Cheapest Possible Crossrail 2?

[Sad Sprinter]

*If*, there is still a will to build Crossrail 2 after the pandemic, what aspects of the route could be binned for it to be cheap enough to build? The Chelsea station, I presume, would be the first to go.

 

[Recessio]

Where they have two possibilities (Tooting vs Balham, or Wood Green vs Ally-Pally+Turnpike), has anything been published about which would be cheaper? I can't imagine they'll just drop both choices.

Passive provisions for the Hackney branches being binned?

 

[The Ham]

It depends on what you think the outcomes from Covid-19 are likely to be.

Firstly it's likely to have an impact on the economy, whilst that could impact of rail use (which I'll cover later) it could make the cost of building Crossrail 2 cheaper. In that inflation is likely to be less than it would otherwise be (especially if house prices and rents fall and/or stagnate for a prolonged period of time).

It also depends on how much rail travel is impacted, especially from working from home (WFH), it's suggested that 40%-50% of work could be done from home, with London based commuting this is likely to be higher, so let's say it's 70%.

Across the rail network 65% of rail use is for commuting, so if WFH was 100% for those jobs then for every 100 on a train before there would now be 55 (so maximum fall in rail use of 45%).

However WFH isn't suitable for everyone (those without the space, those who live alone, those who are easily distracted at home, those with poor internet, etc.). Also it's likely that the majority of people who do work from home would wish to do so for 1 to 3 days a week or 1 to 3 weeks out of 5. Overall is be surprised if we got to a point where uptake in WFH was more than 50% for those to whom it was available.

At 50% that's a ~20% fall in use. That only rolls things back to the sorts of flows seen in 2012.

However that doesn't account for anyone for whom by traveling less it becomes less financially sensible to own a car and so people become more reliant on rail for the remaining travel (before anyone say about rural locations needing a car, remember we're taking about Crossrail 2 which doesn't serve anywhere of note which could be described as rural). Pair this with the reduction in the need to go and buy bulky things (as an example Wicks have improved their delivery service, so if I'm doing a DIY in bit going to waste half a day going and getting the stuff I need when I could have it delivered ready for me to start work on it first thing Saturday morning).

Yes there's still going to be a need for some car travel for everyone, however cars are expensive to own (many would be paying around £2,000/year or more before taking into account fuel costs) and so that's a significant cost if cars are being used less frequently.

Yes there's still going to be many (quite possibly the majority) for whom car ownership is still justified, however given that shifting 2% of road travel to rail would offset that ~20% fall in rail use highlighted above, is likely that we be looking at a smaller fall that 20% (and so the fall in use would likely be to 2013-2016 levels of use).

The other thing to consider is that by needing to go to the office less it makes it more attractive for people to live further away from where they work. This could mean longer but fewer rail journeys. Although this may not result in cost savings on the rail travel, by moving from Surbiton to Salisbury or Wimbledon to Winchester the cost savings are on housing which are typically much bigger than travel costs. As such the revenue falls could be lower still and projects like Crossrail 2 could still be worth doing, but with a focus on creating more capacity for travel from near the M25 or further out, rather than so much of a focus for Central London.

The other thing to consider is that if businesses can reduce office space that's likely to mean that those with multiple offices start to close some down and then use the savings to pay for those staff to travel to a central office (which they can do as long as its not their primary place of work). Whilst some would opt for somewhere what, some would still opt for somewhere within London as it's one of the easiest places to get to from much of the country.

As such, although it's likely that we'll see a bit more of a delay (2040-2045) that reducing costs to justify building Crossrail 2 may not be all that useful.

Having said that it might be that there's a number of cost options which are left out of the core scheme, with them being dependent on other funding coming forwards to improve the economics of including them.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

It depends on what you think the outcomes from Covid-19 are likely to be.

Firstly it's likely to have an impact on the economy, whilst that could impact of rail use (which I'll cover later) it could make the cost of building Crossrail 2 cheaper. In that inflation is likely to be less than it would otherwise be (especially if house prices and rents fall and/or stagnate for a prolonged period of time).

It also depends on how much rail travel is impacted, especially from working from home (WFH), it's suggested that 40%-50% of work could be done from home, with London based commuting this is likely to be higher, so let's say it's 70%.

