5FFCC">No</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Rebuild entrance to Wimbledon station</th>
<td style="background-color:#FFE5CC">Yes</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFE5CC">Yes</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFE5CC">Yes</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFE5CC">Yes</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Trams move up to street level, platform 10 destroyed</th>
<td style="background-color:#FFCCCC">Yes</td>
<td style="background-color:#E5FFCC">No</td>
<td style="background-color:#E5FFCC">No</td>
<td style="background-color:#E5FFCC">No</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Tunnel portal site</th>
<td style="background-color:#FFE5CC">Gap Road</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFE5CC">Gap Road, or perhaps Waitrose</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFCCCC">Demolish 150 houses in Raynes Park, or needs two tunnel portals</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFE5CC">Wasteland at Berrylands & Weir Road industrial area</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Turn-back & dive-under in Dundonald area</th>
<td style="background-color:#FFCCCC">Yes</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFCCCC">Yes</td>
<td style="background-color:#E5FFCC">No</td>
<td style="background-color:#E5FFCC">No</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Widen from 4 to 6 tracks between Wimbledon and Raynes Park</th>
<td style="background-color:#FFCCCC">Yes</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFCCCC">Yes</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFE5CC">Partial</td>
<td style="background-color:#E5FFCC">No</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Impact on Raynes Park station rebuild</th>
<td style="background-color:#FFCCCC">Major rebuild</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFCCCC">Major rebuild</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFCCCC">Major rebuild</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFE5CC">Smaller rebuild</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Cost</th>
<td style="background-color:#FFE5CC">Baseline</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFE5CC">Assumed to be similar to basline</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFCCCC">£2bn+ more expensive</td>
<td style="background-color:#E5FFCC">In theory, should to be cheaper</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Is it viable given what is currently known?</th>
<td style="background-color:#E5FFCC">Yes</td>
<td style="background-color:#E5FFCC">Yes</td>
<td style="background-color:#FFCCCC">No</td>
<td style="background-color:#E5FFCC">Yes</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>
The four basic approaches to get Crossrail 2 through Wimbledon are:
</p>
<p>
<b>Option 1</b>: "Demolish to the south" - This is the <a href="https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/crossrail2/october2015/user_uploads/s13.pdf">current official plan</a>, where Centre Court, the Prince of Wales and many other buildings are demolished to build new sub-surface platforms (just 10m underground).
</p>
<p>
<b>Option 2</b>: "Demolish to the north" - A similar approach to the current official plan, but demolishing the north side of the station instead (the taxi rank, HSBC, magistrate courts etc). Again the new platforms would be sub-surface (just 10m underground).
</p>
<p>
<b>Option 3</b>: "Deep tunnel platforms" - This would involve constructing two or four deep platforms (perhaps 30m underground), similar to Crossrail stations in central London. The Crossrail 2 team estimate this would cost £2bn more, and potentially involves demolition of 150 residential properties in Raynes Park. It would also require significant demolition in Wimbledon town centre for the lift and escalator shafts to the deep platforms. Since I have seen no evidence of a viable way to build this option without ridiculous residential demolition impacts, I've marked it as not viable in the table.
</p>
<p>
<b>Option 4</b>: "Fast line tunnel" - This involves a new tunnel from Berrylands to the Earlsfield area, taking the trains on the current fast lines. This frees up two tracks and two platforms at Wimbledon, providing the space for Crossrail 2 without major demolition. This is also known as the <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/crossrail-2-swirl.html">Swirl plan</a>. (Note that a fast line tunnel for Merton is viable with whichever station is chosen for Wandsworth - Balham, Tooting or Earlsfield. Note also that the table describes a minimal fast line tunnel option where either all 30tph run through to the branches, or 10tph turn-back at Clapham Junction.)
</p>
<p>
A key point arising from the table is that option 2 is very similar to option 1. Both involve major demolition in the town centre, turn-backs, dive-under and widening to 6 tracks.
</p>
<p>
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/jodastephen/22094349894/in/photolist-ABmyHD-ABmaon-AjHwdo-Az48kS-ABn9Zz-AjKzxL-zEtQwr-ACmkwP-zEkZYu-zEkN6S-AjLLow-AjLZU9-zEmCNG-ACnY1Z-AjN1fY-zEn3os-AComqD-AjNB71-zEoXFh-ACpVf4-Az79Go-ABqonk-ABqcgn-Az7mdQ-Az7K4E-Az9Q1Q-Az9e7w-ACrRv6-Az9CFf-zEpjt9-zEpUiU-ABrhvP-zEqTFE-zEqubd-AAet5m-hLVLyf-hLUM9X-hLUJrx-hLW5YF" title="Wimbledon, London"><img src="https://farm1.staticflickr.com/720/22094349894_99b440d362_z.jpg" width="640" height="480" alt="Wimbledon, London"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
</p>
<p>
As a little bit more detail, these bullet points outline the work involved for option 1 in Merton (the official plan). This is intended to help explain the rows in the table above:
</p>
<ul>
<li>Four new sub-surface platforms at Wimbledon station, created by demolishing much of the Centre Court shopping centre and many other buildings in the town centre</li>
<li>The loss of platform 10 from the existing Wimbledon station, permanently restricting the frequency of Thameslink services</li>
<li>Trams moving out of the station up to street level</li>
<li>A tunnel portal at the Gap Road worksite, where the main tunnel is dug from</li>
<li>A new road bridge between Queens Road and Alexandra Road</li>
<li>A turn-back facility at the Dundonald Road worksite, to allow trains to reverse</li>
<li>A dive-under at the Dundonald Road worksite, for Northbound trains to reach the new platforms</li>
<li>Two additional tracks between Wimbledon and Raynes Park (6 tracks instead of the current 4 tracks)</li>
<li>Major rebuild of Raynes Park station for cross-platform interchange and access for all, likely to involve land take north of the current station site</li>
</ul>
<p>
The construction period is likely to be around 10 years, plus subsequent work to redevelop the worksites. There are also likely to be many resulting lorry movements.
</p>
<h4>Summary</h4>
<p>
When the four options for Wimbledon town centre are evaluated side by side, it is clear that only a fast line tunnel will really improve the Crossrail 2 scheme for Merton. The key benefit is that it removes all town centre demolition apart from reconstructing the station itself. However the benefits go beyond that, avoiding the need to widen to six tracks between Wimbledon and Raynes Park, require no turn-backs or dive-under in the Dundonald area, and reducing the land take needed by the rebuild of Raynes Park station.
</p>
<p>
Hopefully the table above helps clarify why this blog is arguing that a <b>fast line tunnel</b> is the only option Merton residents should be arguing for (via your residents association and elected representatives).
</p>
Stephen Colebournehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01454237967846880639noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-35803924848028865622016-03-13T08:11:00.000+00:002016-03-13T08:11:13.143+00:00Crossrail 2 and the National Infrastructure Commission<p>
The <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/national-infrastructure-commission">National Infrastructure Commission</a> provides an independent high-level view of significant infrastructure projects. It is led by Lord Adonis and has recently published a report on transport in London.
</p>
<h4>Transport for a World City</h4>
<p>
The Commission published two reports on the same day. The first is the commission's opinion. The second is an independent report drawn up by consultants. This section examines the commission's report.
</p>
<p>
The <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/506633/Transport_for_a_world_city_-_100316.pdf">commission report</a> is relatively simple.
</p>
<p class="quote">
The Commission concludes that the strategic case for Crossrail 2 is well founded
and recommends that it is taken forward. It is not a substitute for smaller scale
improvements, but these alone will not be enough.
</p>
<p>
Later it adds:
</p>
<p class="quote">
The case for Crossrail 2 is that it will:<br />
* Provide vital relief for the congested southern end of the Northern Line
and for the Victoria Line through north-east and central London. These are
forecast to see much of the highest levels of crowding anywhere on the
Underground, after the opening of Crossrail 1.<br />
* Provide an alternative route, via its connection to Crossrail 1, from southwest
London to the City and Canary Wharf, reducing passenger numbers on
the overcrowded Waterloo and City line and the eastern part of the Jubilee
Line.<br />
* Relieve capacity constraints on the critically over-crowded south-west
London commuter lines coming into the capital through Wimbledon,
Clapham Junction and Waterloo by providing an alternative route for inner
suburban services via a new tunnel from Wimbledon into Central London.<br />
* Reduce terminal congestion at the UK’s busiest station, Waterloo, as well as
cutting crowding levels at Clapham Junction, Vauxhall and Wimbledon, all
of which are forecast to face insuperable operational difficulties due to the
volume of passengers at peak hours.<br />
* Release capacity on the existing south-west network for longer distance
services from Basingstoke, Woking, Guildford, Southampton and beyond.<br />
* Provide four tracks on the West Anglia Mainline to enable faster services on
the London-Stansted-Cambridge Corridor.<br />
* Link with Euston/St Pancras, to provide onwards dispersal for those arriving
into London from the north on HS2, which is planned to be completed to
Manchester and Leeds in 2033.<br />
* Stimulate new housing, jobs and development along the whole route.
In particular the line will transform access to the Upper Lee Valley
Opportunity Area – one of the largest in London.<br />
* Establish a turn-up-and-go level of service at a range of underserved
destinations allowing for regeneration around transport hubs in Hackney,
Haringey, Enfield and Tottenham.<br />
* Unlock 200,000 homes, provided the right planning framework is applied.<br />
</p>
<p>
It is interesting to note that the first item is relief of the southern section of the Northern line (not the Victoria, Jubilee or Piccadilly). Regular readers known my <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/crossrail-2-and-northern-line.html">scepticism</a> of this claimed relief.
</p>
<p>
Finally, there is this key section:
</p>
<p class="quote">
The costs of Crossrail 2 are high and therefore every opportunity should be taken to
improve its affordability.<br />
* The updated case should include detailed options to reduce and phase
the costs of the scheme. The most promising option identified to
enhance affordability would be to delay the construction of the northwestern
branch to New Southgate. This could reduce the costs of the
initial scheme in the 2020s by around £4 billion. More work should also
be done on the costs and benefits of individual central London stations.<br />
* If construction of the north-western branch is delayed, this would also
provide the opportunity to consider the case for an eastern branch from
Hackney as an alternative.<br />
</p>
<p>
On cost savings, the following possibilities are mentioned:
</p>
<ul>
<li>Dropping the Chelsea station</li>
<li>Balham, not Tooting</li>
<li>Work on the station design and approaches to Wimbledon</li>
<li>Wood Green, not Turnpike Lane and Alexandra Palace</li>
<li>Dropping or delaying the New Southgate branch</li>
</ul>
<p>
All in all, there is nothing particularly surprising about the commission's report. It says lots about finance, housing and growth. And on Crossrail 2 itself, it backs the official scheme almost in entirety, the main exception being the possible dropping of the New Southgate branch.
</p>
<h4>Review of the Case for Large Scale Transport Investment in London</h4>
<p>
The <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/506632/Review_of_the_case_for_large_scale_transport_infrastructure_in_London_-_100316.pdf">second report</a> is from independent consultants. It is much more interesting in the ideas presented, however it cannot be seen as the commission's opinion. Nevertheless, it is worth summarising some of the key ideas mentioned in the report.
</p>
<p>
In the North, the second report also discusses dropping the New Southgate branch. (This may be where the commission got the idea.) However, dropping the branch is not discussed in isolation. Instead, the report proposes investigation into a "cost effective cross-London route" from Moorgate to Waterloo. The map shows the proposal in red, with the dropped Crossrail 2 branch to new Southgate in dashed blue.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiS1G4LX7cyAY1fBZ50dRblduHIDEuWvSQFUWIwl_rjDSfwA74gBD7uKCP6qgX6kApXtbXmupubGeeSytDJbbHs7y5bXR-KbZUJlZ5xgh1mBLCnBAnWhnQ86JUy4m53gKzvib-2HHnw0NFF/s1600/North.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiS1G4LX7cyAY1fBZ50dRblduHIDEuWvSQFUWIwl_rjDSfwA74gBD7uKCP6qgX6kApXtbXmupubGeeSytDJbbHs7y5bXR-KbZUJlZ5xgh1mBLCnBAnWhnQ86JUy4m53gKzvib-2HHnw0NFF/s640/North.png" /></a></div>
<p>
The proposal is to take the existing National Rail services from Hatfield, Welwyn and Hertford to Moorgate through a new tunnel to Waterloo and beyond. Potentially this may need only two new underground stations - Cannon Street and Waterloo - although it is more realistic to also expect Moorgate may require a rebuild. Beyond Waterloo, the proposal is to take the line to the Battersea area, and beyond.
</p>
<p>
This is a sensible proposal, very similar to <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/swanlink-crossrail-for-sw-london.html">Swanlink</a>. Construction would however probably require some lengthy closures of the line from Finsbury Park to Moorgate. It is likely to be relatively cheap, with minimal tunnelling and few new stations.
</p>
<p>
In zone 1, the second report enthuses about an extension of the DLR from Bank to Euston/Kings Cross, with closure of Tower Gateway. Such a scheme would be well used, but whether it is the best option is a different question.
</p>
<p>
In the east, there is discussion of a north-south line from Stratford to Lewisham via Canary Wharf. This is similar to the <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/sussex-relief-line.html">Sussex relief line</a> proposal. There is little detail however - it is little more than a couple of sentences.
</p>
<p>
In the South, the second report outlines a whole range of thoughts under the heading "Potential refinements to Crossrail 2". The section begins by talking about cost savings, where it suggests surfacing the tunnel between Clapham Junction and Earlsfield, noting that this does not provide any Northern line relief. Again, it hints at removing Chelsea without being explicit. These two changes are shown here:
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizouJHaL_jCL0b8koO3-iWrwF1L8bZwyHKxOcWl0SseykY0Iz836yxCetMZFHdc4ysF4wQZTT2Fl2QxRauUxg2NEy2Nkc3mT6k4EnMASjrQc4KD-1GMI1cmhDrWOmqk_ED3vnT_NEpHdVI/s1600/South.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizouJHaL_jCL0b8koO3-iWrwF1L8bZwyHKxOcWl0SseykY0Iz836yxCetMZFHdc4ysF4wQZTT2Fl2QxRauUxg2NEy2Nkc3mT6k4EnMASjrQc4KD-1GMI1cmhDrWOmqk_ED3vnT_NEpHdVI/s640/South.png" /></a></div>
<p>
The next section discusses phasing, including the rather impractical suggestion of only building Victoria to Euston.
</p>
<p>
In another section, thoughts turn to changing the specification of Crossrail 2 to an automated metro with dedicated access to tracks. This would require there to be no services from the southern branches to Waterloo. Undoubtedly, this would simplify operation, and raise the potential of 40tph (perhaps of shorter trains). However, it seems that it would be tricky to get the segregation necessary.
</p>
<p>
The report then discusses increasing the scheme benefits. Here the report argues that Crossrail 2 leaves Earlsfield "stranded", and that a branch to Balham and Streatham would makes sense. This is essentially the argument I made in the <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/crossrail-2-swirl-max-relieving.html">Swirl-Max plan</a>. In an ideal world, I remain convinced that Swirl-Max servces southern Wandsworth better than the official plan, with an expectation of more Northern and Victoria line relief. If money is tight, then <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/crossrail-2-swirl.html">Swirl</a> remains the better option.
</p>
<p>
Finally, the report suggests a link from Motspur Park to New Malden, shown in red on the map above. This link, potentially funded separately from Crossrail 2, would allow through services from Epsom and Chessington to Kingston and Twickenham. This would effectively be orbital, rather than radial travel. This seems very sensible, and potentially allows the frequency on the Epsom and Chessington branches to reach a more sensible 8tph rather than the currently proposed 4tph.
</p>
<h4>Summary</h4>
<p>
It is easy to get carried away when reading the second report, as there are lots of potentially great ideas in there.
However, it is only the report of consultants, not the report of the commission itself. And the commission's report is very bland, backing the existing plan almost in its entirety, Although it does look like the New Southgate branch is for the chop.
</p>
<p>
That said, it is great to see a tunnel south from Moorgate, and routing Crossrail 2 via Earlsfield with a branch to Streatham in a key document. While it may come to nothing, it is at least a marker for the future.
</p>
<p>
Finally, it is clear that residents in Merton looking to reduce the impact on Wimbledon and Raynes Park need to continue arguing for a "fast line tunnel", as it is still the only option that will make a significant difference. And residents in the London/Surrey borders should continue to argue for a routing via Earlsfield to avoid their services being slowed unnecessarily.
</p>
Stephen Colebournehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01454237967846880639noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-81990026562298502112016-01-15T00:56:00.000+00:002016-01-15T00:56:31.899+00:00Orange South London<p>
The think tank Centre for London published a <a href="http://centreforlondon.org/publication/turning-south-london-orange-reforming-suburban-rail-to-support-londons-next-wave-of-growth/">report on rail in South London</a> today (14th January 2016), entitled "Turning South London Orange".
This is my thoughts on the report.
</p>
<h4>South London</h4>
<p>
The report outlines the problems facing rail in South London (specifically South Central, not South East or South West) and proposes some solutions. It tackles these in the context of London Overground, the "Orange" network of tube maps. As well as covering the transport side, the report adds background and numbers on the project growth and potential additional growth that could be unlocked by an investment. It recommends TfL (Transport for London) takes over the existing services within London (ie. conversion to London Overground), and it gives consideration to a new regional transport body covering London, Kent, Surrey and Sussex to balance the needs of London with those beyond.
</p>
<p>
The rest of the article will focus mainly on the proposed investment ideas.
Firstly, there is a set of ideas that few would disagree with:
</p>
<ul>
<li>Enhanced signalling, with greater automation
<li>Better trains, with wider doors, better braking and acceleration
<li>More effective station stops, using staff and technology
<li>More turnbacks, to provide for a high frequency service
</ul>
<p>
Beyond the basics, three more specific investment ideas are discussed, starting on page 44.
</p>
<h4>A new South London Line</h4>
<p>
This proposal is to increase the frequency of the line from Victoria to Lewisham and provide more stations.
</p>
<p>
The current Overground service runs from Clapham Junction to Canada Water and beyond at 4tph (trains per hour). The report propose increasing this to 6tph, and adding an additional Victoria to Lewisham service, also at 6tph.
To make this work, the report suggests additional platforms at Battersea (near the power station), Wandsworth Road, Clapham High Street, Clapham East, Brixton and Brockley.
</p>
<h4>Thameslink, Herne Hill, and a resolution for Brixton</h4>
<p>
This proposal is for a new tunnel running from the Wandsworth Road area to the Dulwich area. This would be a fast line tunnel, taking those services from Kent that run non-stop from Bromley South to Victoria.
</p>
<p>
By building a new fast line tunnel, the flat junctions at Herne Hill and Brixton are relieved. This would provide enough space for the proposed Victoria to Lewisham service, plus an enhanced local service from Victoria to Bromley South. In addition, the extra capacity would allow platforms to be built at Brixton, not on the high viaduct, but on the lower level one on the north side.
</p>
<p>
The report discusses the flat junction at Tulse Hill but does not propose anything specific. It does indirectly mention a flyover, which is likely to be necessary to enhance frequencies through there.
</p>
<h4>Streatham ‘Virtual Tube’</h4>
<p>
The concept here is to build a new tunnel from Streatham to Streatham Hill with a rebuilt four platform hub station at Streatham. This would allow services from Streatham Common to run via Streatham and Streatham Hill to Balham and Victoria. A flyover junction is discussed to ensure the service to Streatham Common would be reliable.
</p>
<p>
The report claims a frequency of a train every 2 to 3 minutes at Streatham with this investment. I suspect the report authors mean 12tph to Victoria (one every 5 minutes) and 12tph to Tulse Hill, split between London Bridge or Thameslink (one every 10 minutes to each).
</p>
<h4>My thoughts</h4>
<p>
These proposals are a good starting point for discussion.
</p>
<p>
The proposal for a fast line tunnel under Herne Hill and Brixton seems pretty sound to me. The goal is correct - to separate the long distance services from Kent to Victoria from the metro services. The current timetable from Bromley South to Victoria shows 9tph of fast services and 4tph of slow service.
</p>
<p>
A fast line tunnel would easily have capacity for the 9tph of fast services, leaving free space on the existing surface lines for additional slows services. However, the devil is in the detail. To work effectively, the fast line tunnel must start far enough south to free up the additional capacity. Otherwise, there will still be conflicts between Bromley South and West Dulwich. As such, it may be necessary to run the new tunnel as far south as Kent House, which is quite a lot further.
</p>
<p>
Another question with the plan is that 9tph is relatively low usage for an expensive new tunnel.
Of course, with increasing demand, this 9tph might be increased once the new tunnel opened. But it seems unlikely that it would reach 20tph. As such, it is fair to look to see if anything else could use the tunnel, potentially increase the value of the investment.
</p>
<p>
One possibility would be a second southern portal somewhere north of Norwood Junction. This would allow some services from there to run non-stop to Victoria. This would be of most use to the services from Caterham and East Grinstead, which deserve fast services but are in danger of being crowded out. A tunnel providing 12tph non-stop from Bromley South to Victoria and 8tph non-stop from Norwood Junction could be a powerful combination.
</p>
<p>
The plans for platforms at Brixton make sense with the additional capacity of the tunnel. However, since the tunnel would remove all fast services, it would seem that the high level viaduct in Brixton would be unused under the proposed plan. This possibility offers another way to provide platforms at Brixton.
</p>
<p>
If the low level viaduct was reduced from 2 tracks to 1 track, an eastbound platform could be added on the viaduct in the space saved. Similarly, the high level viaduct could be reduced from 2 tracks to 1 track with the space saved used for the westbound platform. Together, this would provide a flyover junction at Brixton for the metro services of the three routes - Victoria to Lewisham, Clapham Junction to Canada Water and Victoria to Bromley South (via Herne Hill) - which would increase reliability.
</p>
<p>
The second major investment discussed is the Streatham 'virtual tube'.
</p>
<p>
A tunnel from Streatham to Streatham Hill has long been a sensible thing to consider. Access to Streatham is perhaps the key piece in South London's jigsaw, and tackling it a necessity of any scheme.
</p>
<p>
My problem with the concept outlined in the report is that it takes services from Streatham Common, via two additional stations, something guaranteed to extend journey times. A more likely, and cheaper plan, would be to serve Streatham and not Streatham Hill.
</p>
<p>
Regular readers will know that I am championing the <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/crossrail-2-swirl-max-relieving.html">Swirl-Max plan</a> for Crossrail 2, which has a branch from Clapham Junction to Streatham via Balham. This includes a tunnelled curve from Balham to Streatham, very similar to that proposed in this report.
</p>
<p>
So, could the Swirl-Max tunnel be extended to serve more of South London? The answer is yes, but it relies on an additional tunnel from Clapham Junction to Central London, ie. Crossrail 3. This is because at least 20tph of Crossrail 2 are needed by Wimbledon, leaving just 10tph for Streatham. While 10tph is enough for Streatham alone, it is not a high enough frequency to cope with the demands of serving the broader South London area directly.
</p>
<p>
In brief, here is what would have to happen to convert the Streatham branch of Swirl-Max into Crossrail 3.
</p>
<ol>
<li>Build a new tunnel from the start of the Streatham branch to Clapham Junction
<li>Build two new tunnelled platforms at Clapham Junction
<li>Build a new tunnel from Clapham Junction to somewhere in Central London, such as Blackfriars via Vauxhall and Charing Cross, or Baker Street via Victoria
<li>Build a new connection from the surface at Streatham Hill to the tunnel under Balham
<li>Run 10tph from Crossrail 3 to Crystal Palace, and 10tph to West Croydon via Selhurst, plus the original Swirl-Max 10tph to Wimbledon via Haydons Road.
</ol>
<p>
As can be seen, the Swirl-Max Streatham branch can very effectively be the base building block of Crossrail 3. (And in an ideal world, points 1 and 2 would be done as part of Crossrail 2.)
</p>
<p>
Finally, I have to note the elephant in the room when looking at the Centre for London report.
</p>
<p>
The report proposes doubling the usage of South London's rail network. But this network ends at London Bridge and Victoria. Only the Thameslink line runs through Central London, and only a maximum of 8tph is available there.
But how many of those new passengers will have a job right by the terminus station?
</p>
<p>
As such, it is my opinion that the plan in the report would dramatically increase the pressure on the tube in Central London, with only Crossrail 2 providing any relief. While the report seeks to explore options without tunnelling in zone 1, it seems to me that there is simply so much demand as to require an additional Crossrail.
</p>
<p>
Which brings us full circle to Swirl-Max and the building blocks it provides for Crossrail 3!
</p>
<h4>Summary</h4>
<p>
The new report into rail in South London makes a good contribution to the debate, particularly on the governance and growth sides. On the transport investments, there is no doubt that if built as proposed, they would be a step up for South London. However, I fear they would also create major overloading of the tube, particularly from Victoria. As such, I don't see how rail in South London can be considered without at least one eye on a future Crossrail, with the <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/crossrail-2-swirl-max-relieving.html">Swirl-Max plan</a> plan for Crossrail 2 offering a great starting point.
</p>
Stephen Colebournehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01454237967846880639noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-39121200102050276132016-01-09T01:47:00.001+00:002016-03-04T14:46:22.009+00:00Crossrail 2 consultation responses, 2015<p>
This blog seeks to gather publicly available links to consultation responses to the Crossrail 2 consultation of late 2015.
Because of the sheer scale of the scheme, this will focus on Merton & Wandsworth, with just a few others. Those links below are simply those I've been able to find. No political or opinion bias is intended. If a response is missing, please add a comment.
</p>
<p>
Merton:
</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.stephenhammond.net/news/my-response-crossrail-2-consultation">Stephen Hammond MP</a> - Conservative MP for Wimbledon</li>
<li><a href="http://www.merton.gov.uk/cr2_cross_party_response.pdf">Merton Council</a> - Cross-party response</li>
<li><a href="https://www.facebook.com/daviddeanformertonandwandsworth/posts/969868646417368">David Dean</a> - Conservative councillor for Dundonald</li>
<li><a href="http://www.lovewimbledon.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Jan-16-formal-response-to-Crossrail-2-consultation.pdf">Love Wimbledon BID</a> - Wimbledon business group</li>
<li><a href="http://www.mertonchamber.co.uk/merton-chambers-response-to-crossrail-2/">Merton Chamber of Commerce</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.wandlevalleyforum.org.uk/uploads/5/8/4/3/58438085/crossrail_2_-_weir_road_proposals_-_jan_16.pdf">Wandle valley Forum</a></li>
<li><a href="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ldmerton/pages/61/attachments/original/1452192799/Merton_Liberal_Democrats_-_CR2_Consultation_Response_Jan_2016.pdf?1452192799">Merton Lib Dems</a></li>
<li><a href="https://twitter.com/CharChirico/status/684777446042894337/photo/1">Trinity ward councillors</a> - Conservative</li>
<li><a href="https://www.facebook.com/HillsideConservatives/posts/1674717492767256">Hillside ward councillors</a> - Conservative</li>
<li><a href="http://www.wimbledonsociety.org.uk/userfiles/file0063Crossrail_2_letter_8Nov15.pdf">Wimbledon Society</a> - Civic society, (<a href="http://www.wimbledonsociety.org.uk/userfiles/file0063Crossrail_2_letter_6Jan16.pdf">part 1</a>)</li>
</ul>
<p>
Wandsworth:
</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.savewandsworthcommonagain.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Jane-Ellison-MP-Crossrail-2-Consultation-Jan-2016.pdf">Jane Ellison MP</a> Conservative MP for Battersea</li>
<li><a href="http://sadiqkhan.nationbuilder.com/sadiq_responds_to_the_crossrail_2_public_consultation">Sadiq Khan MP</a> - Labour MP for Tooting</li>
<li><a href="http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/info/200107/transportation_planning/213/travel_choices/7">Wandsworth Council</a> - Conservative</li>
<li><a href="http://rachaelstokes.me/2016/01/08/earlsfield-should-not-lose-out-on-crossrail-2-my-letter-to-tfl-network-rail/">Rachael Stokes</a> - Labour councillor for Earlsfield, with <a href="http://rachaelstokes.me/2016/02/07/impact-of-crossrail-2-on-earlsfield-response-from-network-rail-and-tfl/">response from Network Rail</a></li>
</ul>
<p>
Kingston:
</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.jamesberrymp.com/core/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Crossrail-2-Submission.pdf">James Berry MP</a> - Conservative MP for Kingston and Surbiton</li>
<li><a href="https://www.kingston.gov.uk/news/article/405/crossrail_2_to_bring_major_benefits_to_the_royal_borough_of_kingston">Kingston Council</a> - Conservative</li>
<li><a href="http://www.kingstonlibdems.org/web/?q=crossrail2">Kingston Lib Dems</a></li>
</ul>
<p>
Other locations:
</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://greghands-admin.conservativewebsites.org.uk/news/rt-hon-greg-hands-mps-submission-crossrail-2-consultation">Greg Hands MP</a> Conservative MP for Chelsea and Fulham</li>
<li><a href="https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/atoms/files/Crossrail%202%20Consultation%20-%20Response%20of%20the%20Royal%20Borough%20of%20Kensington%20and%20Chelsea%20%2821%20December%202015%29.pdf">Kensington & Chelsea Council</a> - Conservative</li>
<li><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6u6yL6BSQUBUEM2X0NsVnMwcHM/view">Lambeth Council</a> - Labour</li>
<li><a href="http://chelseasociety.org.uk/response-to-tfl-consultation-crossrail2/">Chelsea Society</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.streathamaction.org.uk/sites/streathamaction.org.uk/files/Streatham%20Action%20-%20CR%202%20consultation%20submission%20final.pdf">Streatham Action</a> - Cross party action group</li>
<li><a href="http://lambethlibdems.org.uk/en/document/lambeth-liberal-democrats-response-to-crossrail-2-consultation.pdf">Lambeth Lib Dems</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.epsom-ewell.gov.uk/EEBC/News/Latest+News/Council+responds+to+Crossrail+2+consultation.htm?platform=hootsuite">Epsom & Ewell Council</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.camden.gov.uk/ccm/cms-service/stream/asset/?asset_id=3402585&">Camden Council</a> - Labour</li>
<li><a href="http://glalibdems.org.uk/en/document/crossrail-2.pdf">London Assembly Lib Dems</a></li>
</ul>
</p>
<p>
My response as an individual blogger was based on the <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/crossrail-2-swirl-max-relieving.html">Swirl-Max plan</a>. I also argued for:
</p>
<ul>
<li>a second "destination" station in Central London, preferably linked to Green Park</li>
<li>passive provision for four platforms at Victoria (for Crossrail 3 or 4)</li>
<li>passive provision for four platforms at Clapham Junction (for Crossrail 3 or 4)</li>
<li>a station at Stoke Newington</li>
<li>Alexandra Palace and Turnpike Lane, not Wood Green</li>
</ul>
<p>
I hope this data will prove useful to someone!
However, it is very incomplete as there must be responses from many other organizations. If you know of a response from an organization or politician, use the comments to tell us!
</p>
Stephen Colebournehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01454237967846880639noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-34708578334075220992015-11-30T19:29:00.000+00:002015-12-21T01:19:22.139+00:00Crossrail 2 Swirl-Max - relieving the Northern Line<p>
Crossrail 2 <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/crossrail-2-swirl.html">Swirl</a> is a plan to take Crossrail 2 via Earlsfield, not Balham. The big issue with Swirl is that it does not directly relieve the Northern Line. This article provides a way to achieve that - "Swirl-Max".
</p>
<h4>How can Swirl be enhanced to relieve the Northern Line?</h4>
<p>
The <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/crossrail-2-swirl.html">Swirl</a> plan deliberately takes Crossrail 2 away from the Northern Line.
This is because any shared station (Balham or Tooting Broadway) on the main Crossrail 2 line allows passengers from places as diverse as Chessington, Kingston, Shepperton and Epsom to change onto the Northern Line, as well as for passengers to change from the Northern to Crossrail 2. My research suggests that the movement from Crossrail 2 to Northern will not be insignificant, and as such, it is far from clear that Crossrail 2 will make the Northern line less overcrowded. See my <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/crossrail-2-and-northern-line.html">full analysis</a>.
</p>
<p>
It is the case that simply by being built, Crossrail 2 will attract some journeys away from the Northern. This will notably be the case for residents around South Wimbledon. However, it is accepted that the Swirl plan alone would make little difference to Northern Line crowding.
</p>
<p>
Initially, it seemed that the best way to relieve the Northern Line would be to extend the Northern Line (West End Branch) from Battersea Power to Clapham South and/or Balham. However, the journey time analysis showed that such an approach would not achieve its goals, at least in part because the Northern Line Extension to Battersea Power does not interchange with the Victoria Line. As such, my view is that the best option is a branch of Crossrail 2 to relieve the Northern Line.
</p>
<h4>Swirl-Max - relieving the Northern Line</h4>
<p>
The Swirl-Max plan is an extension of the <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/crossrail-2-swirl.html">Swirl</a> plan, proposing a branch of Crossrail 2 to relieve the Northern Line.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijXMju3MqZqzkCdnxd7ptVD8t3hktI-JAqiglpba1_A1cO7q1If0LLc7_7mMLDfpz8KhOGkGMWI37HAvPuHa52IWZsM2nVFEeYcnpGojX03OOuu9f9FWmHU4cyd0fV-IKnhFurV-wydc3f/s1600/SwirlMaxGeo.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijXMju3MqZqzkCdnxd7ptVD8t3hktI-JAqiglpba1_A1cO7q1If0LLc7_7mMLDfpz8KhOGkGMWI37HAvPuHa52IWZsM2nVFEeYcnpGojX03OOuu9f9FWmHU4cyd0fV-IKnhFurV-wydc3f/s640/SwirlMaxGeo.png" /></a></div>
<p>
The branch would split from the main Crossrail 2 route south of Clapham Junction.
It would then proceed to Balham, using a station alignment next to the existing station (the road between the station and Sainsburys).
From there, it is proposed to take the branch on to Streatham.
</p>
<p>
Once the branch reaches Streatham, it makes sense to bring it to the surface to take over the existing line (coloured orange on the map) through Tooting (mainline) and Haydons Road to Wimbledon, where the branch would terminate. An additional station would be provided on the A24 near Tooting St.Georges hospital. The key benefit of doing this is that both Balham and Tooting on the Northern Line are relieved - it is no longer a choice of one or the other.
</p>
<p>
Note that all services from Chessington, Epsom, Kingston and Hampton Court would run via Earlsfield. The layout of the tracks at Wimbledon would make it impossible for those services to run via Streatham.
</p>
<p>
The branch would have 10tph (trains per hour), one every 6 minutes. While it may seem slightly low, this frequency does not turn out to be a problem for the branch. While relatively few people will change from the Northern Line to Crossrail 2 at Balham, my <a href="https://github.com/jodastephen/railmodel/blob/master/CR2-SWLondon.md">journey time analysis</a> suggests that the numbers who would change with TfL's scheme are not as great as might be imagined. Thus, the key to relieving the Northern Line is attracting enough people to <u>start</u> their journey on Crossrail 2, rather than on the Northern. The Swirl-Max plan does this by providing four stations near the Northern Line - Balham, Tooting, St.Georges and Haydons Road. All four would provide competitive journey times to the West End, and considerably more comfort.
</p>
<h4>Details</h4>
<p>
It is proposed that the 10tph currently proposed to terminate at Wimbledon would run via the Streatham branch.
The key purpose of the 10tph TfL want to terminate at Wimbledon is to provide <i>performance management</i> for the core Central London section of Crossrail 2. As such, it is vital that the branch be able to perform the same role.
</p>
<p>
To ensure reliable performance, the branch would need to have two specific characteristics. Firstly, the branch must be completely isolated from Network Rail. Secondly, the branch must have overhead electrification (to avoid any problems due to changing from overhead to third rail power supply). When considering possible branches, these two characteristics were key.
</p>
<p>
The proposed branch is in tunnel from Clapham Junction to Streatham. South of Streatham, the branch would surface and completely take over the line from Streatham to Wimbledon, without sharing any track between Streatham and the junction for Tooting. The existing Thameslink services on that line would be diverted to run via Sutton to Wimbledon, effectively doubling the service between Sutton and Wimbledon.
</p>
<p>
The Tooting Broadway station saga has indicated that there is some tricky geology in the area. To mitigate this, it is proposed to build top-down station boxes at both Balham and Streatham. This should keep the stations within the band of London Clay.
</p>
<p>
At Wimbledon, it is proposed that platform 10 would be used for the Thameslink service from Sutton, and platform 9 for the Swirl-Max Crossrail 2 branch service via Streatham. Terminating 10tph in a single platform is not desirable, however it is feasible. It should be possible to provide an additional platform 11 in the area of the Queens Road car park to mitigate this. There is the potential to extend platform 10 south under the existing deck to provide more space. Furthermore, it is expected that an additional turn-back location would be provided somewhere along the branch. It is intended that at least a single track would be provided between platform 10 and the Weir Road depot for empty stock movements.
</p>
<p>
The proposed tunnel portal site is at, or near, Wandsworth Prison. While it is not yet certain that the prison will be closed, it must be considered at least possible. That site has reasonable road access via the A214, however it is assumed that most spoil would be sent down the main running tunnel to the New Malden portal. As such, tunnelling for the branch would begin later than that for the main line. If the prison does not close, the nearby car parks and nursery offer sufficient space for the worksite.
</p>
<p>
If the prison site does become available, it may be possible to move the "tunnel swap" location of the Swirl plan to the north of Earlsfield, near the prison. Doing so could save £300m by avoiding the need for a new sub-surface Earlsfield station.
</p>
<p>
While not essential, it is considered desirable to provide at least passive provision for four platforms at Clapham Junction. Doing so, could allow the branch to be separated from Crossrail 2 at some future point in time.
</p>
<p>
When deciding on the plan above, some other options were rejected. A one station branch to Balham or a two station branch to Balham and Streatham Hill would not attract enough traffic off the Northern Line. A route via Streatham Hill to Streatham would add to journey time and costs, plus be complicated to build (no easy way to create a tunnelled station at Streatham Hill. A branch with a tunnelled station at Tooting Broadway would run into the same geological problems that caused TfL to move to Balham.
</p>
<h4>Benefits</h4>
<p>
The Swirl-Max plan has the same benefits as the Swirl plan, plus these additional benefits:
</p>
<ul>
<li>Northern Line relief at both Balham and Tooting</li>
<li>Ability to provide a station on the doorstep of St.Georges hospital</li>
<li>No risk of overloading the Northern Line with passengers from beyond Wimbledon</li>
<li>Significantly faster and more frequent service to Streatham</li>
<li>Doubles the Thameslink service between Streatham and Sutton, and Sutton and Wimbledon</li>
</ul>
<p>
See also the full <a href="https://github.com/jodastephen/railmodel/blob/master/CR2-SwirlMax-SWLondon.md">journey time analysis</a>. For example, Streatham to Tottenham Court Road on Oxford Street would take just 15 minutes, with a train every 6 minutes.
</p>
<p>
It is difficult to quantify the potential Northern Line relief. However, if the four stations Haydons Road, St.Georges, Tooting and Balham could capture 35% of the traffic from the Northern Line at Colliers Wood, Tooting Broadway and Balham then around 1 in 4 people would be removed from the Northern Line north of Balham.
</p>
<p>
In addition, Swirl-Max provides far greater Victoria Line relief than the TfL scheme. This occurs, because many people that currently take the bus from Streathan to Brixton would instead take Crossrail 2 at Streatham.
</p>
<p>
My calculations suggest that this plan does not require a shaft on Wandsworth Common. This is because the proposed route is more direct to Balham. As such, a shaft at the prison site would suffice between Clapham Junction and Balham.
</p>
<h4>Costs</h4>
<p>
The following is a rough cost estimate for the Swirl-Max plan:
</p>
<ul>
<li>Balham station - £300m</li>
<li>Streatham station - £300m</li>
<li>Additional tunnelling - £600m</li>
<li>Surface works to take over line via Haydons Road - £300m</li>
<li>Additional items / contingency - £500m</li>
</ul>
<p>
This comes to a total of £2bn. But it is important to remember that this is a high level estimate.
</p>
<p>
Potentially this means that the Swirl-Max plan is more expensive than TfL's current plan taking Crossrail 2 via Balham. However, it seems reasonable to suggest that Swirl-Max provides better transport benefits and greater reach for economic growth.
A formal economic analysis would be needed to confirm this however.
</p>
<p>
While it is possible to end the branch at Streatham, it would seem that doing so misses the potential Northern Line relief from the Tooting and St.Georges stations. The additional cost to reach Wimbledon from Streatham should be easy to offset against the additional benefits.
</p>
<h4>Summary</h4>
<p>
The Swirl-Max plan for Crossrail 2 extends the <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/crossrail-2-swirl.html">Swirl plan</a>, providing a branch from Clapham Junction to Balham, Streatham and Tooting. Instead of the question being "Balham or Tooting", it can be "Balham and Tooting, oh and Earlsfield and Streatham too!".
