Crossrail link to Reading hangs in the balance

In message <x6ednTjamKDr9OzanZ2dnUVZ8vqdnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk >, at
20:34:52 on Tue, 25 Dec 2007, Dave <d@p.com> 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 <rol...@perry.co.uk> 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
<7595cc75-d8b9-4f00-82e5-a1e93d964b11@i72g2000hsd..com>, at
04:58:25 on Wed, 26 Dec 2007, D7666 <d7666@m> 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

"Adrian the Rock" <adrian@roscalen.com> wrote in message
news:47725881.1679500@news.
> "Dave" <d@p.com> 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, adr...@roscalen.com (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

In message
<f281ac1c-53e9-49b7-a728-08ab6673a654@q77g2000hsh..com>, at
08:46:24 on Thu, 27 Dec 2007, Paul Weaver <usenet@isorox.co.uk>
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

Colin McKenzie wrote:
> Adrian the Rock wrote:
>> "Dave" <d@p.com> 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.

Then you'll be disappointed. The planned Crossrail timetable involves
some trains non-stopping certain stations west of Paddington in order to
leave paths for some west-of-Maidenhead FGW trains on the relief lines.
I don't see anything wrong with that. Why do you think that, say, Acton
Main Line or Hanwell must have the same frequency of service as Ealing
Broadway?
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007, Adrian the Rock wrote:

> 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.

Quite true: better to have something small but certain you can build on
than castles in the air.

> 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.

The less obvious but (IMNERHO) even better idea is to assimilate the
Hammersmith & City line west of Paddington. It improves the service there,
and also simplifies the sub-surface lines, allowing them to run a more
reliable service too. Gauge issues etc, though.

tom

--
Is this the only way to get through to you?

In message
<15a88345-a97f-46d4-b9d0-91782ef5dd26@l6g2000prm..com>, Mr
Thant <maha.thray.sithu.u.thant@> writes

>> Could they not just transfer that bit back to the District line using a few
>> more of the new S stock to provide the traction, and up the Picc frequency
>> to Heathrow?
>
>But then you'd have to take trains away from the other District
>branches, or find more capacity further east. Rumour is that the
>District Ealing Broadway and Piccadilly Uxbridge branches will swap
>over at some point, but I don't think this plan has any official
>status.

Having asked this question at work I've been advised that there is no
substance to it at all - just somebody's theory that has grown legs on
t'internet it seems.
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

On Dec 26, 5:42 am, adr...@roscalen.com (Adrian the Rock) 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.
>
> Adie

There are two issues with this idea. Firstly it would mean an
expensive electrification of the route to Aylesbury by way of Prices
Risborough.

Secondly, there is the Birmingham service to consider. It would
either have to remain a DMU operation with many miles under the wire,
or would have to terminate at Risborough or High Wycombe.

Adrian