I'm amazed no-one has yet mentioned the Future of Transport paper and
statement by our Darling today.

Crossrail has been approved, with a Hybrid Bill to deposited in
parliament as soon as possible - BUT funding has NOT yet been agreed.
The government "will work with the Mayor and London businesses" to agree
funding.

Perhaps more positively, the East London Line Extensions, which already
have planning permission, now also have a funding agreement - TfL's
£2.9bn borrowing plans for the period up to 2009/10 have been approved.
These plans include construction of the ELLX so we can be reasonably
sure that this project is going ahead.

The borrowing plans also cover the DLR extension to Woolwich, DLR
capacity enhancement, East London Transit and Greenwich Waterfront
Transit, which therefore all have the go-ahead subject to successful
consultation.

In other news, everyone else in the country is going to be extremely
upset at London as tram projects in Manchester, Leeds and South
Hampshire have been axed. The only real good news for them is that local
authorities will be given greater bus franchising powers.

I should also mention national road user pricing - DfT wants to develop
it on a local level before going national with it (although that could
take 15 years' time anyway).

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, Dave Arquati wrote:

Crossrail has been approved, with a Hybrid Bill to deposited in
parliament as soon as possible

Do we know anything more about the details of the route, or will we have
to wait for the bill for that? Or is it pretty much decided now?

No mention of Crossrail 2, i take it ...

tom

--
I know you wanna try and get away, but it's the hardest thing you'll ever know

Tom Anderson wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, Dave Arquati wrote:


Crossrail has been approved, with a Hybrid Bill to deposited in
parliament as soon as possible


Do we know anything more about the details of the route, or will we have
to wait for the bill for that? Or is it pretty much decided now?

No route confirmation yet; I've just posted about the Montague Report
which seems to prefer Heathrow & Maidenhead to Shenfield & Ebbsfleet
(i.e. getting rid of Kingston and having Maidenhead instead). I
personally doubt the Kingston branch will survive; it's expensive and
appears to be unpopular - in fact it appears to be producing the only
true opposition to Crossrail.

No mention of Crossrail 2, i take it ...

Nope - I don't think even CLRL realistically believe this will happen
anytime soon. The main reason the SRA support the Kingston branch is for
relief to Waterloo, so I don't think they believe it will happen either.
It's hard enough to build Crossrail 1 (and Thameslink 2000).

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Dave Arquati wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, Dave Arquati wrote:

Crossrail has been approved, with a Hybrid Bill to deposited in
parliament as soon as possible

Do we know anything more about the details of the route, or will
we have to wait for the bill for that? Or is it pretty much
decided now?

No route confirmation yet; I've just posted about the Montague
Report which seems to prefer Heathrow & Maidenhead to Shenfield &
Ebbsfleet (i.e. getting rid of Kingston and having Maidenhead
instead).

Darling latched on to this in his statement today: "On the basis of the
Review's work, it is clear that the case for a limb to Richmond/Kingston
is relatively weakly developed, and that an extension on the western
side to Maidenhead might provide a better solution. This would be a key
change, and would align directly with key Review concerns about the
scale and deliverability of the project and number of interfaces it has
with the national railway."

Incidentally, I don't think it's a case of Maidenhead instead of
Kingston. The difficulties of getting BAA to give up HEx and of sharing
tracks with FGWL's slower diesel trains have led CLRL to develop the
Maidenhead proposal, using trains that would otherwise have reversed at
Paddington.

I personally doubt the Kingston branch will survive; it's
expensive and appears to be unpopular - in fact it appears to be
producing the only true opposition to Crossrail.

There is some opposition to it, mainly in Richmond and to some extent in
Chiswick, but I wouldn't say it was "unpopular" in general. Also,
Montague shows that it has an excellent benefit/cost ratio. But I agree
that it may well not survive (like it's main supporter, the SRA).

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

In message , Richard J.
writes

Darling latched on to this in his statement today: "On the basis of the
Review's work, it is clear that the case for a limb to Richmond/Kingston
is relatively weakly developed, and that an extension on the western
side to Maidenhead might provide a better solution. This would be a key
change, and would align directly with key Review concerns about the
scale and deliverability of the project and number of interfaces it has
with the national railway."

Incidentally, I don't think it's a case of Maidenhead instead of
Kingston. The difficulties of getting BAA to give up HEx and of sharing
tracks with FGWL's slower diesel trains have led CLRL to develop the
Maidenhead proposal, using trains that would otherwise have reversed at
Paddington.

Surely once you're running trains to Maidenhead, it would make sense to
extend them a couple of stops to Reading, where there's a far greater
range of connections and plenty of bay platforms to terminate them.
--
Spyke
Address is valid, but messages are treated as junk. The opinions I express do
not necessarily reflect those of the educational institution from which I post.

In message , Spyke
writes
Surely once you're running trains to Maidenhead, it would make sense to
extend them a couple of stops to Reading, where there's a far greater
range of connections and plenty of bay platforms to terminate them.

The problem is the extra cost of the electrification. Presumably it's
not regarded as cost effective to extend it from the Heathrow branch to
Maidenhead *and* beyond to Reading (although I'm sure the very first
Crossrail proposals *did* have that as an option).
--
Roland Perry

Spyke wrote in message ...
In message , Richard J.
writes
Incidentally, I don't think it's a case of Maidenhead instead of
Kingston. The difficulties of getting BAA to give up HEx and of sharing
tracks with FGWL's slower diesel trains have led CLRL to develop the
Maidenhead proposal, using trains that would otherwise have reversed at
Paddington.

Surely once you're running trains to Maidenhead, it would make sense to
extend them a couple of stops to Reading, where there's a far greater
range of connections and plenty of bay platforms to terminate them.

Personally I think its a pity that crossrail isn't go to be more of a self
contained system because if that was the case the hopeless british loading
gauge could be tossed out the window and some seriously large wide and/or
double decked trains used. Ah well , maybe one day...

B2003

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 20:05:34 +0100, Dave Arquati
wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote:
No mention of Crossrail 2, i take it ...

Nope - I don't think even CLRL realistically believe this will happen
anytime soon. The main reason the SRA support the Kingston branch is for
relief to Waterloo, so I don't think they believe it will happen either.
It's hard enough to build Crossrail 1 (and Thameslink 2000).

So what *was* mentioned on Thameslink 2000?

Sam
--
Sam Holloway, Cambridge

Sam Holloway wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 20:05:34 +0100, Dave Arquati
wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

No mention of Crossrail 2, i take it ...

Nope - I don't think even CLRL realistically believe this will happen
anytime soon. The main reason the SRA support the Kingston branch is for
relief to Waterloo, so I don't think they believe it will happen either.
It's hard enough to build Crossrail 1 (and Thameslink 2000).


So what *was* mentioned on Thameslink 2000?

Sam

Absolutely nothing - which doesn't bode well. In fact Thameslink isn't
mentioned once in the entire 138-page DfT report.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Dave Arquati wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, Dave Arquati wrote:


Crossrail has been approved, with a Hybrid Bill to deposited in
parliament as soon as possible


Do we know anything more about the details of the route, or will we have
to wait for the bill for that? Or is it pretty much decided now?

No route confirmation yet; I've just posted about the Montague Report
which seems to prefer Heathrow & Maidenhead to Shenfield & Ebbsfleet
(i.e. getting rid of Kingston and having Maidenhead instead). I
personally doubt the Kingston branch will survive; it's expensive and
appears to be unpopular - in fact it appears to be producing the only
true opposition to Crossrail.

ISTR recently reading that there's some opposition from Tower Hamlets
residents.

No mention of Crossrail 2, i take it ...

Nope - I don't think even CLRL realistically believe this will happen
anytime soon. The main reason the SRA support the Kingston branch is for
relief to Waterloo, so I don't think they believe it will happen either.
It's hard enough to build Crossrail 1 (and Thameslink 2000).

That it's not going to happen is mainly down to those incompetent
buffoons known as CLRL, who have pushed the costs to astronomical levels
without a corresponding increase in benefits.