"Bob" wrote in message
oups.com...

....... - Crossrail has unlike Thameslink not been designed
as an equivalent RER but merely a full gauge fast tube.- Hide quoted
text -

I'm not sure this view is correct. Surely the way Crossrail trains will be
sharing tracks on existing routes to Maidenhead, Shenfield and Abbey Wood,
is just like Thameslink; the only main difference is their central London
tunnel will be new, not secondhand...

By the way for those who don't feel they
are part of London the Government is to allow the Mayor and TfL to
increase or decrease service levels on trains outside the London
boundary. No doubt some contributor can draw the boundaries of this
influence - on Thameslink/FCC IIRC I think this will extend to Saint
Albans.

No need to guess, the boundaries of TfL's influence were published on the
DfT website, 'line by line', a couple of weeks ago; including the services
to St Albans as you mentioned.

They don't allow TfL to increase or decrease services unilaterally, though,
but as follows:

"The changes I have announced today will allow TfL to propose and pay for
improvements on some key commuter services that start or end just outside
the GLA boundary. At the same time the new arrangements make sure the
interests of passengers from just outside London are protected by their own
elected representatives."

http://tinyurl.com/2fen9r

I was looking at another forum last week where someone reckoned Ken had been
given the listed network as part of London Rail - amazing how people can
read too much into these announcements...

Paul S

On Aug 2, 10:28 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
I'm not sure this view is correct. Surely the way Crossrail trains will be
sharing tracks on existing routes to Maidenhead, Shenfield and Abbey Wood,is just like Thameslink; the only main difference is their central London tunnel will be new, not secondhand...

There was a prolonged and at some stages heated debate about whether
Crossrail should be built as full gauge inner city metro or be
extended into the London surburban area. Destinations such as High
Wycombe, Reading and Oxford were considered together with beyond
Ebbsfleet siggestions

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/sq...007%202005.htm

Uncle Roger covered the debate in the above article from the archive
section of Informed Sources Alcydon Rail.

The need to contain costs by containing risk won the day. It was
suggested that the further Crossrail Trains went out into the country
the greater was the possibility of knock on delays which would then
affect the core central section - as happens from time to time with
Thamesink. When the Crossrail Bill was introduced in Parliament there
was a major row raised by those MPs whose constituencies fell just
outside the Crossrail area especially from the honourable members for
Reading. Now that Reading Station rebuild has been addressed in the
HLOS there may a case for reviewing the case for wires beyond
Maidenhead and minimising the dislocation effects of construction -
although having seen the results of the Portsmouth blockade now might
be a good to hide behind a barricade.

On Aug 2, 10:28 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:


No need to guess, the boundaries of TfL's influence were published on the
DfT website, 'line by line', a couple of weeks ago; including the services
to St Albans as you mentioned.


Would this be the list that included "* Services from Paddington,
terminating at Slough;"? Funny, there haven't been any of those since
Heathrow Connect was introduced over 2 years ago!

Dear old DfT, on the ball as usual. Watch out for an announcement soon
of plans to build a motorway round London.

Maybe I dreamed it, but didn't I read somewhere in the White Paper or
its supporting material that the building/operation of the central
tunnel will be handed over to Network Rail?

An article and a leader from today's FT suggest dovetailing Thameslink
and Crossrail.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f30a134a-413...0779fd2ac.html