Across the rail network 65% of rail use is for commuting, so if WFH was 100% for those jobs then for every 100 on a train before there would now be 55 (so maximum fall in rail use of 45%).

However WFH isn't suitable for everyone (those without the space, those who live alone, those who are easily distracted at home, those with poor internet, etc.). Also it's likely that the majority of people who do work from home would wish to do so for 1 to 3 days a week or 1 to 3 weeks out of 5. Overall is be surprised if we got to a point where uptake in WFH was more than 50% for those to whom it was available.

At 50% that's a ~20% fall in use. That only rolls things back to the sorts of flows seen in 2012.

However that doesn't account for anyone for whom by traveling less it becomes less financially sensible to own a car and so people become more reliant on rail for the remaining travel (before anyone say about rural locations needing a car, remember we're taking about Crossrail 2 which doesn't serve anywhere of note which could be described as rural). Pair this with the reduction in the need to go and buy bulky things (as an example Wicks have improved their delivery service, so if I'm doing a DIY in bit going to waste half a day going and getting the stuff I need when I could have it delivered ready for me to start work on it first thing Saturday morning).

Yes there's still going to be a need for some car travel for everyone, however cars are expensive to own (many would be paying around £2,000/year or more before taking into account fuel costs) and so that's a significant cost if cars are being used less frequently.

Yes there's still going to be many (quite possibly the majority) for whom car ownership is still justified, however given that shifting 2% of road travel to rail would offset that ~20% fall in rail use highlighted above, is likely that we be looking at a smaller fall that 20% (and so the fall in use would likely be to 2013-2016 levels of use).

The other thing to consider is that by needing to go to the office less it makes it more attractive for people to live further away from where they work. This could mean longer but fewer rail journeys. Although this may not result in cost savings on the rail travel, by moving from Surbiton to Salisbury or Wimbledon to Winchester the cost savings are on housing which are typically much bigger than travel costs. As such the revenue falls could be lower still and projects like Crossrail 2 could still be worth doing, but with a focus on creating more capacity for travel from near the M25 or further out, rather than so much of a focus for Central London.

The other thing to consider is that if businesses can reduce office space that's likely to mean that those with multiple offices start to close some down and then use the savings to pay for those staff to travel to a central office (which they can do as long as its not their primary place of work). Whilst some would opt for somewhere what, some would still opt for somewhere within London as it's one of the easiest places to get to from much of the country.

As such, although it's likely that we'll see a bit more of a delay (2040-2045) that reducing costs to justify building Crossrail 2 may not be all that useful.

Having said that it might be that there's a number of cost options which are left out of the core scheme, with them being dependent on other funding coming forwards to improve the economics of including them.

What a brilliant, sensible message. I hope the Crossrail 2 route does not cut down, as I feel like that would be a short term decision that would be a huge mistake in the long term, even if passenger usage falls massively.

 

[Bald Rick]

The way it looks, the cheapest thing for Crossrail 2 is not to build it.

Cheaper (and more expensive) versions were considered - at length - in the 2018 affordability review. This hasn’t been published, but there were some very radical options. Basically, to make it cheaper, you have to remove stations....

 

[Peregrine 4903]

The way it looks, the cheapest thing for Crossrail 2 is not to build it.

Cheaper (and more expensive) versions were considered - at length - in the 2018 affordability review. This hasn’t been published, but there were some very radical options. Basically, to make it cheaper, you have to remove stations....

What were the more expensive options if your allowed to say?

 

[Bald Rick]

What were the more expensive options if your allowed to say?

I’m not .

Let’s just say they were generally options proposed by people who aren’t Transport
Planners or Engineers, on the basis that they “must be cheaper”. They weren’t.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Probably the Taxpayers Alliance CR2 plan was one.

Would the report ever be published?

If your going to remove stations, I can only think that Chelsea, Angel and Turnpike Lane would be the ones to go.

 

[Bald Rick]

Probably the Taxpayers Alliance CR2 plan was one.

Would the report ever be published?

If your going to remove stations, I can only think that Chelsea, Angel and Turnpike Lane would be the ones to go.

Chelsea was out years ago, as confirmed by various documents that the press got hold of.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Chelsea was out years ago, as confirmed by various documents that the press got hold of.

If that's the case, why haven't we seen an updated network map? TFL still only have the 2015 consultation map with the Chelsea stop in place.

