On Mar 25, 5:01*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Andy wrote:
On Mar 25, 8:00*am, The Real Doctor wrote:
On 24 Mar, 23:10, Adrian wrote:

On Mar 24, 4:00 pm, Dan G wrote:
Anyone seen a more detailed costing of the scheme? *Why* is it costing
so much more than other, not dissimilar, projects?

In part it will cost a lot because it will be (or should be)
engineered to a very high standard. *The Jubilee Line extension is a
pointer in that respect.

But it is predicted to cost more than five times as much as the
Jubilee Line extension ...

You have clearly never lived in a city where good spacious (1,000 sq
ft per person) affordable housing is available to middle class
workers. *Or, enjoyed one where a normal comfortable journey to work
is 40 minutes or less.

And how many people do you think will find good, spacious, affordable
housing as a result of this line. It'll knock quarter of an hour,
tops, off the journey onto London - are those fifteen minutes really
deterring millions from moving to good, spacious, affordable housing?

But wasn't the main justification for crossrail the relief of the
overcrowding already present on existing lines, as well as allowing
for predicted growth. It will take a fair number of people off the
Central line (and other Underground lines) as well as providing extra
capacity on the National Rail lines to either side.

Except it won't. It will relieve the Central line west of Stratford, for
sure, which in practice means Stratford to Oxford Circus. But it doesn't
actually add any capacity at all to the Great Eastern or Western railways
- every path that Crossrail will use is currently used by a normal train.
Crossrail trains will be a bit longer, but you could deliver the same
capacity increase by adapting those lines for longer trains without the
central tunnel bit for a lot less money.


It will also relieve the Circle, Met, H&C, the Bakerloo and the
Jubilee, at least. If you look back, the relief of already overcrowed
underground lines was always the main reason behind the plans. The
services to/from the West will gain a considerable increase in
capacity, with 10 car trains replacing the current shorter DMUs. The
services to/from the East will generally also gain in train length, as
the stopping trains are mostly (all?) eight cars.

The fact that it will reduce journey times is an added benefit, but not
the main justification for the construction.

It also won't reduce journey times much. Trips you can make with Crossrail
can currently be made with train plus Central line via quite easy changes
at Stratford or Ealing Broadway (or more painful ones at Liverpool Street
or Paddington, after a quicker run to the terminal). It will make the
trips a lot more convenient by eliminating those changes, but not hugely
faster.


There will certainly be faster journey times on the western side, as
the EMUs will accelerate considerably better than the Turbos and with
all (at least during the peak) trains being of the same type pathing
will be slightly easier. There is also the consideration of having to
leave time for delays on the underground when heading home. A change
of train at either Ealing or Paddington means having to pad your
journey a fair amount. I do agree that this is less of a problem on
the Eastern side though.

Don't forget that the capacity doesn't just deal with the trains, but
the space needed at the stations for interchange. A fair amount of the
costs of Crossrail stations in central london will be needed anyway as
the current underground stations can't cope. Oxford Circus is
sometimes closed due to overcrowding, and Tottenham Court Road always
a bit of a nightmare to get around, even off peak.

tom

--
I believe there is no philosophical high-road in science, with
epistemological signposts. No, we are in a jungle and find our way by
trial and error, building our road behind us as we proceed. -- Max Born

On 25 Mar, 16:59, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 16:36:51 on
Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Grumpy Old Man
remarked:

The London 2012 Olympics will cost £18bn, is that essential?

Is it even correct? The bill for the infrastructure is £4.8bn

The total cost to the public purse is currently estimated at £9.325bn.

Source- DCMS December 2007 press release:
http://www.culture.gov.uk/Reference_...et_10dec07.htm
or via http://tinyurl.com/3bp5dm


Is that any
less bankrupting then Crossrail?

An utter waste of money.

And there's an estimated £6Bn benefit, so I'm not as pessimistic as you
are.


Depends upon how you measure the various benefits of course, and the
difficulty of quantifying them in monetary terms.

I remain a supporter of the 2012 Games, I think it'll do a lot of good
in a great many different ways.

In message
, at
10:47:51 on Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Mizter T remarked:

The London 2012 Olympics will cost £18bn, is that essential?

Is it even correct? The bill for the infrastructure is £4.8bn

The total cost to the public purse is currently estimated at £9.325bn.

Of which 4.8bn is for the infrastructure, and only 6Bn is directly
attributable to the ODA. So where does the £18Bn come from??

Source- DCMS December 2007 press release:
http://www.culture.gov.uk/Reference_...archive_2007/d
cms_TJ-odabaselinebudget_10dec07.htm
or via http://tinyurl.com/3bp5dm


Is that any
less bankrupting then Crossrail?

