Something which had escaped my attention and which not much fuss seems
to have been made of - the Crossrail Select Committee made a statement
on its preliminary findings having considered petitions related to the
Crossrail Bill, and the main issue is that they are requiring CLRL to
add a station at Woolwich to the Bill.

From http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/060725.pdf :

The major issue arising from Petitions in the Greenwich area was the
need for a station at Woolwich. We will refer to this issue in detail
in our report. At this time we wish to state that we have carefully
examined all the evidence put before us and we are clearly convinced
of the essential need for a Crossrail station in Woolwich, an area
which includes some of the poorest wards in the United Kingdom.

We noted that the Promoter’s calculations of cost of this station
showed that it would provide exceptional value for money and we
require the Promoters to bring forward the necessary additional
provision to add this to the Bill. We would also ask the Promoters to
work with the local Council to ensure that the Crossrail station is
fully integrated into the local transport infrastructure.

A point to note is that a Woolwich Crossrail station would not be
underneath Woolwich Arsenal station; the tunnel places it under the
Royal Arsenal site to the north, making integration more complicated
(probably easy enough for Greenwich Waterfront Transit, but not so for
the DLR).

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

Dave Arquati wrote:

Something which had escaped my attention and which not much fuss seems
to have been made of - the Crossrail Select Committee made a statement
on its preliminary findings having considered petitions related to the
Crossrail Bill, and the main issue is that they are requiring CLRL to
add a station at Woolwich to the Bill.

That sounds like a really good idea IMO, thanks for spotting that Dave.
I dare say there hasn't been any chat about it here as utl doesn't have
any contributors from down Woolwich way.


From http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/060725.pdf :

The major issue arising from Petitions in the Greenwich area was the
need for a station at Woolwich. We will refer to this issue in detail
in our report. At this time we wish to state that we have carefully
examined all the evidence put before us and we are clearly convinced
of the essential need for a Crossrail station in Woolwich, an area
which includes some of the poorest wards in the United Kingdom.

We noted that the Promoter's calculations of cost of this station
showed that it would provide exceptional value for money and we
require the Promoters to bring forward the necessary additional
provision to add this to the Bill. We would also ask the Promoters to
work with the local Council to ensure that the Crossrail station is
fully integrated into the local transport infrastructure.

All of which sounds like a strong and well reasoned argument for
including a Crossrail station in Woolwich. As stated it does have some
very poor areas, and whilst transport connections don't solve such
issues, they can help a lot.


A point to note is that a Woolwich Crossrail station would not be
underneath Woolwich Arsenal station; the tunnel places it under the
Royal Arsenal site to the north, making integration more complicated
(probably easy enough for Greenwich Waterfront Transit, but not so for
the DLR).

The committee's comments on ensuring "the Crossrail station is fully
integrated into the local transport infrastructure" would initially
appear to suggest some kind of full interchange with south eastern NR
lines and DLR - as you point out Dave this isn't realilistically
achievable. However integration with the "local transport
infrastructure" can mean a good modern bus interchange (ala North
Greenwich or Canada Water) with a good selection of feeder bus routes,
along with the proposed Waterfront Transit. And just because it
wouldn't be a super-interchange doesn't mean it wouldn't be worthwhile.

I hope this will be seriously considered by the Crossrail team and
Crossrail's stakeholders. The proposal strengthens the regeneration
angle of Crossrail, and whilst it'd increase the cost I'd say it could
also boost the political support that Crossrail requires to get the
green light.

Mizter T wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote:

Something which had escaped my attention and which not much fuss seems
to have been made of - the Crossrail Select Committee made a statement
on its preliminary findings having considered petitions related to the
Crossrail Bill, and the main issue is that they are requiring CLRL to
add a station at Woolwich to the Bill.

That sounds like a really good idea IMO, thanks for spotting that Dave.
I dare say there hasn't been any chat about it here as utl doesn't have
any contributors from down Woolwich way.

There was an article about this in the South London Press the other
day:

http://tinyurl.com/ofgac

If a station is built at Woolwich, what will happen to the proposed
Abbey Wood station? Would it remain, or would the two stations be
considered too close together?

Patrick

On 31 Jul 2006 15:38:23 -0700, Mizter T wrote:

The committee's comments on ensuring "the Crossrail station is fully
integrated into the local transport infrastructure" would initially
appear to suggest some kind of full interchange with south eastern NR
lines and DLR - as you point out Dave this isn't realilistically
achievable.

Or worthwhile, really. The only useful interchange it would create
would be eastbound SET to westbound Crossrail, and even that's not a
very useful one.

Dave Arquati wrote:
Something which had escaped my attention and which not much fuss seems
to have been made of - the Crossrail Select Committee made a statement
on its preliminary findings having considered petitions related to the
Crossrail Bill, and the main issue is that they are requiring CLRL to
add a station at Woolwich to the Bill.