</p>
<p>
Feel free to comment to ask questions or support the plan.
</p>
Stephen Colebournehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01454237967846880639noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-69985774464135702382015-11-23T08:39:00.000+00:002016-01-09T00:02:26.665+00:00Fewer trains at Earlsfield with Crossrail 2<p>
Planning for <a href=http://crossrail2.co.uk/">Crossrail 2</a> is underway with a consultation currently open.
The <a href="https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/crossrail2/october2015/">consultation</a> invites feedback on "Proposed service patterns", yet most people in Earlsfield appear blissfully ignorant of what Crossrail 2 means to them.
This article aims to make it clear.
</p>
<h4>Crossrail 2</h4>
<p>
The South West Main Line (SWML) from Waterloo through Earlsfield to Woking and beyond is one of the busiest railway lines in the country. It consists of 4 tracks all the way from Woking to Waterloo, with services from Earlsfield on the two slow lines.
</p>
<p>
Since the 4 tracks are no longer sufficient for demand, Transport for London and Network Rail are planning to add an additional 2 tracks between New Malden and Clapham Junction, as part of Crossrail 2.
The following map shows the official plan:
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0E7IaoM8WFUaG67XpQrqf-xG7GKKv0eO9HXgndp9Yd1Lyb0blI6es2Pp0ZbtIEbXyZHcIUWGPMTWEfMxrTir1CRnCl7wEWj8u93dZ7vSI7dhyhhin6XsX7YamPBsWhSktz9E_7gx5IClY/s1600/OfficialMap.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0E7IaoM8WFUaG67XpQrqf-xG7GKKv0eO9HXgndp9Yd1Lyb0blI6es2Pp0ZbtIEbXyZHcIUWGPMTWEfMxrTir1CRnCl7wEWj8u93dZ7vSI7dhyhhin6XsX7YamPBsWhSktz9E_7gx5IClY/s640/OfficialMap.png" /></a></div>
<p>
The current services that serve Earlsfield today, from Kingston, Hampton Court, Chessington and Epsom will be diverted onto Crossrail 2 and <b>run via Balham, not Earlsfield</b>.
</p>
<p>
Given this, a key question arises - What services will stop at Earlsfield once Crossrail 2 opens?
The answer to this question is not good news for Earlsfield.
</p>
<p>
<b>Earlsfield is likely to have around 40% fewer trains once Crossrail 2 opens</b>
</p>
<p>
Exact details are unclear, partly because they are not yet decided.
However, the consultation documents and verbal conversations with Network Rail indicate that the following is the working hypothesis (tph = trains per hour):
</p>
<ul>
<li>Before Crossrail 2 opens - <a href="http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/EAD/from/WIM/to/WAT/2015/11/24/0600-2000?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt">18tph</a> stop at Earlsfield</li>
<li>After Crossrail 2 opens - 10-12tph stop at Earlsfield (a cut of between 33% and 44%)</li>
</ul>
<p>
What this means in practice is that 6-8tph will run through the platforms at Earlsfield without stopping.
These will be the current <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/crossrail-2-and-surbiton.html">fast services from Surbiton</a>, which will be moved off the fast lines to make space for more trains from beyond Woking.
</p>
<p>
Transport for London and Network Rail believe that although there would be fewer trains stopping at Earlsfield, those that did stop would have more space available. As such, they argue that this service cut is not a major problem.
</p>
<p>
Ultimately, it is up to the residents of Earlsfield to decide whether they want to fight for a better deal.
</p>
<h4>Crossrail 2 Swirl</h4>
<p>
This blog is promoting a change to Crossrail 2, the <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/crossrail-2-swirl.html">Swirl plan</a>. Swirl proposes routing Crossrail 2 via Earlsfield instead of Balham.
</p>
<p>
Were Swirl to be adopted, the service at Earlsfield would potentially increase to 30tph, one train every two minutes.
It would also see Earlsfield added to the tube map, which experience suggests is very positive for an area.
</p>
<p>
If you live in Earlsfield you may not realise that the potential exists to get your area a much better deal.
The difference between 10tph and 30tph is stark, as is the potential to be on the tube map.
</p>
<p>
Have a read of the <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/crossrail-2-swirl.html">Swirl plan</a>,
and if you agree, please <a href="https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/crossrail2/october2015/">respond to the consultation</a> mentioning "Crossrail 2 Swirl".
</p>
<p>
<i>Update 2016-01-19: See also the <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/crossrail-2-swirl-max-relieving.html">Swirl-Max plan</a> which services Earsfield, Balham, Streatham and Tooting providing much greater benefits to the area.</i>
</p>
Stephen Colebournehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01454237967846880639noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-70823019175907457852015-11-22T13:53:00.000+00:002016-01-10T00:31:00.784+00:00Crossrail 2 and Surbiton<p>
Planning for <a href="http://www.crossrail2.co.uk/">Crossrail 2</a> is underway with a consultation currently open.
The <a href="https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/crossrail2/october2015/">consultation</a> invites feedback on the following topics:
</p>
<ul>
<li>Station locations, entrances and exits</li>
<li>Shaft locations for the tunnelled section of the scheme</li>
<li>The construction sites required to build and operate the tunnelled section of the scheme</li>
<li>Proposed service patterns</li>
</ul>
<p>
The last of these is of most relevance to Surbiton.
</p>
<p>
While this article is focussed on Surbiton, much of the logic applies to other stations - Esher, Hersham, Walton, Weybridge, Byfleet and West Byfleet.
</p>
<h4>Crossrail 2</h4>
<p>
The South West Main Line (SWML) from Waterloo through Surbiton to Woking and beyond is one of the busiest railway lines in the country. It consists of 4 tracks all the way from Woking to Waterloo, with 5 tracks available for services on the final Waterloo approach. The 4 tracks consist of two pairs - the slow lines and the fast lines. Unfortunately, 4 tracks are no longer sufficient for the demand.
</p>
<p>
For Network Rail, the key purpose of Crossrail 2 is to provide an additional 2 tracks from New Malden to London, creating a 6 track railway. Current plans have this as 6 tracks on the surface between New Malden and Wimbledon, where the additional 2 tracks descend into tunnel for the rest of the route to London.
</p>
<p>
For Transport for London (TfL), the key purpose of Crossrail 2 is different. They need the new line to relieve the underground network, specifically the Victoria Line and Northern Line. As such, Crossrail 2 is planned to route via Balham (on the Northern Line) and then on to Victoria, Tottenham Court Road and Euston. This means that Crossrail 2 is not currently planning to serve Earlsfield.
</p>
<p>
The current consultation is the first step in deciding which train services run once Crossrail 2 opens and there are 6 tracks available from New Malden.
</p>
<h4>Current peak services</h4>
<p>
Currently, Surbiton has the following <a href="http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/SUR/to/WAT/2015/11/24/0600-2000?stp=WVS&show=pax-calls&order=wtt">peak services</a>:
</p>
<ul>
<li>07:01 - 29mins - from Hampton Court (all stations to Waterloo)</li>
<li><b>07:08 - 16mins - from Woking (non-stop to Waterloo)</b></li>
<li>07:11 - 25mins - from Guildford via Claygate (fast to Wimbledon, then all stations to Waterloo)</li>
<li><b>07:27 - 20mins - from Woking (non-stop to Waterloo)</b></li>
<li>07:31 - 31mins - from Hampton Court (all stations to Waterloo)</li>
<li><b>07:38 - 16mins - from Woking (non-stop to Waterloo)</b></li>
<li>07:41 - 28mins - from Guildford via Claygate (New Malden, Wimbledon, then all stations to Waterloo)</li>
<li><b>07:53 - 18mins - from Guildford via Claygate (non-stop to Waterloo)</b></li>
<li><b>07:57 - 20mins - from Woking (non-stop to Waterloo)</b></li>
<li>08:01 - 30mins - from Hampton Court (all stations to Waterloo)</li>
<li><b>08:08 - 16mins - from West Byfleet (non-stop to Waterloo)</b></li>
<li>08:11 - 27mins - from Guildford via Claygate (New Malden, Wimbledon, then all stations to Waterloo)</li>
<li><b>08:19 - 15mins - from Woking (non-stop to Waterloo)</b></li>
<li><b>08:25 - 19mins - from Woking (non-stop to Waterloo)</b></li>
<li>08:31 - 30mins - from Hampton Court (all stations to Waterloo)</li>
<li><b>08:38 - 19mins - from Farnham (non-stop to Waterloo)</b></li>
<li>08:42 - 17mins - from Guildford via Claygate (non-stop to Waterloo)</li>
<li><b>08:48 - 16mins - from Woking (non-stop to Waterloo)</b></li>
<li>08:57 - 25mins - from Guildford via Claygate (fast to Wimbledon, then all stations to Waterloo)</li>
</ul>
<p>
The lines in bold are the fast services, "Surbiton Express", which currently run non-stop from Surbiton to Waterloo.
</p>
<p>
In the authors opinion, the Surbiton Express trains are unlikely to survive after Crossrail 2.
</p>
<p>
Network Rail planners have a tough job.
There are simply too few train paths available into Waterloo for the number of people wanting to travel.
Unlike some other routes into London, practically every train in the peak is at the maximum length.
In addition, ideas such as double decker trains, or even longer trains, are impractical. (Better signalling may be an option, however at present Network Rail has limited experience in running any line with more than 24 train paths an hour.)
</p>
<p>
Faced with increasing demand and fixed paths into London, Network Rail simply has to allocate trains as best it can.
The most efficient way to do this is to use the two fast lines from Woking to Waterloo solely for trains running non-stop from Woking to Waterloo.
The effect of that is that all trains to Surbiton would run on the slow lines, not the fast lines. As such, the Surbiton Express trains would almost certainly cease to exist in their present form.
</p>
<p>
As it turns out, removing the 5 Surbiton Express trains (per hour) probably yields more than 5 extra train paths from Woking to Waterloo.
This is because there is no need to provide space in the timetable for lateness at the junction at Surbiton.
This fact emphasises why the Surbiton Expresses are seen as poor use of the limited train paths.
</p>
<p>
While these changes could happen prior to Crossrail 2 opening, the new line offers the best chance to mitigate the loss of the Surbiton Expresses. This is because the existing slow services to Shepperton, Chessington, Hampton Court and Epsom move off the slow lines and onto the additional Crossrail 2 tracks. This leaves the existing slow lines free to handle traffic from Surbiton.
</p>
<h4>Peak services with Crossrail 2</h4>
<p>
The <a href="https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/crossrail2/october2015/user_uploads/sw4.pdf">consultation leaflet</a> for Crossrail 2 proposes the following services with Crossrail 2 (tph = trains per hour):
</p>
<ul>
<li>4tph Surbiton to Crossrail 2 - from Hampton Court, all stations including Berrylands and New Malden</li>
<li>8tph Surbiton to Waterloo - no information provided on stopping patterns</li>
</ul>
<p>
The key question for Surbiton is what will the stopping pattern be of the 8 peak trains to Waterloo?
As it turns out, some clues are buried in <a href="https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/crossrail2/october2015/user_uploads/sw1.pdf">other parts</a> of the consultation:
</p>
<ul>
<li>4tph New Malden to Waterloo - but these are services from Kingston, not Surbiton</li>
<li>8tph Raynes Park to Waterloo - but these are services from Kingston and Epsom, not Surbiton</li>
</ul>
<p>
Thus, none of the trains from Surbiton to Waterloo are expected to stop at New Malden or Raynes Park. (The Crossrail 2 trains from Hampton Court via Surbiton will provide the connection to New Malden and Raynes Park.)
</p>
<p>
Verbal conversations at consultation events have indicated that the current plan is for 10-12tph to Waterloo from Wimbledon and the same at Earlsfield. Thus it can be seen that 8tph of the 10-12tph at Wimbledon and Earlsfield stop at Raynes Park, with only 2-4tph from Surbiton expected to stop at Wimbledon and Earlsfield. The simplest timetable for Surbition would therefore be:
</p>
<ul>
<li>4tph Surbiton to Crossrail 2 - from Hampton Court, all stations including Berrylands and New Malden</li>
<li>4tph Surbiton to Waterloo - stopping at Wimbledon, Earlsfield, Clapham Junction and Vauxhall</li>
<li>4tph Surbiton to Waterloo - stopping at Clapham Junction and Vauxhall</li>
</ul>
<p>
It is important to emphasise that this is speculation by the author based on the available facts.
</p>
<p>
To drill down further, see these unofficial <a href="https://github.com/jodastephen/railmodel/blob/master/CR2-SWLondon.md#from-surbiton-to-victoria">journey time estimates</a>. To summarize, I'd estimate journey times of 23 to 26 minutes from Surbiton to Waterloo once Crossrail 2 opens, and 25 minutes from Surbiton to Victoria.
</p>
<p>
The reason for the relatively slow journey times is that all trains from Surbiton will be on the current slow lines.
The slow lines need to serve Earlsfield and Vauxhall, and there is no possibility to overtake the stopping train in front, thus missing out stations saves relatively little time.
</p>
<h4>Additional data</h4>
<p>
Updated 2016-01-10.
</p>
<p>
These are some additional points that provide evidence for the impact on Surbiton.
</p>
<p>
1) The speed limit on the slow lines is less than that on the fast lines. This can be found in the <a href="http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/10563.aspx">Network Rail Sectional Appendix</a>.
</p>
<p>
2) The slow lines run into the low numbered platforms at Waterloo. These can only take 8 car trains today, and are only planned to be extended to 10 car trains. As such, without an additional investment, services from Surbiton will be limited to 10 cars.
</p>
<h4>Alternate Crossrail 2 plan - Swirl</h4>
<p>
This blog is also promoting a change to Crossrail 2, the <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/crossrail-2-swirl.html">Swirl plan</a>. Swirl proposes routing Crossrail 2 via Earlsfield instead of Balham.
</p>
<p>
If the Swirl plan happens, then journey times from Surbiton would have the potential to be 1 to 2 minutes shorter. This is because no train on the slow lines would be responsible for stopping at at Earlsfield, allowing trains to run slightly faster.
Note however, that the Swirl plan would need widespread support from the public to be adopted.
</p>
<h4>Summary</h4>
<p>
The Surbiton Express trains are on borrowed time. They will probably end when Crossrail 2 starts, but they just might reduce in number before that.
</p>
<p>
Comments welcome, but make sure to respond to the <a href="https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/crossrail2/october2015/">official consultation</a>.
</p>
Stephen Colebournehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01454237967846880639noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-72542932237873557642015-11-16T13:48:00.001+00:002016-02-18T13:10:09.280+00:00Crossrail 2 Journey time modelling<p>
TfL have not made public their modelling for Crossrail 2.
As such, I've done some journey time modelling myself.
</p>
<h4>Journey time modelling</h4>
<p>
Journey time modelling is a hard problem in general, as there are many possible routes to consider on a network like that in London. However, if the problem is simplified to only include a subset of routes, it is possible to obtain an answer.
</p>
<p>
The simplifications used are:
</p>
<ul>
<li>Only journeys from SWML destinations affected by Crossrail 2 are considered</li>
<li>Only journeys to central London destinations are considered</li>
<li>Interchange times are estimated</li>
<li>A maximum of three trains is allowed to get from start point to destination</li>
<li>Buses are ignored</li>
<li>Trams are ignored</li>
<li>Walking is ignored</li>
<li>Time to enter/exit stations is ignored</li>
</ul>
<p>
Even with these simplifications, it is possible to get some reasonable figures out, and take a look at two key questions:
</p>
<ul>
<li>Will Northern Line passengers change onto Crossrail 2?</li>
<li>Will Crossrail 2 passengers change onto the Northern Line?</li>
</ul>
<p>
The results are here:
</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://github.com/jodastephen/railmodel/blob/master/CR2-SWLondon.md">Crossrail 2 via Balham</a> (TfL plan)</li>
<li><a href="https://github.com/jodastephen/railmodel/blob/master/CR2-Tooting-SWLondon.md">Crossrail 2 via Tooting Broadway</a> (TfL old plan)</li>
<li><a href="https://github.com/jodastephen/railmodel/blob/master/CR2-Swirl-SWLondon.md">Crossrail 2 via Earlsfield</a> (<a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/crossrail-2-swirl.html">Swirl</a> plan)</li>
<li><a href="https://github.com/jodastephen/railmodel/blob/master/CR2-SwirlMax-SWLondon.md">Crossrail 2 via Earlsfield with branch to Balham/Streatham/Tooting </a> (<a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/crossrail-2-swirl-max-relieving.html">Swirl-Max</a> plan)</li>
</ul>
<p>
Each page contains a set of possible options for each of a long list of possible journeys.
A key of station codes is given at the bottom of each page.
</p>
<p>
The first finding <a href="ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/crossrail-2-and-northern-line.html">matches that of my previous article</a>.
Journey times from Crossrail 2 suburbs to London Bridge and Bank are quickest by changing onto the Northern Line.
</p>
<p>
The second finding was unexpected however. The figures for Balham indicate that many passengers travelling from Morden to Victoria and Euston will not change to Crossrail 2! This is because the time saved by the new route is not enough of a saving over the existing route (changing to the Victoria line at Stockwell).
</p>
<p>
Finally, it is important to remember that the time to enter and exit the station is not included. This can have a big impact together with the walking distance to an individual's actual start and end point.
</p>
<h4>Summary</h4>
<p>
This quick post provides links to journey time analysis for Crossrail 2 in South West London.
The analysis is imperfect, but enough to raise further concerns about TfL's Balham option.
</p>
Stephen Colebournehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01454237967846880639noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-49813555527180967622015-11-12T08:07:00.000+00:002016-03-10T21:12:06.443+00:00Crossrail 2 Swirl<p>
This article outlines <i>Crossrail 2 Swirl</i>, 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.
</p>
<p>
<i>Update 2015-12-10:
This article is effectively part 1 of 2.
The Swirl plan below proposes a fast line tunnel under Wimbledon.
The <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/crossrail-2-swirl-max-relieving.html">Swirl-Max plan</a> proposes how Swirl can be extended to serve Balham, Tooting and Streatham.
See also my <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/crossrail2">previous articles</a> on Crossrail 2. And <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/crossrail-2-journey-time-modelling.html">follow up</a> on journey times.</i>
</p>
<h4>TfL plans for Crossrail 2</h4>
<p>
This map outlines the current TfL plan for <a href="http://crossrail2.co.uk/">Crossrail 2</a> between Clapham Junction and Wimbledon, via Balham.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgudvcKo-UVjB5yzkFbl6hDwuK8OB6h2__sU3K80B81CbmhFmpTBI1x1GQBDKVUrTUyMHeUPV4dijxoTOtJLXQDB8Fr_N8Bu5uKDu1sOEwZKNQFrs4om_6S0D8nafeR5N_msu-R0mIBLEWn/s1600/TfLGeo.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgudvcKo-UVjB5yzkFbl6hDwuK8OB6h2__sU3K80B81CbmhFmpTBI1x1GQBDKVUrTUyMHeUPV4dijxoTOtJLXQDB8Fr_N8Bu5uKDu1sOEwZKNQFrs4om_6S0D8nafeR5N_msu-R0mIBLEWn/s640/TfLGeo.png" /></a></div>
<p>
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 <a href="https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/crossrail2/october2015/user_uploads/s13.pdf">demolition of most of Wimbledon town centre</a>, 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.
</p>
<p>
For more details on why a Balham routing will not be effective, see the previous article on how TfL's plans make the <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/crossrail-2-and-northern-line.html">Northern Line overcrowding worse not better</a>.
</p>
<h4>Crossrail 2 Swirl</h4>
<p>
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".
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1BpHRGXJJkdzMwP2cBnuG7Qi1ccojGHB0w8KfQ-zcGPZ3eWNg6ItOOnw6UiG6iI7jPAx1eYRvnaD-WNmmMP6smjoIxAwAcaIp24fNConXzBTHUzOc-ExWDsO2FrR2BJk5Xg6CN7k0PLNQ/s1600/SwirlGeo.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1BpHRGXJJkdzMwP2cBnuG7Qi1ccojGHB0w8KfQ-zcGPZ3eWNg6ItOOnw6UiG6iI7jPAx1eYRvnaD-WNmmMP6smjoIxAwAcaIp24fNConXzBTHUzOc-ExWDsO2FrR2BJk5Xg6CN7k0PLNQ/s640/SwirlGeo.png" /></a></div>
<p>
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.
</p>
<p>
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.
