Richard J. wrote:
Aidan Stanger wrote:
Michael Bell wrote:

snip
There a trickle of mentions of Crossrail in the press to
give the impression that the project exists and is going to
happen, but it is pie in the sky because it is not value for
money. So as not to formally abandon the idea, the promoters don't
mention the alternative, the butter, the home comforts. That
money and effort could be much better spent in another way,
obvious every day to travellers in London.

It would be far better to abolish Crossrail Corporation (the #1
enemy of Crossrail) and make Crossrail value for money.

Do you mean Cross london Rail Links Ltd?

That's them.

In what way are CLRL the No.1 enemy of Crossrail?

They push up the cost while making decisions that reduce the financial
benefits. Just look at what they've done to the core section:

* They've insisted that the Canary Wharf branch be part of the core
route. While there is some merit in the idea of a Crossrail branch to
the Docklands area, it should not be a priority because they've just had
the JLE (constructed at vast expense) and because extra connectivity and
capacity could be provided with a boat service (fully under the
travelcard scheme) which would link communities north and south of the
river far better than Crossrail ever could.

* They also insisted on having the Great Eastern branch surface near
Stratford, when a GlobeTown portal (near the canal) would've been much
cheaper.


Those have added billions of pounds to the initial cost, but it gets
worse. They've based their decisions on incorrect assumptions:

* They assumed a line to Dagenham (to link with the Tilbury Line) would
have to be in tunnel until beyond Barking Creek. This was a stupid
assumption because there's plenty of room alongside the DLR (and as DLR
are planning a Dagenham branch, it would make sense for it to be
designed to be upgradable to heavy rail standards, so that Crossrail
could eventually take it over).

* They don't know the difference between suitability and optimality.
They say the trains needed for the busy core section would be unsuitable
for longer distance services because the core section needs high
acceleration and plenty of standing room while the longer services need
high top speed and seats all round. However, in reality this just means
it's suboptimal. If you accept the complications of having to have
longer trains with slightly more expensive motors, the Milton Keynes
route (terminating at Wolverton and giving Virgin Northampton) is still
extremely attractive. Longer distance passengers are generally more
profitable, and as Crossrail stations are so much more convenient than
Euston for many passengers, loadings at Watford Junction would be
balanced (allowing abolition of Virgin's pickup/setdown restrictions at
Watford Junction). Not only would the route into London from Willesden
be more direct, it would free up two tracks East of Willesden, creating
a dedicated freight route from Willesden Junction to Dalston Junction
via Primrose Hill (a grade separated crossover would be required, but
that could easily be provided N of Kings Cross).


I had thought they might improve, as their line 6 (to Kingston) didn't
look too bad. Alas, they have got worse! Take a look at some of their
more recent decisions:

* Their Docklands branch would go under the Thames at Woolwich... but
would fail to stop there! DLR have also decided to go to Woolwich and
instead of saying "STOP! There's no point spending money on your
indirect Woolwich branch because after ours opens, yours will run empty!
Try extending it to Thamesmead instead" they just took the attitude "OK,
you can have Woolwich, we'll run under a busy town center (that's one of
the biggest bus interchanges in SE London) without stopping!"

* After that, they propose that new tracks be constructed (expensively)
alongside the existing tracks all the way to Ebbsfleet. There's no
demand for services to Ebbsfleet from N of the river (where Stratford
will still be a more convenient CTRL railhead) and the benefits of extra
tracks on the North Kent line come nowhere near the cost.

* Things are just as bad at the western end. Instead of running an all
stations, they want to take over the Heathrow Express service. Not only
will a profitable service be lost, the passengers of West London will
gain nothing from Crossrail!

* Some of the trains will run through the Crossrail tunnel and terminate
at Paddington because CLRL can't figure out what to do with them.

* Meanwhile on the Great Eastern branch, they've decided to keep a ten
minute all stations service running into Liverpool Street. They seem to
have forgotten the project's original objectives.

Whom would you get to design and develop the scheme
instead of them?

The leading contender would be London Regional Metro Co.