An utter waste of money.

And there's an estimated £6Bn benefit, so I'm not as pessimistic as you
are.

Depends upon how you measure the various benefits of course, and the
difficulty of quantifying them in monetary terms.

They aren't going to bulldoze the stadiums and village, or undo the
public transport improvements. And some money will come from ticket
sales and TV rights, and the slightly less quantifiable "tourism"
aspect.

I remain a supporter of the 2012 Games, I think it'll do a lot of good
in a great many different ways.

I'm disappointed they aren't doing the rowing in Nottingham - I could
have walked to the venue!
--
Roland Perry

In message
Mizter T wrote:


On 25 Mar, 16:59, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 16:36:51 on
Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Grumpy Old Man
remarked:

The London 2012 Olympics will cost £18bn, is that essential?

Is it even correct? The bill for the infrastructure is £4.8bn

The total cost to the public purse is currently estimated at £9.325bn.

Source- DCMS December 2007 press release:
http://www.culture.gov.uk/Reference_...et_10dec07.htm
or via http://tinyurl.com/3bp5dm


Is that any
less bankrupting then Crossrail?

An utter waste of money.

And there's an estimated £6Bn benefit, so I'm not as pessimistic as you
are.


Depends upon how you measure the various benefits of course, and the
difficulty of quantifying them in monetary terms.

I remain a supporter of the 2012 Games, I think it'll do a lot of good
in a great many different ways.

Well it will certainly help the pharmaceutical industry and the modern
equivalents of CMOT Dibbler but I'm not sure what good a celebration of
cheating and corruption is going to do.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

In article ,
Adrian wrote:

On Mar 24, 3:25=A0pm, The Real Doctor wrote:
It can't be essential to London's ongoing function, because that's
ongoing without Crossrail. Perhaps you meant "future development" -
but even then, I'd like to see some convincing proof that it's really
going to be worth spending =A316bn on.

Ian

If you believe that Europe's financial center should be in Germany,
then you should oppose Crossrail.

Should we be thinking of a financial *centre* at all? It seems such a 19th
century idea...

Cat.

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:24:50 +0000, Jane Sullivan
wrote:

In message , Neil Williams
writes
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 08:58:47 +0000, Jane Sullivan
wrote:

And if those employees lost their jobs, then that would take several
billion pounds out of the local economy of the south-east and, by
extension, Britain.

But why would they lose their jobs if Crossrail didn't happen?

They'd lose their jobs if the financial centre of Europe moved out of
London to Frankfurt.

So - learn German and move to Frankfurt.

Lower cost of + higher standard of living for the sake of making a
little linguistic effort.

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:24:50 +0000, Jane Sullivan
wrote:

But why would they lose their jobs if Crossrail didn't happen?

They'd lose their jobs if the financial centre of Europe moved out of
London to Frankfurt.

That they might. But I fail to see why that would happen purely on
account of the construction or otherwise of a single railway line.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:38:58 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

Do you propose that further growth of London is feasible, then?

I'd say it was inevitable.

I'd say we should be doing our utmost to avoid it, unless it is things
that can go on only in London.

This is true, though the difference between rents and mortgages in
many places suggests that there is not a correct balance.

Which means?

It is vastly cheaper to rent than buy on a monthly basis in many
places these days. Certainly, in Milton Keynes one would pay about
£500 per month to rent a one-bed flat but £700-800 per month to
purchase it using a repayment mortgage. The main reason for this is
that there is a glut of rental property on the market. Given the
limited amount of property, this will necessarily cause purchase
prices to rise.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

"Neil Williams" wrote

It is vastly cheaper to rent than buy on a monthly basis in many
places these days. Certainly, in Milton Keynes one would pay about
£500 per month to rent a one-bed flat but £700-800 per month to
purchase it using a repayment mortgage. The main reason for this is
that there is a glut of rental property on the market. Given the
limited amount of property, this will necessarily cause purchase
prices to rise.

If the owners of buy to rent property start to think that property sale
prices have stopped rising they will sell and invest the money elsewhere -
this will increase the stock of sale property and bring prices down, while
reducing the stock of rental property pushing rental costs up.

Peter

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:24:50 +0000, Jane Sullivan
wrote:

But why would they lose their jobs if Crossrail didn't happen?

They'd lose their jobs if the financial centre of Europe moved out of
London to Frankfurt.

That they might. But I fail to see why that would happen purely on
account of the construction or otherwise of a single railway line.

or even on the construction or otherwise of another airport runway.

peter