Crossrail Update

According to Private Eye, the ‘it's all gone quiet’ surrounding the
Crossrail project is due to the treasury having not yet signed off on
it.

Rumour is they won’t either and that the DfT is working furiously on a
cut down cheaper version involving tube size tunnels.

Perhaps with the current financial crisis, it’s not anticipated that
quite so many will be commuting to the City in future years.

On Sep 24, 5:13 pm, allan tracy <thunderbird57...@m> wrote:
> According to Private Eye, the ‘it's all gone quiet’ surrounding the
> Crossrail project is due to the treasury having not yet signed off on
> it.
>
> Rumour is they won’t either and that the DfT is working furiously on a
> cut down cheaper version involving tube size tunnels.
>
> Perhaps with the current financial crisis, it’s not anticipated that
> quite so many will be commuting to the City in future years.

They don't need tube size tunnels just cut back on all the nonsense
away from the tunnels. The simple ability to interconnect existing
suburban services east-west and relieve the tubes is the main aim
surely?

George

furnessvale wrote:
> On Sep 24, 5:13 pm, allan tracy <thunderbird57...@m> wrote:
>> According to Private Eye, the ‘it's all gone quiet’ surrounding the
>> Crossrail project is due to the treasury having not yet signed off on
>> it.
>>
>> Rumour is they won’t either and that the DfT is working furiously on a
>> cut down cheaper version involving tube size tunnels.
>>
>> Perhaps with the current financial crisis, it’s not anticipated that
>> quite so many will be commuting to the City in future years.
>
> They don't need tube size tunnels just cut back on all the nonsense
> away from the tunnels. The simple ability to interconnect existing
> suburban services east-west and relieve the tubes is the main aim
> surely?
>
> George

Nonsense like putting wires up from airport junction to Maidenhead?

On Sep 24, 5:13 pm, allan tracy <thunderbird57...@m> wrote:
> According to Private Eye, the ‘it's all gone quiet’ surrounding the
> Crossrail project is due to the treasury having not yet signed off on
> it.
>
> Rumour is they won’t either and that the DfT is working furiously on a
> cut down cheaper version involving tube size tunnels.
>
> Perhaps with the current financial crisis, it’s not anticipated that
> quite so many will be commuting to the City in future years.

Not sure I would rely on 'Private Eye' !

Anyway, would tube sized tunnels be much cheaper?

On Sep 24, 9:13 am, allan tracy <thunderbird57...@m> wrote:
> According to Private Eye, the ‘it's all gone quiet’ surrounding the
> Crossrail project is due to the treasury having not yet signed off on
> it.
>
> Rumour is they won’t either and that the DfT is working furiously on a
> cut down cheaper version involving tube size tunnels.
>
> Perhaps with the current financial crisis, it’s not anticipated that
> quite so many will be commuting to the City in future years.

This, if true, is very bad news. The day will come when Londonners
will regret it.

Adrian

On 24 Sep, 20:48, 1506 <adrian_auerhud...m> wrote:
> On Sep 24, 9:13 am, allan tracy <thunderbird57...@m> wrote:
>
> > According to Private Eye, the ‘it's all gone quiet’ surrounding the
> > Crossrail project is due to the treasury having not yet signed off on
> > it.
>
> > Rumour is they won’t either and that the DfT is working furiously on a
> > cut down cheaper version involving tube size tunnels.
>
> > Perhaps with the current financial crisis, it’s not anticipated that
> > quite so many will be commuting to the City in future years.
>
> This, if true, is very bad news. The day will come when Londonners
> will regret it.

Just remember that the current estimated cost of Crossrail is the same
as the Jubilee Line Extension (roughly the same length of tunnel,
twice as many stations) AND the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (same length
of tunnel plus 60 miles of track) AND the WCML works (revamp of 400+
route miles, Trent Valley quadrupling) PUT TOGETHER.

Ian

On Sep 24, 3:07 pm, The Real Doctor <ian.gro...@> wrote:
> On 24 Sep, 20:48, 1506 <adrian_auerhud...m> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 24, 9:13 am, allan tracy <thunderbird57...@m> wrote:
>
> > > According to Private Eye, the ‘it's all gone quiet’ surrounding the
> > > Crossrail project is due to the treasury having not yet signed off on
> > > it.
>
> > > Rumour is they won’t either and that the DfT is working furiously on a
> > > cut down cheaper version involving tube size tunnels.
>
> > > Perhaps with the current financial crisis, it’s not anticipated that
> > > quite so many will be commuting to the City in future years.
>
> > This, if true, is very bad news.  The day will come when Londonners
> > will regret it.
>
> Just remember that the current estimated cost of Crossrail is the same
> as the Jubilee Line Extension (roughly the same length of tunnel,
> twice as many stations) AND the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (same length
> of tunnel plus 60 miles of track) AND the WCML works (revamp of 400+
> route miles, Trent Valley quadrupling) PUT TOGETHER.
>
> Ian

That figure sounds high to me.

The passenger carryings on Crossrail may render it one of the world's
most utilized railway lines. It will not quite have the cappacity of
a Paris RER line.

IMHO there is not chioce Crossrail has to be built.

On Sep 24, 3:07 pm, The Real Doctor <ian.gro...@> wrote:
> On 24 Sep, 20:48, 1506 <adrian_auerhud...m> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 24, 9:13 am, allan tracy <thunderbird57...@m> wrote:
>
> > > According to Private Eye, the ‘it's all gone quiet’ surrounding the
> > > Crossrail project is due to the treasury having not yet signed off on
> > > it.
>
> > > Rumour is they won’t either and that the DfT is working furiously on a
> > > cut down cheaper version involving tube size tunnels.
>
> > > Perhaps with the current financial crisis, it’s not anticipated that
> > > quite so many will be commuting to the City in future years.
>
> > This, if true, is very bad news.  The day will come when Londonners
> > will regret it.
>
> