Crossrail 2 Journey time modelling

TfL have not made public their modelling for Crossrail 2. As such, I've done some journey time modelling myself.

Journey time modelling

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.

The simplifications used are:

• Only journeys from SWML destinations affected by Crossrail 2 are considered
• Only journeys to central London destinations are considered
• Interchange times are estimated
• A maximum of three trains is allowed to get from start point to destination
• Buses are ignored
• Trams are ignored
• Walking is ignored
• Time to enter/exit stations is ignored

Even with these simplifications, it is possible to get some reasonable figures out, and take a look at two key questions:

• Will Northern Line passengers change onto Crossrail 2?
• Will Crossrail 2 passengers change onto the Northern Line?

The results are here:

• Crossrail 2 via Balham (TfL plan)
• Crossrail 2 via Tooting Broadway (TfL old plan)
• Crossrail 2 via Earlsfield (Swirl plan)
• Crossrail 2 via Earlsfield with branch to Balham/Streatham/Tooting (Swirl-Max plan)

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.

The first finding matches that of my previous article. Journey times from Crossrail 2 suburbs to London Bridge and Bank are quickest by changing onto the Northern Line.

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).

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.

Summary

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.

Crossrail 2 Swirl

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

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

TfL plans for Crossrail 2

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

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

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

Crossrail 2 Swirl

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Benefits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional notes

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

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

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

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

Relieving the Northern Line

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

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

Summary

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

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

Crossrail 2 and the Northern Line

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.

Update 9 Feb 2016 - The final article in the series, Crossrail 2 Swirl-Max - is now published.

Update 12 Nov 2015 - The next article in the series, Crossrail 2 Swirl - is now published.

Update 15 Nov 2015 - A full analysis of journey times is now complete:
Journey times with CR2 station at Balham (the TfL plan)
Journey times with CR2 station at Tooting Broadway
Journey times with CR2 station at Earlsfield (the Swirl plan)
Journey times with CR2 station at Earlsfield and branch to Balham/Streatham/Tooting (the Swirl-Max plan)

Crossrail 2 and the Northern Line

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:

The stated purpose of the Northern Line connection on Crossrail 2 is:

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.

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.

Unfortunately, Crossrail 2 could well make the Northern Line crush worse not better.

The Capacity Difference

Each Crossrail 2 train will have a capacity of around 1500 people (10 car trains of mainline size). Each Northern Line train has a capacity 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.

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.

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 more people transfer from Northern to Crossrail 2 than the other way around.

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?

The Journey Time problem

To determine who will transfer, it is necessary to look at the journey times.

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.

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.

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.

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).

For completeness, Crossrail 2 will of course save large amounts of time for journeys to the West End near Victoria, Leicester Square and Euston.

Putting the pieces together

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.

To summarize, these are what I calculate to be the quickest routes:

• Any station from Morden to Tooting going to London Bridge, Bank or Moorgate - stay on Northern Line
• Any station from Morden to Tooting going to Canary Wharf - Northern Line then Jubilee Line
• Any station on Crossrail 2 via Wimbledon going to London Bridge or Bank - change from Crossrail 2 to Northern Line
• Any station on Crossrail 2 via Wimbledon going to Moorgate or Canary Wharf - stay on Crossrail 2 and change to Crossrail 1

Thus there are two conclusions:

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.

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.

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.

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 next article!

Summary

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.

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.

Crossrail 2 - Wimbledon to Victoria

It had been assumed that TfL's route for Crossrail 2 between Wimbledon and Victoria was set in stone, but there has been recent talk that the Tooting Broadway station is under debate as a result of difficult ground conditions. This post provides a set of possible routings for the section, beyond the Balham option TfL is apparently looking at.

Balham instead of Tooting?

This blog has long argued 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.

To aid the debate, I've drawn a map 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).

The TfL routes are shown in red (light red for Tooting, dark red for Balham). Other potential routes in purple.