Overall common sense appears to be breaking out about Crossrail with
the decision to use Old Oak Common as opposed to Romford , the
redeployment of North Pole, the avoidance of the Hanbury Street shafts
and now the Woolwich decision. Chunky bits still be sorted out include
freight traffic both to the west and east of London, decisions to stop
short at both Abbeywood and Maidenhead as opposed to Ebbsfleet and
Reading. The Commons committee appear realise that integrating into the
wider network is an issue that the promoters preoccupied with getting
the "big dig" built have tended to ignore.There is still the proposal
to turn round of half the trains at Paddington which seems a wasted
opportunity - taking over the Hammersmith end of the H&C removes a busy
junction on the Circle Line with knock on effects for that lines
reliability would seem a low cost no brainer.

asdf wrote:

On 31 Jul 2006 15:38:23 -0700, Mizter T wrote:

The committee's comments on ensuring "the Crossrail station is fully
integrated into the local transport infrastructure" would initially
appear to suggest some kind of full interchange with south eastern NR
lines and DLR - as you point out Dave this isn't realilistically
achievable.

Or worthwhile, really. The only useful interchange it would create
would be eastbound SET to westbound Crossrail, and even that's not a
very useful one.


It would serve the area though. From the little I've read thus far I
feel very favourable to the idea. As I said in my first post, it
doesn't have to be a super-interchange to be worthwhile.

wrote:
There was an article about this in the South London Press the other
day:

http://tinyurl.com/ofgac

Thanks for the link. The SLP will champion this I'm sure.


If a station is built at Woolwich, what will happen to the proposed
Abbey Wood station? Would it remain, or would the two stations be
considered too close together?

It would be in addition to Abbey Wood. The location of Abbey Wood means
it can serve the significant population of Thamesmead well.

Bob wrote:
Overall common sense appears to be breaking out about Crossrail with
the decision to use Old Oak Common as opposed to Romford , the
redeployment of North Pole, the avoidance of the Hanbury Street shafts
and now the Woolwich decision. Chunky bits still be sorted out include
freight traffic both to the west and east of London, decisions to stop
short at both Abbeywood and Maidenhead as opposed to Ebbsfleet and
Reading.

Given that, AIUI, Ebbsfleet is to be rebranded as "Dartford
International" and get a Eurostar service in the very near future, it
seems crazy not to extend Crossrail to end there, rather than at Abbey
Wood.

Patrick

Michael Hopkins wrote:
Overall common sense appears to be breaking out about Crossrail with
the decision to use Old Oak Common as opposed to Romford , the
redeployment of North Pole, the avoidance of the Hanbury Street shafts
and now the Woolwich decision. Chunky bits still be sorted out include
freight traffic both to the west and east of London, decisions to stop
short at both Abbeywood and Maidenhead as opposed to Ebbsfleet and
Reading. The Commons committee appear realise that integrating into the
wider network is an issue that the promoters preoccupied with getting
the "big dig" built have tended to ignore.


As a former resident of the Maidenhead/Reading area, I can see abaolutely no
reason at all for terminating at Maidenhead rather than Reading.


I thought that this was to ensure that NR didn't dump the costs of the
impending (in roughly the same sense and timeframe as Crossrail is
impending) resignalling and remodelling of the tracks into and east of
Reading Station onto CLRL's budget.

Therefore, everyone has to pretend that Crossrail won't go to Reading
until the Reading project has been approved in its own right, at which
point the necessary slight timetable amendments will be made and the
additional few miles of knitting will be procured.

Ebbsfleet is similar-ish. To avoid conflicting moves with North Kent
Line trains that would seriously delay the whole Crossrail service,
proper infrastructure investment would be needed between Abbey Wood and
Ebbsfleet.

Again, the theory is that this will be easier to raise on the basis of
"all we need to extend this groovy new Crossrail service that's already
being built to Ebbsfleet is this infrastructure spend", rather than
adding even more cost to the original project.

Cynics might describe some or all of this as 'smoke and mirrors'. I
couldn't possibly comment...

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On 1 Aug 2006 03:06:21 -0700, Mizter T wrote:

The committee's comments on ensuring "the Crossrail station is fully
integrated into the local transport infrastructure" would initially
appear to suggest some kind of full interchange with south eastern NR
lines and DLR - as you point out Dave this isn't realilistically
achievable.

Or worthwhile, really. The only useful interchange it would create
would be eastbound SET to westbound Crossrail, and even that's not a
very useful one.

It would serve the area though. From the little I've read thus far I
feel very favourable to the idea. As I said in my first post, it
doesn't have to be a super-interchange to be worthwhile.

Indeed - I was trying to say that there's not much point making it an
interchange with SET/DLR if it would mean a large increase in cost.