In message , at 08:55:59 on Mon, 8 Apr 2019,
Anna Noyd-Dryver remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 20:28:27 on Sun, 7 Apr 2019,
Basil Jet remarked:
Viewed from the road bridge, it looks as if the electrification masts
for the new third track foul where the fourth track would go. I thought
all of the present work was supposed to allow passive provision for
Crossrail 2?

Wouldn't OHL be an active provision, rather than the passive provision
of a trackbed?

Passive provision for the fourth track would include not building OLÉ masts
where you want to put that fourth track; little if any extra cost now, for
a huge saving if/when that fourth track is required.

Ok, so what's the answer?

No passive provision required, passive protection botched, or passive
possession not botched as much as the OP claims?
--
Roland Perry