Here is my measurement of the distances involved:

Route (between Wimbledon and Victoria)	Distance	Excess over shortest route
Tooting, Clapham Junction, Chelsea	11.9km	27%
Tooting, Clapham Junction, Battersea Power	11.4km	21%
Tooting, Clapham Junction, (direct to Victoria)	10.9km	16%
Balham, Clapham Junction, Chelsea (my estimated route)	12km	28%
Balham, Clapham Junction, Chelsea (TfL actual proposal)	12.9km	37%
Balham, Cedars Road, Battersea Power	10.5km	12%
Earlsfield, Clapham Junction, Chelsea	10.3km (4km surface)	10%
Earlsfield, Clapham Junction, (direct to Victoria)	9.4km (4km surface)	0%

From this I draw some conclusions:

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).

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).

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%).

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.

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.

Happy to hear your thoughts in the comments!

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.

Sussex relief line

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.

Sussex and Kent lines

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.

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.

Current plans involve an upgrade 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 also available.

A proposal from outside Network Rail, the BML2, 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.

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.

When looking at the area in its entirety, it is clear that at some point a radical solution will be necessary.

Sussex Relief Line

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.

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.

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).

The route is as follows:

• Gatwick, connecting to the existing line
• "Godstone Vale", between Oxted and Godstone
• A connection to the East Grinstead, Uckfield and Tonbridge routes
• "Biggin Vale", west of Biggin Hill
• Bromley South (in tunnel)
• Lewisham Junction (in tunnel), see this proposed new station
• Canary Wharf (in tunnel), connections to Crossrail, Jubilee and DLR
• Potential to extend on to Stratford and the Anglia Relief Line

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.

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.

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.

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 Anglia Relief Line were also built, then the effect would be even more transformative.

Housing

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.

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.

Since the whole area is green belt, 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.

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.

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.

Services

There are many potential services that could be run with such a new line. One possible set of services would be:

• 4tph to Horsham, stopping at all stations
• 4tph to Brighton, not stopping at the two "Vale" stations
• 2tph to East Grinstead
• 2tph to Uckfield
• 4tph to Tonbridge, and one to Tunbridge Wells or Ashford

Since all services would stop at Bromley South and Lewisham Junction, those stations would have a truly excellent service.

Summary

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 Anglia Relief Line, providing fast cross-region services.

If you think the concept proposal has merit, or have any other opinions, why not leave a comment!

Old Oak Common - Queens Park tunnel

In my last post 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!

Shared Loop option

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.

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):

The service pattern with phase 3 would be something like:

• 8tph Crossrail from Paddington via Old Oak Common, shared loop and Dudding Hill to Watford
• 2tph Southern from East Croydon via Old Oak Common, shared loop and Dudding Hill to Watford
• 6tph Overground from Clapham Jn via Old Oak Common, shared loop and Dudding Hill to Willesden Jn
• 6tph Overground from Richmond via Dudding Hill to Willesden Jn

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.

Having visited the area, I now outline an additional scheme, the Queens Park tunnel.

Queens Park tunnel

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.

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.

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.

The service pattern with the Queens Park tunnel would be something like:

• 8tph Crossrail from Paddington via Old Oak Common, shared loop and Dudding Hill to Watford
• 2tph Southern from East Croydon via Old Oak Common, shared loop and Dudding Hill to Watford
• 6tph Overground from Clapham Jn via Old Oak Common, shared loop and Dudding Hill to Willesden Jn
• 8tph Overground from Richmond via Dudding Hill to Queens Park and Camden Road
• 4tph Overground from Hounslow via Dudding Hill to Willesden Jn

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.

Summary

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.

Old Oak Common - Shared Loop option

A new cost-effective phased option for Old Oak Common. See the Central Viaduct option post for more details on the problems of the site and for a more comprehensive, but expensive, option.

This option makes use of the proposed Crossrail to West Coast Main Line (WCML) link, avoiding building a second sharp curve in the South West of the site (as proposed by TfL's option A).

Phase 1

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.

(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.)

Phase 2

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:

Phase 3

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:

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.

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.

Update 14th October 2014: See the updated phase 3 map here.

Rationale

Section added 28th September 2014.

This option was triggered by the release of the Crossrail to WCML 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).

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).

Finally, a key part of both the Central Viaduct 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.

Updated plan

Section added 7th December 2014.

I've slightly tweaked the plan to provide more freight capacity, and some more detail. See below:

And some track diagrams:

Summary

This blog outlines an alternate approach to Old Oak Common - the Shared Loop option.