Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...nce/article.do
A decision on whether to extend the £16billion Crossrail scheme to Reading will be made in the New Year, it emerged today. Transport minister Tom Harris is looking at whether the cross-London rail line can be linked to Reading without significantly increasing the cost of the project. The decision is understood to be "evenly balanced". Construction on the long-delayed project will start in 2010 with the first trains running in 2017. The 74-mile route stretches from Maidenhead in the east to Canary Wharf and beyond by way of Heathrow, the West End and the City. With the scheme expected to benefit the economy by as much as £68billion over the next few decades, Ministers have faced sustained lobbying from MPs anxious for their constituencies to be linked to the route. Extending the line to Reading could be done without having to amend the Crossrail Bill, which has just passed through the House of Commons. One possibility is to give the go ahead to the extension in principle but not guaranteeing it will be built until finances are clearer. D |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , at
20:34:52 on Tue, 25 Dec 2007, Dave remarked: One possibility is to give the go ahead to the extension in principle but not guaranteeing it will be built until finances are clearer. Isn't that the regime that all railway building projects operate under, anyway? The SPILL box and several remaining bits of Thameslink spring to mind, let alone any of the Crossrail scheme. -- Roland Perry |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Dec 26, 1:27 am, Roland Perry wrote:
Isn't that the regime that all railway building projects operate under, anyway? The SPILL box The box was guaranteed. The station was the bit that was funded later. -- Nick |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message
, at 04:58:25 on Wed, 26 Dec 2007, D7666 remarked: Isn't that the regime that all railway building projects operate under, anyway? The SPILL box The box was guaranteed. The station was the bit that was funded later. Exactly my point. They got the go-ahead to built the box on the assumption that they'd be able to get funding for the fitout later. Which in this case it did - but it's not always the case. -- Roland Perry |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Dave" wrote:
A decision on whether to extend the £16billion Crossrail scheme to Reading will be made in the New Year, it emerged today... Good news that they're giving this question a second thought. I suspect, however, that even if they decided to stick with Maidenhead for the initial development, the case to extend to Reading subsequently would be so compelling that it'd happen one way or the other anyway. I think sometimes it's better to start off with a finite, achieveable project even if the case for bigger things seems powerful. Because one thing often does lead to the next. The example I always think of is Bed-Pan electrification - as soon as that was done a strong business case for the original Thameslink project emerged. The other extension to Crossrail that seems fairly obvious to me is to extend the trains currently planned to terminate at Paddington up the former GW&GC joint line. Bring the Old Oak - Northolt East line back into proper use, rebuild the main line platforms at Greenford, making this the first stop out of Padd, then run all-stations to Princes Risboro and Aylesbury (some trains probably terminating at High Wycombe). But this is clearly too extensive to be sensible to include in the initial project. Adie |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Adrian the Rock" wrote in message
"Dave" wrote: The other extension to Crossrail that seems fairly obvious to me is to extend the trains currently planned to terminate at Paddington up the former GW&GC joint line. Bring the Old Oak - Northolt East line back into proper use, rebuild the main line platforms at Greenford, making this the first stop out of Padd, then run all-stations to Princes Risboro and Aylesbury (some trains probably terminating at High Wycombe). But this is clearly too extensive to be sensible to include in the initial project. Wasn't something like this in some of the earlier Crossrail iterations? At one stage it was going to take over all Aylesbury services, as well as Met services to Amersham. |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Dec 26, 5:42 am, (Adrian the Rock) wrote:
one thing often does lead to the next. The example I always think of is Bed-Pan electrification - as soon as that was done a strong business case for the original Thameslink project emerged. Except that is not how it happened at all. The 1990s Snow Hill link was a GLC driven idea simply to link Blackfriars with Farringdon. It had very little to do with any BedPan or subsequent TL development. TL2000 formed its own business case once Snow Hill was in place - or at least under way. -- Nick |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 25 Dec, 20:34, "Dave" wrote:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...-details/Cross... A decision on whether to extend the £16billion Crossrail scheme to Reading will be made in the New Year, it emerged today. If it is, then presumably the current semifast services from Reading will be relegated to all-stops, and there won't be much choice for passangers from the Slough-Reading corridor -- a slow service, or none at all. When I lived in Twyford there were fast services that stopped maidenhead/burnham/taplow/slough/hayes/ealing/paddington, they then added in west drayton, iver and langley when they stopped the slough all-stops for Heathrow Connect, severly worsening service for the Slough-Reading corridor. An all stops service will be painful, especially as frequency won't increase. If it isn't extended, then I can see the slow Oxford-Reading services will call additionally at Twyford, Maidenhead, Slough, then move to the main lines to Paddington, allowing cross/same platform changes to crossrail at Slough. An extra stop at Hayes on an new platform (if there were room) could allow better connections without holding up the main line GWML services. |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message
, at 08:46:24 on Thu, 27 Dec 2007, Paul Weaver remarked: A decision on whether to extend the £16billion Crossrail scheme to Reading will be made in the New Year, it emerged today. If it is, then presumably the current semifast services from Reading will be relegated to all-stops, and there won't be much choice for passangers from the Slough-Reading corridor Is that what another poster referred to in a different thread as "St Alban-isation"? (I took this to be a reference to BedPan electrification meaning mainline services no longer stopped there). -- Roland Perry |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Adrian the Rock wrote:
"Dave" wrote: A decision on whether to extend the £16billion Crossrail scheme to Reading will be made in the New Year, it emerged today... Good news that they're giving this question a second thought. I suspect, however, that even if they decided to stick with Maidenhead for the initial development, the case to extend to Reading subsequently would be so compelling that it'd happen one way or the other anyway. Big benefit of Crossrail is not having to change at current termini. If you're far enough out, it's better to get a fast train to the terminus and change anyway. I hope the principle that Crossrail should be all-stations has been established. For journeys to/from London, this means Maidenhead is probably about right. Reading is a big traffic-generator, and if it wants to fund the extension, no problem. If any trains are extended to Reading, though, I'd say it should be the Heathrow ones, not the Maidenhead ones. The other extension to Crossrail that seems fairly obvious to me is to extend the trains currently planned to terminate at Paddington up the former GW&GC joint line. Bring the Old Oak - Northolt East line back into proper use, rebuild the main line platforms at Greenford, making this the first stop out of Padd, then run all-stations to Princes Risboro and Aylesbury There should certainly be an extension along this line one day. But possibly only as far as High Wycombe - Princes Risborough at most. Aylesbury is on the wrong branch. The principle of an all-stations service stands, so you'd need to give serious thought to reallocating the Central Line tracks beyond about Greenford. First stop out of Paddington should be North Acton, then the new Park Royal interchange. Capacity between Paddington and Old Oak Junction is a problem. But this is clearly too extensive to be sensible to include in the initial project. Agreed. Let's get the central tunnel built first. Colin McKenzie -- No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking. Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
London Crossrail to Reading | London Transport | |||
London Crossrail to Reading | London Transport | |||
London Crossrail to Reading | London Transport | |||
Best fare option for Putney-Reading, Reading-Waterloo | London Transport | |||
Negative balance Oyster on buses | London Transport |