 

[Bald Rick]

If that's the case, why haven't we seen an updated network map? TFL still only have the 2015 consultation map with the Chelsea stop in place.

Because the formal decision was never confirmed. Unlikely to be for the foreseeable either.

 

[edwin_m]

It depends on what you think the outcomes from Covid-19 are likely to be.

Firstly it's likely to have an impact on the economy, whilst that could impact of rail use (which I'll cover later) it could make the cost of building Crossrail 2 cheaper. In that inflation is likely to be less than it would otherwise be (especially if house prices and rents fall and/or stagnate for a prolonged period of time).

It also depends on how much rail travel is impacted, especially from working from home (WFH), it's suggested that 40%-50% of work could be done from home, with London based commuting this is likely to be higher, so let's say it's 70%.

Across the rail network 65% of rail use is for commuting, so if WFH was 100% for those jobs then for every 100 on a train before there would now be 55 (so maximum fall in rail use of 45%).

However WFH isn't suitable for everyone (those without the space, those who live alone, those who are easily distracted at home, those with poor internet, etc.). Also it's likely that the majority of people who do work from home would wish to do so for 1 to 3 days a week or 1 to 3 weeks out of 5. Overall is be surprised if we got to a point where uptake in WFH was more than 50% for those to whom it was available.

At 50% that's a ~20% fall in use. That only rolls things back to the sorts of flows seen in 2012.

However that doesn't account for anyone for whom by traveling less it becomes less financially sensible to own a car and so people become more reliant on rail for the remaining travel (before anyone say about rural locations needing a car, remember we're taking about Crossrail 2 which doesn't serve anywhere of note which could be described as rural). Pair this with the reduction in the need to go and buy bulky things (as an example Wicks have improved their delivery service, so if I'm doing a DIY in bit going to waste half a day going and getting the stuff I need when I could have it delivered ready for me to start work on it first thing Saturday morning).

Yes there's still going to be a need for some car travel for everyone, however cars are expensive to own (many would be paying around £2,000/year or more before taking into account fuel costs) and so that's a significant cost if cars are being used less frequently.

Yes there's still going to be many (quite possibly the majority) for whom car ownership is still justified, however given that shifting 2% of road travel to rail would offset that ~20% fall in rail use highlighted above, is likely that we be looking at a smaller fall that 20% (and so the fall in use would likely be to 2013-2016 levels of use).

The other thing to consider is that by needing to go to the office less it makes it more attractive for people to live further away from where they work. This could mean longer but fewer rail journeys. Although this may not result in cost savings on the rail travel, by moving from Surbiton to Salisbury or Wimbledon to Winchester the cost savings are on housing which are typically much bigger than travel costs. As such the revenue falls could be lower still and projects like Crossrail 2 could still be worth doing, but with a focus on creating more capacity for travel from near the M25 or further out, rather than so much of a focus for Central London.

The other thing to consider is that if businesses can reduce office space that's likely to mean that those with multiple offices start to close some down and then use the savings to pay for those staff to travel to a central office (which they can do as long as its not their primary place of work). Whilst some would opt for somewhere what, some would still opt for somewhere within London as it's one of the easiest places to get to from much of the country.

As such, although it's likely that we'll see a bit more of a delay (2040-2045) that reducing costs to justify building Crossrail 2 may not be all that useful.

Having said that it might be that there's a number of cost options which are left out of the core scheme, with them being dependent on other funding coming forwards to improve the economics of including them.

I'm in agreement with some of this for much of the network, but less so for London commuting.

Firstly there is very little car commuting into central London, and if those that still do so were willing to consider the train instead then they would probably have done that years ago. So I don't think there will be any significant modal shift from car to London commuter trains.

With existing companies likely to need less office space, it's possible that supply and demand will reduce rents and other companies will start taking up that space until takeup of office space is back to about where it was before Covid. If there is no increased social distancing in those offices than that means about the same number of people will be travelling into London each day to work in those offices, unless some of the office workers live in nearby flats converted from other offices. However even if most of them travel into London, it's likely that many will be visiting more occasionally, possibly from further away, and that makes it more likely they will arrive later and leave earlier rather than hitting the commuter peaks. Commuter TOCs could capitalize on this by offering more spacious interiors suitable for working on the train, at a higher price that was still cheaper than a season for travel a few days a week - but I doubt this would translate into an actual increase in the number of trains. So I would expect the London commuter peak to reduce in the long term, and off-peak travel to be less affected or even increase a bit.

It's the commuter peak that determines what capacity is needed on the network. Our government combines the Tory instinct to balance the books with the high cost of the pandemic, the self-inflicted economic wound of Brexit and a stated desire to level up spending in the North, so an expensive scheme that is mainly increasing London commuter capacity is likely to be vulnerable. Some schemes are past the point of no return, but I'm quite surprised a project still in development like Croydon remodeling appears to be getting some priority. Compared to that, Crossrail 2 has the added disadvantage of being promoted by TfL, which has no discretionary funding and is unlikely to be bailed out by this government until hell freezes over or the similarly unlikely event of London getting a Tory mayor again.

So my prediction is for nothing to happen on Crossrail 2 until at least 2024.

 

[SussexLad]

My initial thought was Borris's "build back stronger" stuff. I've read all thats been stated, i agree it won't be for a couple of years before approval but something tells me Boris might want to start dishing out the cash (if their is any) to basically try to buy a load of votes in London.

No idea if he will go that way given HS2 and its drain on budgets. Certainly an interesting area to watch.

 

[Bald Rick]

dishing out the cash (if their is any)

There isn’t.

 

[The Ham]

My initial thought was Borris's "build back stronger" stuff. I've read all thats been stated, i agree it won't be for a couple of years before approval but something tells me Boris might want to start dishing out the cash (if their is any) to basically try to buy a load of votes in London.

No idea if he will go that way given HS2 and its drain on budgets. Certainly an interesting area to watch.

What drain on budgets due to HS2?

As the spending on rail infrastructure enhancements has been stable for the last few years, with it rising in most years.

 

[SussexLad]

What drain on budgets due to HS2?

As the spending on rail infrastructure enhancements has been stable for the last few years, with it rising in most years.

The government only has so much money they can borrow before it's unsustainable.

 

[Ianno87]

The government only has so much money they can borrow before it's unsustainable.

Borrowing is sustainable provided the cost of servicing the debt can be maintained. Each scheme that money is borrowed to pay for does not worsen this provided that the revenue and growth it returns can (as a minimum) service the costs of its own debt.

 

[Taunton]

Firstly there is very little car commuting into central London, and if those that still do so were willing to consider the train instead then they would probably have done that years ago. So I don't think there will be any significant modal shift from car to London commuter trains.

This is indeed true, although for some reason often ignored, commonly by those who, to quote Bald Rick above, generally "are not Transport Planners or Engineers".

Anyone looking at major London streets nowadays realises that the majority of vehicles are now commercial, or Uber/taxis. The latter are commonly making journeys within Zone 1, or if further have little scope for diversion to a single new rail line. car commuting is honestly pretty non-existent, principally because there's hardly anywhere to put the car when you arrive.

The bulk of journeys into Zone 1 are terminating in Zone 1, or at least changing there to different lines onwards. There is actually little demand for journeys right across Central London. Canary Wharf to Heathrow/West London is going to be a useful exception for Crossrail, but there will be hardly anyone from east of Stratford who is still on board west of Paddington. Crossrail 2 doesn't appear to serve any useful flow right across London. This is really no different to there being hardly anyone from south of Kennington on the Northern line who is still on board north of Camden Town.

If you remove stations on the cross-London part, especially those such as Chelsea which are covering some of the (few) inner London nodes not already on rail transport, you reduce the utility of the new line further. I can't see how the cost-benefit stacks up.

 

[SussexLad]

Borrowing is sustainable provided the cost of servicing the debt can be maintained. Each scheme that money is borrowed to pay for does not worsen this provided that the revenue and growth it returns can (as a minimum) service the costs of its own debt.

This is true in the long term. However, in the short term you have to borrow in, lets say, £1 billion chunks once a year. Lets say, optimistically, the project takes 5 years. By year 5, before the project has even fully opened, your are paying interest on at least £4 billion. Apply that on a greater scale to a budget the size of Crossrail or HS2 and you have a lot of outgoings in the short term with nothing really incoming.

So even IF the cost - benefits did stack up (I note Taunton's argument), it might not get approved because of the short term cost of servicing the debt whilst in an environment where the government has mountains of debt because of Covid, and soon HS2.

 

[Taunton]

I do get the feeling the capital costs of transport projects, injected by the state, are increasingly regarded as sunk costs not looking for a return, in effect just expenditure. It used to be that the operator looked to the farebox to recoup both capital and running costs, plus a bit for themselves on top, nowadays they feel that capital cost should be a gift, they don't look for the bit for the shareholders any more, and even the running costs need substantial topping up, whether from local property taxes (mine), central government, or whoever. All despite fares at the farebox having, long term, risen by much more than inflation, and a pretty much doubling of usage on existing infrastructure. This approach even seems to have extended now to projects for periodic replacing of rolling stock, signalling, or whatever.

 

[adamedwards]

I assume you could save money by starting the tunneling as close to Victoria as possible, but then you lose the capacity gain by taking stopping trains off the lines from Wimbledon to Clapham Junction where capacity is need for trains from further out.

 

[edwin_m]

This is indeed true, although for some reason often ignored, commonly by those who, to quote Bald Rick above, generally "are not Transport Planners or Engineers".

Anyone looking at major London streets nowadays realises that the majority of vehicles are now commercial, or Uber/taxis. The latter are commonly making journeys within Zone 1, or if further have little scope for diversion to a single new rail line. car commuting is honestly pretty non-existent, principally because there's hardly anywhere to put the car when you arrive.

The bulk of journeys into Zone 1 are terminating in Zone 1, or at least changing there to different lines onwards. There is actually little demand for journeys right across Central London. Canary Wharf to Heathrow/West London is going to be a useful exception for Crossrail, but there will be hardly anyone from east of Stratford who is still on board west of Paddington. Crossrail 2 doesn't appear to serve any useful flow right across London. This is really no different to there being hardly anyone from south of Kennington on the Northern line who is still on board north of Camden Town.

If you remove stations on the cross-London part, especially those such as Chelsea which are covering some of the (few) inner London nodes not already on rail transport, you reduce the utility of the new line further. I can't see how the cost-benefit stacks up.

Agreed. There's some benefit to travelers into the London termini who would have a through journey to their ultimate destination (mainly Zone 1 as you say) but the main benefits arise from extra capacity at those termini. Each through working removes one turnaround from each terminus, and most of a train-worth of crowds from each concourse and Underground station. However those benefits are only realized if the capacity thus released can be used to carry more people, and that depends on there being more people who want to travel at peak times.

I do get the feeling the capital costs of transport projects, injected by the state, are increasingly regarded as sunk costs not looking for a return, in effect just expenditure. It used to be that the operator looked to the farebox to recoup both capital and running costs, plus a bit for themselves on top, nowadays they feel that capital cost should be a gift, they don't look for the bit for the shareholders any more, and even the running costs need substantial topping up, whether from local property taxes (mine), central government, or whoever. All despite fares at the farebox having, long term, risen by much more than inflation, and a pretty much doubling of usage on existing infrastructure. This approach even seems to have extended now to projects for periodic replacing of rolling stock, signalling, or whatever.

Making a worthwhile financial return from a railway hasn't been possible for more than a century, with very limited exceptions. I believe even the Yerkes tubes in the 1900s made plenty of money for Yerkes (although died before reaping most of the benefit) but nothing or less for his investors.

The return the government sees is in increased economic activity and better public wellbeing from having a better transport network, and reduced accidents, pollution etc as people travel by train instead of by car. These are quantified where possible, and make up most of the "B" in the BCR (benefit-cost ratio) so often cited on this forum. Some light rail schemes cover their operating cost but are unlikely to recover much capital or even build up a sinking fund for asset replacement.

 

[Bald Rick]

I assume you could save money by starting the tunneling as close to Victoria as possible, but then you lose the capacity gain by taking stopping trains off the lines from Wimbledon to Clapham Junction where capacity is need for trains from further out.

No where closer to Victoria to put a portal, or st least no where that’s cheaper. It’s been looked at, extensively.

 

[HSTEd]

Agreed. There's some benefit to travelers into the London termini who would have a through journey to their ultimate destination (mainly Zone 1 as you say) but the main benefits arise from extra capacity at those termini. Each through working removes one turnaround from each terminus, and most of a train-worth of crowds from each concourse and Underground station. However those benefits are only realized if the capacity thus released can be used to carry more people, and that depends on there being more people who want to travel at peak times.

