Guns or butter? Crossrail or cross-connections?

In the run-up to the first world war, Germans were asked to choose
between "Guns or butter", that is, between war and home comforts. They were
asked to choose guns, but at least they were told that they had a choice.
The people of London are now being asked to choose "guns" in the form of the
Crossrail project, without being told that "butter" is also a choice.

So far as I remember the Crossrail project was first mooted in the
70s, more or less as a drawing lines on a map exercise. It was justified
by saying that it would relieve congestion, though in fact all its length it
is paralleled by other routes, or simply takes them over. It is also said
that it is essential to the development of London, and here we are coming to
the real truth. Most of the route mileage is outside of London, so it can't
be of any benefit to to Londoners. What it will do is bring more commuters
into London, so overstuffing London, increasing congestion and prices and
forcing more to commute. Not really for the benefit of Londoners! More for
big business and the CITY, to give London an even stronger grip on the
South-East, as if it needed it. Truly, guns! The current talk is fairly
frank about that.

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.

There are dozens of places in London where stations on different
routes are just too far apart for cross-connection, the result of the
railway politics of the 19th century and the bad planning of the 20th.

The kinds of places I am think of are :-

* The cross-over of the Northern Line and the North London Line. This would
mean building two new underground stations. Simple, but expensive!

* Putney and East Putney stations. Both stations could demolished and a new
station built at the crossover, but it might be cheaper and better to link
the existing stations, for example with a rope-hanging cable car. Tricky but
cheap!

* Create a new station on the nameless piece of land west of Old Oak
Common sidings. This would allow at least 4 routes to have interchange, and
more could be set up to call at this newly attractive interchange. By
building a platform over the lot, space could be created for housing and/or
shopping, so the cost could be offset or maybe even make a profit. This
should be made the opportunity for some station rationalisation, for example
closing East Acton, very inappropriately sited in a residential road. and
opening a new station opposite Hammersmith Hospital; hospitals are huge
traffic generators. A major project!

To make this kind of cross-connection would allow much better use of
what there is, and make easy journeys which are now difficult. Truly home
comforts. Truly, butter!

How can Ken Livinstone and the CITY justify spending money to bring
more people and activity into London when they haven't done their best for
those they already have.?

--
Michael Bell

In article ,
(Michael Bell) wrote:

* Putney and East Putney stations. Both stations could demolished and a
new station built at the crossover, but it might be cheaper and better
to link the existing stations, for example with a rope-hanging cable
car. Tricky but
cheap!

Not that old chestnut again! Exactly how many people would use such a link
to justify its cost?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

"Michael Bell" wrote in message
...

So far as I remember the Crossrail project was first mooted in the
70s, more or less as a drawing lines on a map exercise. It was justified
by saying that it would relieve congestion, though in fact all its length
it
is paralleled by other routes, or simply takes them over. It is also said
that it is essential to the development of London, and here we are coming
to
the real truth. Most of the route mileage is outside of London, so it
can't
be of any benefit to to Londoners.

Exactly what map of London are you looking at...? I believe the current
Crossrail proposal includes a grand total of seven stations outside London
(Brentwood, Shenfield, Dartford, Stone Crossing, Greenhithe, Swanscobe,
Ebbsfleet).

It will effectively bring the tube to London's busiest national rail line
(Liverpool St - Shenfield), provide a new fast link from North Kent to
Docklands, the city and West End, provide a cheap fast route from Heathrow,
and relieve congestion on the Central, Circle and District lines.

Don't get me wrong, I think we need better connections too, but I don't see
Crossrail as a waste of money by any means.

Jonn

In article ,
Michael Bell wrote:
* The cross-over of the Northern Line and the North London Line. This would
mean building two new underground stations. Simple, but expensive!

The interchange between the NLL and the Northern line - I use it
occasionally, last time being about 2 or so weeks ago - is good
enough for the traffic that currently uses it, and increasing the
number of people interchanging between the lines would increase the
pressure on the NLL... and fixing that would add to the expense (it
would probably mean making Camden Road - Stratford 4-track all the
way and/or shifting more of the frieght traffic that uses the NLL
on to the GOBLIN, which would have a negitive impact on the passenger
traffic on the GOBLIN. Which would make ME cross!)

closing East Acton, very inappropriately sited in a residential road.

Eh? Isn't it a good siting; makes it easy for people to get to the
station...

--
You dont have to be illiterate to use the Internet, but it help's.

Michael Bell wrote in message ...

How can Ken Livinstone and the CITY justify spending money to bring
more people and activity into London when they haven't done their best for
those they already have.?

Politics, IMO. Taking about huge far-reaching projects that require
multiple terms in office to complete sounds like a good reelection
strategy ;-)

Brad

" It will effectively bring the tube to London's busiest national
rail line
(Liverpool St - Shenfield), provide a new fast link from North Kent to
Docklands, the city and West End, provide a cheap fast route from Heathrow,
and relieve congestion on the Central, Circle and District lines.



Crossrail may do all these things, but, wherever it crosses the river,
it will be of little ure to most people in South-East London. IMHO
Crossrail should take its place in the queue behind Thameslink 2000
which will allow more trains into Central London from all parts of SE
London including a future link with Crossrail at Farringdon.

Michael Bell wrote:

Guns or butter? Crossrail or cross-connections?

In the run-up to the first world war, Germans were asked to choose
between "Guns or butter", that is, between war and home comforts. They were
asked to choose guns, but at least they were told that they had a choice.
The people of London are now being asked to choose "guns" in the form of the
Crossrail project, without being told that "butter" is also a choice.

A very interesting analogy, but a very inaccurate one! Crossrail is
nothing like "guns" which only brought misery. If small improvements to
London's transport network are butter, Crossrail is pastry!

So far as I remember the Crossrail project was first mooted in the
70s, more or less as a drawing lines on a map exercise. It was justified
by saying that it would relieve congestion, though in fact all its length it
is paralleled by other routes, or simply takes them over.

What are you trying to say here? Of course Crossrail is parallelled by
other routes, but those other routes are congested. Building Crossrail
is an easy way to relieve congestion on those routes.

It is also said that it is essential to the development of London, and
here we are coming to the real truth. Most of the route mileage is outside
of London, so it can't be of any benefit to to Londoners.

Arguments that stupid are rare outside Crossrail Corporation!

Firstly, most of the new construction is under Central London. It is of
enormous benefit to London. Secondly, even if most of Crossrail were
outside of London, the benefits to London from the part inside it would
still be there. Thirdly, utilizing existing lines into neighbouring
counties would be both more useful for Londoners and more financially
viable than terminating the trains at the end of the new construction
and forcing all the passengers to change!

What it will do is bring more commuters into London, so overstuffing London,

In what way?

increasing congestion

Congestion of what?

and prices

Prices of what?

and forcing more to commute.

Enabling more people to commute and forcing them to are two completely
different things.

Not really for the benefit of Londoners! More for big business and the
CITY, to give London an even stronger grip on the South-East, as if it
needed it. Truly, guns! The current talk is fairly frank about that.

London is the reason for the success of the South East, and good
transport links are vital for the continued success of London. If you
don't like it, why don't you move up North?

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.

There are dozens of places in London where stations on different
routes are just too far apart for cross-connection, the result of the
railway politics of the 19th century and the bad planning of the 20th.

The kinds of places I am think of are :-

* The cross-over of the Northern Line and the North London Line. This would
mean building two new underground stations. Simple, but expensive!

Expensive but far from simple where the NLL is also in tunnel!

How many people do you think would use these new stations? Is it really
enough to justify the extra journey time for the rest of the users of
the Northern Line?

* Putney and East Putney stations. Both stations could demolished and a new
station built at the crossover, but it might be cheaper and better to link
the existing stations, for example with a rope-hanging cable car. Tricky but
cheap!

Not cheap at all, and whether the demand exists is doubtful.

* Create a new station on the nameless piece of land west of Old Oak
Common sidings. This would allow at least 4 routes to have interchange, and
more could be set up to call at this newly attractive interchange. By
building a platform over the lot, space could be created for housing and/or
shopping, so the cost could be offset or maybe even make a profit.

This idea may be viable. What is the status of that piece of land at the
moment?

This should be made the opportunity for some station rationalisation, for
example closing East Acton, very inappropriately sited in a residential
road. and opening a new station opposite Hammersmith Hospital; hospitals
are huge traffic generators. A major project!

Do you think the residents of East Acton should be compensated for the
loss of the tube station that was the reason for them buying houses
where they did?

To make this kind of cross-connection would allow much better use of
what there is, and make easy journeys which are now difficult. Truly home
comforts. Truly, butter!

What you're proposing is more fluff than butter! A few improvements to
interchange that (while nice for some people) would do nothing to reduce
overcrowding, and do little to speed up commuting.

Crossrail would slash over ten minutes (each way) off the commuting time
of tens of thousands of people every day. You could walk from Putney to
East Putney, or Camden Road to Camden Town, in about five minutes.

How can Ken Livinstone and the CITY justify spending money to bring
more people and activity into London when they haven't done their best for
those they already have.?

Would you rather those people and activity went to Frankfurt instead?

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? In what way are CLRL the No.1
enemy of Crossrail? Whom would you get to design and develop the scheme
instead of them?
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"Gary Jenkins" wrote in message
om...
" It will effectively bring the tube to London's busiest national
rail line
(Liverpool St - Shenfield), provide a new fast link from North Kent to
Docklands, the city and West End, provide a cheap fast route from
Heathrow,
and relieve congestion on the Central, Circle and District lines.



Crossrail may do all these things, but, wherever it crosses the river,
it will be of little ure to most people in South-East London. IMHO
Crossrail should take its place in the queue behind Thameslink 2000
which will allow more trains into Central London from all parts of SE
London including a future link with Crossrail at Farringdon.

I agree that South East London needs better transport, and that Crossrail
isn't it. (I think it's mildly ridiculous that it won't serve Woolwich, for
a start). But I definitely don't think it's TL2000 - if I was living in,
say, Eltham and could choose between two trains per hour to Charing Cross
and two more onto Thameslink, and four to Charing Cross, I'd choose the
latter.* The train services in South East London are appalling, and sending
a few of them to Luton isn't going to change that. What the area needs,
short of an extension of the Bakerloo line, is proper turn-up-and-go metro
services - something that TL2000 is going nowhere near providing.

Jonn

*Yes I've just plucked those figures out of the air.

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 17:13:18 +0930, (Aidan Stanger)
wrote:

Michael Bell wrote:

Guns or butter? Crossrail or cross-connections?

In the run-up to the first world war, Germans were asked to choose
between "Guns or butter", that is, between war and home comforts. They were
asked to choose guns, but at least they were told that they had a choice.
The people of London are now being asked to choose "guns" in the form of the
Crossrail project, without being told that "butter" is also a choice.

A very interesting analogy, but a very inaccurate one! Crossrail is
nothing like "guns" which only brought misery. If small improvements to
London's transport network are butter, Crossrail is pastry!

missing the point

In January 1936 Goebbels said [something in German to the effect of]
"We can do without butter, but, despite all our love of peace, not
without arms. One cannot shoot with butter, but with guns." Later the
same year Goering said "Preparedness makes us powerful. Butter merely
makes us fat".

So it is WWII, not WWI (unless anyone has an earlier cite?). And the
people in charge of 1930s Germany weren't renowned for offering people
much of a choice...

/missing the point
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK