Crossrail - Transport Secretary's statement
 

....during his visit to Canary Wharf station site.

Hammond said: "The Government is committed to this project."
He added: "We have no plans to reduce its scope. We want this project to be
delivered in its entirety," he said. But he added that the Government wanted
to ensure that Crossrail was delivered "with maximum value for the
taxpayer".

Worth watching the whole of the BBC video included on the webpage, the
interviewer seems to cover most of the obvious questions ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/10323035.stm

Paul S

Crossrail - Transport Secretary's statement
 

On Jun 15, 11:10*am, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
...during his visit to Canary Wharf station site.

Hammond said: "The Government is committed to this project."
He added: "We have no plans to reduce its scope. We want this project to be
delivered in its entirety," he said. But he added that the Government wanted
to ensure that Crossrail was delivered "with maximum value for the
taxpayer".

Worth watching the whole of the BBC video included on the webpage, the
interviewer seems to cover most of the obvious questions ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/10323035.stm

Thank you for posting. This pronouncement has me completely confused
as to the likely scope of Crossrail.

Crossrail - Transport Secretary's statement
 

"E27002" wrote in message
...
On Jun 15, 11:10 am, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
...during his visit to Canary Wharf station site.

Hammond said: "The Government is committed to this project."
He added: "We have no plans to reduce its scope. We want this project to
be
delivered in its entirety," he said. But he added that the Government
wanted
to ensure that Crossrail was delivered "with maximum value for the
taxpayer".

Worth watching the whole of the BBC video included on the webpage, the
interviewer seems to cover most of the obvious questions ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/10323035.stm

Thank you for posting. This pronouncement has me completely confused
as to the likely scope of Crossrail.

Maidenhead and Heathrow to Shenfield and Abbeywood, as per the enabling Act,
I'd have thought. Anywhere else, such as Reading, is just froth...

Paul S

Crossrail - Transport Secretary's statement
 

On Jun 15, 7:10*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
...during his visit to Canary Wharf station site.

Hammond said: "The Government is committed to this project."
He added: "We have no plans to reduce its scope. We want this project to be
delivered in its entirety," he said. But he added that the Government wanted
to ensure that Crossrail was delivered "with maximum value for the
taxpayer".

Which I suppose could be interpreted as 'we want the full scheme but
we want to pay less for it' - likewise, it could also be interpreted
as 'we want the full scheme but we definitely don't want any cost
overruns on it'.


Worth watching the whole of the BBC video included on the webpage, the
interviewer seems to cover most of the obvious questions ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/10323035.stm

Yes, a good interview - UIVMM the (unseen) questioner is Tom Edwards,
BBC London's transport correspondent, who seems pretty on the ball -
he also has a blog on transport issues in London called 'Mind the Gap'
he
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/mindthegap/

Crossrail - Transport Secretary's statement
 

On Jun 15, 8:01*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:10:36 +0100, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
...during his visit to Canary Wharf station site.

Hammond said: "The Government is committed to this project."
He added: "We have no plans to reduce its scope. We want this project to be
delivered in its entirety," he said. But he added that the Government wanted
to ensure that Crossrail was delivered "with maximum value for the
taxpayer".

Worth watching the whole of the BBC video included on the webpage, the
interviewer seems to cover most of the obvious questions ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/10323035.stm

Thanks for posting that. On the face of it it is fairly positive and
completely at odds with some scandalous rumour I heard today
(and no I'm not sharing it). [...]

Bozza has been digging his pencils and protractor out, in a bid to
'assist' the Crossrail team?

[...] However there is the nasty politicians' phrase of "we
have no plans". This can, of course, change at the drop of a hat and the
sudden presentation of a plan that changes everything!

Given the 'emergency' budget is coming up next Tuesday, it does seem
unlikely that the SoS would be mouthing off about Crossrail without
being fairly certain that the project was still on. I'm minded to
think that some of the earlier chit chat about de-scoping / cutting
back Crossrail may have emanated from the Crossrail team themselves,
or those close to them - present the new team at the DfT (and indeed
the Treasury) with a whole menu of possible substantive cuts to the
project, then gently explain the consequences of said cuts, the
inference being that actually opting for any such cut would seriously
curtail significant benefits derived from the project and hence would
be a daft thing to do. Plus of course there's the whole complex
funding structure which is now in place which is based on the full
project (rather than a cut back version which isn't what was agreed
to).

I wonder if Hammond's reticence about the timetable might possibly
point to something that 'Bruce' suggested recently as a potential
money saver - that of slower tunnelling and fewer TBMs ((or indeed
just one of them)...