</p>
<p>
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.
</p>
<p>
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).
</p>
<p>
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.
</p>
<p>
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.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrNymxkfhYfh9K_8ynyihS9TYVWY26Qk7Mo-BVhY-E9MegPVhCz_5ZJFwnY4zlMqhTaIauE2Ns5_mBpWpCa8iEgiuxoCVJQUsCgljWD14oaiAbsuOrYo6mwptpBR7W7VOoFtUTeC-OAO3C/s1600/SwirlWeirRoad.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrNymxkfhYfh9K_8ynyihS9TYVWY26Qk7Mo-BVhY-E9MegPVhCz_5ZJFwnY4zlMqhTaIauE2Ns5_mBpWpCa8iEgiuxoCVJQUsCgljWD14oaiAbsuOrYo6mwptpBR7W7VOoFtUTeC-OAO3C/s640/SwirlWeirRoad.png" /></a></div>
<p>
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.
</p>
<p>
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:
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZMVJECoTdH0Qu0mOb75GzIHViFE2Jdmy3LVD3TvSC41ZKKZuOWP-8UpJnN_jelApd9pGkE16DYOW635jawrvehG0_Wg2iHI3gNRN8Nu-tSZokQI-5Esaax-T48buDq4nTMfDNhzfXd5uZ/s1600/SwirlDiagram.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZMVJECoTdH0Qu0mOb75GzIHViFE2Jdmy3LVD3TvSC41ZKKZuOWP-8UpJnN_jelApd9pGkE16DYOW635jawrvehG0_Wg2iHI3gNRN8Nu-tSZokQI-5Esaax-T48buDq4nTMfDNhzfXd5uZ/s640/SwirlDiagram.png" /></a></div>
<p>
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.
</p>
<h4>Benefits</h4>
<p>
The Swirl proposal has the following benefits compared to the TfL plan:
</p>
<ul>
<li>£1.5bn cheaper (estimated)</li>
<li>Much better service for Earlsfield</li>
<li>Better services to Surrey, Hampshire and beyond</li>
<li>No need to demolish the entire centre of Wimbledon</li>
<li>Tunnel portal with direct access to the A3 for lorry traffic</li>
<li>Does not <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/crossrail-2-and-northern-line.html">worsen the overcrowding</a> on the Northern Line</li>
</ul>
<p>
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.
</p>
<p>
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.
</p>
<p>
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.
</p>
<p>
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).
</p>
<p>
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.
</p>
<h4>Additional notes</h4>
<p>
<i>Update 2015-11-29: This section was added to provide some additional notes on Swirl primarily for TfL and Network Rail.</i>
</p>
<p>
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.
</p>
<p>
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.
</p>
<p>
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.
</p>
<h4>Relieving the Northern Line</h4>
<p>
<i>Update 2015-12-10:
Since serving the Northern Line is critical to Crossrail 2, the Swirl plan has been extended into the <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/crossrail-2-swirl-max-relieving.html">Swirl-Max plan</a>, which serves Earlsfield, Balham, Tooting and Streatham. Swirl-Max is the version to be submitted to the TfL consultation.</i>
</p>
<p>
<i>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.</i>
</p>
<h4>Summary</h4>
<p>
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 <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/crossrail-2-swirl-max-relieving.html">Swirl-Max plan</a> for how Balham and Tooting would be served.
</p>
<p>
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 <b>"Fast Line Tunnel"</b> or <b>"Crossrail 2 Swirl"</b>.
</p>
Stephen Colebournehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01454237967846880639noreply@blogger.com37tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-29350093427695641052015-11-08T14:15:00.000+00:002016-02-18T13:08:26.847+00:00Crossrail 2 and the Northern Line<p>
TfL's plans for Crossrail 2 have always included a connection to the Northern line between Clapham Junction and Wimbledon. This blog has long argued that this is a mistake. Here is the detailed explanation as to why.
</p>
<p>
<i>Update 9 Feb 2016 - The final article in the series, <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/crossrail-2-swirl-max-relieving.html">Crossrail 2 Swirl-Max</a> - is now published.</i>
</p>
<p>
<i>Update 12 Nov 2015 - The next article in the series, <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/crossrail-2-swirl.html">Crossrail 2 Swirl</a> - is now published.</i>
</p>
<p>
<i>Update 15 Nov 2015 - A full analysis of journey times is now complete:<br />
<a href="https://github.com/jodastephen/railmodel/blob/master/CR2-SWLondon.md">Journey times with CR2 station at Balham</a> (the TfL plan)<br />
<a href="https://github.com/jodastephen/railmodel/blob/master/CR2-Tooting-SWLondon.md">Journey times with CR2 station at Tooting Broadway</a><br />
<a href="https://github.com/jodastephen/railmodel/blob/master/CR2-Swirl-SWLondon.md">Journey times with CR2 station at Earlsfield</a> (the Swirl plan)<br />
<a href="https://github.com/jodastephen/railmodel/blob/master/CR2-SwirlMax-SWLondon.md">Journey times with CR2 station at Earlsfield and branch to Balham/Streatham/Tooting</a> (the Swirl-Max plan)<br />
</i>
</p>
<h4>Crossrail 2 and the Northern Line</h4>
<p>
Until October 2015, the TfL plan was to take Crossrail 2 between Clapham Junction and Wimbledon via Tooting Broadway to link with the Northern line. In the October 2015 consultation, Balham is proposed instead of Tooting Broadway:
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCMCx1SGhYMsdOiSu7uiKMM2e3gL1yBuLN7iIGLmzC0PuMng2PidUVRKd9MjP9HbQRXm7nyz3yQpnyFDrun0_Zg1nKQ1ByQPiWL9j09tWLkOlbf8TkkZ4D2f1NsFvgsd11y4xaQXEU3Rxk/s1600/TflMapBalham2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCMCx1SGhYMsdOiSu7uiKMM2e3gL1yBuLN7iIGLmzC0PuMng2PidUVRKd9MjP9HbQRXm7nyz3yQpnyFDrun0_Zg1nKQ1ByQPiWL9j09tWLkOlbf8TkkZ4D2f1NsFvgsd11y4xaQXEU3Rxk/s640/TflMapBalham2.png" /></a></div>
<p>
The stated purpose of the Northern Line connection on Crossrail 2 is:
</p>
<p class="quote">
A Crossrail 2 station at Balham would still provide very similar benefits to one at Tooting Broadway, principally helping relieve crowding on the most congested parts of the Northern line.
</p>
<p>
As can be seen, the pressure is to provide additional capacity for the Northern Line. Already today, it is very difficult to get on a northbound Northern Line train at any of the three Clapham stations in the morning peak. The Crossrail 2 station is supposed to help alleviate this.
</p>
<p>
<i>Unfortunately, Crossrail 2 could well make the Northern Line crush worse not better.</i>
</p>
<h4>The Capacity Difference</h4>
<p>
Each Crossrail 2 train will have a <a href="http://www.crossrail.co.uk/route/new-trains/">capacity</a> of around 1500 people (10 car trains of mainline size). Each Northern Line train has a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_rolling_stock">capacity</a> of around 665 people (6 car trains of tube size). Thus, each Crossrail 2 train will have around 2.25 times the capacity of each Northern Line train.
</p>
<p>
Both services, Crossrail 2 and the Northern Line will run at around 30tph (trains per hour). Thus, the capacity difference between the two lines is fixed around 2.25.
</p>
<p>
If 1 in 6 people on a Northern Line train transfer to Crossrail 2 then that is about 110 people. But if 1 in 6 people on Crossrail 2 transfer to the Northern Line, that is around 250 people. As should be immediately obvious, relief of the Northern Line only happens if <b>more</b> people transfer from Northern to Crossrail 2 than the other way around.
</p>
<p>
Put another way, a transfer of 1 in 6 people from the Northern Line train to Crossrail 2 is equivalent to a transfer of 1 in 15 people from Crossrail 2 to the Northern Line. But who will transfer and why?
</p>
<h4>The Journey Time problem</h4>
<p>
To determine who will transfer, it is necessary to look at the journey times.
</p>
<p>
From Balham to Moorgate is 23 minutes by Northern Line. The same journey using Crossrail (taking Crossrail 2 to Tottenham Court Road and changing to Crossrail 1) would take roughly 22 minutes (13 minutes to Tottenham Court Road, 4 minutes to change and 5 minutes to reach Moorgate). Thus, Crossrail offers a very small 1 minute saving and the risk involved in a change of trains.
</p>
<p>
From Balham to Bank station is 21 minutes by Northern Line. By Crossrail it would be 28 minutes changing at Victoria to the District Line or Angel to the Northern Line, which is 7 minutes longer.
</p>
<p>
Travelling to London Bridge? 19 minutes by Northern Line, or 30 minutes by Crossrail changing at Angel to the Northern Line (Crossrail 2 has no access to the Jubilee Line). That is 11 minutes longer by Crossrail.
</p>
<p>
And Canary Wharf? It is around 30 minutes on the Northern and Jubilee Lines, and around 31 minutes on Crossrail (Crossrail to Canary Wharf is a low frequency service at 12tph).
</p>
<p>
For completeness, Crossrail 2 will of course save large amounts of time for journeys to the West End near Victoria, Leicester Square and Euston.
</p>
<h4>Putting the pieces together</h4>
<p>
Given these two key points - relative capacity and journey times - the real question is whether routing Crossrail 2 via Balham (or Tooting) makes sense. People generally take the quickest route.
</p>
<p>
To summarize, these are what I calculate to be the quickest routes:
</p>
<ul>
<li>Any station from Morden to Tooting going to London Bridge, Bank or Moorgate - stay on Northern Line</li>
<li>Any station from Morden to Tooting going to Canary Wharf - Northern Line then Jubilee Line</li>
<li>Any station on Crossrail 2 via Wimbledon going to London Bridge or Bank - change from Crossrail 2 to Northern Line</li>
<li>Any station on Crossrail 2 via Wimbledon going to Moorgate or Canary Wharf - stay on Crossrail 2 and change to Crossrail 1</li>
</ul>
<p>
Thus there are two conclusions:
</p>
<p>
<b>1) No one already on a Northern Line train approaching Balham and heading to London Bridge, the City or Canary Wharf will change onto Crossrail 2.</b>
</p>
<p>
<b>2) Anyone on a Crossrail 2 train from Wimbledon and heading to London Bridge, or the south part of the City will change onto the Northern Line.</b>
</p>
<p>
Given these conclusions, TfL's claims that Crossrail 2 will relieve the Northern Line look very very duboius. Just think about the sheer number of jobs in the City and Canary Wharf if you have any doubts.
</p>
<p>
And as a final kicker, routing Crossrail 2 via Balham (or Tooting) is considerably more expensive than routing it via Earlsfield. A topic that will be the subject of my <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/crossrail-2-swirl.html">next article</a>!
</p>
<h4>Summary</h4>
<p>
Each Northern Line train is a lot smaller than each Crossrail train, so relief of the Northern Line depends on few people transferring from Crossrail 2 to the Northern Line. Unfortunately, journeys to key destinations such as London Bridge and the south part of the City are quicker by changing from Crossrail 2 to the Northern Line.
</p>
<p>
As such, this analysis suggests that routing Crossrail 2 via Balham or Tooting is highly unlikely to reduce crowding on the Northern Line by much and may well make it worse.
</p>
Stephen Colebournehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01454237967846880639noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-25639624660530222402015-10-26T00:14:00.000+00:002016-01-08T13:15:40.745+00:00Crossrail 2 - Wimbledon to Victoria<p>
It had been assumed that TfL's route for <a href="http://crossrail2.co.uk/">Crossrail 2</a> between Wimbledon and Victoria was set in stone, but there has been <a href="http://www.balhamortooting.org.uk/">recent talk</a> that the Tooting Broadway station is under debate as a result of <a href="http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/13889880.Anger_erupts_as_Tooting_looks_like_losing_out_to_Balham_on_Crossrail_2/">difficult ground conditions</a>.
This post provides a set of possible routings for the section, beyond the Balham option TfL is apparently looking at.
</p>
<h4>Balham instead of Tooting?</h4>
<p>
This blog has <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/crossrail-ssw.html">long argued</a> that Crossrail 2 should not go via Tooting, but the suggestion of Balham comes as a surprise. In some ways it is less of a dog-leg, but in others it is more of one. Clearly, the desire to route via the Northern Line is very strong.
</p>
<p>
To aid the debate, I've <a href="https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zlDYS_y3f6vM.kzuJ5yAZt6E0&usp=sharing">drawn a map</a> showing a set of what might be considered viable options and stations. Of course there are many more options in reality, but too many can make things less clear (thus, no options are shown via Wandsworth for example).
</p>
<p>
The TfL routes are shown in red (light red for Tooting, dark red for Balham). Other potential routes in purple.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zlDYS_y3f6vM.kzuJ5yAZt6E0&usp=sharing" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnyqy0xGxR9PGM6d3VSkBA2YiKs8wtp2P_pTG0ySohGsTYiwolW8UPCZBbPBEoUGntPtZxu0LI4ODfmXrW9vBnc8vwbCl_B-hsTbPVPQtcQLnJvGhnPDjucNjOLt3Z3hMEH640jw_2beDm/s640/WimbledonVictoria.png" /></a></div>
<p>
Here is my measurement of the distances involved:
</p>
<table class="tbl">
<tr>
<th>Route (between Wimbledon and Victoria)</th>
<th>Distance</th>
<th>Excess over shortest route</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Tooting, Clapham Junction, Chelsea</th>
<td>11.9km</td>
<td> 27%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Tooting, Clapham Junction, Battersea Power</th>
<td>11.4km</td>
<td> 21%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Tooting, Clapham Junction, (direct to Victoria)</th>
<td>10.9km</td>
<td> 16%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Balham, Clapham Junction, Chelsea (my estimated route)</th>
<td>12km</td>
<td> 28%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Balham, Clapham Junction, Chelsea (TfL actual proposal)</th>
<td>12.9km</td>
<td> 37%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Balham, Cedars Road, Battersea Power</th>
<td>10.5km</td>
<td> 12%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Earlsfield, Clapham Junction, Chelsea</th>
<td>10.3km (4km surface)</td>
<td> 10%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Earlsfield, Clapham Junction, (direct to Victoria)</th>
<td>9.4km (4km surface)</td>
<td> 0%</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>
From this I draw some conclusions:
</p>
<p>
1) The shortest route is via Earlsfield and direct to Victoria. Routing via Chelsea or Battersea Power is quite a diversion between Clapham Junction and Victoria. This also involves the least tunnelling (as the portal can be north-east of Earlsfield).
</p>
<p>
2) Tooting Broadway is a long way south and east between Wimbledon and Clapham Junction. Hence the "dog-leg" moniker for the TfL route. The total excess distance of 27% is high. (The TfL routing map was published later with a higher excess).
</p>
<p>
3) Balham is further east than Clapham Junction. As such, a Wimbledon - Balham - Clapham Junction routing is more indirect than via Tooting Broadway at a total excess distance of 28%. (The TfL routing map was published later with a higher excess of 37%).
</p>
<p>
4) Balham to Victoria via Cedars Road and Battersea Power is a simple straight routing, with an excess distance of just 12%. If chosen, it would probably push the Northern Line Battersea extension to reach Clapham Junction sooner rather than later. It does raise the question of whether Crossrail 2 really needs to serve Clapham Junction? ie. could interchange with South West Main Line fast services happen at Wimbledon instead of Clapham Junction? Note that the station at Battersea Power would need to link to Queenstown Road station to be effective.
</p>
<p>
Finally, I'll note that the Balham option provides for a station in the Wandle Valley. This has the potential to deliver a major housing development. Given the pressing need for housing in London, and the funds housing brings, this could be a major factor in any decision.
</p>
<p>
Happy to hear your thoughts in the comments!
</p>
<p>
<i>Update 2015-10-28: The real map from TfL has arrived, and demonstrates how routing via either Balham or Tooting involves an even more stupid routing than my map above! Calculated as a 37% excess over the shortest practical route.</i>
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://s17.postimg.org/hy5dtz0a5/Balham_Bulge.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://s17.postimg.org/a5eq1zub1/Balham_Bulge.png" /></a></div>
Stephen Colebournehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01454237967846880639noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-53141841177732419562015-09-24T01:09:00.000+01:002015-09-24T01:28:25.022+01:00Sussex relief line<p>
The railways to the south of London into Sussex and Kent are, like many other routes, under capacity pressure.
Finding space for the projected growth in passengers is becoming very difficult, especially as trains start to reach the maximum practical length of 12 cars. This blog looks at one possible solution for Sussex and West Kent.
</p>
<h4>Sussex and Kent lines</h4>
<p>
The Sussex and Kent lines are some of the more complicated services out of London.
The long distance Sussex services run from both Victoria and London Bridge, through East Croydon and Gatwick Airport, with routes to Horsham and Lewes off the mainline to Brighton.
There are four tracks from East Croydon to just south of Three Bridges, after the Horsham route separates. The two track mainline continues through to Brighton, an area which is under capacity pressure. More pressure occurs through East Croydon, where there are only four tracks to serve the whole of Sussex, including some suburban services. Solving the Easy Croydon problem is key to the Sussex area.
</p>
<p>
The Kent services are complex due to their history of two competing companies.
Services run from Victoria to the north and east of the county and Charing Cross to the west.
As this is primarily a Sussex plan, the route from Charing Cross to Tonbridge and Hastings or Ashford is the one to discuss.
It has four tracks through London to Orpington, dropping down to two tracks from there on.
With just two tracks, it has some real limitations on the service that can be provided.
In addition, there is a two track section between London Bridge and Charing Cross which provides an extra limitation, as it is shared with other routes to Dartford.
</p>
<p>
Current plans involve an <a href="http://www.londonreconnections.com/2014/study-sussex-part-7-east-croydon/">upgrade</a> at East Croydon. This will potentially add two platforms to the station, and more tracks with a flyover to the north.
Such an upgrade will ease the immediate pressure and allow the main line to be used to its maximum, but the capacity pressures are greater than this. The Network Rail route study is <a href="https://www.networkrail.co.uk/long-term-planning-process/south-east-route-sussex-area-route-study/">also available</a>.
</p>
<p>
A proposal from outside Network Rail, the <a href="http://www.bml2.co.uk/">BML2</a>, involves reopening the line from Lewes to Uckfield to provide a second route from Brighton to London. However, this would result in more trains through East Croydon, not less. As such, the plan's authors propose using an old rail link to Elmers End, displacing the popular tram. They would then run on the existing railway line to Lewisham, currently discussed as a Bakerloo line extension.
While this plan has some merits (the route from Lewes to Uckfield should indeed be reopened), the London part of the plan is in the author's opinion completely unreasonable.
</p>
<p>
Finally, it is important to emphasise that the UK's second busiest airport, Gatwick, is located directly on the main line.
This provides significant traffic, but is also a problem to capacity.
In recent years, it has proved difficult to maintain the dedicated 4tph (trains per hour) airport express, resulting in a significant service degradation to the airport.
To provide a second runway at Gatwick, and handle the significant growth that entails, will need more investment.
</p>
<p>
When looking at the area in its entirety, it is clear that at some point a radical solution will be necessary.
</p>
<h4>Sussex Relief Line</h4>
<p>
The Sussex Relief Line is a proposed approach to providing the step-change in capacity needed for the area. This is a high level proposal, so readers should not consider any lines on the map as being accurate. The goal is to produce a scheme with widespread benefits to boost the business case.
</p>
<p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zlDYS_y3f6vM.kB4SfAF0CAcg&usp=sharing" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXhQNci_aBDacjTLkNFeIk7m0VxtPIS0Vqq0XzxqopUXYIJPK9qqoaxfeHMbHOPiA3-CG4w0gXO_D6SCEo_FQyfhY9Y6c2wRPpzBna4EbBsg4398nQW2D17fYoZ9my2Apm6yGOv25ptuIu/s400/SussexReliefLine.png" /></a></div>
</p>
<p>
The core of the Sussex Relief Line is the provision of a new main line for the area. This is needed to cope with capacity in the future, especially if Gatwick is to expand. Since London is so heavily built up, any sensible proposal is going to involve significant tunnelling.
</p>
<p>
The interesting part of this proposal is the proposal routing. Once a new line and significant tunnel are accepted, there is no need for such a line to be routed close to the existing line.
Rather than go via East Croydon, which would still be well served, the new line could run via a different outer London centre.
Bromley is the obvious candidate here, especially as it is very poorly served at the moment.
And while tunnelling is fairly expensive at around £100m per km, it tends to produce reliable services (less weather issues for example).
