Aidan Stanger wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote:

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004, Dave Arquati wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Dave Arquati wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Dave Arquati wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:


"The second route would link Herts and Beds with Clapham Junction."

Beds is probably wrong, although it's very much up in the air. Herts
could get Crossrail 2 services; it depends if they decide to run any up
the Lea Valley line.

I hadn't heard about this idea (until i looked at your site,
obviously). It's pretty obvious - Stratford, Lea Valley Line (more or
less unused for passengers at the moment), Tottenham Hale, some set of
stations to the north (hopefully Stansted). Is it being seriously
considered? For some value of 'seriously' appropriate to the entirely
hypothetical Crossrail 2, of course.

It would seem sensible for Crossrail 2 to take over the "one" services

from Stratford to Stansted and Hertford East starting next year, and

enhance them - especially given the desire to regenerate the Lea Valley.
A direct service from Stansted to the rest of Central London would also
be a bonus, if Stansted is to be expanded.

Strongly agreed.

Of course, it would be yet another transport project which *just*
misses Hackney - after the ELL, stepping over the border into Dalston
and then fleeing to Islington, and the eternally promised but never
delivered prospect of Chelsea-Hackney.

Crossrail 2 *is* really Chelsea-Hackney

Yes, i know - i just like the old name a lot more! The description
"eternally promised but never delivered" is as true under this name as any
previous.


'Tis Chelsea that's more likely to be bypassed.

RB Kensington & Chelsea are still clinging on to the hope that CR2 will
serve somewhere in Chelsea. They're not entirely off their rockers -
they consider a route from Victoria to Clapham Junction via Sloane
Square, King's Road (presumably somewhere near the Town Hall) and
Imperial Wharf to be desirable, and it would serve a larger population
that a simple direct tunnel to the Junction. The other main option is
via Battersea Park, and that would be popular with the Power Station
developers.

Interestingly, the CLRL map for CR2 shows an additional possible branch
from Victoria which does *not* go to Clapham Junction. That would
suggest a Chelsea & Putney route (which was in the original, safeguarded
plans).

- just evolved.

Hmph.


In fact, it is generally proposed to serve Hackney (Central). The
oft-proposed route is from King's Cross to Dalston (either via Highbury
& Islington or via Angel and Essex Road),

I hadn't heard of the Highbury & Islington option; is the idea to use the
NLL as some sort of cost-saving measure? Ah, ignore me, you answer this
below.


Hadn't that idea already been abandoned?


then following the North London Line route to Stratford. If this route
were chosen, then it would seem to be a long way round to serve the Lea
Valley line from Stratford, and instead a branch might leave at Hackney
to head for Stansted.

KX - Dalston i like, but going to Stratford is madness. People in
Stratford and beyond already have good ways into town, and no desire to go
to Hackney. Clearly, the only sensible solution is up the West Anglia from
Hackney.


I couldn't disagree more. Firstly, although Stratford's links with much
of Central London are good, there is no direct line to Kings Cross.
Secondly, Hackney's links with Stratford are currently inadequate - the
trains are infrequent, short and overcrowded. Thirdly, a well designed
Hackney station would incorporate Hackney Downs station, so you would
still get the benefits while the trains continue to serve the popular
destination of Liverpool Street.

Stratford will have a link to Farringdon with CR1; it's only a short hop
from there to King's Cross. And an upgrade of the NLL would go towards
improving links between Hackney and Stratford. I would say that giving
the West Anglia lines (particularly the Lea Valley) a direct link to the
West End would give greater regeneration benefits than going to
Stratford, which will already have some impressive new links.

The problem with using the NLL route between Highbury and Stratford is
that it would be difficult to replicate it in a tunnel thanks to the
CTRL, and sharing tracks with the NLL itself would be a performance
liability - especially given the heavy freight use, the 6tph proposed
for the NLL and the further 4tph from the ELLX. Running Crossrail 2 this
way could mean NLL services being cut back.

Indeed. Seems to be an ineffective way of doing something undesirable.


But sharing between Dalston and Stratford would not be a problem, as NLL
trains could be diverted to Bishopsgate and the ELL.

Removing a direct orbital link between Stratford and northwest/west
London would be a bad idea, IMHO. Interchange at Dalston would certainly
not be easy, as the ELL station is at Dalston Junction. Perhaps a CR2
route from Essex Road to Haggerston station and then Hackney would be
better - it could all be tunnelled (avoiding the CTRL tunnels, unlike
the NLL route), and would mean a less awkward curve at Hackney if it
took a West Anglia route.

I'd give Hackney a good chance of being included in Crossrail 2, should
it ever be built. After all, the GN will have Thameslink 2000 and the GE
will have Crossrail 1 - there's really nowhere else for CR2 to go!

Crossrail 3!


I can think of a lot of possible routes for more Crossrail lines.
Unfortunately the routes aren't safeguarded, so constructing them would
probably require a lot of buildings to be demolished.

We have east-west and a possible SW-NE. The other obvious connection is
NW-SE, to give Watford DC services a direct link to the City, and adding
extra capacity into London Bridge. The only problem there is that
apparently there is already extensive overprovision of services between
Queen's Park and Harrow.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London