A better Crossrail 2
A better Crossrail 2
How to help London grow while saving money
My last post discussed how and why Crossrail 2 is badly designed. This post discusses my proposal for an alternative, cheaper and more sensible alignment, which fulfils the same core purposes as the current plans:
Relieving the Victoria Line and (to a lesser extent) the Charing Cross branch of the Northern Line.
Relieving the northern branch of the Piccadilly Line.
Improving services on the lines out of Waterloo to various bits of suburban London and Surrey.
Improving services on the West Anglia Main Line from Tottenham Hale northwards to Hertfordshire.
After I wrote this, I realised that five years ago Alon Levy had proposed something nearly identical to my scheme – the main difference being that mine includes the branch to Tottenham Hale. My (and Alon’s) proposals are also quite similar to the proposals in the 1989 Central London Rail Study, which I discussed in the last post. I take this as a good sign.
For comparison, this is the current proposal.
Wimbledon and points south
At the moment, Crossrail 2 is planning to build an additional four platforms next to Wimbledon station, by demolishing a shopping centre next door. This is wasteful.
Wimbledon has two platforms that are currently not in regular use: the fast trains skip the station, running through platforms 6 and 7. The most straightforward way to save money, without compromising any transport benefits, would be for Crossrail 2 to use these two platforms. This would have the added benefit of cross-platform interchange with the South Western services to Guildford and Dorking: Crossrail 2 trains to Victoria on one side of the platform, trains to Waterloo on the other.
The fast South Western services would be sent in a tunnel under Wimbledon station, without any platforms. Given how expensive it is to build new stations, this is the correct order of priorities. Indeed, a bored tunnel might not even be required; it might be possible to build the tunnel a few metres below the current lines, propping up the existing tracks during construction.
At this stage, I have no strong views on the branches south of Wimbledon which Crossrail 2 should operate. But we should not underestimate the importance of this question. Railways face a trilemma. They can pick two of: a reliable service; a frequent service; and a complex service, whereby express trains run on two-track lines, the line has lots of branches, or it tries to share tracks with different services.1 With urban services, frequency and reliability are paramount, which reduces the scope for complex services.
The Elizabeth Line suffers from being on the wrong side of this trilemma. West of Paddington, it has a complex service pattern, sharing tracks with many other services. Reliability often suffers: problems in Slough cause cascading issues in Romford.
Crossrail 2 is likely to be more complex than the Elizabeth Line. It will have two northern branches, and at least four southern branches. There is likely to be some track shared with the services into Waterloo. Proper work will need to be done so as to ensure the infrastructure, signalling and timetable all work together to operate a frequent, reliable service.
At this stage, however, I would say that:
There is a strong argument for adding another pair of tracks between Wimbledon and Raynes Park, where the Chessington and Epsom services branch off.2 These two branches are probably the strongest candidates for operation by Crossrail 2.
The stopping service to Woking should be transferred to Crossrail 2. There is a continuous band of urbanisation along the route of the line, which should get a good, frequent service.3 The opportunity could also be taken to rebuild Woking station, with wider platforms and a grade-separated junction to the Guildford line.
For the sake of simplicity and reliability, the branches transferred to Crossrail 2 should only have services into the central tunnel, losing their direct services to Waterloo. This would be mitigated by the cross-platform interchange at Wimbledon.
Wimbledon to Clapham Junction
Heading north from Wimbledon, I propose six-tracking the South Western Mainline. The corridor, which currently has four tracks, is quite wide, so it should be possible to do this with minimal land acquisition. At any rate the land required would be limited to the backs of gardens. A few bridges would need to be rebuilt, and there may be a small amount of demolition needed near Clapham Junction. Earlsfield station would also need to be rebuilt, as a stop either on Crossrail 2 or the South Western Mainline.
At Clapham Junction, I would propose putting Crossrail 2 above-ground. The southern side of Clapham Junction, where the fast and slow lines of both the South Western Main Line (SWML) and Brighton Main Line (BML) stop, has 11 platforms. Two of them are very rarely used.4 Without needing to expand the station footprint, this should be enough to have ten platforms, one platform pair for: SWML fast; SWML slow; Crossrail 2; BML fast; BML slow. One platform would be taken out of use.
I would also propose generally rebuilding Clapham Junction station, which is necessary given how cramped both the subway and the overbridge are, even before Crossrail 2. The rebuild of London Bridge station could be used as a model.
Clapham Junction to Euston
There are three alternatives for the route from Clapham Junction to Victoria:
Crossrail 2 goes into its central tunnel immediately after Clapham Junction.
Crossrail 2 runs above-ground for longer, and crosses the Thames on the bridge into Victoria Station, which has enough space to fit two dedicated Crossrail 2 tracks.5 It would then dive into tunnel shortly after crossing the bridge.
Crossrail 2 goes into tunnel immediately after Clapham Junction, but include a station at Battersea Power Station. I would anticipate this being privately funded by the developers.
As in the current plans, Crossrail 2 would stop at Victoria, Tottenham Court Road and a joint station at Euston/St. Pancras. These, however, would probably be the only three underground stations: Chelsea, Angel and Dalston would be scrapped.
Having said that, it’s possible that another central station at Green Park might be a good idea. Clearly this would be very expensive. On the other hand, it would prevent Tottenham Court Road from being overloaded, give better access to jobs in Mayfair, and provide a useful interchange with the Jubilee and Piccadilly lines. It would be Crossrail 2’s equivalent of Bond Street on the Elizabeth Line. If there is to be a fourth (publicly-funded) underground station, it should be there, not at Angel, Chelsea or Dalston.
Euston to Finsbury Park
North of Euston/St. Pancras, I propose redirecting the line to Finsbury Park. There are two reasons for this. First, Finsbury Park is a very important interchange, served by two Tube lines, commuter trains, and Thameslink services. Ideally the fast trains to Cambridge should stop there too. It is like the Clapham Junction of North London: Crossrail 2’s stopping there will be much more beneficial for connectivity than a stop at Dalston, as the current proposals have it.
Second, stopping at Finsbury Park is key to my proposals for relief of the Piccadilly Line, discussed below.
The line from Finsbury Park to King’s Cross used to have six tracks. To get to Finsbury Park, Crossrail 2 would emerge at what is currently a cement works on Rufford Street, and run below HS2 and the Overground for a short while in an enlarged cutting. It would then go into the disused Copenhagen Tunnel, and thereafter would reuse the space once occupied by the fifth and sixth tracks.
As with Clapham Junction, Finsbury Park station would be entirely rebuilt. Within its current footprint (including the disused platform on the western side), there should be enough space for a pair of platforms for the Northern City Line, Crossrail 2, and Thameslink, as well as two through lines for LNER services that don’t stop at Finsbury Park.
Relieving the Piccadilly Line
The northern bit of the Piccadilly Line is undoubtedly busy. But I’m not sure it is so overloaded as to justify spending billions on building stations at Wood Green (or at Turnpike Lane and Alexandra Palace) and at New Southgate.
In 2022/23, the latest year for which we have available figures,6 the Piccadilly Line stations north of King’s Cross amassed in total about 57 mn entries and exits, about as many as the Jubilee Line north of Baker Street, which had 54 mn. The reason the Piccadilly Line is so overloaded is frequency: old-fashioned signalling limits the Piccadilly Line to 24 tph, while the Jubilee Line manages 30 tph. With new trains (which are funded) and signalling upgrades (which, inexplicably are not), the Piccadilly Line could run 36 tph in the peak, a 50% increase.
What’s more, the Piccadilly Line is not the only railway line in North London. In fact, there are two lines running parallel, both of which feed into the Northern City Line.
The Northern City Line has an odd history. It was originally a self-contained Tube line between Finsbury Park and Moorgate. In the 1930s, the famous Northern Heights proposals would have seen its inclusion as part of the Northern Line, but the War put an end to that, and because the tunnels were built big enough to handle mainline trains the Northern City Line ended up being transferred to British Rail in the late 70s. Since then it has hosted (what are now) the Great Northern services to Welwyn Garden City, and to Stevenage via Hertford North.
This line has a very poor service: each branch only gets two trains per hour (tph) off-peak, even though they both go through dense London suburbia. Anecdotally, many people prefer to walk long distances to get the Piccadilly Line because the Great Northern service is so infrequent.
I find it staggering that Crossrail 2 is currently proposing to spend billions on building new stations in order to relieve the Piccadilly Line. The best way to relieve the Piccadilly Line is better organisation (increased services on the Northern City Line) and electronics (resignalling the Piccadilly Line itself) rather than pouring more concrete.
But in the long term there is, I think, a strong case for Crossrail 2 taking over the Northern City Line branch to Welwyn Garden City.
This gets to the heart of the difference between a Tube line and a Crossrail line I discussed in the previous post. The Northern City Line is essentially a Tube line, with frequent stops in London’s urban area: south of Finsbury Park there is a station on average every kilometre. This wouldn’t be a problem if the service only went as far out as Enfield or New Barnet, which are both in Zone 5. But instead, the service goes all the way to Welwyn Garden City and Stevenage. Towns on the other side of the M25 need a quick commuter service into central London; as it is, the Northern City line takes 51 minutes to go from Welwyn to Moorgate, a distance of only 34 km. Hertfordshire is more appropriately served by a Crossrail line than a Tube line.
I therefore suggest that the busier branch,7 to Welwyn via New Southgate, be transferred to Crossrail 2. This would improve journey times for the Hertfordshire towns of Welwyn, Hatfield and Potters Bar, while also giving the London suburbs of Barnet8 and Southgate and Hornsey a proper suburban service.
Finsbury Park to eastern Hertfordshire
Another branch north of Finsbury Park would go to Tottenham Hale. This would require a tunnel, which Crossrail 2 would enter just north of Finsbury Park station.
Crossrail 2 would leave the tunnel just before a brand-new station to replace both South Tottenham and Seven Sisters. At the moment, two branches of the Overground cross perpendicular to one another, but without a station: passengers changing have to walk an annoyingly long distance to get from South Tottenham to Seven Sisters.
I therefore propose building a new station at the point where the lines cross.
The line would then head above-ground to Tottenham Hale, which would be rebuilt to have four platforms, with cross-platform interchange between Crossrail 2 and the Greater Anglia services to Stansted and Cambridge.
North of Tottenham Hale, Crossrail 2 would join the West Anglia Main Line. I would suggest it should terminate at Hertford. The WAML would need to be four-tracked, probably all the way to the junction with the Hertford branch line, and certainly all the way to Cheshunt. Broxbourne station would probably need two additional platforms, as I anticipate that many Crossrail 2 services would terminate there.
Minimalism
In summary, then, my scheme would involve building three (or maybe four) new publicly-funded underground stations rather than ten or twelve. It would also involve a new above-ground station, and major works to Clapham Junction and Finsbury Park. Rather than 35 km of new tunnel, there would be only 13.5 km.9 The works to the West Anglia Mainline and the branches south of Wimbledon would be similar.
This scheme would fulfil all four core purposes of Crossrail 2 just as well as the current scheme. It would also, in many respects, be better. By eliminating the detours to serve Balham, Chelsea and Angel the line would be quicker. Rather than Dalston it would serve Finsbury Park, a much more important interchange. There would be no need to dig up Wimbledon, Angel or Wood Green town centres. My scheme explicitly tries intelligently to re-use existing infrastructure – the platforms at Wimbledon, the footprints of Clapham Junction and Finsbury Park, and the disused tunnel north of King’s Cross – rather than build everything anew.
Above all, it will cost less, and that will make it more likely that it will actually get built.
Crossrail 1 cost £19 bn by the time it opened, or in constant currency values $888.50 mn/km. This was in itself extortionate: Madrid is spending $94 mn/km on the Eje Transversal, a project quite similar to Crossrail. At Madrileño prices, my version of Crossrail 2 ought to cost no more than about £2 bn.
I doubt it will be possible quickly to reduce costs to Spanish levels, although that should be our ultimate goal. This should be seen as a very optimistic lower bound. As a very pessimistic upper bound, assuming that we will not be able to reduce per-kilometre construction costs at all, my version of Crossrail 2 might cost about £10–12 bn in early 2022 prices.
Either way, even the pessimistic upper bound is considerably less than the forty-five billion pounds that was projected in 2017. For £12 bn we will get a scheme with much the same benefits, and more importantly, we will actually get a scheme. There may even be enough money left over to build a conventional Tube line from Chelsea to Hackney.
I thank Matthew Bornholt for framing the problem in this way.
This would require a small amount of demolition, none of it residential, and possibly compulsory purchase of some back gardens.
This would require a flyover to be built north of Woking station, so that the Crossrail 2 trains can terminate on new platforms built on the site of the station car park.
They are used by the Croydon <> Watford service, which only operates hourly.
The cheapest option would be for Crossrail 2 to travel via Stewarts Lane Junction. This would require adding another pair of tracks for a short distance next to the Overground line towards Peckham, and re-doubling the single-track chord north of Stewarts Lane depot.
This is roughly 73% of pre-COVID usage.
The other branch is much less busy north of the M25, so there is a much weaker case for transferring it to Crossrail 2.
A new platform would need to be built at New Barnet so some of the trains could terminate there without running the full length of the line to Welwyn.
10 km from Clapham Junction to the Copenhagen tunnel, another 2.5 from Finsbury Park to Seven Sisters, plus around 1 km under Wimbledon.
Outstanding work!