</p>
<p>
The route is as follows:
</p>
<ul>
<li>Gatwick, connecting to the existing line</li>
<li>"Godstone Vale", between Oxted and Godstone</li>
<li>A connection to the East Grinstead, Uckfield and Tonbridge routes</li>
<li>"Biggin Vale", west of Biggin Hill</li>
<li>Bromley South (in tunnel)</li>
<li>Lewisham Junction (in tunnel), see this <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/lewisham-junction.html">proposed new station</a></li>
<li>Canary Wharf (in tunnel), connections to Crossrail, Jubilee and DLR</li>
<li>Potential to extend on to Stratford and the <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/anglia-relief-line.html">Anglia Relief Line</a></li>
</ul>
<p>
This diagram shows the route more clearly, together with the major connections, Crossrail and the Jubilee line. The red line is the new relief line, and the light purple are existing lines that could be served from the new line. Not shown on the diagram is the potential to link East Grinstead to Haywards Heath, or to link Uckfield to Lewes.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPeeMtBb9PlxkWCooOaUR3wVInddVkDUfjefNT7SYnJ1YdEk1EvQnrJREyfdhR_fE4U66v1EESNySvj2mTh6OZnMknm0BsYcKxyuIfnWkXeF9Ucy5oZCB2eDIrMRYfgPnu-2qrKKWPfpdL/s1600/SussexReliefDiagram.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPeeMtBb9PlxkWCooOaUR3wVInddVkDUfjefNT7SYnJ1YdEk1EvQnrJREyfdhR_fE4U66v1EESNySvj2mTh6OZnMknm0BsYcKxyuIfnWkXeF9Ucy5oZCB2eDIrMRYfgPnu-2qrKKWPfpdL/s640/SussexReliefDiagram.png" /></a></div>
<p>
The London section is particularly key to the benefits of the scheme.
Bromley to Canary Wharf is currently 45 to 55 minutes. With this scheme, that would drop to just 10 minutes.
Lewisham to Canary Wharf would drop from 15 minutes to 4 minutes.
And as both stations would be junctions, it would be easy for passengers at other stations in south east London to change and benefit from similar journey time reductions.
</p>
<p>
Gatwick access is similarly improved. For example, passengers from places such as Chatham and Canterbury would simply change at Bromley South rather than be forced to change at Victoria as they do now.
</p>
<p>
By reaching Stratford in the north, passengers from Sussex and West Kent would have a much faster cross-region journey. Trips to Norwich, Colchester, Cambridge and Stansted would no longer involve travel via central London. For example, Brighton to Colchester would see journey times drop from more than 2 hours 40 to less than 2 hours. If the <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/anglia-relief-line.html">Anglia Relief Line</a> were also built, then the effect would be even more transformative.
</p>
<h4>Housing</h4>
<p>
While the transport benefits of this proposal are large and beneficial, it is also necessary to consider the development potential that the new line could generate. Such development would no doubt be unpopular, but we are in a housing crisis and new options should be considered.
</p>
<p>
The two locations on the map marked with grey stations - "Biggin Vale" and "Godstone Vale" are possible locations for housing development in new towns. The "Biggin Vale" potential development site is likely to be in the valley west of Biggin Hill, although the airport itself might be considered an alternative development site. The "Godstone Value" potential development site is likely to consist of much of the land between Godstone and Oxted, with a focus on the existing golf courses.
</p>
<p>
Since the whole area is <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/greenpolitics/planning/9708387/Interactive-map-Englands-green-belt.html">green belt</a>, no development can occur without Government decision makers choosing to permit the green belt protection to be selectively removed. However, were development to occur, the sites would be about 15 and 20 minutes from Canary Wharf, making them highly desirable.
</p>
<p>
Were the Biggin Vale site to be developed, it would make sense to extend the tram from New Addington to the new station.
This would provide connections to the major centre of Croydon, and also provide a big boost to New Addington itself, potentially including regeneration.
</p>
<p>
In addition, such a new line would permit greater development to occur at existing towns, including Lingfield, East Grinstead, Edenbridge, Crowborough, Tonbridge and Three Bridges, with all these places likely to be within 45 minutes of Canary Wharf.
</p>
<h4>Services</h4>
<p>
There are many potential services that could be run with such a new line. One possible set of services would be:
</p>
<ul>
<li>4tph to Horsham, stopping at all stations</li>
<li>4tph to Brighton, not stopping at the two "Vale" stations</li>
<li>2tph to East Grinstead</li>
<li>2tph to Uckfield</li>
<li>4tph to Tonbridge, and one to Tunbridge Wells or Ashford</li>
</ul>
<p>
Since all services would stop at Bromley South and Lewisham Junction, those stations would have a truly excellent service.
</p>
<h4>Summary</h4>
<p>
This proposal outlines a conceptual new line for Sussex and West Kent. It tunnels through London from Stratford to Bromley before serving potential development sites on the way to Gatwick. Connections would allow services to run to Oxted, East Grinstead, Uckfield and Tonbridge. At the north end, it has the potential to link on to the <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/anglia-relief-line.html">Anglia Relief Line</a>, providing fast cross-region services.
</p>
<p>
If you think the concept proposal has merit, or have any other opinions, why not leave a comment!
</p>
Stephen Colebournehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01454237967846880639noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-71715134339903693652014-10-14T00:53:00.001+01:002014-10-14T00:53:38.012+01:00Old Oak Common - Queens Park tunnel<p>
In my <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/old-oak-common-shared-loop-option.html">last post</a> I laid out the Shared Loop option for Old Oak Common. This post expands on that option, so if you haven't read it yet, please do!
</p>
<h4>Shared Loop option</h4>
<p>
The previous blog outlines a plan for Old Oak Common that is relatively cheap and far more effective than the 3 current options TfL has presented. The plan developed in three phases, resulting in a final phase that yields much more spare land for development.
</p>
<p>
This is an updated version of phase 3, with two additional freight lines (to retain freight capacity) and a realignment of the Dudding Hill station (to avoid the tall cranes of the freight depot on the south side of the West Coast Main Line):
</p>
<div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8JO6zVg5nI8T5U3pNMRxlEZeV7Z1CCqgEQeq0TAmnEa4iE4bRmTvZEmzha-qt-6Spm9gbDgdLPBFC6UFiLpXG0bgVgXZaovMZ2ZNw59duLU14848rcvtlsR6NzGdziBc0VbijGBTUzaZr/s1600/SharedLoop3b.png" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8JO6zVg5nI8T5U3pNMRxlEZeV7Z1CCqgEQeq0TAmnEa4iE4bRmTvZEmzha-qt-6Spm9gbDgdLPBFC6UFiLpXG0bgVgXZaovMZ2ZNw59duLU14848rcvtlsR6NzGdziBc0VbijGBTUzaZr/s640/SharedLoop3b.png" /></a></div>
<p>
The service pattern with phase 3 would be something like:
</p>
<ul>
<li>8tph Crossrail from Paddington via Old Oak Common, shared loop and Dudding Hill to Watford</li>
<li>2tph Southern from East Croydon via Old Oak Common, shared loop and Dudding Hill to Watford</li>
<li>6tph Overground from Clapham Jn via Old Oak Common, shared loop and Dudding Hill to Willesden Jn</li>
<li>6tph Overground from Richmond via Dudding Hill to Willesden Jn</li>
</ul>
<p>
The plan specifically acknowledged that the Richmond service could access the Old Oak job market and Crossrail, but not HS2 or the Great West Main Line without a change of trains (simply accomplished at Dudding Hill.
</p>
<p>
Having visited the area, I now outline an additional scheme, the Queens Park tunnel.
</p>
<h4>Queens Park tunnel</h4>
<p>
The Queens Park tunnel is intended to be built after the completion of phase 3 of the Shared Loop option once the site is a growing business district. It involves bringing the Richmond (or Hounslow) services into Old Oak Common station via a new link.
</p>
<p>
This link would run entirely on viaduct above the initial Old Oak Common station. Once through the station, it would drop down on the north side of the Great West Main Line, next to the canal and under the current West London Line bridge. From there it would slowly descend to a new station at the Kensal Gasworks site. Beyond there, it would run in a short tunnel to surface in the builders merchants yard to the west of Queens Park station.
</p>
<div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgD8FhKKQ7mIS-BWOAHaIYz9Kc-cl2o-_J2xrJVxV5mJcoLDaQui6KKPYcJz4g2HTyV-Xn6oqYEN84yiD5hSzAXfTOLuAGe1YwwNTl99csew6XDWYlJ6pez66ca56imnEpnMqfPVN1y4Asr/s1600/SharedLoop4.png" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgD8FhKKQ7mIS-BWOAHaIYz9Kc-cl2o-_J2xrJVxV5mJcoLDaQui6KKPYcJz4g2HTyV-Xn6oqYEN84yiD5hSzAXfTOLuAGe1YwwNTl99csew6XDWYlJ6pez66ca56imnEpnMqfPVN1y4Asr/s640/SharedLoop4.png" /></a></div>
<p>
The Queens Park tunnel scheme fully separates the Bakerloo line and the Overground in the Queens Park area. Only the Bakerloo would serve Kensal Green, Willesden Junction, Harlesden and beyond (Crossrail might be required to takeover the Overground route beyond Harrow and Wealdstone). The Overground would run from Old Oak via Kensal Gasworks to Queens Park, then on to Camden Road (replacing the Overground service to Euston. It is likely that this would save at least 10 minutes on the journey time from Camden Road and beyond to Old Oak, and reduce conflicts on the section of the North London Line via West Hampstead.
</p>
<p>
The service pattern with the Queens Park tunnel would be something like:
</p>
<ul>
<li>8tph Crossrail from Paddington via Old Oak Common, shared loop and Dudding Hill to Watford</li>
<li>2tph Southern from East Croydon via Old Oak Common, shared loop and Dudding Hill to Watford</li>
<li>6tph Overground from Clapham Jn via Old Oak Common, shared loop and Dudding Hill to Willesden Jn</li>
<li>8tph Overground from Richmond via Dudding Hill to Queens Park and Camden Road</li>
<li>4tph Overground from Hounslow via Dudding Hill to Willesden Jn</li>
</ul>
<p>
While the gradients in the Queens Park tunnel are definitely fine for passenger services, it is uncertain as to whether freight could use the tunnel. It would however be desirable if freight could use the tunnel, as it would provide a direct link to the South and West without going via Willesden Junction.
</p>
<h4>Summary</h4>
<p>
This blog post outlines a development beyond the Shared Loop option - the Queens Park tunnel.
It must be emphasised that Shared Loop is highly successful as an option without the tunnel.
However, it definitely seems worth investigating it, given the capacity and time saving benefits of an express service to Camden Road and separation of the Bakerloo and Overground.
</p>
Stephen Colebournehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01454237967846880639noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-34895550345039900932014-09-25T14:39:00.000+01:002015-09-22T18:19:29.757+01:00Old Oak Common - Shared Loop option<p>
A new cost-effective phased option for Old Oak Common.
See the <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/old-oak-common-central-viaduct-option.html">Central Viaduct option</a> post for more details on the problems of the site and for a more comprehensive, but expensive, option.
</p>
<p>
This option makes use of the proposed <a href="http://assets.hs2.org.uk/sites/default/files/event_speakers/LWM-HS2-EN-MAP-010-000002-P06.pdf">Crossrail to West Coast Main Line</a> (WCML) link, avoiding building a second sharp curve in the South West of the site (as proposed by TfL's <a href="https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/london-overground/old-oak-common">option A</a>).
</p>
<h4>Phase 1</h4>
<p>
Phase 1 builds on the planned construction of the Crossrail link from Old Oak Common (main) to the West Coast Main Line. Phase 1 of the TfL element simply adds a new viaduct link from the West London Line to the middle two platforms of Old Oak Common (main). This allows Southern services (green) from East Croydon to Milton Keynes to travel via Old Oak in addition to the Crossrail services to Tring.
</p>
<p>
(Old Oak Common main station is due to have 8 platforms, 4 for Crossrail and 4 for the fast lines. This plan aims to send 4tph of Southern services via the central 2 of the 4 Crossrail platforms. Crossrail 24tph plus Southern 4tph can be handled on 4 platforms.)
</p>
<div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEib5pNpgh1rGEsAjKaWhTBC6fFAsLCA_04GjTMC8aENfAL67lA0U_X9YyiRDZZ1KO4H61B5gZ_lNvDcevDhq2dgH2fKkote7jdSZslnpexvloiNPpog1FYjSIFXXzIkVjBa41IdY4l7aQnF/s1600/SharedLoop1.png" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEib5pNpgh1rGEsAjKaWhTBC6fFAsLCA_04GjTMC8aENfAL67lA0U_X9YyiRDZZ1KO4H61B5gZ_lNvDcevDhq2dgH2fKkote7jdSZslnpexvloiNPpog1FYjSIFXXzIkVjBa41IdY4l7aQnF/s640/SharedLoop1.png" /></a></div>
<h4>Phase 2</h4>
<p>
Phase 2 builds on phase 1 by constructing a new viaduct across railway lands in the North West of the site. This allows Overground services from Clapham Junction to reach Willesden Junction (two new platforms, north of the Bakerloo ones). This phase allows the existing line in the East to be closed and sold for development:
</p>
<div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKn0YCGuG_tU2Hm-yuDAWkFkGOJr0z-nlmiYDp3ygU8L4tU2ZLjafXmxnAaMxYMSTPF2DHCrTyYjEmL9ENOlCE0_u7MoR5oNyU6bDZw1s5D4mMcTH-AgN-QZB6pUhAWHXiVbGZG-wYs6Ij/s1600/SharedLoop2.png" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKn0YCGuG_tU2Hm-yuDAWkFkGOJr0z-nlmiYDp3ygU8L4tU2ZLjafXmxnAaMxYMSTPF2DHCrTyYjEmL9ENOlCE0_u7MoR5oNyU6bDZw1s5D4mMcTH-AgN-QZB6pUhAWHXiVbGZG-wYs6Ij/s640/SharedLoop2.png" /></a></div>
<h4>Phase 3</h4>
<p>
Phase 3 builds on phase 2 by diverting Overground services from Richmond via the new North Western viaduct. This would be accompanied by a new station in that area to serve the ongoing developments. This phase allows even more existing lines to be closed and sold for development:
</p>
<div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmejv92ZUVUTbL0MzLXqkpleiNQNvm0Af992HUWNRrLqnV9CTRdjZs3EYS_RU1wg7K9sg5YQz2HYSwyRweb5YzwbIi9ssWfb80jV15b1IpZYSwqMkKTtNSN9yMOvFskq3wNiCc4NkXTztc/s1600/SharedLoop3.png" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmejv92ZUVUTbL0MzLXqkpleiNQNvm0Af992HUWNRrLqnV9CTRdjZs3EYS_RU1wg7K9sg5YQz2HYSwyRweb5YzwbIi9ssWfb80jV15b1IpZYSwqMkKTtNSN9yMOvFskq3wNiCc4NkXTztc/s640/SharedLoop3.png" /></a></div>
<p>
Obviously, the final phase does not integrate Richmond services directly with HS2, but it does link it with Crossrail (the Tring services). Linking Richmond into the main Old Oak station would require two more platforms to cope with demand, which is a big ask at this initial stage.
</p>
<p>
As a final note, all the phases are compatible with extensions to link Old Oak Common to North Acton (and beyond) and to open an Overground route to Brent Cross.
</p>
<p>
<i>Update 14th October 2014</i>: See the updated phase 3 map <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/old-oak-common-queens-park-tunnel.html">here</a>.
</p>
<h4>Rationale</h4>
<p>
<i>Section added 28th September 2014.</i>
</p>
<p>
This option was triggered by the release of the <a href="http://assets.hs2.org.uk/sites/default/files/event_speakers/LWM-HS2-EN-MAP-010-000002-P06.pdf">Crossrail to WCML</a> link plans. When you overlay that link and the option A viaduct over Wormwood Scrubs, you have two very similar pieces of infrastructure, just at different levels. The Shared Loop makes no changes to the Crossrail plan save the ability to access the Dudding Hill line in phases 2 and 3 (in reality, some form of grade separation may be needed there).
</p>
<p>
In terms of vertical alignment, the Shared Loop option involves a simple, low gradient descent from the WLL to the GWML/Crossrail level to use the OOC platforms. This naturally means that it is at the correct level to be able to access the Crossrail WCML link which ends up on a bridge over Victoria Road. From there, the later viaduct runs over the freight depot to Willesden, which probably requires a reconstruction of the Old Oak Common Lane bridge over the WCML (or a higher than originally intended viaduct). I would also note that with increasing land values, the freight depot area could be considered for sale, making that viaduct simper to build (looking forward 10 years).
</p>
<p>
Finally, a key part of both the <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/old-oak-common-central-viaduct-option.html">Central Viaduct</a> option and this Shared Loop option is the goal of maximising the land available for development. The existing rail lines make the site difficult to access and develop, and fewer rail lines can have a big impact.
</p>
<h4>Updated plan</h4>
<p>
<i>Section added 7th December 2014.</i>
</p>
<p>
I've slightly tweaked the plan to provide more freight capacity, and some more detail. See below:
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfLBFTJ1cXTWagBDagn0gM2cDsKwv-Bx6HggIlYqvWShKzMMdsYiqNFSbJQhKqEuA7FZLAYpANvr8-wP1m20qMBa9iHy7vEF0CG7F_PF2qP7k8FuQ79GloRpBqJoh6DxDBUwwBEQF7YMjL/s1600/SharedLoop3b.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfLBFTJ1cXTWagBDagn0gM2cDsKwv-Bx6HggIlYqvWShKzMMdsYiqNFSbJQhKqEuA7FZLAYpANvr8-wP1m20qMBa9iHy7vEF0CG7F_PF2qP7k8FuQ79GloRpBqJoh6DxDBUwwBEQF7YMjL/s640/SharedLoop3b.png" /></a></div>
<p>
And some track diagrams:
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggNlK4QI7ETHdIPvWNB9RrBofv4NZ56WFtNQoJqaiGOK0VzfZtrrRpvUt0OsXvxi1UYEXZwtb4Q-SIfRxfolndF3qQVHMIexyXv8KOV1qcZRL53HT5gOcXsNIh964gtv52mhIRujNZPKv4/s1600/SharedLoopDiagrammaticNorth.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggNlK4QI7ETHdIPvWNB9RrBofv4NZ56WFtNQoJqaiGOK0VzfZtrrRpvUt0OsXvxi1UYEXZwtb4Q-SIfRxfolndF3qQVHMIexyXv8KOV1qcZRL53HT5gOcXsNIh964gtv52mhIRujNZPKv4/s640/SharedLoopDiagrammaticNorth.png" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZ2TE6I3ZiaGKIhXrMON3drj-W-PzxhhV5bdyf0C9R9Dm_MLu6cuRy_r9Omt4W5iG3AwjxCYLu9Iu62g3Y0qUUwknqfMyeGbYoamS7ipERzr4x7Yz_L0CbYkro5HplABjPvcgEa4n17dwW/s1600/SharedLoopDiagrammaticSouth.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZ2TE6I3ZiaGKIhXrMON3drj-W-PzxhhV5bdyf0C9R9Dm_MLu6cuRy_r9Omt4W5iG3AwjxCYLu9Iu62g3Y0qUUwknqfMyeGbYoamS7ipERzr4x7Yz_L0CbYkro5HplABjPvcgEa4n17dwW/s640/SharedLoopDiagrammaticSouth.png" /></a></div>
<h4>Summary</h4>
<p>
This blog outlines an alternate approach to Old Oak Common - the Shared Loop option.
</p>
Stephen Colebournehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01454237967846880639noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-3918114284597819012014-04-07T00:20:00.000+01:002014-04-07T00:20:14.226+01:00HS2 - West Midlands Express<p>
HS2 phase 1 provides a new railway from London to Birmingham Curzon Street and Lichfield. In the Birmingham area, a new station is also proposed at Birmingham Interchange, north of the current Birmingham International station. This blog examines a way to make best use of the new assets.
</p>
<h3>West Midlands Express</h3>
<p>
The new Birmingham Interchange station is <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/birmingham-interchange-is-not.html">deeply flawed</a> as it currently stands.
It provides no interchange with any existing public transport, and will rely on a "people mover" solution to connect to the existing Birmingham International station.
The practicalities of a people mover mean that passengers from the local area, notably Coventry, will be highly unlikely to use rail to access Birmingham Interchange.
This will serve to increase demand on the roads in the area. Not a desirable outcome.
