http://www.transportbriefing.co.uk/story.php?id=4600
quote

Crossrail bill heads for Lords following third reading
Filed 17/12/07

The hybrid bill which will allow construction of the London Crossrail
link has cleared the Commons after nearly three years of debate.

(Snip)

"The improved east-west rail access into and across London from the
east and south-east regions will also support local and national
government policy for economic development and regeneration,
particularly in the Lea valley and Thames Gateway, attracting some
additional 80,000 jobs to regeneration areas."

Theresa May, Conservative MP for Maidenhead, where the route is due to
terminate in the west, sought assurances that a future extension to
Reading would be possible by means of a Transport & Works Act order,
rather than requiring further legislation to be introduced in
parliament. Tom Harris explained that future extensions to Reading and
Ebbsfleet could be accommodated by this process, subject to legal
test. He said the government would make an announcement in due course
about safeguarding these routes although he emphasised that there was
no intention of funding such extensions at present. "

May also expressed concerns about current fast and semi-fast trains to
and from Maidenhead being replaced by an all-stations stopping
Crossrail service. She said: "Crossrail could be so much more of a
benefit to the UK, to the south-east and to my constituents if the
government examined carefully the service provision on First Great
Western when Crossrail comes and looked at the issue of extending to
Reading."

(Snip).

Ian Liddell-Grainger, Conservative MP for Bridgwater, welcomed the
opportunity for greater scrutiny of the project and admitted that the
committee which previously scrutinised the bill was unable to clarify
the cost of some components of the scheme. "We never quite got to the
bottom of the costings, although we tried to write into the bill a
provision that the costings had to be shown to parliament, the London
Assembly, the outer boroughs and the royal boroughs," he said. "One
reason that we did not get to the bottom of the costings was that we
got the okay for Woolwich at a time when we were trying to get things
sorted out as quickly as possible so as to get the bill to this stage,
and there are still some grey areas. New clause 1 would mean that some
of the bits that we could not fulfil will now have the money put in. I
would like to think that the minister will push Crossrail to fill bits
in, especially at Woolwich, and with the external stations at both
ends and the Heathrow link."

He also described freight operator EWS as "barrow boys" and cited the
company as an example of where the committee had not been able to
clarify funding needs. "It became quite obvious when many committee
members visited its operations - I could not go - that attempts were
being made to pull the wool over our eyes. That is a glaring example
of a case where the funding was not understood. We could not get to
the bottom of what it was trying to do, or of what it wanted. The new
clause, if it is accepted, will push such organisations into a
position where they have to say precisely what their contribution to
the costs will be."

unquote
Two thoughts

Theresa May's idea of future extension through TWA seems a good one

One wonders what wool the barrow boys of EWS were trying to pull over
the eyes of the Crossrail committee. Does the committee understand the
difference between the TOC franchises and the Open Market Freight
Companies. If the latter were not entrepreneurial - the economist's
translation of "barrow boy" they would find themselves being eaten
alive by the Road Haulage Industry.

On 19 Dec, 08:43, Mwmbwls wrote:

He also described freight operator EWS as "barrow boys" and cited the
company as an example of where the committee had not been able to
clarify funding needs. "It became quite obvious when many committee
members visited its operations - I could not go - that attempts were
being made to pull the wool over our eyes. That is a glaring example
of a case where the funding was not understood. We could not get to
the bottom of what it was trying to do, or of what it wanted. The new
clause, if it is accepted, will push such organisations into a
position where they have to say precisely what their contribution to
the costs will be."

Just what financial contributions are the committee expecting from a
freight operator towards a new passenger railway whose aim seems to be
to eliminate "pesky" freight from existing joint use lines.

George