On Fri, 21 May 2010 10:57:37 -0700 (PDT), Andy
wrote:

My personal opinion is that the Abbey Wood branch will probably be
much more expensive than the Heathrow and Maidenhead works combined
and so neither of the latter are likely to be sacrificed.


I'm sure Abbey Wood would be the first to get the chop, but you still
don't seem to be getting the point about Maidenhead - Crossrail was
never intended to finish there.

On May 21, 10:57*am, Andy wrote:
On May 21, 3:26*pm, Bruce wrote:





On Fri, 21 May 2010 06:53:34 -0700 (PDT), amogles
wrote:

On 21 Mai, 15:35, Bruce wrote:

It is claimed that all the modelling has shown the westbound trains
are likely to be near empty after Paddington. *What would be the point
of carting fresh air on to Maidenhead?

Theyx may be near empty by the time they approach Maidenhead, but
stopping at Paddington is definitely too early. Look at Ealing
Broadway for example. The Circle Line is heavily loaded here as is the
District. Catching the FGW Turbo and changing at Paddington is by far
the fastest way into London and the Turbos are often cramed to
capacity here too.

Valid points, but surely the most important thing is to get Crossrail
under way? *Where it terminates and whether the branch to Abbey Woof
via Canary Wharf is included are peripheral to getting the core route
under way. *Everything else can be added later.

And just as the mythical western terminus of Maidenhead got initial
approval for Crossrail in better fiscal times, a western terminus at
Heathrow would cut project costs allowing it to go ahead in these
straitened times. *It would also allow Ealing Broadway to be served by
the trains that don't terminate at Paddington.

And my point is that running to Maidenhead is probably a better bet
than running to Heathrow, once the (unknown to us) costs of building a
new flyover are taken into account. You can adsorb the Slough
terminators and transfer the calls from the semi fast trains at
stations west of Slough. Remember that BAA will probably demand some
money to use their infrastructure, especially if the Heathrow Express
ends to give capacity for Crossrail.

My personal opinion is that the Abbey Wood branch will probably be
much more expensive than the Heathrow and Maidenhead works combined
and so neither of the latter are likely to be sacrificed.

You will find that it does not pay to keep feed Bolshevik Bruce, our
resident troll. You will never be "right".

"Bruce" wrote

I'm sure Abbey Wood would be the first to get the chop, but you still
don't seem to be getting the point about Maidenhead - Crossrail was
never intended to finish there.

The need for Canary Wharf and Abbey Wood probably go together. If Canary
Wharf development goes ahead as envisaged the people who work in the new
offices will need somewhere to live. Among possible locations are
Thamesmead, which has become something of a social problem, mainly because
it's a difficult place to get out of. Crossrail to Abbey Wood would
transform Thamesmead. Another likely location is Kent Thameside, for example
Eastern Quarry. Western Quarry contains Bluewater, but Eastern Quarry is
much larger and, with other Kent Thameside locations, scheduled for massive
housing development. Whether this will all come together on the current
timeline for Crossrail is uncertain, though to make a success of new housing
developments the transport links need to be ready a bit before the estate
agents are trying to sell the houses.

Peter

On May 21, 2:21*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"Bruce" wrote

I'm sure Abbey Wood would be the first to get the chop, but you still
don't seem to be getting the point about Maidenhead - Crossrail was
never intended to finish there.

The need for Canary Wharf and Abbey Wood probably go together. If Canary
Wharf development goes ahead as envisaged the people who work in the new
offices will need somewhere to live. Among possible locations are
Thamesmead, which has become something of a social problem, mainly because
it's a difficult place to get out of. Crossrail to Abbey Wood would
transform Thamesmead. Another likely location is Kent Thameside, for example
Eastern Quarry. Western Quarry contains Bluewater, but Eastern Quarry is
much larger and, with other Kent Thameside locations, scheduled for massive
housing development. Whether this will all come together on the current
timeline for Crossrail is uncertain, though to make a success of new housing
developments the transport links need to be ready a bit before the estate
agents are trying to sell the houses.

Our concrete communist wants history to repeat itself. To wit: the
docklands infrastructure designed in the 1980s proved to be entirely
insufficient for the actual development of the 1990s. Now "bruce"
wants to cut back Crossrail so that as London develops thru the 2020s
it will be crippled by today’s lack of forethought.

On May 21, 8:18*pm, Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 10:46:39 -0700 (PDT), Andy
wrote:



I know what a step plate junction is, but they are still more
expensive than putting in the junction tunnel at the correct location
in the first place. They could even put the junction trackwork in, as
was done at Heathrow when the Heathrow Express was first built.

So put in a step plate junction, a very short section of tunnel, plus
the trackwork. *We're talking about small sums of money about which I
have no wish to argue.

