The £16bn Crossrail scheme will not lose any of its planned stations or
branches in order to save money, Crossrail Limited (CRL) has said.

But CRL will not design a new train for the 72-mile (116km) route across
London and aims to redesign Whitechapel and Canary Wharf stations.

It also plans to make use of disused rail infrastructure for most of the
Abbey Wood branch.

Crossrail chairman Terry Morgan said CRL wanted "maximum value for
money".

.... continues in www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11418800

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
The £16bn Crossrail scheme will not lose any of its planned stations
or branches in order to save money, Crossrail Limited (CRL) has said.

But CRL will not design a new train for the 72-mile (116km) route
across London and aims to redesign Whitechapel and Canary Wharf
stations.

It also plans to make use of disused rail infrastructure for most of
the Abbey Wood branch.

If they mean the NLL to North Woolwich, then wasn't that always going to
be the route?

Peter Smyth

"Peter Smyth" wrote in message
...


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
The £16bn Crossrail scheme will not lose any of its planned stations or
branches in order to save money, Crossrail Limited (CRL) has said.

But CRL will not design a new train for the 72-mile (116km) route across
London and aims to redesign Whitechapel and Canary Wharf stations.

It also plans to make use of disused rail infrastructure for most of the
Abbey Wood branch.

If they mean the NLL to North Woolwich, then wasn't that always going to
be the route?

That's what I've always believed.

I'd also suggest that Whitechapel has already been redesigned to reduce
costs, Crossrail announced this some weeks ago, complete with confusing
drawings of the Overground platforms IIRC.

Also 'not design a new train' doesn't actually mean use an existing train.
Using a follow on order of Thameslink's new train has been the general
assumption, especially since they mentioned that Crossrail would now be
using a fixed formation, rather than the 2 x 5 car originally specified in
the Act...

Paul S

On 27 Sep, 17:17, "Paul Scott" wrote:
"Peter Smyth" wrote in message
Also 'not design a new train' doesn't actually mean use an existing train.
Using a follow on order of Thameslink's new train has been the general
assumption, especially since they mentioned that Crossrail would now be
using a fixed formation, rather than the 2 x 5 car originally specified in
the Act...

Does that mean the Act will have to be amended? Seems odd that such a
detail would actually be specified in primary legislation.
--
Roy