</p>
<p>
In addition, the new HS2 line fails to provide any real new capacity for travel between Coventry and Birmingham.
The current railway is just two tracks between the two cities and carries a slow stopping service for the many intermediate stations.
Providing paths for a fast non-stop service in addition to the stopping one is a challenge.
</p>
<p>
The West Midlands Express proposal is a simple change to HS2 that solves both these problems.
</p>
<p>
The proposal is to construct <a href="https://mapsengine.google.com/map/viewer?mid=zlDYS_y3f6vM.klQoLVHEX8G8">two new connections</a> to HS2.
The first is from Birmingham Interchange to Coventry, allowing HS2 trains from the north and Birmingham to reach Coventry (the HS2 section around Birmingham Interchange has 4 tracks, so capacity exists for this).
The second is from the existing lines east of Birmingham New Street, allowing trains from New Street to reach HS2.
</p>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgS5AG5jKQmb2dqfjyhLKD_rxkN2Ed0N8xSZsIO-29hJwfBMGBaStDa44HB_mhQDJeXwciUp8KzdUo7o1r-C4JyjUojFIlKOEl8LP40TDPl0V6Px9EV2m-47WNLerqgKLRR8N__o7gBt8ax/s1600/WestMidlandsExpressMap.png" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgS5AG5jKQmb2dqfjyhLKD_rxkN2Ed0N8xSZsIO-29hJwfBMGBaStDa44HB_mhQDJeXwciUp8KzdUo7o1r-C4JyjUojFIlKOEl8LP40TDPl0V6Px9EV2m-47WNLerqgKLRR8N__o7gBt8ax/s1600/WestMidlandsExpressMap.png" /></a>
</p>
<p>
The current service plan for HS2 includes the following:
3tph from Birmingham Curzon Street to London, 3tph from Curzon Street to the westerly leg of phase 2 (Manchester and Glasgow), and 3tph from Curzon Street to the easterly leg of phase 2 (Leeds and Newcastle).
This gives a total of 9tph on the Curzon Street branch.
</p>
<p>
The West Midlands Express proposal would add an additional 3tph service on the Curzon Street branch.
Trains would run Wolverhampton - Sandwell & Dudley - Birmingham New Street - Birmingham Interchange - Coventry - Rugby (shown in red). Extensions to Telford, Shrewsbury, Northampton and Leamington would all be possible.
</p>
<p>
Services would use either classic compatible HS2 trains, or trains similar to the Javelin trains used in Kent.
Note that it is likely that trains between Birmingham and Coventry would be no faster than today using this route, as it is longer. However, it is the increased connectivity that is the justification.
</p>
<p>
The benefits of this service are clear:
</p>
<p>
1) Passengers from Wolverhampton (and the western West Midlands) to London would have a quick and easy change onto HS2 at Birmingham Interchange, avoiding the long slog between New Street and Curzon Street. They would also have much better access to the North at Interchange.
</p>
<p>
2) Passengers from Coventry to the North would have a quick and easy change onto HS2 at Birmingham Interchange. This would reduce the need for driving from the Coventry area.
</p>
<p>
3) Genuine additional capacity is provided between Coventry and Birmingham, with the new HS2 tracks becoming used for regional connections. This would allow an increase in the frequency of the stopping service.
</p>
<p>
4) The Coventry link provides a location for services from the phase 2 branches to terminate if there is no free path to reach London. This could increase the number of trains using the phase 2 sections, increasing their value.
</p>
<p>
In effect, the West Midlands Express proposal is similar to ideas already put forward for express services between Glasgow and Edinburgh, and between Liverpool and Manchester.
In each case, the goal is to maximise the value obtained from the new railway infrastructure.
In this proposal, it is places from Wolverhampton to Coventry to Rugby that would benefit.
</p>
<h3>Summary</h3>
<p>
The West Midlands Express proposal is a simple change to HS2, consisting of just two new junctions.
Yet it provides greatly enhanced connections to the spine of the West Midlands, changing Birmingham Interchange from an embarrassing car park in a field to the hub of the national and regional network.
Coventry and Wolverhampton particularly benefit from the proposal.
</p>
<p>
If you like the sound of the proposal, why not add a comment!
</p>
Stephen Colebournehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01454237967846880639noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-16884418313861652092014-03-03T09:26:00.000+00:002014-09-22T10:53:32.726+01:00Old Oak Common - Central Viaduct option<p>
Old Oak Common, where the high-speed HS2 railway meets Crossrail, provides a huge opportunity to create
a fantastic transport hub. But Tfl, Network Rail and the DfT are missing the opportunity.
</p>
<h4>Introduction</h4>
<p>
The site at <a href="http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Old_Oak_Part_1_0.pdf">Old Oak Common</a>, next to Wormwood Scrubs, is planned under by HS2 Ltd to provide
a new station linking the high speed line with Crossrail and the GWML (Great Western Main Line)
to Reading and beyond. All trains on HS2 and Crossrail are intended to stop, and potentially
every train on the GWML as well.
</p>
<p>
Current HS2 plans include a station at Old Oak Common.
There are to be 6 platforms on HS2, deep within a cut-and-cover box,
and 8 platforms on the GWML.
The eight would be divided into 4 for Crossrail and 4 for the main line:
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj74LNW1al7H5FReiSoBj75-3vbnN1T6A_4rV1M4w9rurtn1wV_QSl7RLccPme71Bv5QXHiQd63zyR-wRnhuwJy4O94Uualz4BQqMv3GNQlmskc-fzkp6eGhgdjSTydaGmcnIhPpZT0sddl/s1600/Current.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj74LNW1al7H5FReiSoBj75-3vbnN1T6A_4rV1M4w9rurtn1wV_QSl7RLccPme71Bv5QXHiQd63zyR-wRnhuwJy4O94Uualz4BQqMv3GNQlmskc-fzkp6eGhgdjSTydaGmcnIhPpZT0sddl/s640/Current.png" /></a></div>
<p>
<i>On the maps, the Central line is in red, the Bakerloo in brown, HS2 in blue, London Overground in orange, Southern services from East Croydon to Watford in green, Crossrail/GWML in black (across the south side of the site) and the WCML (West Coast Main Line) in black (across the north side of the site). Freight lines are shown in black and a narrower. The base map is taken from an official guide to the regeneration and thus shows future buildings, not current buildings.</i>
</p>
<p>
However, there are no finalised plans for integration of other railway lines in the area.
These include the Central line, the Bakerloo line, the Overground line to Richmond and
the Overground line to Clapham Junction.
To remedy this, TfL have been working on plans to link the new Old Oak Common station to the
Overground.
</p>
<p>
Unfortunately, TfL's plans are very poor.
</p>
<h4></h4>
<p>
TfL have <a href="http://www.goldenmilegroup.org.uk/wla/goldenmile.nsf/Files/WTA-184/$FILE/23_3_Overground-at-Old-Oak-Common.pdf">proposed</a>
a new line along the south side of the site from North Pole Junction to Acton Wells Junction (see this
<a href="http://carto.metro.free.fr/cartes/metro-tram-london/index.php?gpslat=51.525844&gpslon=-0.243404&zoom=4">map</a>
for junction names).
This line would include a new station, "Old Oak South", parallel to the GWML Old Oak Common station, but separated from it by about 100m.
There would also be a new "Old Oak West" station, located just north of Acton Wells junction, a good 400m or more
from the HS2/Crossrail station.
The line also requires a tight curve on a viaduct and some land take from Wormwood Scrubs itself:
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWNsCPY2uESOe2pdfEWn2DaDNnsIjJbkEMJ5R0OPYtiBPEpRbFpokTskMPmmocE5kv_jBLuT1M6AJwgbScPGH6w8JWiS1f4pzjQYlWyQNOxilQsU4l8EE9Ihz1a90cdwMTmbKJ8CZkqzDy/s1600/TfLoption82.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWNsCPY2uESOe2pdfEWn2DaDNnsIjJbkEMJ5R0OPYtiBPEpRbFpokTskMPmmocE5kv_jBLuT1M6AJwgbScPGH6w8JWiS1f4pzjQYlWyQNOxilQsU4l8EE9Ihz1a90cdwMTmbKJ8CZkqzDy/s640/TfLoption82.png" /></a></div>
<p>
This option (known as 8.2) is very poor, for a number of reasons:
</p>
<ul>
<li>No direct integration with Old Oak Common station itself</li>
<li>Passengers from Richmond face a 400-500m walk</li>
<li>Passengers from Clapham Junction face a 100-200m walk</li>
<li>No integration with the Central line</li>
<li>Extended journey times</li>
<li>Land is required from Wormwood Scrubs</li>
<li>Minimal land is freed up for development</li>
</ul>
<p>
TfL have also put forward a cheap as chips option (known as X) which does not include the southern station and only includes the western station, forcing passengers on the Overground from Clapham to North London to endure a 10 minute longer journey and a reversal of direction. It is so bad its not even worth covering here.
</p>
<h4>A better approach</h4>
<p>
The challenge of Old Oak Common is threefold:
</p>
<ul>
<li>Allow London Overground services to serve the main hub station</li>
<li>Continue to provide rail links for freight</li>
<li>Open up the site for redevelopment by minimising the railway lines</li>
</ul>
<p>
The first is the obvious one - without a good rail connection into the heart of the hub, millions of
potential passengers in South West London and beyond will face a much worse experience accessing HS2
than they should. As a result, many will choose to travel to Euston rather than Old Oak Common,
overloading Euston's capacity.
</p>
<p>
The second point is freight. The Old Oak Common area currently supports many links between the various
lines, allowing freight to move around the country. These links need to be protected.
</p>
<p>
The final point is redevelopment. A key rationale for the site is enabling a major redevelopment of the area.
Achieving redevelopment is hampered by the presence of lots of railway lines, each requiring bridges and
taking up lots of land.
</p>
<p>
As such, I propose a solution which tackles the three points above, while also providing a link to the Central line:
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJ_KGwsoVuoVmqxqfRPmpxDvpqLyFDo2yBTBDQIzJkoVMvDKvZRR8q8-kGQ536gFiLPjmLvFddeeVWZYY_cT66kh3FioiWeLkrQtMpyinhdfL3Ad1DgujX4lQf7JMkIHPREVDK_hMJQ23m/s1600/FullNoCrossrail.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJ_KGwsoVuoVmqxqfRPmpxDvpqLyFDo2yBTBDQIzJkoVMvDKvZRR8q8-kGQ536gFiLPjmLvFddeeVWZYY_cT66kh3FioiWeLkrQtMpyinhdfL3Ad1DgujX4lQf7JMkIHPREVDK_hMJQ23m/s640/FullNoCrossrail.png" /></a></div>
<p>
The plan consists of the following elements:
</p>
<ul>
<li>Two new "high-level platforms" at Old Oak Common (one island) located directly above the four Crossrail platform</li>
<li>Direct access from the Overground platform island to both Crossrail platform islands</li>
<li>A new line from the Overground Richmond line and the Ealing freight line to the high-level platforms</li>
<li>A new line from North Acton to the high-level platforms</li>
<li>A new line from the Overground Clapham line to the high-level platforms</li>
<li>A new line, the "Central Viaduct", from the high-level platforms to the existing Willesden Junction high-level station</li>
<li>A new link to allow freight from Clapham to reach the North London Line, also used by Southern services from Clapham to Watford</li>
<li>A new line from the Central Viaduct to the Dudding Hill freight line (in the top left) with a link to the WCML (mostly built across railway land)</li>
</ul>
<p>
The result is a dramatic improvement in the viability of the rail hub.
</p>
<p>
Overground services from Clapham would run from Shepherds Bush to Old Oak Common and then on to North Acton.
Beyond North Acton there a various options (not discussed in detail here) including High Wycombe, Alperton, Uxbridge and West Ealing.
</p>
<p>
Overground services from Richmond would run from Acton Central to Old Oak Common and then on to Willesden Junction.
Passengers travelling from Clapham to Willesden Junction and beyond would have a simple cross-platform change at Old Oak Common.
</p>
<p>
Southern services would run via the Central Viaduct without stopping at Old Oak Common.
</p>
<p>
A new Overground service would be possible from Old Oak Common up the Dudding Hill freight line to Neasden and beyond.
</p>
<p>
A good set of freight links are provided, including a new one from the Dudding Hill line to the West London Line. However the link from Reading to Euston is lost.
</p>
<p>
So why do I propose this scheme rather than other possibilities?
</p>
<p>
The key is that, as shown on the map, a large number of railway lines could be removed entirely, opening up the site for redevelopment. In particular, the eastern side is opened up to Scrubs Lane, and the western side is completely opened up between Old Oak Common Lane and Victoria Road.
</p>
<p>
All that would remain would be a single central viaduct, designed to handle all north-south traffic.
And it is that unifying factor that makes the plan work most effectively.
</p>
<p>
It is likely that the central viaduct approach is more expensive than TfL's option.
However, that extra cost is paid back by the value of the additional land that is made available for development.
A <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGC-ASxLG9VcM9gBykpEIRXyvt-GEizAv3nwBKHcsZEe_Sj4QOVXRq0RmsnqDWY9Q94wEmZWhi8H34QLh07rx1QFM3s1-xlL1SdadDwrJ8eOsnkEqkDcXC4NEiwx_DPFELqDLXarptV-SS/s1600/Proposed.png">cheaper version</a> is also possible if required.
</p>
<p>
As a final note, if a Crossrail link to the WCML is built, that <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUBxiUuXXZOSOlnd-5nAMnbSNkuOjcQV4uFtVLDhG260jJjMem4CjY1CEfd6W9ONgg8CI-kNoXYxqbDltSS9SUibrhVT7fVsMehuCQrZDPuqV7P0-WRDiueM611_YRCp06JvY_1zgS656o/s1600/FullCrossrail.png">works fine with this scheme</a>. Southern services would be diverted via the new Crossrail link. In addition, it would be possible for the London Overground Clapham route to run to Watford Junction via the same link.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUBxiUuXXZOSOlnd-5nAMnbSNkuOjcQV4uFtVLDhG260jJjMem4CjY1CEfd6W9ONgg8CI-kNoXYxqbDltSS9SUibrhVT7fVsMehuCQrZDPuqV7P0-WRDiueM611_YRCp06JvY_1zgS656o/s1600/FullCrossrail.png" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUBxiUuXXZOSOlnd-5nAMnbSNkuOjcQV4uFtVLDhG260jJjMem4CjY1CEfd6W9ONgg8CI-kNoXYxqbDltSS9SUibrhVT7fVsMehuCQrZDPuqV7P0-WRDiueM611_YRCp06JvY_1zgS656o/s640/FullCrossrail.png" /></a></div>
<h4>Summary</h4>
<p>
I propose a plan for Old Oak Common based around a unifying central viaduct.
Such a viaduct allows the replacement of all the north-south lines in the area, making redevelopment much more effective and increasing the land available. It also enables the London Overground to be integrated into the heart of the hub, where it needs to be to be effective. Finally, additional Overground links to North Acton for the Central Line and Neasden for the Jubilee line become possible.
</p>
<p>
Feel free to comment and ask questions!
</p>
Stephen Colebournehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01454237967846880639noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-45744930796294170672013-08-23T07:12:00.000+01:002013-08-24T00:32:12.040+01:00Crossrail 2 - Wink option<p>
This is the final post in a <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/crossrail2">series</a>
about Crossrail 2.
The <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.com/2013/08/crossrail-2-small-changes.html">last post</a>
identified four small change to the <a href="http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/27405.aspx">proposed scheme</a>.
This post has my full alternative proposal to address the
<a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.com/2013/08/crossrail-2-flaws.html">flaws</a> previously identified.
</p>
<h4>Overview - The Crossrail 2 "Wink" option</h4>
<p>
This proposal is a direct alternative to the TfL Crossrail 2 regional option.
It comes in two parts, <i>SwiftLink</i> and <i>PalaceLink</i>, together known as the "Wink" option for Crossrail 2.
(The "wink" name comes from the two lines together having roughly the shape of an eye in central London).
</p>
<p>
The TfL Regional option is costed at £12bn.
Through careful routing and planning, the combined SwiftLink and PalaceLink is costed at just £12.9bn.
</p>
<p>
In other words for just £900m more, <b>London can have two new lines, not one.</b>
</p>
<p>
To emphasise one key point -
the concept is to build both new lines, not just to build one.
The costings assume shared project management and construction.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://goo.gl/maps/tajtf" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnwKm9Qoo5IDcrT9hknvKeftEJzEEip3BAI_zd_Ai4LZr8GHe8wycbyULOPNHXSdoZOVhSBHsYQxCXjHgCJQT7mVcxWYmEaX3iyU4iUGWmw6O2vaKXtNny0xzIdbNs5mSZOK9EFuDWN0ui/s400/PalaceAndSwift.png" /></a></div>
<p style="padding-left:150px;font-size:small">
Map of the proposal. Click to view in Google Maps.
</p>
<h4>SwiftLink - Wimbledon to Canary Wharf</h4>
<p>
The SwiftLink proposal is focussed on South West London.
It provides a direct service from Clapham Junction and beyond to the City and
Canary Wharf where the majority of South West Londoners work.
This direct link greatly enhances the benefits of Crossrail 2 to South West London.
</p>
<p>
The SwiftLink route is a simple variation on the TfL proposal:
</p>
<ul>
<li>Wimbledon (and destinations beyond)</li>
<li>Earlsfield (serving Tooting Broadway is possible but is expensive)</li>
<li>Clapham Junction</li>
<li>Battersea Power station (serving Chelsea is possible but is expensive)</li>
<li>Victoria</li>
<li>Tottenham Court Road (double ended to Shaftesbury Avenue)</li>
<li>Euston and St.Pancras (double ended between the stations)</li>
<li>Angel (double ended to City Road)</li>
<li>Old Street and Shoreditch High Street (double ended between the stations)</li>
<li>Whitechapel (interchange with Crossrail 1)</li>
<li>Canary Wharf (Crossrail 1 tracks)</li>
<li>Custom House (Crossrail 1 tracks)</li>
<li>Woolwich (Crossrail 1 tracks)</li>
<li>Abbey Wood (Crossrail 1 tracks)</li>
</ul>
<p>
As indicated above, the SwiftLink scheme can adapt to the choices made South West of Victoria -
Chelsea vs Battersea Power station, and Tooting vs Earlsfield.
It retains the primary route through the West End from Victoria to Angel, simplifying comparisons.
The Green Park <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.com/2013/08/crossrail-2-small-changes.html">proposal</a>
is compatible and beneficial to both schemes at extra cost, so not discussed in detail here.
Thus, the main difference is East of Angel.
</p>
<p>
By turning East at Angel, the route provides a direct connection to the Northern City
(where there is significant growth due to Tech City).
It provides a connection to Crossrail 1, which would ideally be cross-platform.
It then takes over the route to Canary Wharf entirely - Crossrail 1 services from Abbey Wood
would run to Wimbledon instead of Paddington.
