Embedded Files
Crossrail 2 Vs ESE
Reading the ESE project plan may be sounding all too familiar for some of you, and you may be thinking, isn’t this just Crossrail 2?
Well, you could say so, but with a few small differences.
1. The most obvious, C2 has way more branches
3. The central section of C2 is completely new.
3. C2 introduced a new station, Kings rd
4. C2 does not connect with Crossrail 1 (Elizabeth line)
5. C2 takes a different route to Wimbledon
These differences make C2 significantly less effective than ESE for numerous reasons. The two most significant are price and time. TFL are known for overspending on projects - It took 13 years and £25 billion for the Elizabeth line to be built, and the current demand requires a much quicker and cheaper solution.
Having more branches than ESE (4 compared to 2) means a lower frequency of service on each, or if the frequency is matched, then the central section of the line will have too be much bigger to handle the higher capacity, increasing costs and time consumption.
The central section of C2 is completely new, meaning billions will need to be spent digging underground tunnels in central London, which is also time consuming.
The new station at kings rd is also a lot more expensive than the planned underground platforms planned at Earls court in ESE, as well as the 6 new underground stations needed (project sizes equivalent to that at Earls court in ESE)
C2 not connecting with crossrail 1 means it takes a different route through central London, which is a lot less representative of the areas of job hubs, so users of this new line will likely need to change to the Elizabeth line or another tube line to reach their final destination.
ESE takes a much simpler route to Wimbledon from the current Elizabeth line, allowing it to benefit from the Elizabeths line's current stations which are well positioned in areas where jobs are located. The route also follows the tracks of the district and then SWR mainline, making the whole project orders of magnitude cheaper. This is fully explained here.
C2 is estimated to cost £32 billion compared to < £1 billion for ESE.
There are certain elements C2 would be better at, for example connecting the North East, however another similiar project to ESE can be completed in the North East when the central section of the Elizabeth line is upgraded to fit the extra capacity.
Another argument is that C2 will run in a completely new tunnel, allowing for a larger capacity on this line compared to squeezing in more services on the current Elizabeth line, however C2 will also lead to more pressure on the Elizabeth line due to the line only having 3 stations in central London, none of which are in an area of very high job density.
ESE is cheaper, quicker, and in some ways even more effective, so therefore extending the current Elizabeth line is much more effective for improving connectivity to the south west, and a similar extension can be done on the North East to have the same effect
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse