I gather that the Crossrail 2 route proposal will be published on Tuesday,
forecast to be via Wimbledon, Chelsea, Euston, Hackney and Epping
(presumably with some additional intermediate stations). This was
previously known as the Chelsea-Hackney line.

At this stage, the government's support seems a bit washy washy. The mayor
is keen, of course, but doesn't have the funds. Presumably, as with
Crossrail 1, financial support from business will be needed to boost the
funding, but as this line doesn't go to obvious honeypots like Heathrow and
Canary Wharf, I wonder who'll cough up?

On 03/02/2013 19:37, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 09:36:54 -0600, Recliner


At this stage, the government's support seems a bit washy washy. The mayor
is keen, of course, but doesn't have the funds. Presumably, as with
Crossrail 1, financial support from business will be needed to boost the
funding, but as this line doesn't go to obvious honeypots like Heathrow and
Canary Wharf, I wonder who'll cough up?

Lord Adonis seemed reasonably confident that external financing might
be forthcoming in addition to public sector funding.

Cancel HS2 and spend the money on London commuters rather than
northerners


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

George Osborne today, while announcing still further cuts, said he was making
a couple of million available to TfL for a feasibility study of Crossrail 2.

I must admit I thought much of that had already been done and that the
only big questions were the exact route and the starting date of construction.

It seems the preferred route - preferred by whom? - is Wimbledon/Tooting
Broadway/Clapham Junction/Chelsea/Victoria/Piccadilly Circus/Tottenham
Court Road/Euston/Angel/Dalston Junction/Turnpike Lane/Alexander Palace. In
other words, Goblin does not exist and there is no need to consider creating
interchange facilities with it. This looks like a Train Operator's proposal, not a
train user's.

Those who have a real understanding of how people use public transport know
that changing trains is a key element. One of the difficulties London's railway
system has faced in recent years in that some key interchange stations have
been seriously over subscribed at peak times. Large amounts of money have
been spent on making stations like Kings Cross and Victoria more able to cope.
An alternative and possibly cheaper strategy would be to increase the number
of stations where it is possible to change trains. At present London
Overground services have few connections with other rail routes but at those
stations which do connect, far more passengers board and alight from trains
than at non-connecting stations. It should be mandatory that any new
railway through North London should connect with both London Overground
services.

Another aspect of changing trains is that although most travellers do it
willingly, they will not change trains more often than necessary. This proposal
suggests Dalston Junction. Travellers from West London will have to change
at Highbury and Islington and then change again. If Highbury And Islington or
Canonbury were chosen, the additional change would be avoided.

In their "blurb" Crossrail2.com stress the need to include Clapham Junction in
the new line in order to reduce pressure on Waterloo and Victoria. I can't
argue with that but why then is London Underground extending the Northern
Line to Nine Elms and not to Clapham Junction? And why is there no Thames
Link route to Clapham Junction?