Well they can also be realised if substantial land area can be sold.
Although London appears quite good on that score, as opposed to the acres of random trackwork seen in Paris!

 

[edwin_m]

Well they can also be realised if substantial land area can be sold.
Although London appears quite good on that score, as opposed to the acres of random trackwork seen in Paris!

Not sure a ten-metre strip from Waterloo to Wimbledon would fetch that much in comparison to the cost of replacing it. And what would you do with the land if the termini were reduced in size - build more offices nobody was going to use?

 

[HSTEd]

Not sure a ten-metre strip from Waterloo to Wimbledon

10 meters?
Combined with the massive axing of peak services, and some Waterloo East shenanigans, rather larger cuts than that will be acheivable. Indeed I think Waterloo could be dispensed with entirely.

And what would you do with the land if the termini were reduced in size - build more offices nobody was going to use?

High density housing.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Low priority. CR2 will be on the back burner for about 5 years. It will not be cancelled but deferred for quite a while.

 

[The Ham]

Low priority. CR2 will be on the back burner for about 5 years. It will not be cancelled but deferred for quite a while.

Although I do wonder if some of the linked projects (such as the Woking junction and station works) might happen in advance, given the benefits that they bring to reliability which could still be fairly important, even if the capacity isn't needed straight away.

However, as I've just posted this elsewhere, the number of services (even if there's a significant fall in into London passenger numbers) might not have a very big impact on the number of services being run:

Where there's likely to be losses is where there's people traveling 30+ miles into Central London, however that's likely to just mean the removal of some of the extra peak hour services required, but probably not all that many. As whilst a fall of 60% on such lines might be entirely possible many of those services are running 110%+ full, so cut from 4tph to 3tph and reduce train lengths to 8 vs 12 and you'll cut capacity by 50%. That would result in train loadings of 88%, which would still be rather busy. As such the end of 12 coach peak hour services into London isn't something that's likely to disappear entirely, especially given that there being enough seats for all may well attract a few more people to use rail services

 

[BayPaul]

10 meters?
Combined with the massive axing of peak services, and some Waterloo East shenanigans, rather larger cuts than that will be acheivable. Indeed I think Waterloo could be dispensed with entirely.



High density housing.

What do you do with the fast line services if you close Waterloo, Or the Windsor line services for that matter? CR2 only takes the slow line via Wimbledon services, and not even all of those. Off-peak there are about 44tph arriving at Waterloo, there is no way you could fit all of them into a 2 track tunnel.

 

[The Ham]

What do you do with the fast line services if you close Waterloo, Or the Windsor line services for that matter? CR2 only takes the slow line via Wimbledon services, and not even all of those. Off-peak there are about 44tph arriving at Waterloo, there is no way you could fit all of them into a 2 track tunnel.

Indeed, especially given what I highlighted in my post from elsewhere where I talk about a fall of 60% meaning that the number of services might fall from 4tph to 3tph with 8 coaches.

There's not many services which see 4tph, even in the peaks, so there's unlikely to be all that many places which lose out.

However if you change the passenger loadings to 120% and keep 4tph with 8 coaches then passenger loadings would be at 72%, which is hardly poorly loaded.

However to get to a 60% fall in peak hour passenger numbers would significant. If we assume that 90% of travel in the morning peak into Waterloo is commuters and 90% of jobs can be done remotely then the average WFH rate would need to be 50%.

Within that rate there's a need to cater for those who choose to work on the office, which from discussions elsewhere is about 25% of people. That's not overly sprouting given 1:3 households are single people households, where work can be their primary place for social activity (even where I live with others and I'm happy with my own company I'm happier working in the office than at home). Others would not WFH because of space constraints or due to others in their homes (such as children).

For everyone who works full time in the office to achieve an average of 50% would require a people working less than this.

However I suspect that most WFH would likely be 2 or 3 days a week at home, or 2 weeks at home and one week in the office.

As such, even into places like Waterloo, I suspect that a 60% fall would likely be at the upper limit of what we see. Of course in happy to discuss with others as to why think the fall in passenger numbers might be different from what I've discussed.