Crossrail 2 to ease future congestion

Even so, there remains some debate over specific route alignments. It is the precise route and stations in the two boroughs that it was originally proposed to link as the ‘Chelney line’ where further thoughts have been invited.

A second consultation in June 2014 led to some changes to the 2013 proposals. North of the Thames, TfL proposes extending the Alexandra Palace branch to New Southgate, and has discussed moving the junction where the two northern branches split to either Dalston Junction or Hackney Downs (but not both).

While TfL says there were a large number of ideas for further extensions of Crossrail 2, most have not formed part of the most recent consultation - the only one being taken forward is the Alexandra Palace-New Southgate extension, to provide additional interchange opportunities with the Piccadilly Line.

TfL says this would be at no additional cost, as savings can be identified through opportunities to use existing railway land for Crossrail 2 trains. As a result, the Alexandra Palace Crossrail 2 station will become an underground station.

The 2013 consultation proposed two branches separating east of Angel station, with one branch serving Dalston Junction and beyond, and the other serving Hackney Central and beyond.

However, TfL wants to reduce the overall cost of the scheme by around £1bn and minimise the environmental impact during both construction and operation. It has therefore proposed a potential change to the Crossrail 2 route in this area.

Rather than the route splitting at Angel, with one tunnel going via Dalston and the other via Hackney, a single route would continue as far as Stoke Newington or Clapton, at which point the line would split. One branch would head towards Seven Sisters and New Southgate, and the other towards Tottenham Hale and Hertford East.

Put simply, either Dalston or Hackney would be served by Crossrail 2, rather than both as per the 2013 consultation. The corridor that is selected would be served by a higher frequency Crossrail 2 service that would no longer be split north of Angel. In terms of the infrastructure, a new location would be needed for the tunnel portal south of Tottenham Hale (the exact location has yet to be determined), with engineering feasibility work currently being carried out to look at options for the tunnel portal and the impact this would have on the area.

Relocating or removing altogether the Chelsea station has also been mooted, and if it goes altogether this will be the furthest divergence from the 1970 concept. Different alignments will be needed, depending on whether the line goes via King’s Road or Chelsea West.

The 2013 consultation proposed a King’s Road station near the fire station (as currently proposed), improving rail accessibility in an area where current service levels are low compared with other parts of inner London. While there was overall support for the station in the area, TfL concluded that alternative locations further west along King’s Road would provide greater benefits, and so would need to be looked at more closely.

For an alternative Chelsea West station, TfL and NR have identified both the disused Lots Road power station (once used to power the London Underground) and the Imperial Wharf area as possible sites.

On the other hand, the suggestion that a station in this area was not necessary at all could lead to Crossrail 2 bypassing Kensington and Chelsea altogether, if the line were to be routed from Clapham Junction directly to Victoria. However, while overall journey times would be lowered (and another £1bn could be saved), the accessibility and connectivity of the King’s Road area would not be improved.

In many ways the current scheme is even more ambitious than earlier plans - not least in the cost, which has inevitably been inflated over the years.

For starters, there is a longer tunnelled section - the central section is 22.4 miles (36km) in total, compared with Crossrail’s 13 miles (21km) of parallel tunnels (although the latter has 26 miles of tunnels overall).

TfL also assumes that Crossrail 2 should be deliverable for around £27bn - over double that of Crossrail 1. The cost of new trains is included in this figure, while possible risks are also allowed for, as are improvements to the national network that could go ahead regardless of whether Crossrail 2 wins approval.

“It needs an innovative funding approach,” Dix told a conference of rail industry professionals in November. Such an approach is not without precedent - neither Crossrail 1 nor the Northern Line Extension relies solely on the public purse.

An independent report published in November by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) set out some funding and financing options for the scheme, having reported to a steering committee that included TfL, Department for Transport, HM Treasury, Infrastructure UK, and Network Rail representatives. The report looked at funding and financing feasibility for the scheme, setting out a number of options.

The paying back of investment could be achieved through a combination of revenue generated through fares, a continuation of the Business Rate Supplement and the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) currently being used to fund Crossrail 1, and other measures. Other options could raise funds through existing mechanisms such as retaining the council tax contribution arrangements that were introduced to help fund the 2012 Olympic Games. Property-related developments could also contribute, as could land owners adjacent to the line as part of a mix of contributions.

Overall, PwC estimated that over half of the costs of the scheme could be met by London just by using existing funding mechanisms. Those that would benefit most from the scheme - namely those living and working in and around London - would contribute a fair share towards it.

At £27bn Crossrail 2 is not cheap, although the estimated cost does include a fleet of new trains and additional rail infrastructure works to deliver the full ‘regional’ route option that appears now to be the preference.

While the funding options put forward by PwC are merely indicative, they show a confidence on the part of TfL to drive this scheme forward. A plan is in place, and TfL is working with NR on efficiencies to drive the cost down.

It is not unfeasible that with pressures on the capital’s rail system growing, significant progress will be made on Crossrail 2 in the months and years to come.

• This feature was published in RAIL 767 on February 4 2015