</p>
<p>
For those along the Crossrail 1 Canary Wharf and Abbey Wood branch SwiftLink has the following impact:
</p>
<ul>
<li>Over double the number of trains, from 12tph on Crossrail 1 to 30tph</li>
<li>Two minutes longer journey time to Tottenham Court Road, but two minutes less waiting time, thus overall neutral</li>
<li>Different selection of direct services, with all other destinations involving a simple change at Whitechapel</li>
<li>Greater reliability, as no interworking with the Stratford branch</li>
<li>Less overcrowding, as Crossrail 1 is predicted to be very busy on the Canary Wharf branch</li>
</ul>
<p>
<p>
For those along the Crossrail 1 Stratford branch SwiftLink has the following impact:
</p>
<ul>
<li>Double the number of trains, from 12tph on Crossrail 1 to 24tph</li>
<li>No changes to the Crossrail 1 destinations</li>
<li>Additional destination options via a simple change at Whitechapel</li>
<li>Less overcrowding, as Crossrail 1 is predicted to be very busy on the Stratford branch</li>
<li>No need for any "residual" services into Liverpool Street main line station</li>
<li>The potential to use the extra services to add a branch to Barking via Woodgrange Park
(other options available)</li>
</ul>
<p>
<p>
For those along the South West Main Line slow lines SwiftLink has the following impact:
</p>
<ul>
<li>Increased frequency, from 18tph to 30tph (as per the TfL scheme)</li>
<li>Direct service to most major job markets, Victoria, the West End, the City and Canary Wharf</li>
<li>Simple change to reach Stratford</li>
<li>Cross-platform change to reach Waterloo at Wimbledon, greatly reducing the potential for negative political campaigns</li>
</ul>
<p>
SwiftLink has some large potential journey time savings:
<table class="tbl">
<tr><th colspan="4">Estimated journey times</th></tr>
<tr><th>Journey*</th><th>Now (off-peak, TfL website)</th><th>With SwiftLink</th><th>Saving</th></tr>
<tr><th>Wimbldon to Victoria</th><td style="text-align:center">22</td><td style="text-align:center">13</td><td style="text-align:center">9</td></tr>
<tr><th>Wimbldon to Tottenham Court Road</th><td style="text-align:center">33</td><td style="text-align:center">15</td><td style="text-align:center">18</td></tr>
<tr><th>Wimbldon to Euston</th><td style="text-align:center">31</td><td style="text-align:center">17</td><td style="text-align:center">14</td></tr>
<tr><th>Wimbldon to Old St/Shoreditch</th><td style="text-align:center">39</td><td style="text-align:center">21</td><td style="text-align:center">18</td></tr>
<tr><th>Wimbldon to Canary Wharf</th><td style="text-align:center">39</td><td style="text-align:center">27</td><td style="text-align:center">12</td></tr>
<tr><th>Wimbldon to Stratford</th><td style="text-align:center">45</td><td style="text-align:center">28</td><td style="text-align:center">17</td></tr>
<tr><th>Wimbldon to Hoxton</th><td style="text-align:center">46</td><td style="text-align:center">25</td><td style="text-align:center">21</td></tr>
<tr><th>Wimbldon to Woolwich</th><td style="text-align:center">51</td><td style="text-align:center">33</td><td style="text-align:center">18</td></tr>
</table>
<span style="font-size:9px">* Note that Wimbledon is used as the base location, but journey time savings apply over the entire suburban route network via Wimbledon.</span>
</p>
<p>
The estimated cost of SwiftLink is £7.2bn.
The following cost breakdown follows the same methodology used to evaluate the
<a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.com/2013/08/crossrail-2-cost-breakdown.html">cost breakdown</a> for TfL's £12bn scheme.
</p>
<table class="tbl" cellspacing="0">
<tr>
<th>Item</th>
<th>Cost estimate</th>
<th>Rationale</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Tunnelling</td>
<td>£1,500m</td>
<td>12.7km at £100m per km plus one junction</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Stations</td>
<td>£2,600m</td>
<td>See below</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Upgrade Network Rail</td>
<td>£1,000m</td>
<td>Work needed in Clapham Junction area and beyond</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Depot</td>
<td>£1,000m</td>
<td>-</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Track, Electrical, Comms</td>
<td>£700m</td>
<td>-</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Fees, consultancy</td>
<td>£400m</td>
<td>-</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>
The stations were costed up as follows:
</p>
<table class="tbl" cellspacing="0">
<tr><td>Clapham Junction</td><td>£50m</td></tr>
<td>Battersea Power</td><td>£150m</td></tr>
<td>Victoria</td><td>£300m</td></tr>
<td>Tottenham Court Road</td><td>£400m</td></tr>
<td>Euston/St.Pancras</td><td>£600m</td></tr>
<td>Angel</td><td>£300m</td></tr>
<td>Old St & Shoreditch</td><td>£500m</td></tr>
<td>Whitechapel</td><td>£300m</td></tr>
</table>
<p>
These costs assume a tunnel portal at Battersea Power station.
A portal at Earlsfield to serve either Chelsea or Battersea is about £600m more expensive at £7.8bn.
</p>
<p>
Overall, the SwiftLink scheme is simple.
It takes passengers from South West London directly to their jobs in the
City and Canary Wharf, something which TfL's proposed scheme fails to do.
By re-using the Canary Wharf branch of Crossrail 1, better service can be
provided to both Stratford and Canary Wharf, supporting regeneration in the East.
</p>
<h4>PalaceLink - Alexandra Palace to Victoria</h4>
<p>
The PalaceLink proposal is focussed on North London and is based on TfL's Metro scheme in the North.
It provides a direct link from Alexandra Palace, Turnpike Lane and Seven Sisters to a wide
selection of zone 1 stations.
The terminus at Victoria also allows passengers from South and South West London to use the line
to access more of zone 1 direct without changing.
</p>
<p>
The PalaceLink part of the proposal is based on Metro technology, with up to 40tph.
This is a better technology fit for the North, where distances are shorter, and high frequency matters.
It is important to note that Metro technology is not better or worse than Crossrail technology, just different.
For example, a Metro train can accelerate and decelerate faster than a Crossrail train,
resulting in a faster journey time, or more stops.
</p>
<p>
The PalaceLink route proposed here is designed to be simple and effective:
</p>
<ul>
<li>Victoria (for SwiftLink, Victoria, District and main line)</li>
<li>Charing Cross (for Northern, Bakerloo and main line)</li>
<li>Covent Garden South/Strand (named to relieve Covent Garden)</li>
<li>Chancery Lane (for Central line)</li>
<li>Barbican/Farringdon (for Crossrail 1)</li>
<li>Old Street (for SwiftLink)</li>
<li>Dalston (for Overground)</li>
<li>Seven Sisters (for Victoria line and mainline)</li>
<li>Turnpike Lane (for Piccadilly line)</li>
<li>Alexandra Palace (for main line)</li>
</ul>
<p>
There are many possible routes in the North, which all have relatively similar costs.
Ultimately, the PalaceLink proposal uses this route to make comparisons with TfL's Metro option simple.
Hackney is not served, as per the TfL Metro option, but could be at extra cost.
</p>
<p>
Benefits include:
</p>
<ul>
<li>Capacity relief on the Piccadilly line</li>
<li>Capacity relief on the Victoria line</li>
<li>Direct access to Dalston from the West End</li>
<li>Additional services for the growing Tech City area</li>
<li>Extra distribution from Victoria and Charing Cross main line termini</li>
<li>The potential to extend South or West from Victoria at a later stage (such as to Tooting Broadway, about £2.1bn via Chelsea)</li>
<li>The potential to add a branch to the Lea Valley at a later stage (about £0.9bn)</li>
</ul>
<p>
PalaceLink is designed to create journey time savings:
<table class="tbl">
<tr><th colspan="4">Estimated journey times</th></tr>
<tr><th>Journey</th><th>Now (off-peak, TfL website)</th><th>With PalaceLink</th><th>Saving</th></tr>
<tr><th>Seven Sisters to Victoria</th><td style="text-align:center">17</td><td style="text-align:center">16</td><td style="text-align:center">1</td></tr>
<tr><th>Seven Sisters to Charing Cross</th><td style="text-align:center">19</td><td style="text-align:center">14</td><td style="text-align:center">5</td></tr>
<tr><th>Seven Sisters to Covent Garden</th><td style="text-align:center">18</td><td style="text-align:center">13</td><td style="text-align:center">5</td></tr>
<tr><th>Seven Sisters to Barbican</th><td style="text-align:center">20</td><td style="text-align:center">9</td><td style="text-align:center">11</td></tr>
<tr><th>Seven Sisters to Old Street</th><td style="text-align:center">13</td><td style="text-align:center">7</td><td style="text-align:center">6</td></tr>
<tr><th>Turnpike Lane to Victoria</th><td style="text-align:center">20</td><td style="text-align:center">19</td><td style="text-align:center">1</td></tr>
<tr><th>Turnpike Lane to Charing Cross</th><td style="text-align:center">25</td><td style="text-align:center">17</td><td style="text-align:center">8</td></tr>
<tr><th>Turnpike Lane to Covent Garden</th><td style="text-align:center">19</td><td style="text-align:center">16</td><td style="text-align:center">3</td></tr>
<tr><th>Turnpike Lane to Barbican</th><td style="text-align:center">24</td><td style="text-align:center">12</td><td style="text-align:center">12</td></tr>
<tr><th>Turnpike Lane to Old Street</th><td style="text-align:center">19</td><td style="text-align:center">10</td><td style="text-align:center">6</td></tr>
<tr><th>Hackney to Covent Garden</th><td style="text-align:center">27</td><td style="text-align:center">14</td><td style="text-align:center">13</td></tr>
</table>
</p>
<p>
The estimated cost of PalaceLink is £5.7bn.
The following cost breakdown follows the same methodology used to evaluate the
<a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.com/2013/08/crossrail-2-cost-breakdown.html">cost breakdown</a> for TfL's £9.4bn Metro scheme.
</p>
<table class="tbl" cellspacing="0">
<tr>
<th>Item</th>
<th>Cost estimate</th>
<th>Rationale</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Tunnelling</td>
<td>£1,500m</td>
<td>15.4km at £100m per km</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Stations</td>
<td>£2,200m</td>
<td>See below</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Depot</td>
<td>£800m</td>
<td>-</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Track, Electrical, Comms</td>
<td>£800m</td>
<td>-</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Fees, consultancy</td>
<td>£400m</td>
<td>-</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>
The stations were costed up as follows:
</p>
<table class="tbl" cellspacing="0">
<tr><td>Victoria</td><td>£100m</td></tr>
<tr><td>Charing Cross</td><td>£200m</td></tr>
<tr><td>Covent Garden South</td><td>£250m</td></tr>
<tr><td>Chancery Lane</td><td>£250m</td></tr>
<tr><td>Barbican</td><td>£300m</td></tr>
<tr><td>Old Street</td><td>£100m</td></tr>
<tr><td>Dalston</td><td>£250m</td></tr>
<tr><td>Seven Sisters</td><td>£250m</td></tr>
<tr><td>Turnpike Lane</td><td>£250m</td></tr>
<tr><td>Alexandra Palace</td><td>£250m</td></tr>
</table>
<p>
Note that some items have lower cost estimates because of shared costs with SwiftLink.
Notably this includes Victoria and Old Street station, and a minor reduction in tunnelling costs.
In addition, cost at Charing Cross is reduced by reusing the access passageways to the old Jubilee line platforms (although still requiring work to enlarge the platforms themselves).
</p>
<p>
Overall, the PalaceLink scheme is a simple Metro in the tradition of London's existing tube lines.
It deals effectively with the capacity issue of the North while offering a much wider range of
destination choices in zone 1.
The major job markets of Victoria, the West End, Mid Town and the northern City are all served,
with an easy change at Old Street for Canary Wharf.
It also provides additional, much needed, distribution from Charing Cross and Victoria termini,
linking in well with SwiftLink to provide even more choice to South West London.
</p>
<h4>Summary</h4>
<p>
Its not often that a transport proposal comes along which offers a supermarket style
"two for one" offer.
Yet that is almost what the Crossrail 2 "Wink" option provides, at a cost of £12.9bn, vs TfL's £12bn.
</p>
<p>
Swiftlink serves South West London far better than TfL's plans, by taking passengers to the destinations
they desire in the City and Canary Wharf, and linking with PalaceLink to serve Covent Garden and Mid Town.
PalaceLink serves North London better as well, using the more appropriate Metro technology
to provide a high frequency service to greatly relieve the Piccadilly and Victoria lines, without
simply duplicating the existing route via Kings Cross.
</p>
<p>
If you back the proposal, or have any other opinions, why not leave a comment!
</p>
Stephen Colebournehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01454237967846880639noreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-54655035519637962012013-08-13T01:13:00.001+01:002014-03-18T14:03:08.395+00:00Crossrail 2 - Small changes<p>
This is the third post in a <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.com/2013/08/crossrail-2-cost-breakdown.html">series</a>
about Crossrail 2.
The <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.com/2013/08/crossrail-2-flaws.html">last post</a>
examined some of the flaws with the <a href="http://www.crossrail2.co.uk/">proposed scheme</a>.
This one focuses on small changes to the proposed scheme that would improve it.
The final post will outline the larger changes that I really want to see.
</p>
<h4>Additional West End station - Green Park / Jermyn Street</h4>
<p>
One of the key issues I identified with the proposed scheme is the over-reliance on
Tottenham Court Road (TCR). It is used to both serve the entire West End, and provide
a change to Crossrail 1 for the City and Canary Wharf.
</p>
<p>
The <a href="http://www.crossrail.co.uk/route/safeguarding/">safeguarded route</a>
wasn't quite as restricted to TCR, as it has provision for a station at Piccadilly Circus
(to the SE of the current station between Haymarket and Oxendon Street).
This option is retained in the proposed Metro scheme, but missed out in the Regional scheme
that almost everyone is arguing for.
</p>
<p>
I believe that the Regional scheme's over-reliance on TCR would be mitigated to some degree
were an additional station provided in the West End.
However, I don't believe that additional station should be at Piccadilly Circus where the
safeguarding is. That location is too close to TCR and not far enough West.
</p>
<p>
My proposed location is under the Green Park end of Jermyn Street.
Due to the length of the Regional scheme trains, a double ended station is possible,
however the distance between Green Park and Piccadilly Circus is just too great
to link the two stations.
Given that, I would argue that it should link to Green Park, rather than Piccadilly Circus,
with the second exit near Air Street for Regent Street and Piccadilly Circus.
</p>
<p>
This location is primarily about distributing passengers more evenly in the West End and beyond.
In effect, it would act as Crossrail 2's equivalent to Bond Street.
It would serve office locations in Mayfair, St James and the north end of Whitehall,
as well as the major shopping and leisure areas.
</p>
<p>
The link to Green Park is also very useful because it provides connections to tube lines.
The Piccadilly line would provide access to South Kensington, Hammersmith and beyond
While the Jubilee line provides access to Bond Street, Baker Street, Waterloo and London Bridge.
This reduces the backlash in South West London, as Waterloo, Southwark and London Bridge would be
relatively easily reached from Green Park, and in comparable journey times to today's service.
Thus, this link would also reduce the pressure of passengers changing from Crossrail 2
to the Northern line at Tooting Broadway.
</p>
<p>
The Jubilee line also provides resilience if Crossrail 1 fails, providing a second
link to Canary Wharf.
In addition, Green Park station is already modernized and step free, reducing costs.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://goo.gl/maps/1gfnd" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhN0cVsDvXETiKXUcKlKCOUb-Zy8rYNJRJwL-42N5uPPKa634utwAKaecqS2aEU8Spc-b-CXV0oS34NRQUhu8sLurjF4z3vWHKzWujGIDEiOEfVqojl_xBF2KEgB8zabj2vlXl1EQ8IH27u/s320/GreenParkJermyn.png" /></a></div>
<p>
Map shows the TfL proposed route in orange and the deviation necessary to provide the
many benefits of a station at Green Park / Jermyn Street.
</p>
<h4>Battersea Power station, not Chelsea</h4>
<p>
The harsh reality is that the needs of Battersea and the Vauxhall-Nine-Elms-Battersea area
far outweigh the needs of Chelsea, particularly for a Regional type scheme.
</p>
<p>
There was a <a href="http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Crossrail%202%20Submissions_0.pdf">submission</a>
to the GLA Transport Committee which put this pithily:
</p>
<p class="quote">
The residents of Chelsea neither want or have use for a Crossrail station at Kings Road.
The vast majority will use a taxi or car.
The residents of Battersea and Wandsworth are, however, starved of adequate public transport.
Furthermore there are announced proposals for 20,000 new homes to be delivered within the next
10 years between Nine Elms and Wandsworth town centre plus numerous Embassies and
ambassadorial staff moving into the same area. There are also multi-million square foot
mixed use developments taking place at Battersea Power Station and Wandsworth Town Centre.
Why then is Crossrail 2 proposed to go to Kings Road Chelsea where there is low demand
when there is such massive demand growing to service a population undergoing rapid
expansion along the South bank of the River?
</p>
<p>
There should really be little doubt that an objective look at the case of the two locations
would select Battersea Power station. The Northern line extension is useful for local transport,
and heading East, but rather indirect for heading to the West End.
Furthermore, there will be far more jobs created south of the river, as compared to the
mainly residential areas of Chelsea.
Those jobs are going to have commuters, and many will come from the South West area, making
a stop there far more valuable than Chelsea.
</p>
<h4>Northern branches</h4>
<p>
The split of the northern branches after Angel is plainly nonsense.
It means that Hackney only gets 10tph (trains per hour), something which is ridiculously poor
and a large under-use of the expensive tunnel.
</p>
<p>
The simple solution (based on minimal change to the proposed scheme), would be to
change the routing slightly.
After Angel, take the line to Haggerston for the East London line instead of Dalston.
Then via Hackney and Upper Clapton. Only then branch in two for Seven Sisters and Tottenham Hale.
This provides the full 30tph to Haggerston (near Dalston), Hackney and Upper Clapton,
without changing the split to the ultimate two branches in the North.
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?msid=214031827187447733778.0004e3c8f0a6645c3dd2d&msa=0&ll=51.565547,-0.06918&spn=0.101052,0.155525" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsEliSPGD4j3SMYRqbym7wQr08Fq8hPNTdmsDLS7gZQ-buEahj5i_AUCQJCYKtyPqUIncI5QHvcp08fOiPe7sKL4FEKnpVJ-knDZT0E0RxRYA1Muj33iMTXQZ44_GbfUlHAL9VtdcoL7S2/s320/SimplerNorthern.png" /></a></div>
<p>
Map shows the TfL proposed route in orange and my simpler alternative in red.
</p>
<h4>Earlsfield</h4>
<p>
In the spirit of minimal change to the proposed scheme, there is a way to tackle the
problems of service to Earlsfield - the Northern line.
The concept would be to extend the Northern line from Battersea Power station to Wimbledon.
</p>
<p>
This would involve a new tunnel from the power station, via either Battersea Park Road or
Lavender Hill and Clapham Junction, surfacing in time to take over the two slow lines
through Earlsfield to Wimbledon.
This is not a cheap change, as it requires a new tunnel, but it would provide Earlsfield
with a frequent service, even if not quite as fast as today.
</p>
<p>
Since the faster route to central London from Wimbledon would be Crossrail 2, it
should be the case that such a Northern line extension would not be overloaded.
This would particularly be the case if Crossrail 2 goes via Battersea power station as argued above.
</p>
<p>
It may be possible to continue the Northern line to St Helier on the Sutton route.
This would allow the Northern line trains to reach the Morden depot.
The remainder of the route to Sutton could then be converted to a tram.
</p>
<h4>Summary</h4>
<p>
This post has outlined four small scale changes to the proposed scheme that would have
a big impact on its ability to deliver.
</p>
<p>
The key item is the additional central station at Green Park / Jermyn Street.
It has multiple advantages, including spreading the load in the West End,
provides resilience and additional job market access via the Jubilee line,
and avoiding the need for most changes from Crossrail 2 to the Northern line
at Tooting Broadway.
</p>
<p>
If you have any other small changes to Crossrail 2 you'd like to suggest, add a comment!
</p>
<p>
<br />
</p>
<p>
<i>Update: Next in the series: <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.com/2013/08/crossrail-2-wink-option.html">Crossrail 2 wink option</a></i>
</p>
Stephen Colebournehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01454237967846880639noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-63981997853801628732013-08-09T01:07:00.001+01:002014-02-12T19:24:06.558+00:00Crossrail 2 - flaws<p>
This is the second post in a <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/crossrail-2-cost-breakdown.html">series</a> on Crossrail 2.
This one focuses on flaws in the current plans.
The next focuses on <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/crossrail-2-small-changes.html">small changes</a> to fix some of the flaws.
The last focuses on <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/crossrail-2-wink-option.html">much better alternative</a>.
</p>
<h4>Introduction</h4>
<p>
TfL have proposed two variants of Crossrail 2, the cheaper £9.4bn Metro scheme
based on DLR type technology, and the more expensive £12bn Regional scheme
based on Crossrail 1 technology.
</p>
<p>
Both schemes have the same core. Wimbledon - Tooting Broadway - Clapham Junction - Chelsea
- Victoria - Tottenham Court Road (TCR) - Euston/St.Pancras - Angel - Dalston - Seven Sisters
- Turnpike Lane - Alexandra Park. The Regional scheme has a branch from Angel via Hackney, plus the
SWML (South West Main Line) slow services.
<a href="http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Crossrail%202%20Submissions_0.pdf">Documents</a>
show that there was considerable effort drawn up to propose this alignment with numerous options tested.
So what could go wrong?
</p>
<h4>Over reliance on Tottenham Court Road (TCR)</h4>
<p>
The peak traffic that any London railway line has to deal with is the morning commute.
As such, it is vital to consider where the jobs are in London, and how people will get to them.
While I've been unable to find detailed figures, I'll work on the basis that the primary job areas
are (a) the West End, (b) the City, (c) Canary Wharf, (d) Midtown/Farringdon and (e) Victoria.
There are of course numerous secondary job areas as well, but the 5 above <a href="http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/central_london_rail_termini_report.pdf">tend to dominate</a>.