Quote
Crossrail crawling closer to green light
By Christopher Adams and Bob Sherwood
Published: August 2 2007 22:49 | Last updated: August 2 2007 22:49
It has been a long time in coming. Now, after years of wrangling over
the route, its vast cost and who should pay for it, Crossrail is
inching closer to fruition.
Political momentum behind the east-west rail route that would link
Berkshire with Essex via Heathrow and Canary Wharf is growing.
Ministers need no convincing of the economic benefits and the need to
ease congestion on London's overcrowded commuter networks. Moreover,
approval for Crossrail could help Labour in next year's London mayoral
elections.
A bill is being debated in the Commons and is expected to clear
parliament next spring, paving the way for a swift start to
construction.
In theory, a green light could come by the autumn. In reality, this is
far from guaranteed. Eighteen years on from its genesis, under
Margaret Thatcher's premiership, the biggest stumbling block to
Crossrail remains its financing, where a deal is as elusive as ever.
As the government prepares for what one senior official called "tough
discussions" with business, the London mayor and city transport
authorities, it is the split between private and public funding that
will be most difficult to resolve.
The drawn-out negotiations, and the need to keep the project
affordable, means recent projections for an opening as early as 2015
look optimistic. Even assuming agreement is reached by the time
departmental spending totals are pencilled in for the next three
years, Whitehall insiders expect slippage in the project's timetable.
Services may be a decade away.
According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, there are a number of
reasons why a more protracted timetable could suit the government.
The institute says that an early start to Crossrail's construction,
well before building work on the 2012 London Olympic Games is
complete, could contribute to a spending squeeze, in part because the
two projects would be competing for similar suppliers. It says that a
modest delay might allow the scheme to be built more cheaply.
There are, also, wider implications for the public finances, the IFS
says. Were the extra demands on the construction industry from
parallel work on the Olympics and Crossrail to inflate the rail
project's bill, the prospect of breaking one of Gordon Brown's fiscal
rules - to keep net debt at a stable and prudent level - may increase.
Public sector net debt was forecast by the Treasury in this year's
Budget to be 38.2 per cent of national income in 2007-08, rising to
38.8 per cent in 2009-10 and 2010-11, before dropping back to 38.6 per
cent of national income.
Carl Emmerson, IFS deputy director, says that, assuming Alistair
Darling, the chancellor, adheres to the 40 per cent limit on debt
imposed by Mr Brown, then "significant new projects would be
difficult" during the period covered by the pending review.
"It might not be possible for new significant projects to go ahead
without squeezing other investment programmes," he says.
Putting off Crossrail's construction "might make it easier to deliver
the project in a cost-effective way". Staggering demand for suppliers
could contain the expense.
Douglas Oakervee, Cross London Rail Link's chief executive, insists
that the timing of the two projects should dovetail. His team has
completed modelling that shows workers could migrate to Crossrail.
This has allayed the concerns of some in government. And the Treasury
has said nothing to suggest the fiscal rules are a constraint. Even
so, it would be a brave man that banked on a 2015 start for train
services.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/7c1a3e0a-412...0779fd2ac.html

The government must tackle infrastructure problems
Published: August 2 2007 20:02 | Last updated: August 2 2007 20:02
Only in Britain would people think the chance of securing a new train
line to be the chief virtue of hosting the Olympics.
Now, completion of the east-west Crossrail link before the 2012 Games
remains in doubt. And in a context of tight infrastructure spending,
Londoners seem doomed to making do with water pipes laid in Victorian
times, Underground stations that look as if they had their last
makeover when they were serving as wartime bomb shelters.
Unhappy commuters aside, the state of British infrastructure is a real
constraint on economic growth. France cites its sleek infrastructure -
ranging from high-speed trains to cheap nuclear power - as one of the
top attractions for foreign investors. By contrast, "Heathrow hassle"
is proving a compelling reason for international executives to avoid
London, and the CBI employers' body cites infrastructure problems
among its top concerns.
Nor is it simply a London issue. Business leaders in all corners of
the UK are complaining of missed meetings and pessing for better east-
west road links, upgrading of congested northern motorways, more
runways and better access to regional airports.
The government's focus, judging by July's rail policy paper, is on in-
creasing capacity through pragmatic improvements to existing networks
rather than splashy new investments, through longer trains rather than
a new north-south line.
This bias against grand projects is sensible, given that the UK's main
constraints stem from congestion rather than a lack of connections.
But with businesses and passengers set to make a higher financial
contribution - through road-pricing, rail fares and possible
supplementary rates - the government needs to translate its policy
into rapid and tangible improvements.
One area where it could show more ambition would be in accelerating
the planned pilots for road-pricing schemes - potentially sweetening
their introduction for motorists by dedicating receipts to further
infrastructure investment.
A swift conclusion to the competition authorities' investigation of
BAA's airport monopoly would also lessen frustrations, as would a real
move to eliminate the uncertainties of the planning process for major
projects.
Finally, there is Crossrail - rapidly,becoming a symbol of government
prevarication over infrastructure investment. It is time to set a firm
date for starting - and completing - Crossrail.The private sector must
be involved early in talks over funding. It is time the government
moved Britain beyond the Victorian era.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007
Unquote
l

"Bob" wrote in message
oups.com...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/7c1a3e0a-412...0779fd2ac.html

The government must tackle infrastructure problems
Published: August 2 2007 20:02 | Last updated: August 2 2007 20:02
Only in Britain would people think the chance of securing a new train
line to be the chief virtue of hosting the Olympics.
Now, completion of the east-west Crossrail link before the 2012 Games
remains in doubt.

There's an understatement - look at the timescales from now for the ELLX ,
late 2010? - or Thameslink phase 1, 2011?? The outstanding work in both
cases is comparatively trivial compared to Crossrail, surely...