Crossrail - Transport Secretary's statement
 

On Jun 15, 12:26*pm, Mizter T wrote:
On Jun 15, 8:01*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:





On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:10:36 +0100, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
...during his visit to Canary Wharf station site.

Hammond said: "The Government is committed to this project."
He added: "We have no plans to reduce its scope. We want this project to be
delivered in its entirety," he said. But he added that the Government wanted
to ensure that Crossrail was delivered "with maximum value for the
taxpayer".

Worth watching the whole of the BBC video included on the webpage, the
interviewer seems to cover most of the obvious questions ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/10323035.stm

Thanks for posting that. On the face of it it is fairly positive and
completely at odds with some scandalous rumour I heard today
(and no I'm not sharing it). [...]

Bozza has been digging his pencils and protractor out, in a bid to
'assist' the Crossrail team?

[...] However there is the nasty politicians' phrase of "we
have no plans". This can, of course, change at the drop of a hat and the
sudden presentation of a plan that changes everything!

Given the 'emergency' budget is coming up next Tuesday, it does seem
unlikely that the SoS would be mouthing off about Crossrail without
being fairly certain that the project was still on.

This is starting to sound like good news for Crossrail. This is the
correct thing to do. Crossrail and Thameslink n000 are the two
projects that should survive IMHO.

I'm minded to
think that some of the earlier chit chat about de-scoping / cutting
back Crossrail may have emanated from the Crossrail team themselves,
or those close to them - present the new team at the DfT (and indeed
the Treasury) with a whole menu of possible substantive cuts to the
project, then gently explain the consequences of said cuts, the
inference being that actually opting for any such cut would seriously
curtail significant benefits derived from the project and hence would
be a daft thing to do. Plus of course there's the whole complex
funding structure which is now in place which is based on the full
project (rather than a cut back version which isn't what was agreed
to).

I wonder if Hammond's reticence about the timetable might possibly
point to something that 'Bruce' suggested recently as a potential
money saver - that of slower tunnelling and fewer TBMs ((or indeed
just one of them)...

Two might make sense. Crossrail would not come into its own until
there is a complete economic recovery. That is likely to be some
years away. OTOH using one TBM would just be plain silly. Two is the
minimum sensible IMHO.

Crossrail - Transport Secretary's statement
 

On Jun 15, 12:06*pm, Mizter T wrote:
On Jun 15, 7:10*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

...during his visit to Canary Wharf station site.

Hammond said: "The Government is committed to this project."
He added: "We have no plans to reduce its scope. We want this project to be
delivered in its entirety," he said. But he added that the Government wanted
to ensure that Crossrail was delivered "with maximum value for the
taxpayer".

Which I suppose could be interpreted as 'we want the full scheme but
we want to pay less for it' - likewise, it could also be interpreted
as 'we want the full scheme but we definitely don't want any cost
overruns on it'.



Worth watching the whole of the BBC video included on the webpage, the
interviewer seems to cover most of the obvious questions ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/10323035.stm

Yes, a good interview - UIVMM the (unseen) questioner is Tom Edwards,
BBC London's transport correspondent, who seems pretty on the ball -
he also has a blog on transport issues in London called 'Mind the Gap'
he
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/mindthegap/

From what I can tell, from afar, BBC London seems to have found itself
a worthwhile role these days. I remember the early days of BBC Radio
London in the 1970s. It really seemed to struggle.

Crossrail - Transport Secretary's statement
 

"Paul Scott" wrote in message
...


"E27002" wrote in message
...
On Jun 15, 11:10 am, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
...during his visit to Canary Wharf station site.

Hammond said: "The Government is committed to this project."
He added: "We have no plans to reduce its scope. We want this project to
be
delivered in its entirety," he said. But he added that the Government
wanted
to ensure that Crossrail was delivered "with maximum value for the
taxpayer".

Worth watching the whole of the BBC video included on the webpage, the
interviewer seems to cover most of the obvious questions ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/10323035.stm

Thank you for posting. This pronouncement has me completely confused
as to the likely scope of Crossrail.

Maidenhead and Heathrow to Shenfield and Abbeywood, as per the enabling
Act, I'd have thought. Anywhere else, such as Reading, is just froth...

Extension to Reading will cost nothing once the station has been rebuilt and
GWR electrified

tim

Crossrail - Transport Secretary's statement
 

On Jun 15, 8:50*pm, E27002 wrote:
On Jun 15, 12:26*pm, Mizter T wrote:





On Jun 15, 8:01*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:10:36 +0100, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
...during his visit to Canary Wharf station site.

Hammond said: "The Government is committed to this project."
He added: "We have no plans to reduce its scope. We want this project to be
delivered in its entirety," he said. But he added that the Government wanted
to ensure that Crossrail was delivered "with maximum value for the
taxpayer".

Worth watching the whole of the BBC video included on the webpage, the
interviewer seems to cover most of the obvious questions ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/10323035.stm

Thanks for posting that. On the face of it it is fairly positive and
completely at odds with some scandalous rumour I heard today
(and no I'm not sharing it). [...]

Bozza has been digging his pencils and protractor out, in a bid to
'assist' the Crossrail team?

[...] However there is the nasty politicians' phrase of "we
have no plans". This can, of course, change at the drop of a hat and the
sudden presentation of a plan that changes everything!

Given the 'emergency' budget is coming up next Tuesday, it does seem
unlikely that the SoS would be mouthing off about Crossrail without
being fairly certain that the project was still on.

This is starting to sound like good news for Crossrail. *This is the
correct thing to do. *Crossrail and Thameslink n000 are the two
projects that should survive IMHO.



I'm minded to
think that some of the earlier chit chat about de-scoping / cutting
back Crossrail may have emanated from the Crossrail team themselves,
or those close to them - present the new team at the DfT (and indeed
the Treasury) with a whole menu of possible substantive cuts to the
project, then gently explain the consequences of said cuts, the
inference being that actually opting for any such cut would seriously
curtail significant benefits derived from the project and hence would
be a daft thing to do. Plus of course there's the whole complex
funding structure which is now in place which is based on the full
project (rather than a cut back version which isn't what was agreed
to).

I wonder if Hammond's reticence about the timetable might possibly
point to something that 'Bruce' suggested recently as a potential
money saver - that of slower tunnelling and fewer TBMs ((or indeed
just one of them)...

Two might make sense. *Crossrail would not come into its own until
there is a complete economic recovery. *That is likely to be some
years away. *OTOH using one TBM would just be plain silly. *Two is the
minimum sensible IMHO.

Well, as Crossrail isn't due to open until 2017 even without delays;
it's most likely that the economy will have sufficiently recovered to
use the capacity that will be provided.

Crossrail - Transport Secretary's statement
 

On Jun 15, 8:57*pm, "tim...." wrote:
"Paul Scott" wrote in message

...







"E27002" wrote in message
....
On Jun 15, 11:10 am, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
...during his visit to Canary Wharf station site.

Hammond said: "The Government is committed to this project."
He added: "We have no plans to reduce its scope. We want this project to
be
delivered in its entirety," he said. But he added that the Government
wanted
to ensure that Crossrail was delivered "with maximum value for the
taxpayer".

Worth watching the whole of the BBC video included on the webpage, the
interviewer seems to cover most of the obvious questions ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/10323035.stm

Thank you for posting. *This pronouncement has me completely confused
as to the likely scope of Crossrail.

Maidenhead and Heathrow to Shenfield and Abbeywood, as per the enabling
Act, I'd have thought. *Anywhere else, such as Reading, is just froth....

Extension to Reading will cost nothing once the station has been rebuilt and
GWR electrified


Except for the extra Crossrail rolling stock needed to run the extra
twelve(ish) miles in each direction.

Crossrail - Transport Secretary's statement
 

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 12:06:07 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:

Which I suppose could be interpreted as 'we want the full scheme but
we want to pay less for it' - likewise, it could also be interpreted
as 'we want the full scheme but we definitely don't want any cost
overruns on it'.

As it the £15.9 bn headline figure is 3 times the actual estimate to
allow for "optimism bias" there really shouldn't be any overrun!

Crossrail - Transport Secretary's statement
 

In message
, at
13:11:10 on Tue, 15 Jun 2010, Andy remarked:
Well, as Crossrail isn't due to open until 2017 even without delays;
it's most likely that the economy will have sufficiently recovered to

... have collapsed again. A very silly man said he'd put an end to boom
and bust, but he may just as well have said he'd put an end to
moonlight.

use the capacity that will be provided.

--
Roland Perry

Crossrail - Transport Secretary's statement
 

On Jun 15, 9:36*pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
13:11:10 on Tue, 15 Jun 2010, Andy remarked:

Well, as Crossrail isn't due to open until 2017 even without delays;
it's most likely that the economy will have sufficiently recovered to

.. have collapsed again. A very silly man said he'd put an end to boom
and bust, but he may just as well have said he'd put an end to
moonlight.


I didn't mention which recession it might have recovered from :P

use the capacity that will be provided.

--
Roland Perry

Crossrail - Transport Secretary's statement
 

On Jun 15, 1:36*pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
13:11:10 on Tue, 15 Jun 2010, Andy remarked:

Well, as Crossrail isn't due to open until 2017 even without delays;
it's most likely that the economy will have sufficiently recovered to

.. have collapsed again. A very silly man said he'd put an end to boom
and bust, but he may just as well have said he'd put an end to
moonlight.

use the capacity that will be provided.

Indeed so. Economic Activity will ebb flow by its very nature.
Politicians can tweak, and ameliorate, but not change. One may as
well sit by the sea at Bosham and tell the tide to reverse.

Crossrail - Transport Secretary's statement
 

On Jun 15, 10:10*pm, E27002 wrote:
On Jun 15, 1:36*pm, Roland Perry wrote: In message
, at
13:11:10 on Tue, 15 Jun 2010, Andy remarked:

Well, as Crossrail isn't due to open until 2017 even without delays;
it's most likely that the economy will have sufficiently recovered to

.. have collapsed again. A very silly man said he'd put an end to boom
and bust, but he may just as well have said he'd put an end to
moonlight.

use the capacity that will be provided.

Indeed so. *Economic Activity will ebb flow by its very nature.
Politicians can tweak, and ameliorate, but not change. *One may as
well sit by the sea at Bosham and tell the tide to reverse.

And the underlying trend is still that more capacity will be needed;
so to say that it would be OK to delay completion for longer than the
seven years already planned is not a good idea. Unless, of course, you
can predict better than politicians or economists where we will be in
the economic cycle once the line opens.

Crossrail - Transport Secretary's statement
 

On Jun 15, 2:21*pm, Andy wrote:
On Jun 15, 10:10*pm, E27002 wrote:





On Jun 15, 1:36*pm, Roland Perry wrote: In message
, at
13:11:10 on Tue, 15 Jun 2010, Andy remarked:

Well, as Crossrail isn't due to open until 2017 even without delays;
it's most likely that the economy will have sufficiently recovered to

.. have collapsed again. A very silly man said he'd put an end to boom
and bust, but he may just as well have said he'd put an end to
moonlight.

use the capacity that will be provided.

Indeed so. *Economic Activity will ebb flow by its very nature.
Politicians can tweak, and ameliorate, but not change. *One may as
well sit by the sea at Bosham and tell the tide to reverse.

And the underlying trend is still that more capacity will be needed;
so to say that it would be OK to delay completion for longer than the
seven years already planned is not a good idea. Unless, of course, you
can predict better than politicians or economists where we will be in
the economic cycle once the line opens.

:-) I make no such claim.

Crossrail - Transport Secretary's statement
 

On Jun 15, 10:35*pm, E27002 wrote:
On Jun 15, 2:21*pm, Andy wrote:





On Jun 15, 10:10*pm, E27002 wrote:

On Jun 15, 1:36*pm, Roland Perry wrote: In message
, at
13:11:10 on Tue, 15 Jun 2010, Andy remarked:

Well, as Crossrail isn't due to open until 2017 even without delays;
it's most likely that the economy will have sufficiently recovered to

.. have collapsed again. A very silly man said he'd put an end to boom
and bust, but he may just as well have said he'd put an end to
moonlight.

use the capacity that will be provided.

Indeed so. *Economic Activity will ebb flow by its very nature.
Politicians can tweak, and ameliorate, but not change. *One may as
well sit by the sea at Bosham and tell the tide to reverse.

And the underlying trend is still that more capacity will be needed;
so to say that it would be OK to delay completion for longer than the
seven years already planned is not a good idea. Unless, of course, you
can predict better than politicians or economists where we will be in
the economic cycle once the line opens.

:-) I make no such claim.

Well, you did claim

"Crossrail would not come into its own until there is a complete
economic recovery. That is likely to be some
years away."

Crossrail is already needed to relieve the eastern end of the Central
line, recession or not.

Crossrail - Transport Secretary's statement
 

On Jun 15, 2:45*pm, Andy wrote:
On Jun 15, 10:35*pm, E27002 wrote:





On Jun 15, 2:21*pm, Andy wrote:

On Jun 15, 10:10*pm, E27002 wrote:

On Jun 15, 1:36*pm, Roland Perry wrote: In message
, at
13:11:10 on Tue, 15 Jun 2010, Andy remarked:

Well, as Crossrail isn't due to open until 2017 even without delays;
it's most likely that the economy will have sufficiently recovered to

.. have collapsed again. A very silly man said he'd put an end to boom
and bust, but he may just as well have said he'd put an end to
moonlight.

use the capacity that will be provided.

Indeed so. *Economic Activity will ebb flow by its very nature.
Politicians can tweak, and ameliorate, but not change. *One may as
well sit by the sea at Bosham and tell the tide to reverse.

And the underlying trend is still that more capacity will be needed;
so to say that it would be OK to delay completion for longer than the
seven years already planned is not a good idea. Unless, of course, you
can predict better than politicians or economists where we will be in
the economic cycle once the line opens.

:-) I make no such claim.

Well, you did claim

"Crossrail would not come into its own until there is a complete
economic recovery. *That is likely to be some
years away."

Crossrail is already needed to relieve the eastern end of the Central
line, recession or not.

I did not know that was the case. In previous recessions the crush on
the TfL Central Line has eased. Either way, I am a firm believer in
Crossrail, and Thameslink n000, and Chelsea to Hackney, etc., etc.

As regards the current recession: I do not know when it will end.
However, the underlying issues, tight credit etc. are not easing.
Based on earlier recessions I think this one has to run its course.

Crossrail - Transport Secretary's statement
 

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 13:14:30 -0700 (PDT), Andy
wrote:
Except for the extra Crossrail rolling stock needed to run the extra
twelve(ish) miles in each direction.

Offset by the EMUs not required to run the normal local service. If
they have any sense the Crossrail tunnel will be full size and any
EMU will fit - one would hope.

Neil

--
Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK

Crossrail - Transport Secretary's statement
 

On Jun 15, 10:54*pm, E27002 wrote:

On Jun 15, 2:45*pm, Andy wrote:
[snip]
Crossrail is already needed to relieve the eastern end of the Central
line, recession or not.

I did not know that was the case. *In previous recessions the crush on
the TfL Central Line has eased. *Either way, I am a firm believer in
Crossrail, and Thameslink n000, and Chelsea to Hackney, etc., etc.

I *think* the stretch of the Central line twixt Bethnal Green and
Liverpool Street is the most crowded bit of the whole Tube network.
Not sure about whether the numbers have eased off at all on the
Central line from say 2006/07 - I suppose they must have, for nothing
other than 'recessional' reasons (to totally repurpose a word!) - but
I understand it's still totally heaving in the peak (I try and limit
my direct experience of such things!) - and friends up Mile End and
Bethnal Green way don't even dream of going anywhere near it during
the rush hour.

Crossrail - Transport Secretary's statement
 

On Jun 15, 10:54*pm, E27002 wrote:
On Jun 15, 2:45*pm, Andy wrote:





On Jun 15, 10:35*pm, E27002 wrote:

On Jun 15, 2:21*pm, Andy wrote:

On Jun 15, 10:10*pm, E27002 wrote:

On Jun 15, 1:36*pm, Roland Perry wrote: In message
, at
13:11:10 on Tue, 15 Jun 2010, Andy remarked:

Well, as Crossrail isn't due to open until 2017 even without delays;
it's most likely that the economy will have sufficiently recovered to

.. have collapsed again. A very silly man said he'd put an end to boom
and bust, but he may just as well have said he'd put an end to
moonlight.

use the capacity that will be provided.

Indeed so. *Economic Activity will ebb flow by its very nature.
Politicians can tweak, and ameliorate, but not change. *One may as
well sit by the sea at Bosham and tell the tide to reverse.

And the underlying trend is still that more capacity will be needed;
so to say that it would be OK to delay completion for longer than the
seven years already planned is not a good idea. Unless, of course, you
can predict better than politicians or economists where we will be in
the economic cycle once the line opens.

:-) I make no such claim.

Well, you did claim

"Crossrail would not come into its own until there is a complete
economic recovery. *That is likely to be some
years away."

Crossrail is already needed to relieve the eastern end of the Central
line, recession or not.

I did not know that was the case. *In previous recessions the crush on
the TfL Central Line has eased. *Either way, I am a firm believer in
Crossrail, and Thameslink n000, and Chelsea to Hackney, etc., etc.


I think that the passenger numbers (not just on the Central line) have
shown a much smaller drop, if any, than in previous recessions.

As regards the current recession: I do not know when it will end.
However, the underlying issues, tight credit etc. are not easing.
Based on earlier recessions I think this one has to run its course.

According to the numbers, the recession has already ended, but the
deficit still has some way to go ;)

Crossrail - Transport Secretary's statement
 

On 15/06/2010 22:10, E27002 wrote:
Economic Activity will ebb flow by its very nature.
Politicians can tweak, and ameliorate, but not change. One may as
well sit by the sea at Bosham and tell the tide to reverse.

There are a lot of Cnuts in the Houses of Parliament.

Crossrail - Transport Secretary's statement
 

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 23:18:41 +0100, Neil Williams
wrote:

Offset by the EMUs not required to run the normal local service. If
they have any sense the Crossrail tunnel will be full size and any
EMU will fit - one would hope.

They could stick with the 165 DMUs on the Paddington to Reading
locals. It would be very short sighted as they will be 25 years old
when Crossrail opens but any replacement costs a few years later would
not count against the Crossrail budget.

Crossrail - Transport Secretary's statement
 

On Jun 15, 11:18*pm, Neil Williams wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 13:14:30 -0700 (PDT), Andy
wrote:

Except for the extra Crossrail rolling stock needed to run the extra
twelve(ish) miles in each direction.

Offset by the EMUs not required to run the normal local service. If
they have any sense the Crossrail tunnel will be full size and any
EMU will fit - one would hope.


Except that I doubt Crossrail would want a mixed fleet running through
the central section, so extra Crossrail EMUs would need to be ordered;
remember that the planned signalling system is ERTMS (cheaper to fit
to units designed for it than to cascaded class 319s) and the stock is
likely to have larger doorways than existing EMUs to aid loading and
unloading in the central section.

Crossrail - Transport Secretary's statement
 

On Jun 15, 11:18*pm, Neil Williams wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 13:14:30 -0700 (PDT), Andy
wrote:

Except for the extra Crossrail rolling stock needed to run the extra
twelve(ish) miles in each direction.

Offset by the EMUs not required to run the normal local service. If
they have any sense the Crossrail tunnel will be full size and any
EMU will fit - one would hope.

The Crossrail tunnels are going to be 'full size' - 6 metres in
diameter, with space for the OHLE too. However 'any old EMU' won't be
up to the job of a 24tph service in the core section - the trains will
be ATO in this bit, and they'll also need to be designed to cater for
the expected crowds (wide doors, suitable interior etc).

Crossrail - Transport Secretary's statement
 

Crossrail is already needed to relieve the eastern end of the Central
line, recession or not.

I did not know that was the case. In previous recessions the crush on
the TfL Central Line has eased.

Is there evidence of much of a drop? Anecdotally, I haven't found the
journey any more pleasant....!

Crossrail - Transport Secretary's statement
 

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
.net...
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 13:14:30 -0700 (PDT), Andy wrote:
Except for the extra Crossrail rolling stock needed to run the extra
twelve(ish) miles in each direction.

Offset by the EMUs not required to run the normal local service. If they
have any sense the Crossrail tunnel will be full size and any EMU will
fit - one would hope.

It is full 'UK main line 'size - (best make that clear before people start
asking for double decker trains that won't fit any of the extensions over NR
or into Heathrow)...

Paul S

Crossrail - Transport Secretary's statement
 

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 10:49:25 +0100
"Paul Scott" wrote:
It is full 'UK main line 'size - (best make that clear before people start
asking for double decker trains that won't fit any of the extensions over NR
or into Heathrow)...

There is always talk talk talk of increasing loading gauge , yet whenever
any new track is built or rebuilt its always to the UK loading gauge.
Talk about lack of foresight.

B2003

Crossrail - Transport Secretary's statement
 

On 16 June, 11:01, wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 10:49:25 +0100

"Paul Scott" wrote:
It is full 'UK main line 'size - (best make that clear before people start
asking for double decker trains that won't fit any of the extensions over NR
or into Heathrow)...

There is always talk talk talk of increasing loading gauge , yet whenever
any new track is built or rebuilt its always to the UK loading gauge.
Talk about lack of foresight.


The central London tunnels will be built to an increased loading
gauge. The planned running tunnel diameter of 6.2m is nearly as large
as the 6.3m RER tunnels in Paris and certainly big enough for most
continental stock.

Information about the tunnels is he

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/company/c...els-contracts1

Crossrail - Transport Secretary's statement
 

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 01:11:10PM -0700, Andy wrote:

Well, as Crossrail isn't due to open until 2017 even without delays;
it's most likely that the economy will have sufficiently recovered to
use the capacity that will be provided.

The capacity could be used RIGHT NOW, judging by the crowds on London's
publis transport even during this recession.

--
David Cantrell | A machine for turning tea into grumpiness

You can't spell "slaughter" without "laughter"

Crossrail - Transport Secretary's statement
 

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 04:08:39 -0700 (PDT)
Andy wrote:
The central London tunnels will be built to an increased loading
gauge. The planned running tunnel diameter of 6.2m is nearly as large
as the 6.3m RER tunnels in Paris and certainly big enough for most
continental stock.

Its nice to be proved wrong sometimes. Lets hope they don't just do something
silly like string up the catenary really low or put a load of trackside
furniture in that precludes UIC gauge trains in the future.

B2003

Crossrail - Transport Secretary's statement
 

On Jun 16, 12:39*pm, wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 04:08:39 -0700 (PDT)
Andy wrote:
The central London tunnels will be built to an increased loading
gauge. The planned running tunnel diameter of 6.2m is nearly as large
as the 6.3m RER tunnels in Paris and certainly big enough for most
continental stock.

Its nice to be proved wrong sometimes. Lets hope they don't just do something
silly like string up the catenary really low or put a load of trackside
furniture in that precludes UIC gauge trains in the future.

Sorry Boltar but the above doesn't compute... *how* can you be
wrong?! ;)

Crossrail - Transport Secretary's statement
 

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 05:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
Mizter T wrote:
Its nice to be proved wrong sometimes. Lets hope they don't just do somet=
hing
silly like string up the catenary really low or put a load of trackside
furniture in that precludes UIC gauge trains in the future.

Sorry Boltar but the above doesn't compute... *how* can you be
wrong?! ;)

I can scarely believe it myself though I did wonder what the day would
bring when I saw a cow jump over a blue moon last night.

Anyway , they haven't started boring them yet. Lets see if they stick to 6.2m
or reduce it on cost grounds!

B2003

Crossrail - Transport Secretary's statement
 

On Jun 16, 2:07*pm, wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 05:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
Mizter T wrote:

Its nice to be proved wrong sometimes. Lets hope they don't just do
do something silly like string up the catenary really low or put a load
of trackside furniture in that precludes UIC gauge trains in the future.

Sorry Boltar but the above doesn't compute... *how* can you be
wrong?! ;)

I can scarely believe it myself though I did wonder what the day would
bring when I saw a cow jump over a blue moon last night.

Anyway , they haven't started boring them yet. Lets see if they stick to 6.2m
or reduce it on cost grounds!

Ever the cynic!

(And ssshhh - don't give them ideas!)

Crossrail - Transport Secretary's statement
 

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010, Paul Corfield wrote:

It might be that the programme to do the civils work is done to the
original schedule and then you phase the fit out and commissioning more
slowly. This may also allow any rolling stock procurement to be put back
so that co-ordination with Thameslink (common fleet) can be achieved and
the supplier has a long production run but the cost is spread /
financing made easier.

Are the requirements for the trains for TL and CR similar enough for a
common fleet to be possible? Apart from the whole dual-power thing, which
i assume would be easy enough to leave off the CR trains (maybe except a
few, so there's a reserve that could be used for TL at short notice). What
about seating plan? That could be varied between batches, S-stock style,
if necessary. What about the engines and suspension? What about
signalling? TL isn't using ERTMS, right?

Essentially, are the lines similar enough in the services they will run
and the infrastructure they will run over that they can actually share
stock?

tom

--
Brace yourself for an engulfing, cowardly autotroph! I want your
photosynthetic apparatii!

Crossrail - Transport Secretary's statement
 

On 16 June, 14:44, Mizter T wrote:
On Jun 16, 2:07*pm, wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 05:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
Mizter T wrote:

Its nice to be proved wrong sometimes. Lets hope they don't just do
do something silly like string up the catenary really low or put a load
of trackside furniture in that precludes UIC gauge trains in the future.

Sorry Boltar but the above doesn't compute... *how* can you be
wrong?! ;)

I can scarely believe it myself though I did wonder what the day would
bring when I saw a cow jump over a blue moon last night.

Anyway , they haven't started boring them yet. Lets see if they stick to 6.2m
or reduce it on cost grounds!

Ever the cynic!

(And ssshhh - don't give them ideas!)

It'd probably cost a considerable amount of money to redesign the
tunnels to a different size and think of all the contracts which would
have to be altered!!

Crossrail - Transport Secretary's statement
 

On Jun 16, 3:39*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010, Paul Corfield wrote:
It might be that the programme to do the civils work is done to the
original schedule and then you phase the fit out and commissioning more
slowly. This may also allow any rolling stock procurement to be put back
so that co-ordination with Thameslink (common fleet) can be achieved and
the supplier has a long production run but the cost is spread /
financing made easier.

Are the requirements for the trains for TL and CR similar enough for a
common fleet to be possible? Apart from the whole dual-power thing, which
i assume would be easy enough to leave off the CR trains (maybe except a
few, so there's a reserve that could be used for TL at short notice). What
about seating plan? That could be varied between batches, S-stock style,
if necessary. What about the engines and suspension? What about
signalling? TL isn't using ERTMS, right?

Essentially, are the lines similar enough in the services they will run
and the infrastructure they will run over that they can actually share
stock?

It's not so much sharing stock as such, just that a common fleet for
both routes could be purchased at the same time. The exact
specifications for the stock for each route could be different, e.g.
internal layout, or obviously dual-power or not. Also the central
section of Crossrail will be ATO - AIUI the original plan for
Thameslink 3000 was for the core section to be ATO too, so as to make
24tph 'doable' (though I recall some saying that the sub-surface LU
lines can manage similar headways with conventional signalling - well,
I might suggest they only sort of manage it! - but I'm no expert on
signalling), however received wisdom seems to suggest that ATO might
well be cut from the Thameslink Programme, and for the headway in the
core section to reduce to 20tph.

(If new Thameslink stock was designed to be 'ATO-ready', then ATO
could come at a later date when required.)

Crossrail - Transport Secretary's statement
 

On Jun 16, 12:14*am, Martin Petrov
wrote:
Crossrail is already needed to relieve the eastern end of the Central
line, recession or not.

I did not know that was the case. *In previous recessions the crush on
the TfL Central Line has eased.

Is there evidence of much of a drop? Anecdotally, I haven't found the
journey any more pleasant....!

My boots are not on that particular piece of ground. According to
others posting here there is no noticeable reduction. So my
assumption was wrong.

Back in the early nineties the UK had a severe economic slowdown.
Apparently, according my Essex based contacts; it was not hard to find
a seat on the Central Line, at Liverpool St, during the peak!

Crossrail - Transport Secretary's statement
 

On 16/06/2010 15:39, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010, Paul Corfield wrote:

It might be that the programme to do the civils work is done to the
original schedule and then you phase the fit out and commissioning
more slowly. This may also allow any rolling stock procurement to be
put back so that co-ordination with Thameslink (common fleet) can be
achieved and the supplier has a long production run but the cost is
spread / financing made easier.

Are the requirements for the trains for TL and CR similar enough for a
common fleet to be possible? Apart from the whole dual-power thing,
which i assume would be easy enough to leave off the CR trains (maybe
except a few, so there's a reserve that could be used for TL at short
notice). What about seating plan? That could be varied between batches,
S-stock style, if necessary. What about the engines and suspension? What
about signalling? TL isn't using ERTMS, right?

I don't think they will have any engines :)

AIUI the intention would be to leave open the possibility of using the
same basic body shells, traction equipment, etc, to get a better unit
price, but still have the choice of different internal layouts and
fittings - things like seats, luggage racks. Crossrail won't have
tiolets but Thameslink will.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Crossrail - Transport Secretary's statement
 

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 09:29:06 -0700 (PDT), E27002
wrote:

On Jun 16, 12:14*am, Martin Petrov
wrote:
Crossrail is already needed to relieve the eastern end of the Central
line, recession or not.

I did not know that was the case. *In previous recessions the crush on
the TfL Central Line has eased.

Is there evidence of much of a drop? Anecdotally, I haven't found the
journey any more pleasant....!

My boots are not on that particular piece of ground. According to
others posting here there is no noticeable reduction. So my
assumption was wrong.

Back in the early nineties the UK had a severe economic slowdown.
Apparently, according my Essex based contacts; it was not hard to find
a seat on the Central Line, at Liverpool St, during the peak!

I personally doubt that observation - even from the 1990s. The tube's
ridership has grown considerably since the 1990s and despite a dip over
the last year or so it is higher than it was back in the 1990s. The AM
peak had, before the recent recession, spread to start prior to 0700 in
the suburbs and was getting earlier by the week. I know that simply from
travelling at that time and seeing the increased ridership / reduced
likelihood of a seat with my own eyes.

I do not travel in the height of the peak very often but it is
horrendous. There are many reports of it taking between 5 - 7 trains
before people can board at Bethnal Green with similar waits at Liverpool
Street on the Central Line.

Here is a link to a photo taken this morning in the AM peak - not by me
- of people waiting for a sub surface train at Liverpool Street LUL.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/teflon/4705957181/

You will note it is about 8 people deep on the platform. This is not
unusual and I'd venture to suggest that the Central Line is worse than
this. I also don't recall there being any sort of service disruption
this morning which would have caused such a massive crowd.

--
Paul C