On Aug 2, 10:28 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
I'm not sure this view is correct. Surely the way Crossrail trains will be
sharing tracks on existing routes to Maidenhead, Shenfield and Abbey Wood,is just like Thameslink; the only main difference is their central London tunnel will be new, not secondhand...

There was a prolonged and at some stages heated debate about whether
Crossrail should be built as full gauge inner city metro or be
extended into the London surburban area. Destinations such as High
Wycombe, Reading and Oxford were considered together with beyond
Ebbsfleet siggestions

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/sq...007%202005.htm

Uncle Roger covered the debate in the above article from the archive
section of Informed Sources Alcydon Rail.

The need to contain costs by containing risk won the day. It was
suggested that the further Crossrail Trains went out into the country
the greater was the possibility of knock on delays which would then
affect the core central section - as happens from time to time with
Thamesink. When the Crossrail Bill was introduced in Parliament there
was a major row raised by those MPs whose constituencies fell just
outside the Crossrail area especially from the honourable members for
Reading. Now that Reading Station rebuild has been addressed in the
HLOS there may a case for reviewing the case for wires beyond
Maidenhead and minimising the dislocation effects of construction -
although having seen the results of the Portsmouth blockade now might
be a good to hide behind a barricade.

Maybe I dreamed it, but didn't I read somewhere in the White Paper or
its supporting material that the building/operation of the central
tunnel will be handed over to Network Rail?