</p>
<p>
Crossrail 1 has a very simple route through the centre of London.
It serves 4 out of the 5 primary job markets listed above via Bond Street, TCR, Farringdon,
Liverpool St and Canary Wharf, with only Victoria not served. Thus, this route allows commuters
to get on the train and get off at a location where they can walk to perhaps the majority of
central London jobs. This is highly efficient in <i>distribution</i>, avoiding crowding on the tube.
</p>
<p>
By contrast, the proposed Crossrail 2 simply does not achieve this.
Instead it serves just 2 major job markets - Victoria and the West End (via Tottenham Court Road).
This is a particularly big problem, because for historical reasons, many commuters on the SWML
work in the City and Canary Wharf, rather than the West End or Victoria.
</p>
<p>
The official line from TfL seems to be that commuters from the SWML should change at
TCR to Crossrail 1, for services to the City and Canary Wharf.
Firstly, it should be noted that this is no better than today, simply substituting a change
at Waterloo with a change at TCR. However, I would argue it is in fact much worse.
</p>
<p>
For the sake of argument, lets say that 60% of SWML passengers work in Midtown, the City
and Canary Wharf, 15% work in Victoria and 15% in the West End.
This means that 75% or more of the passengers from SW London will be getting off at TCR.
That is a very large number of people, potentially 1100 people every 2 minutes <i>just from the south</i>.
There have to be real questions over the ability to clear that many people from TCR station,
particularly if Crossrail 1 has a fault.
This is especially significant as Crossrail 1 is expected to be full by 2031,
thus there actually won't be any space for Crossrail 2 commuters to change into.
</p>
<p>
This also impacts on dwell times. In order for there to be a train every 2 minutes,
the train has to spend less than 2 minutes in the platform. In fact, with signalling
constraints, door opening and closing, the train will need to empty out 75% of its
passengers in perhaps as little as 60 seconds. This is a huge ask.
</p>
<h4>Northern line</h4>
<p>
The proposed Crossrail 2 interchanges with the Northern line at Angel and Tooting Broadway.
The former is barely mentioned in documentation, but the latter is held up as the ideal
solution to solving the capacity problem on the southern Northern line.
If only that were so.
</p>
<p>
Looking from the north, a commuter at Tottenham Hale, Seven Sisters or Turnpike Lane
may want to commute to the West End or Victoria for which the proposed scheme would be fine.
However, they may also want to commute to the City.
The most likely option here is to take the proposed Crossrail 2 to Angel, and change to the
Northern line to Old Street, Moorgate, Bank or London Bridge.
The problem is that, like all tube lines, the Northern line at Angel is pretty full.
Thus it seems likely that the proposed scheme will worsen the problems on the Northern line
in the north.
</p>
<p>
Looking from the south, the Tooting Broadway connection is an expensive dogleg
that I have <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/crossrail-ssw.html">already discussed</a>.
The claim that it will relieve the Northern line bears closer examination.
</p>
<p>
Firstly, those travelling from Morden and South Wimbledon are highly likely to have a seat.
If they change to the proposed scheme, then they will be joining a busy/full train
and no longer have a seat, something probably not captured in TfL models.
Secondly, the proposed route would make no difference to journeys to the City or Canary Wharf.
Those commuters might as well stay on the Northern line, as it involves less changes.
Experience suggests that there are more City/Wharf commuters than West End commuters from
south of Colliers Wood.
</p>
<p>
Finally, the link to Tooting Broadway is bi-directional, allowing SWML commuters to join
the Northern line. TfL clearly do not believe that many will do this, yet for anyone
working in Elephant and Castle (university), Borough, London Bridge and even Bank,
changing to the Northern line is likely to be their best option (given that they will
no longer have a service to Waterloo).
</p>
<p>
In both cases, the Northern line interchanges don't stand up to scrutiny.
</p>
<h4>Changing commutes</h4>
<p>
As recently shown with the Wimbledon loop Thameslink trains, and previously with the
failure of the Crossrail 1 Richmond branch, changing peoples existing commutes is
fraught with risk.
A political campaign can easily be created with significant pressure to bear.
The proposed scheme is particularly vulnerable to this in the South West.
(In the North, the scheme is mostly adding new options, rather than taking existing ones away)
</p>
<p>
In the South West, the sensible approach to utilising the available train paths with
the proposed scheme in place is for Crossrail 2 to have exclusive use of the routes to
Chessington, Epsom and Shepperton.
But this means that there would no longer be any services to Waterloo from those locations
and points in between. While Network Rail has not confirmed this, it is clearly being considered.
</p>
<p>
Replacing a Waterloo terminus with Victoria or TCR will be good for some, but probably
worse for others (the TCR problems are discussed above).
Bear in mind that a large number of people walk or cycle from Waterloo, which won't be
possible to many destinations in the same way from TCR.
</p>
<p>
It is also the case that the proposed scheme makes it hard to reach Waterloo.
There is no cross-platform interchange that allows the existing Waterloo commute to continue.
As such, passengers will have to trog around either Wimbledon or Clapham Junction stations from the new underground station to the old main line station.
This will likely add 10 minutes to the journey time to Waterloo, potentially a 50% increase
in commuting time from Raynes Park.
</p>
<h4>Earlsfield</h4>
<p>
Related to the changing commutes problem is the Earlsfield problem.
While Network Rail have yet to be clear on the topic they have said that
other benefits (to long distance commuters) can only occur if there is a
"significant reduction" in the residual services into Waterloo.
Thus, it is highly likely that the service at Earlsfield will drop from 18tph (trains per hour)
to 12tph or lower.
</p>
<p>
Earlsfield will also have fewer services to other London centres.
There will probably be no through trains to Epsom and Kingston for example.
</p>
<h4>Northern branches</h4>
<p>
The Regional scheme includes two Northern branches.
Documentation shows that the Alexandra Palace branch must have 20tph or more to be
credible in its goal of relieving the Victoria and Piccadilly lines.
This leaves <a href="http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Crossrail%202%20Submissions_0.pdf">just 10tph</a> for the Lea Valley and Hackney.
I suspect that many in Hackney who are supporting the scheme would be surprised that
they will be getting at most one train every 6 minutes, and less outside the peak.
Especially when the already well served Seven Sisters will be getting 20tph!
</p>
<p>
The proposed scheme fails in the North by trying to do two things, rather than focussing on one.
As a result, it has a branch to Hackney that departs from the main branch south of Dalston,
which is certainly odd. It then means that there are parallel tunnels one heading for Seven Sisters
and one for Tottenham Hale, which is very wasteful.
It is hard to see this passing more detailed scrutiny.
</p>
<h4>Wrong goals</h4>
<p>
A big part of the problems with the proposed scheme in the North is that they are
heavily focussed on capacity relief of existing lines.
This is an excessive focus in my opinion, and skews the scheme and the associated scoring.
</p>
<p>
The Victoria line is already a fast, modern metro line.
As such, it is very difficult to build a parallel line that will encourage people to
use the new Crossrail line as opposed to the original Victoria line they are familiar with.
In fact, the only way to come close is to create a line that has very few stops.
Hence Stoke Newington misses out.
The proposal simply becomes a way of serving existing stations, rather than serving new areas
which the Northern area actually needs.
</p>
<h4>North-South tension</h4>
<p>
The problems of the North and different to the problems of the South West.
The proposed scheme does not really recognise this.
</p>
<p>
The Northern area has problems of capacity on existing lines, and serving new areas.
This would be best achieved by a Metro-style solution, not a Crossrail one.
The faster Metro acceleration and more frequent stops (like a tube line) would better serve
the area. (And by Metro here, I don't mean the proposed Metro scheme, which fails to serve new areas).
</p>
<p>
By contrast, the South West is ideally setup for a Crossrail solution.
It has large numbers of existing Network Rail lines to link into, all with existing
infrastructure to reuse. The trains are already packed, and simply taking people to
their desired destination would make a huge difference to tube crowding generally.
</p>
<p>
Thus, the proposed Regional scheme ends up as a weird combination.
It correctly fulfils the needs of the South West, but is the wrong technology for the
kind of purpose it is being used for in the North.
</p>
<h4>Summary</h4>
<p>
The proposed Crossrail 2 schemes have multiple flaws, far more than Crossrail 1 had.
The over reliance on Tottenham Court Road and the lack of distribution of passengers
directly to jobs are the prime concerns, but there are many others too.
</p>
<p>
Feel free to comment if you agree or disagree with the analysis!
</p>
<p>
<br />
</p>
<p>
<i>Update: Next in the series: <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.com/2013/08/crossrail-2-small-changes.html">Crossrail 2 small changes</a></i>
</p>
Stephen Colebournehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01454237967846880639noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-62911573753647830562013-08-05T23:42:00.001+01:002013-08-23T08:15:32.970+01:00Crossrail 2 - Cost breakdown<p>
This is the first post in a planned series on Crossrail 2.
This one focuses on cost.
Specifically, what might be a reasonable breakdown of the headline figures we have.
</p>
<h4>Cost breakdown</h4>
<p>
TfL have given us two estimates for the two variants of Crossrail 2 that they are putting forward.
</p>
<p>
The cheaper option is the Metro scheme,
which plans 40tph (trains per hour) of 120m long trains based on DLR type technology.
This is costed at £9.4bn (without optimism bias).
This proposal can be thought of as a modern tube line, rather than as a Crossrail line in the style of
<a href="http://www.crossrail.co.uk/">Crossrail 1</a>.
</p>
<p>
The more expensive option is the Regional scheme,
which plans 30tph (trains per hour) of 250m long trains based on Crossrail 1 technology.
This is costed at £12bn (without optimism bias)
</p>
<p>
In order to better offer my own alternatives to these schemes, I found it useful to break down these high level costs
to more manageable units. The following is published to allow criticism and comment.
</p>
<h4>Metro scheme cost breakdown (estimated)</h4>
<p>
This is my estimated breakdown of the total £9.4bn cost.
</p>
<table class="tbl" cellspacing="0">
<tr>
<th>Item</th>
<th>Cost estimate</th>
<th>Rationale</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Tunnelling</td>
<td style="text-align:right;padding-right:10px">£2,800m</td>
<td>27.9km at £100m per km</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Stations</td>
<td style="text-align:right;padding-right:10px">£4,400m</td>
<td>See below</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Depot</td>
<td style="text-align:right;padding-right:10px">£800m</td>
<td>Estimate</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Track, Electrical, Comms</td>
<td style="text-align:right;padding-right:10px">£1,000m</td>
<td>Extrapolation from Northern line extension</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Fees, consultancy</td>
<td style="text-align:right;padding-right:10px">£400m</td>
<td>Extrapolation from Northern line extension</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>TOTAL</th>
<th>£9.4bn</th>
<th> </th>
</tr>
</table>
<p>
</p>
<h4>Regional scheme cost breakdown (estimated)</h4>
<p>
This is my estimated breakdown of the total £12bn cost.
</p>
<table class="tbl" cellspacing="0">
<tr>
<th>Item</th>
<th>Cost estimate</th>
<th>Rationale</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Tunnelling</td>
<td style="text-align:right;padding-right:10px">£3,600m</td>
<td>34.4km at £100m per km plus one junction</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Stations</td>
<td style="text-align:right;padding-right:10px">£4,400m</td>
<td>See below</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Upgrade Network Rail</td>
<td style="text-align:right;padding-right:10px">£1,200m</td>
<td>Work needed in Lea Valley and South West</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Depot</td>
<td style="text-align:right;padding-right:10px">£1,000m</td>
<td>Bigger trains than Metro</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Track, Electrical, Comms</td>
<td style="text-align:right;padding-right:10px">£1,300m</td>
<td>More complex signals than Metro</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Fees, consultancy</td>
<td style="text-align:right;padding-right:10px">£500m</td>
<td>Bigger project than Metro</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>TOTAL</th>
<th>£12.0bn</th>
<th> </th>
</tr>
</table>
<p>
</p>
<h4>Station cost (estimated)</h4>
<p>
I costed the stations up as follows:
</p>
<table class="tbl" cellspacing="0">
<tr><th width="120px">Station</th><th width="90px">Metro</th><th width="90px">Regional</th></tr>
<tr><td>Wimbledon</td><td style="text-align:center">£300m</td><td style="text-align:center">£300m</td></tr>
<td>Tooting Broadway</td><td style="text-align:center">£300m</td><td style="text-align:center">£300m</td></tr>
<td>Clapham Junction</td><td style="text-align:center">£500m</td><td style="text-align:center">£500m</td></tr>
<td>Chelsea</td><td style="text-align:center">£300m</td><td style="text-align:center">£300m</td></tr>
<td>Victoria</td><td style="text-align:center">£300m</td><td style="text-align:center">£300m</td></tr>
<td>Piccadilly Circus</td><td style="text-align:center">£400m</td><td style="text-align:center"> </td></tr>
<td>Tottenham Court Road</td><td style="text-align:center">£300m</td><td style="text-align:center">£400m</td></tr>
<td>Euston/St.Pancras</td><td style="text-align:center">£600m</td><td style="text-align:center">£600m</td></tr>
<td>Angel</td><td style="text-align:center">£300m</td><td style="text-align:center">£300m</td></tr>
<td>Dalston</td><td style="text-align:center">£300m</td><td style="text-align:center">£300m</td></tr>
<td>Seven Sisters</td><td style="text-align:center">£300m</td><td style="text-align:center">£300m</td></tr>
<td>Turnpike Lane</td><td style="text-align:center">£300m</td><td style="text-align:center">£300m</td></tr>
<td>Alexandra Palace</td><td style="text-align:center">£200m</td><td style="text-align:center">£200m</td></tr>
<td>Hackney</td><td style="text-align:center"> </td><td style="text-align:center">£300m</td></tr>
</table>
</p>
<h4>Summary</h4>
<p>
The headline figures from TfL are only of limited use, particularly if you are proposing changes.
The purpose of this blog is to provide a basis for estimates in other posts.
</p>
<p>
If you are reading this and thinking that I've forgotten something, or got the cost breakdown
greatly wrong, please leave a comment!
</p>
<p>
<br />
</p>
<p>
<i>Update: Next in the series: <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/crossrail-2-flaws.html">Crossrail 2 flaws</a></i>
</p>
Stephen Colebournehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01454237967846880639noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5925703452051453468.post-64660073767289321972013-03-24T01:27:00.001+00:002013-03-24T01:27:08.051+00:00Mole Valley Link<p>
In my last blog I outlined <a href="http://ukrail.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/crossrail-ssw.html">Crossrail SSW</a>, a plan that gains 50% extra train paths on the SWML (South West Main Line) into London Waterloo, fully separating the long-distance, outer suburban and inner suburban services. This blog extends that proposal, making use of the extra capacity to enhance services in the Mole Valley.
</p>
<h4>Mole Valley Link</h4>
<p>
The Mole Valley towns of Leatherhead and Dorking do not get an especially good train service.
The fastest train from Dorking takes 50 minutes, with neither the route to Waterloo nor the route to Victoria being especially fast. This proposal allows for a faster service, with other knock-on benefits.
</p>
<p>
The proposal involves constructing a new railway line across open countryside from north of Leatherhead to south of Claygate.
The route crosses the M25, A243 and A3, as well as the Prince's Coverts forest.
The length of the link is 5.5km.
</p>
<p>
Here is a map of the new link being proposed (click for Google Maps). New link in red, existing lines in black:
</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?msid=214031827187447733778.0004d5ca3bbd588989330&msa=0&ll=51.33962,-0.318604&spn=0.206325,0.276375" title="Mole Valley Link map"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidKqHPcsxAbjdTXEAFntQ95652u9r7j812xF84uXziJOovZwMP6BDpWeQ4dzcABzek59GgGEExAKnqTEA_bl_tBfEIdEKmVIwqc5QdLn7tqWqvDPsLOf9iwigAQH5oGn7vBwTJf4MEAFYp/s320/MoleValleyLink.png" width="400" alt="Mole Valley Link map" border="0"></a></div>
<p>
At first glance, the link can seem like a strange choice.
The shortest "missing link" in the area is Leatherhead to Chessington South, a link which was planned to be constructed in the past.
However, the Chessington link would not have the same benefits as this proposal.
</p>
<p>
The key point to note from the Crossrail SSW proposal is that the inner suburban service pattern is fully accounted for with Epsom, Chessington, Hampton Court and Kingston (the SWML slow lines). The long-distance service pattern is also fully accounted for (in the new express tunnel from Esher). However, there is still available tph capacity on the outer suburban pair of tracks (the SWML fast lines from Surbiton to Waterloo) as services to Woking and Claygate would not fill the available paths.
</p>
<p>
Given the available spare paths, clearly the purpose of this proposal is to use some of them, say 4tph (trains per hour) to enhance the Dorking service.
But this is only possible if the Dorking trains can reach the fast lines of the SWML before Surbiton.
If the link were to go via Chessington, then the additional services would hit Raynes Park on the SWML slow lines, which would defeat the objective of enhancing the Dorking service (and detract from Crossrail 2 generally).
By linking Leatherhead to Claygate, the fast Dorking services are able to join the SWML fast lines, exactly as the Guildford via Claygate services would.
</p>
<p>
In total, the route from Leatherhead to Waterloo is about 1.5km longer via Claygate than via Epsom. But the faster line and fewer station stops would more than compensate.
The expected service pattern would be 2tph Dorking, Leatherhead, Surbiton, Wimbledon, Clapham Junction, Waterloo.
A journey time of 40 minutes from Dorking should be easily achievable, with 35 minutes being a better target.
</p>
<p>
In cost terms, building in open countryside should be relatively cheap, however there are crossings of major roads to manage.
An initial estimate of £250m seems appropriate (based on the Hitchin flyover at £50m).
</p>
<p>
Improving the lives of the residents of Dorking and Leatherhead is not, in and of itself, going to be sufficient to justify the link. There are two other factors that should be considered.
</p>
<p>
Firstly, the link provides much better access from mid-Surrey to the county town of Kingston (accessed via Surbiton).
Providing the local links from Surbiton to Kingston town centre are top notch, this could encourage a reduction in the traffic making that journey, especially to shop.
</p>
<p>
Secondly, and more significantly, the new link can be used to change services from Horsham.
</p>
<h4>The Horsham connection</h4>
<p>
The route from Horsham to London (Victoria) via Dorking was the traditional route for services from the Arun valley line (Billingshurst, Arundel, Bognor Regis, Chichester). Over time however, the route became less well used by fast services, with a desire to boost services to Gatwick airport and East Croydon.
</p>
<p>
Unfortunately, over time, the route via East Croydon has become very full, to the extent that major work will be needed to avoid or enhance East Croydon.
Such a project would undoubtably be multi-billion pound.
The great thing is that this proposal can step in to be a cheap approach to delay the need for that work.
</p>
<p>
With the Mole Valley link open, this proposal intends for fast services from Horsham and the Arun Valley to run via Dorking and Surbiton to Waterloo instead of via Gatwick and East Croydon. This would be at least 2tph, and probably 4tph, of additional running between Horsham and Dorking. Horsham would still have services to Gatwick and East Croydon, but they would be slower ones via Redhill (probably Thameslink). There would probably be no direct service from the Arun Valley to Gatwick, at least in the peak.
</p>
<p>
While Horsham has a long standing link to London Victoria, Waterloo is similarly located for Whitehall jobs and the West End, and cross platform interchange for Victoria at Wimbledon in Crossrail SSW provides for the rest.
With this plan, it is intended that there would be no direct fast services from Horsham to Victoria.
</p>
<p>
The key to this move is that it frees up at least 2tph through East Croydon.
Those two paths would be enough to reduce the pressures on the need for a multi-billion pound rebuild there.
As such, the £250m of the Mole Valley Link is a real bargain, even allowing another few million to improve the Horsham to Dorking route's line speeds.
</p>
<h4>Summary</h4>
<p>
The Mole Valley Link is a 5.5km new railway line from north of Leatherhead to south of Claygate.
It allows the Dorking services to join the SWML fast lines at Surbiton, avoiding the slow lines at Raynes Park.
By enhancing journey times to Dorking it allows the fast services from the Arun Valley and Horsham to run via Dorking and Surbiton into Waterloo, instead of Victoria.
</p>
<p>
Benefits are threefold - enhancing journey times to Dorking and Leatherhead (a 10 to 15 minutes saving), better links for mid-Surrey to Kingston, and reducing pressure on East Croydon through the re-routing of the Horsham services.
</p>
<p>
If you have any views on the Mole Valley Link then why not leave a comment!
</p>
Stephen Colebournehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01454237967846880639noreply@blogger.com5