Paul

On Aug 2, 7:11 pm, W14_Fishbourne wrote:
To put it another way, if Ken or Boris should run those trains, why
shouldn't they run all the trains that serve London? I somehow think
that the people of Glasgow, Leeds, Manchester, etc, might have
something to say about their trains to London being run by the MoL.

I don't really mind who runs my trains as long as they're clueful. If
a rail-friendly body like the Scottish Executive (or, indeed, TfL)
would like to annex Oxfordshire and take it out of the hands of the
muppets at the DfT, that's just fine with me.

Richard

On Thu, 2 Aug 2007, Paul Scott wrote:

"Bob" wrote in message
oups.com...

....... - Crossrail has unlike Thameslink not been designed as an
equivalent RER but merely a full gauge fast tube.- Hide quoted text -

I'm not sure this view is correct. Surely the way Crossrail trains will
be sharing tracks on existing routes to Maidenhead, Shenfield and Abbey
Wood, is just like Thameslink; the only main difference is their central
London tunnel will be new, not secondhand...

AIUI, there won't be a huge amount of track-sharing. Crossrail gets
exclusive use of the slow tracks on the GWML, although it'll share with
HEx from Airport Junction to Heathrow Central. In the east, there will
still be non-Crossrail services on the GEML slows, but i think they'll all
be Shenfield - Liverpool Street, so sort of a second service of Crossrail
- in fact, it would make a lot of sense to have the Crossrail operator run
them, rather than the GE franchisee.

By the way for those who don't feel they are part of London the
Government is to allow the Mayor and TfL to increase or decrease
service levels on trains outside the London boundary. No doubt some
contributor can draw the boundaries of this influence - on
Thameslink/FCC IIRC I think this will extend to Saint Albans.

No need to guess, the boundaries of TfL's influence were published on
the DfT website, 'line by line', a couple of weeks ago; including the
services to St Albans as you mentioned.

http://tinyurl.com/2fen9r

This sounds like the stealthy implementation of the 'london regional rail
authority' plan that Bob Kiley floated early in his reign. I can't find a
map or report about that, but Dave says the boundary proposed was:

* Chiltern: Aylesbury via Amersham & High Wycombe
* Silverlink: Metro services to Watford Junction, the Croxley Link and Watford - St Albans Abbey
* Thameslink: Luton to Gatwick Airport
* Great Northern: Stevenage
* West Anglia: Hertford East & Stansted Airport
* Great Eastern: Shenfield
* LTS: Basildon & Tilbury
* Kent Link: Dartford
* South Eastern: Swanley, Otford & Sevenoaks
* South Central: Oxted, Gatwick Airport, Caterham, Tattenham Corner, Epsom Downs, Dorking
* South West: Guildford, Working, Shepperton, Virginia Water, Windsor & Eton Riverside
* Great Western: Slough / Windsor & Eton Central

The boundary in the GNN report you cite is a bit smaller.

tom

--
Standing on the shoulders of Google

On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 16:54:34 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote:

....... - Crossrail has unlike Thameslink not been designed as an
equivalent RER but merely a full gauge fast tube.- Hide quoted text -

I'm not sure this view is correct. Surely the way Crossrail trains will
be sharing tracks on existing routes to Maidenhead, Shenfield and Abbey
Wood, is just like Thameslink; the only main difference is their central
London tunnel will be new, not secondhand...

AIUI, there won't be a huge amount of track-sharing. Crossrail gets
exclusive use of the slow tracks on the GWML, although it'll share with
HEx from Airport Junction to Heathrow Central.

What happens to GWML freight? Surely it won't use the fast lines -
will it all be sent round via Staines?

"asdf" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 16:54:34 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote:

....... - Crossrail has unlike Thameslink not been designed as an
equivalent RER but merely a full gauge fast tube.- Hide quoted text -

I'm not sure this view is correct. Surely the way Crossrail trains will
be sharing tracks on existing routes to Maidenhead, Shenfield and Abbey
Wood, is just like Thameslink; the only main difference is their central
London tunnel will be new, not secondhand...

AIUI, there won't be a huge amount of track-sharing. Crossrail gets
exclusive use of the slow tracks on the GWML, although it'll share with
HEx from Airport Junction to Heathrow Central.

What happens to GWML freight? Surely it won't use the fast lines -
will it all be sent round via Staines?

I got the same idea as Tom from various press reports. They are wrong. I
don't know what will happen to freight but, at the very least, I expect the
Mendip stone trains to continue. There will also be a two train per hour
service Reading/Twyford/Maidenhead/Slough/Hayes/Ealing/Paddington and
another two trains all stations Reading to Slough according to recent
letters in the Maidenhead Advertiser. The Greenford service will be
reduced to a shuttle from West Ealing.