You don't seem to understand that a step plate junction is more
expensive than just building the junction tunnel as one unit. The step
plate section being the bit where the actual junction goes and not the
branches.

On May 21, 8:20*pm, Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 10:57:37 -0700 (PDT), Andy
wrote:



My personal opinion is that the Abbey Wood branch will probably be
much more expensive than the Heathrow and Maidenhead works combined
and so neither of the latter are likely to be sacrificed.

I'm sure Abbey Wood would be the first to get the chop, but you still
don't seem to be getting the point about Maidenhead - Crossrail was
never intended to finish there.

Well, it is a costed option in the plans. I agree that it was never
the ultimate aim, but Crossrail would NEVER have gone to Reading until
after the rebuild there and it will still be the cheapest of the
western bits to build.

On May 21, 2:51*pm, Andy wrote:
On May 21, 8:18*pm, Bruce wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 10:46:39 -0700 (PDT), Andy
wrote:

I know what a step plate junction is, but they are still more
expensive than putting in the junction tunnel at the correct location
in the first place. They could even put the junction trackwork in, as
was done at Heathrow when the Heathrow Express was first built.

So put in a step plate junction, a very short section of tunnel, plus
the trackwork. *We're talking about small sums of money about which I
have no wish to argue.

You don't seem to understand that a step plate junction is more
expensive than just building the junction tunnel as one unit. The step
plate section being the bit where the actual junction goes and not the
branches.

Our Trotskyite troll should know. He does that stuff for a living.

On Fri, 21 May 2010 22:21:56 +0100, "Peter Masson"
wrote:



"Bruce" wrote

I'm sure Abbey Wood would be the first to get the chop, but you still
don't seem to be getting the point about Maidenhead - Crossrail was
never intended to finish there.

The need for Canary Wharf and Abbey Wood probably go together. If Canary
Wharf development goes ahead as envisaged the people who work in the new
offices will need somewhere to live.


Chicken and egg.


Among possible locations are
Thamesmead, which has become something of a social problem, mainly because
it's a difficult place to get out of. Crossrail to Abbey Wood would
transform Thamesmead. Another likely location is Kent Thameside, for example
Eastern Quarry. Western Quarry contains Bluewater, but Eastern Quarry is
much larger and, with other Kent Thameside locations, scheduled for massive
housing development. Whether this will all come together on the current
timeline for Crossrail is uncertain, though to make a success of new housing
developments the transport links need to be ready a bit before the estate
agents are trying to sell the houses.


There are precedents for contributions by developers to the cost of
infrastructure. If developers want to build vast housing estates that
would require a rail link, let the developers pay the cost of, or a
contribution towards, that rail link.

It could be argued that, in the past, railways such as the
Metropolitan were built to enable property development along the
route. However, that depended on the railway company owning the
adjacent land and selling it to developers at a large profit. In
those days, the railways were also profitable, with Metroland
extensions being huge earners for the company. although perhaps not
quite as far as Verney Junction.

But today, we have the situation where railways are extremely costly
to build and never generate any profit. Instead, they require very
large subsidies for construction *and* operation. So if developers of
office space in the Isle of Dogs and of housing in areas that might
serve those offices want to make vast profits on their property
developments, it should not be made on the back of taxpayers. They
should make a substantial contribution to the cost of Crossrail, and
at a time that would allow Crossrail to be completed to serve the
newly opened offices/newly built houses.

It does seem to me that the private sector contributions to Crossrail
have been so small as to be derisory. Too much emphasis was placed on
existing businesses making a contribution when any new development
that would benefit from Crossrail should be making a more substantial
contribution.

On Fri, 21 May 2010 14:51:26 -0700 (PDT), Andy
wrote:

You don't seem to understand that a step plate junction is more
expensive than just building the junction tunnel as one unit. The step
plate section being the bit where the actual junction goes and not the
branches.


I have produced cost estimates for many tunnelling projects, and
worked on the construction of several major tunnel projects, all but
one of which were railway tunnels.

I need no lectures from you, sonny.

On Sat, 22 May 2010, Bruce wrote:

But today, we have the situation where railways are extremely costly to
build and never generate any profit. Instead, they require very large
subsidies for construction *and* operation. So if developers of office
space in the Isle of Dogs and of housing in areas that might serve those
offices want to make vast profits on their property developments, it
should not be made on the back of taxpayers.

What happened to this land value tax that was floated when Crossrail was
being planned? The idea was something like a special levy of any gain in
value of property around Crossrail stations. I assume there'd be a
mechanism for discounting out some estimate of any increase that would
have happened anyway or something. That always seemed like a rather fair
way of doing it.

tom

--
A playwright is not the best person to talk about his own work for
the simple reason that he is often unaware of what he has written. --
Alan Bennett