http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...nce/article.do

A decision on whether to extend the £16billion Crossrail scheme to Reading
will be made in the New Year, it emerged today.

Transport minister Tom Harris is looking at whether the cross-London rail
line can be linked to Reading without significantly increasing the cost of
the project.

The decision is understood to be "evenly balanced".

Construction on the long-delayed project will start in 2010 with the first
trains running in 2017.

The 74-mile route stretches from Maidenhead in the east to Canary Wharf and
beyond by way of Heathrow, the West End and the City.

With the scheme expected to benefit the economy by as much as £68billion
over the next few decades, Ministers have faced sustained lobbying from MPs
anxious for their constituencies to be linked to the route.

Extending the line to Reading could be done without having to amend the
Crossrail Bill, which has just passed through the House of Commons.

One possibility is to give the go ahead to the extension in principle but
not guaranteeing it will be built until finances are clearer.


D

In message , at
20:34:52 on Tue, 25 Dec 2007, Dave remarked:
One possibility is to give the go ahead to the extension in principle
but not guaranteeing it will be built until finances are clearer.

Isn't that the regime that all railway building projects operate under,
anyway? The SPILL box and several remaining bits of Thameslink spring to
mind, let alone any of the Crossrail scheme.
--
Roland Perry

On Dec 26, 1:27 am, Roland Perry wrote:

Isn't that the regime that all railway building projects operate under,
anyway? The SPILL box

The box was guaranteed.

The station was the bit that was funded later.

--
Nick

In message
, at
04:58:25 on Wed, 26 Dec 2007, D7666 remarked:
Isn't that the regime that all railway building projects operate under,
anyway? The SPILL box

The box was guaranteed.

The station was the bit that was funded later.

Exactly my point. They got the go-ahead to built the box on the
assumption that they'd be able to get funding for the fitout later.
Which in this case it did - but it's not always the case.
--
Roland Perry

"Dave" wrote:

A decision on whether to extend the £16billion Crossrail scheme to Reading
will be made in the New Year, it emerged today...

Good news that they're giving this question a second thought. I
suspect, however, that even if they decided to stick with Maidenhead
for the initial development, the case to extend to Reading
subsequently would be so compelling that it'd happen one way or the
other anyway.

I think sometimes it's better to start off with a finite, achieveable
project even if the case for bigger things seems powerful. Because
one thing often does lead to the next. The example I always think of
is Bed-Pan electrification - as soon as that was done a strong
business case for the original Thameslink project emerged.

The other extension to Crossrail that seems fairly obvious to me is to
extend the trains currently planned to terminate at Paddington up the
former GW&GC joint line. Bring the Old Oak - Northolt East line back
into proper use, rebuild the main line platforms at Greenford, making
this the first stop out of Padd, then run all-stations to Princes
Risboro and Aylesbury (some trains probably terminating at High
Wycombe). But this is clearly too extensive to be sensible to include
in the initial project.

Adie

"Adrian the Rock" wrote in message

"Dave" wrote:

The other extension to Crossrail that seems fairly obvious to me is to
extend the trains currently planned to terminate at Paddington up the
former GW&GC joint line. Bring the Old Oak - Northolt East line back
into proper use, rebuild the main line platforms at Greenford, making
this the first stop out of Padd, then run all-stations to Princes
Risboro and Aylesbury (some trains probably terminating at High
Wycombe). But this is clearly too extensive to be sensible to include
in the initial project.

Wasn't something like this in some of the earlier Crossrail iterations?
At one stage it was going to take over all Aylesbury services, as well
as Met services to Amersham.

On Dec 26, 5:42 am, (Adrian the Rock) wrote:

one thing often does lead to the next. The example I always think of
is Bed-Pan electrification - as soon as that was done a strong
business case for the original Thameslink project emerged.


Except that is not how it happened at all.

The 1990s Snow Hill link was a GLC driven idea simply to link
Blackfriars with Farringdon. It had very little to do with any BedPan
or subsequent TL development. TL2000 formed its own business case once
Snow Hill was in place - or at least under way.

--
Nick

On 25 Dec, 20:34, "Dave" wrote:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...-details/Cross...

A decision on whether to extend the £16billion Crossrail scheme to Reading
will be made in the New Year, it emerged today.

If it is, then presumably the current semifast services from Reading
will be relegated to all-stops, and there won't be much choice for
passangers from the Slough-Reading corridor -- a slow service, or
none at all. When I lived in Twyford there were fast services that
stopped maidenhead/burnham/taplow/slough/hayes/ealing/paddington, they
then added in west drayton, iver and langley when they stopped the
slough all-stops for Heathrow Connect, severly worsening service for
the Slough-Reading corridor. An all stops service will be painful,
especially as frequency won't increase.

If it isn't extended, then I can see the slow Oxford-Reading services
will call additionally at Twyford, Maidenhead, Slough, then move to
the main lines to Paddington, allowing cross/same platform changes to
crossrail at Slough. An extra stop at Hayes on an new platform (if
there were room) could allow better connections without holding up the
main line GWML services.

In message
, at
08:46:24 on Thu, 27 Dec 2007, Paul Weaver
remarked:
A decision on whether to extend the £16billion Crossrail scheme to Reading
will be made in the New Year, it emerged today.

If it is, then presumably the current semifast services from Reading
will be relegated to all-stops, and there won't be much choice for
passangers from the Slough-Reading corridor

Is that what another poster referred to in a different thread as "St
Alban-isation"? (I took this to be a reference to BedPan electrification
meaning mainline services no longer stopped there).
--
Roland Perry

Adrian the Rock wrote:
"Dave" wrote:
A decision on whether to extend the £16billion Crossrail scheme to Reading
will be made in the New Year, it emerged today...

Good news that they're giving this question a second thought. I
suspect, however, that even if they decided to stick with Maidenhead
for the initial development, the case to extend to Reading
subsequently would be so compelling that it'd happen one way or the
other anyway.

Big benefit of Crossrail is not having to change at current termini.
If you're far enough out, it's better to get a fast train to the
terminus and change anyway.

I hope the principle that Crossrail should be all-stations has been
established.

For journeys to/from London, this means Maidenhead is probably about
right. Reading is a big traffic-generator, and if it wants to fund the
extension, no problem.

If any trains are extended to Reading, though, I'd say it should be
the Heathrow ones, not the Maidenhead ones.

The other extension to Crossrail that seems fairly obvious to me is to
extend the trains currently planned to terminate at Paddington up the
former GW&GC joint line. Bring the Old Oak - Northolt East line back
into proper use, rebuild the main line platforms at Greenford, making
this the first stop out of Padd, then run all-stations to Princes
Risboro and Aylesbury

There should certainly be an extension along this line one day. But
possibly only as far as High Wycombe - Princes Risborough at most.
Aylesbury is on the wrong branch.

The principle of an all-stations service stands, so you'd need to give
serious thought to reallocating the Central Line tracks beyond about
Greenford. First stop out of Paddington should be North Acton, then
the new Park Royal interchange.

Capacity between Paddington and Old Oak Junction is a problem.

But this is clearly too extensive to be sensible to include
in the initial project.

Agreed. Let's get the central tunnel built first.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.