Previous proposals for the route of the ambitious Crossrail 2 project have been published by Transport for London (TfL). The scheme would see the long-awaited sequel to the Elizabeth line passing through central London in an effort to link areas such as Surrey and Hertfordshire.
The UK government put the project on pause in 2020 due to funding issues and focus on completing the original Crossrail (Elizabeth Line). It's not cancelled, but there’s no construction or official start date yet
Plans to deliver Crossrail 2 were shelved in October 2020 as part of the TfL funding agreement with the government. In making this decision, the transport authority confirmed that all work carried out for the project up until that point had been fully documented, so that the scheme could restart when appropriate.
A 2015 map for the scheme shows the service running primarily from Seven Sisters and Tottenham Hale to Clapham Junction via Euston St Pancras and Victoria. The line would then extend further towards Broxbourne in the north and destinations such as Shepperton, Hampton Court, Chessington South and Epsom in the south.
However, a response to a recent Freedom of Information request saw the authority publishing documents dating back to 2011, when three shortlisted options were ultimately selected for the route. It added that the selections were solely intended to be indicative and provide focus for more detailed refinement at a later stage.
Option A in the document pack regarded a London-focused metro scheme from Clapham Junction to Seven Sisters. The service would have had the capacity to be operated entirely automatically with up to 40 trains per hour, allowing just 90 seconds between each train.
The scheme would have provided a peak capacity of 38,500 passengers per hour per direction. The route was praised for relieving congestion on the Victoria line and stations such as Waterloo and Victoria. Alternative proposals for the central core of the route included a path going through stations in Camberwell, Battersea and Finsbury Park.
Option B was pitched as a more regional scheme similar to that of the Elizabeth line in order to connect national rail lines together. The trains would have run at a maximum frequency of 30 trains per hour, but larger trains allowed for a peak capacity of 45,000 passengers per hour per direction.
The route would have branched off in the north of the city, with one line serving Dalston Junction, Seven Sisters and Alexandra Palace. The other branch would have gone through Hackney and Tottenham Hale before passing through Enfield, Hertfordshire and potentially Stansted. Previously considered northern alternatives could have seen the line stretching as far north as Cambridge, or branching east to Pitsea in Essex.
The southern portion of the route tunnel would connect with Southwestern Railway routes to serve Wimbledon, Kingston, Epsom and Woking. It was thought the option would free up areas currently occupied by inner suburban trains and thus outer rail networks. Alternative southern routes could have seen Barnes, Feltham and Heathrow Airport being served by the line.
The final choice, Option C, made use of the safeguarded route for the service dating back to 1991, before being refreshed by the Secretary of State in June 2008. This included a path from Epping through Hackney, Kings Cross and Victoria to Chelsea and Wimbledon. It was considered to be an automatic metro, similar Option A.
The route would have overlapped existing District line routes in South London before entering a new tunnel through the centre of the city, before joining the existing Central line path from Leytonstone to Epping.
The three schemes varied in a proposed budget of between £9m and £16m each at the time of the report. Preference was ultimately given to the first two proposals in the report, with Option C being cited as having fewer benefits and less of an impact on existing overcrowding issues.
When announcing a £1.1 billion development scheme last month, British Library confirmed that space was being safeguarded in the St Pancras area for future Crossrail 2 infrastructure. TfL responded by saying discussions were continuing with the new government to refresh the Crossrail 2 safeguarding directions to protect the land required from development that could impact the delivery of the scheme.
A source from the Department for Transport previously told MyLondon that no decision had been taken on updating safeguarding regulations for the proposed Crossrail 2 route, but that the body remained in conversation with TfL on the topic.
Have a story you want to share? Email joseph.coughlan@reachplc.com.
Looking for more from MyLondon? Subscribe to our daily newsletters here for the latest and greatest updates from across London.
