Richard J. wrote:

MIG wrote:
On Oct 31, 12:53 pm, Paul Terry wrote:
In message
.com, MIG
writes

Is this a case of the article mistakenly referring to Crossrail
when they meant Thameslink,

It is about "a £16bn project to build a new rail link through
central London, connecting Maidenhead and Heathrow in the west to
Essex and Kent in the east". So I don't think its simply a case of
saying Crossrail when they meant Thameslink.

Well, it's just possible that having picked the wrong project they
then Googled the name they had picked on.


or is it a misunderstanding about funds being
diverted rather than routes encroaching?

I suspect the latter. But its sloppy journalism.

It is more plausible indeed, because I can't work out how any
project involves new railway builds that would encroach on tram
routes in Crystal Palace.

I suspect that the story they are trying to run is that Crossrail may
suck up any funds that might have been spent on other projects like the
tram extensions, but as with most local newspapers, the standard of
journalism is abysmal.
--
Richard J.

The only bit that's really wrong is this passage:
"However, since Crossrail was given the green light there are fears
the long-awaited extension of Croydon's tram line could be sacrificed
because it could impinge on the route of the new rail link."

It's a completely ridiculous error, so silly in fact when compared to
the rest of the article that I'm inclined to think that it was
introduced by a sub-editor as opposed to the journo who's got the
byline.

As you say the fundamental point underlying the piece is the fear that
Crossrail means other schemes such as this might be stuffed. I'm sure
I've already read something else about fears over whether the ELLX
phase 2 will ever get the go-ahead.

Crossrail is going to be monumentally expensive so TfL might well be
after some sacrifices. I wouldn't be at all surprised to come across
many more stories of a similar ilk over the coming months and years
from all around London as proponents make the case for their pet
project to get the go-ahead.

On 31 Oct, 14:43, MIG wrote:
On Oct 31, 12:53 pm, Paul Terry wrote:

In message .com, MIG
writes

Is this a case of the article mistakenly referring to Crossrail when
they meant Thameslink,

It is about "a £16bn project to build a new rail link through central
London, connecting Maidenhead and Heathrow in the west to Essex and Kent
in the east". So I don't think its simply a case of saying Crossrail
when they meant Thameslink.

Well, it's just possible that having picked the wrong project they
then Googled the name they had picked on.


If by "they" you mean the reporter then you're wrong - the report
makes no mention of Thameslink whatsoever, it was an error regrettably
introduced by the OP, 'Mwmbwls'.

The report does include a very stupid error, but I really think it's a
bit too much to criticise it for a mistake that it doesn't actually
contain!

On 31 Oct, 23:43, MIG wrote:
On Oct 31, 11:30 pm, Mizter T wrote:


On 31 Oct, 12:23, MIG wrote:

On Oct 31, 11:13 am, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

"Mwmbwls" wrote:

Quote

Crystal Palace tram link under threat?
By Gemma Wheatley
The proposed extension of Croydon's tram link to Crystal Palace could
be in jeopardy following approval of the Crossrail scheme.

Did 'Thameslink' appear in the subject line intentionally?

Paul

Is this a case of the article mistakenly referring to Crossrail when
they meant Thameslink, or is it a misunderstanding about funds being
diverted rather than routes encroaching?

The article doesn't refer to Thameslink whatsoever - follow the link
and you can see this. The reference to Thameslink was regrettably
introduced by this thread's OP, 'Mwmbwls'.

That's what I said ... isn't it? The OP may have made the first
assumption, but the second is slightly more plausible.

Apologies, on re-reading your post that is indeed what you said. And
as you say, the piece is fundamentally about the tram extension funds
being swallowed by Crossrail.


I just wonder if there was something non-nonsensical behind the
article that was worth knowing about.

The only nonsensical bit of the article is that single sentence about
the impinging of one route upon another - though it is of course an
utterly nonsensical and ridiculous sentence.

However read the article without that sentence and it's all pretty
reasonable. It looks like the article was basically prompted by
comments from a Norbury councillor, who's reacting to the speculation
that funds might go elsewhere.

It can be seen as the start of the campaign to ensure the tram
extension gets the go-ahead. Similar things will be happening all over
London where there is a transport project that faces an uncertain
future, given Crossrail's thirst for cash.

On Oct 31, 11:54 pm, Mizter T wrote:
On 31 Oct, 14:43, MIG wrote:





On Oct 31, 12:53 pm, Paul Terry wrote:

In message .com, MIG
writes

Is this a case of the article mistakenly referring to Crossrail when
they meant Thameslink,

It is about "a £16bn project to build a new rail link through central
London, connecting Maidenhead and Heathrow in the west to Essex and Kent
in the east". So I don't think its simply a case of saying Crossrail
when they meant Thameslink.

Well, it's just possible that having picked the wrong project they
then Googled the name they had picked on.

If by "they" you mean the reporter then you're wrong - the report
makes no mention of Thameslink whatsoever, it was an error regrettably
introduced by the OP, 'Mwmbwls'.

As the OP I regret that I cannot claim responsibility for the
authorship of the quoted text. In titling the thread I also added a
Question Mark to indicate my reservations about its accuracy. It's the
curly thing with a full stop underneath it.

On 1 Nov, 08:35, Mwmbwls wrote:
On Oct 31, 11:54 pm, Mizter T wrote:

On 31 Oct, 14:43, MIG wrote:

On Oct 31, 12:53 pm, Paul Terry wrote:

In message .com, MIG
writes

Is this a case of the article mistakenly referring to Crossrail when
they meant Thameslink,

It is about "a £16bn project to build a new rail link through central
London, connecting Maidenhead and Heathrow in the west to Essex and Kent
in the east". So I don't think its simply a case of saying Crossrail
when they meant Thameslink.

Well, it's just possible that having picked the wrong project they
then Googled the name they had picked on.

If by "they" you mean the reporter then you're wrong - the report
makes no mention of Thameslink whatsoever, it was an error regrettably
introduced by the OP, 'Mwmbwls'.

As the OP I regret that I cannot claim responsibility for the
authorship of the quoted text. In titling the thread I also added a
Question Mark to indicate my reservations about its accuracy. It's the
curly thing with a full stop underneath it.


I wasn't trying to have a go at you, but I was just pointing out that
the reference to Thameslink was solely made by you, as opposed to
being made anywhere in the report.

I see what you were trying to do, which was to speculate whether the
reporter has muddled up the Crossrail and Thameslink schemes. However
the method you chose for doing this was in itself somewhat confusing -
rather than expounding on thus in the text of your post you instead
used the subject line to attempt to pose this question. Casual readers
could be forgiven for thinking the subject line was also quoted from
the article (i.e. it could have been the headline).