Here is the offical release from the ellx project:

-As promised, I wish to keep you up to date with fast moving
developments. Today -(Tuesday 20 July 2004), Ken Livingstone , the
Mayor of London, announced that he -would deliver phase 1 of the East
London Line Project using prudential borrowing -arrangements that have
been agreed by the government.

-Phase 1 will provide extended services between Dalston Junction in
the north and -New Cross, Crystal Palace and West Croydon in the
south. This could br -delivered by June 2010 which is in good time to
support a successful Olympic -bid.

-Phase 2 will feature the link to Clapham Junction and the northern
extension -along the North London Line to Highbury & Islington.

Note phases I & II for 1.5 Billion pounds in 6 years we can't finish a
railway over 2 miles of existing track.

Also, how can this be of service to the olympic bid when the railway
ends before
the North London line (miles from any venue) and requires a walk of
500 yards to the connecting station. I can see the IOC being impressed
by a walk through Dalston - nice.

Dave Arquati wrote in message ...
marcb wrote:

Perhaps more positively, the East London Line Extensions, which already

have planning permission, now also have a funding agreement - TfL's
£2.9bn borrowing plans for the period up to 2009/10 have been approved.
These plans include construction of the ELLX so we can be reasonably
sure that this project is going ahead.

I see no confirmation yet that there will be enough funds to build ELLX.
After the years of delay I'm fulling expecting this to be shelved.

M.

TfL have borrowing plans set out for those £2.9bn which are allocated to
various projects, £1bn of which is for the ELLX. Ken is determined to
get it built; he has planning permission and now he has been given
permission to borrow the money. The plans are well-advanced and now the
cash will be availabke. What's the problem? Have a little optimism :-)

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 20:05:34 +0100, Dave Arquati
wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote:
No mention of Crossrail 2, i take it ...

Nope - I don't think even CLRL realistically believe this will happen
anytime soon. The main reason the SRA support the Kingston branch is for
relief to Waterloo, so I don't think they believe it will happen either.
It's hard enough to build Crossrail 1 (and Thameslink 2000).

So what *was* mentioned on Thameslink 2000?

Sam
--
Sam Holloway, Cambridge

Dave Arquati wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, Dave Arquati wrote:


Crossrail has been approved, with a Hybrid Bill to deposited in
parliament as soon as possible


Do we know anything more about the details of the route, or will we have
to wait for the bill for that? Or is it pretty much decided now?

No route confirmation yet; I've just posted about the Montague Report
which seems to prefer Heathrow & Maidenhead to Shenfield & Ebbsfleet
(i.e. getting rid of Kingston and having Maidenhead instead). I
personally doubt the Kingston branch will survive; it's expensive and
appears to be unpopular - in fact it appears to be producing the only
true opposition to Crossrail.

ISTR recently reading that there's some opposition from Tower Hamlets
residents.

No mention of Crossrail 2, i take it ...

Nope - I don't think even CLRL realistically believe this will happen
anytime soon. The main reason the SRA support the Kingston branch is for
relief to Waterloo, so I don't think they believe it will happen either.
It's hard enough to build Crossrail 1 (and Thameslink 2000).

That it's not going to happen is mainly down to those incompetent
buffoons known as CLRL, who have pushed the costs to astronomical levels
without a corresponding increase in benefits.

Sam Holloway wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 20:05:34 +0100, Dave Arquati
wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

No mention of Crossrail 2, i take it ...

Nope - I don't think even CLRL realistically believe this will happen
anytime soon. The main reason the SRA support the Kingston branch is for
relief to Waterloo, so I don't think they believe it will happen either.
It's hard enough to build Crossrail 1 (and Thameslink 2000).


So what *was* mentioned on Thameslink 2000?

Sam

Absolutely nothing - which doesn't bode well. In fact Thameslink isn't
mentioned once in the entire 138-page DfT report.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Spyke wrote in message ...
In message , Richard J.
writes
Incidentally, I don't think it's a case of Maidenhead instead of
Kingston. The difficulties of getting BAA to give up HEx and of sharing
tracks with FGWL's slower diesel trains have led CLRL to develop the
Maidenhead proposal, using trains that would otherwise have reversed at
Paddington.

Surely once you're running trains to Maidenhead, it would make sense to
extend them a couple of stops to Reading, where there's a far greater
range of connections and plenty of bay platforms to terminate them.

Personally I think its a pity that crossrail isn't go to be more of a self
contained system because if that was the case the hopeless british loading
gauge could be tossed out the window and some seriously large wide and/or
double decked trains used. Ah well , maybe one day...

B2003

Roland Perry wrote in
:

In message , Spyke
writes
Surely once you're running trains to Maidenhead, it would make sense to
extend them a couple of stops to Reading, where there's a far greater
range of connections and plenty of bay platforms to terminate them.

The problem is the extra cost of the electrification. Presumably it's
not regarded as cost effective to extend it from the Heathrow branch to
Maidenhead *and* beyond to Reading (although I'm sure the very first
Crossrail proposals *did* have that as an option).

Not sure about the cost of electrification - I'd have thought it would be
cheap compared to the tunnel between Paddington and Turnham Green. I think
the real problem is the traffic imbalance between East and West -
Ilford/Romford and Dartford will easily fill 12 10 car trains per hour each
in the peak, Reading will struggle to make sensible use of that sort of
capacity.

David Jackman wrote:

Roland Perry wrote in
:


In message , Spyke
writes

Surely once you're running trains to Maidenhead, it would make sense to
extend them a couple of stops to Reading, where there's a far greater
range of connections and plenty of bay platforms to terminate them.

The problem is the extra cost of the electrification. Presumably it's
not regarded as cost effective to extend it from the Heathrow branch to
Maidenhead *and* beyond to Reading (although I'm sure the very first
Crossrail proposals *did* have that as an option).


Not sure about the cost of electrification - I'd have thought it would be
cheap compared to the tunnel between Paddington and Turnham Green. I think
the real problem is the traffic imbalance between East and West -
Ilford/Romford and Dartford will easily fill 12 10 car trains per hour each
in the peak, Reading will struggle to make sensible use of that sort of
capacity.

Not all trains need to run through to the westernmost point anyway;
apart from Heathrow trains, turnback facilities will be provided at
Paddington and West Drayton (apparently).

Incidentally, what's the capacity of the Heathrow line (Central to
Airport Junction)?

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 01:36:04 +0930, (Aidan Stanger)
wrote:
If you are going to send it to East Croydon then you might as well
send it to Caterham/Smitham/Tattenham Corner.

That's certainly a possibility, but there would probably be more
opposition from commuters who value their one seat ride to London Bridge.
It might be better to terminate the ELL trains at East Croydon and let
the through stopping services run to London Bridge via Norbury and to
Victoria via Crystal Palace.


Terminating more trains at East croydon would make a big mess of the
current timetable, on weekdays there doesn't seem to be space to have
a another terminated train sat in the platforms.

Tattenham & Caterham could keep their rush hour through trains, and by
dint of running the northbound Thameslinks through platform 4 you
could have a service where you get off one train and board the next to
swap between destinations....

PRAR
--
http://www.i.am/prar/
As long as people will accept crap, it will be financially profitable to dispense it. Dick Cavett
Please reply to the newsgroup. That is why it exists.
NB Anti-spam measures in force
- If you must email me use the Reply to address and not