I've just skim-read the Montague Report, finally available four months
late at:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C168319D8

It raises various concerns over the way Cross London Rail Links Ltd
(CLRL) have costed the project, highlighting both overestimates and
underestimates.

It analysed 6 different route options:
Option 1: Paddington to Shenfield and the Isle of Dogs
Option 2: Paddington to Shenfield and Abbey Wood
Option 3: Paddington to Shenfield and Ebbsfleet
Option 4: Heathrow, Maidenhead and Paddington to Shenfield and Ebbsfleet
Option 5: Heathrow, Maidenhead, Kingston and Paddington to Shenfield and
Ebbsfleet
Option 6: Heathrow, Maidenhead and Paddington to Shenfield and the Isle
of Dogs (variant
of Option 4)

They found Option 5 to have the highest cost-benefit ratio at 2.14:1
although seemed to prefer Option 4 at 1.97:1 since it was cheaper with
fewer operational issues and avoiding residential backlash on the
Kingston route.

I was rather surprised to hear about Maidenhead; apparently it was a
late addition to CLRL's plans (after Kingston), although the first I
heard of it was about 4 hours ago.

The other main concerns the report raised were that the complexity of
the branches meant that the proposed 24tph through the core section was
unachievable given that it would require Crossrail trains to arrive at
Network Rail "interfaces" on time (within 5 mins) over 95% of the time.
I think this assumed that Crossrail would not be segregated on any of
the branches except Shenfield.

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