Adrian wrote:
On Mar 24, 4:00 pm, Dan G wrote:
On Mar 24, 8:13 pm, Adrian wrote:

On Mar 24, 12:46 pm, The Real Doctor
wrote:
On 24 Mar, 18:35, Adrian wrote:
To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential.
Essential to /what/?
Ian
It is essential to London's ongoing function as a financial center.
Crossrail will also be useful in helping London's quality of life.
However, I fear that it will take more than one Cross rail to restore
that to anything like acceptable levels.
"They" keep saying the same thing about Heathrow and a third runway --
as if, if it's not built, that suddenly nobody will ever fly into or
out of Heathrow ever again. Somehow I doubt that, and I doubt London
would grind to a halt and go bankrupt if it didn't get Crossrail.

Anyone seen a more detailed costing of the scheme? *Why* is it costing
so much more than other, not dissimilar, projects?

In part it will cost a lot because it will be (or should be)
engineered to a very high standard. The Jubilee Line extension is a
pointer in that respect.

So are we saying that , because a High Speed Line would be mostly away
from London, it could be built to a lower standard than something
important like a small-profile tube line?

You have clearly never lived in a city where good spacious (1,000 sq
ft per person) affordable housing is available to middle class
workers. Or, enjoyed one where a normal comfortable journey to work
is 40 minutes or less.

London is joining the ranks of the un-livable cities.

If it gets any fuller no-one will live there...


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On 24 Mar, 23:10, Adrian wrote:
On Mar 24, 4:00 pm, Dan G wrote:

Anyone seen a more detailed costing of the scheme? *Why* is it costing
so much more than other, not dissimilar, projects?

In part it will cost a lot because it will be (or should be)
engineered to a very high standard. The Jubilee Line extension is a
pointer in that respect.

But it is predicted to cost more than five times as much as the
Jubilee Line extension ...

You have clearly never lived in a city where good spacious (1,000 sq
ft per person) affordable housing is available to middle class
workers. Or, enjoyed one where a normal comfortable journey to work
is 40 minutes or less.

And how many people do you think will find good, spacious, affordable
housing as a result of this line. It'll knock quarter of an hour,
tops, off the journey onto London - are those fifteen minutes really
deterring millions from moving to good, spacious, affordable housing?

Ian

Am Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:00:56 UTC, schrieb Dan G
auf uk.railway :

Anyone seen a more detailed costing of the scheme?

I didn't. But I have some thoughts about this:

*Why* is it costing so much more than other, not dissimilar, projects?

Comparing just the length of the cross-London tunnel with the length
of the HS1 London tunnel and wondering why the same length of tunnel
can be much more costly to build -- does make sense only when one
wants to see the cost of the tunnel as only the cost of boring it, by
meter or kilometer.

But there may be a lot of utility lines ond other uses of the
underground to be removed before one can go on boring; also London
Crossrail is planned to have more stations, and underground stations,
which in itself would be more expensive than the one Stratford Int'l
box, plus interchanges with existing underground and train stations.
That is a lot of extra work, which makes the London Crossrail tunnel
more expensive to build than the London HS1 tunnel with the one open
station in its middle.

Just my two cents...

Cheers,
L.W.

On 25 Mar, 08:47, "Lüko Willms" wrote:

But there may be a lot of utility lines ond other uses of the
underground to be removed before one can go on boring; also London
Crossrail is planned to have more stations, and underground stations,
which in itself would be more expensive than the one Stratford Int'l
box, plus interchanges with existing underground and train stations.
That is a lot of extra work, which makes the London Crossrail tunnel
more expensive to build than the London HS1 tunnel with the one open
station in its middle.

I thought about the cost of stations - then remembered that the
Jubilee Line extension included four new underground stations,
interchanges with three existing underground stations (plus 2 new and
2 altered surface stations) and it /still/ only (sic) £3.5bn.

That's not just a bit less than Crossrail - that's one fifth of the
predicted Crossrail cost.

Remember, Crossrail = HS1 + Jubilee Line Extension + WCML upgrade.

Ian

"Lüko Willms" wrote in message
...
Am Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:00:56 UTC, schrieb Dan G
auf uk.railway :

Anyone seen a more detailed costing of the scheme?

I didn't. But I have some thoughts about this:

*Why* is it costing so much more than other, not dissimilar, projects?

Comparing just the length of the cross-London tunnel with the length
of the HS1 London tunnel and wondering why the same length of tunnel
can be much more costly to build -- does make sense only when one
wants to see the cost of the tunnel as only the cost of boring it, by
meter or kilometer.

But there may be a lot of utility lines ond other uses of the
underground to be removed before one can go on boring; also London
Crossrail is planned to have more stations, and underground stations,
which in itself would be more expensive than the one Stratford Int'l
box, plus interchanges with existing underground and train stations.
That is a lot of extra work, which makes the London Crossrail tunnel
more expensive to build than the London HS1 tunnel with the one open
station in its middle.

Just my two cents...

Cheers,
L.W.


More to do with the very deep foundations of tall buildings in Central
London than utilities. In comparison, the tunnelling for CTRL2 and JLE were
relatively unimpeded by such constraints. The gradient profile should be
'interesting' as a result of this.
Brian

In message
, at
09:47:14 on Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Lüko Willms
remarked:
Comparing just the length of the cross-London tunnel with the length
of the HS1 London tunnel and wondering why the same length of tunnel
can be much more costly to build

Only a third of the Crossrail budget is building the tunnel.

And that tunnel is under random property and roads in Central London.

HS1 is largely built either in open countryside, or under an existing
railway line.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:35:40 +0000, Adrian wrote

To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential.

*Whatever* the cost??

On Mar 24, 12:52*pm, Stimpy wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:35:40 +0000, Adrian wrote



To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential.

*Whatever* the cost??

Wouldn't you like to actually derive some benefit from those
extortionately high UK taxes?

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 20:15:07 +0000, Adrian wrote

To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential.

*Whatever* the cost??

Wouldn't you like to actually derive some benefit from those
extortionately high UK taxes?

I can think of *many* things to spend my tax money on that would give me more
benefit than Crossrail.

Save £1bn on Crossrail and reopen the stations in Monmouth and Rhyader please
:-)

On Mar 24, 1:35*pm, Stimpy wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 20:15:07 +0000, Adrian wrote



To bring this back on topc: Whatever the cost, Crossrail is essential.

*Whatever* the cost??

Wouldn't you like to actually derive some benefit from those
extortionately high UK taxes?

I can think of *many* things to spend my tax money on that would give me more
benefit than Crossrail.

Save £1bn on Crossrail and reopen the stations in Monmouth and Rhyader please
:-)

Reopen Monmouth, Rhydar and much of Wales' lost network AND build
Crossrail. The UK Treasury can afford it. BTW: I must express an
interest. My father and much of my ancestry is from Monmouthshire.
Indeed, my brother still maintains a home there, although he lives and
works in Alberta.

Adrian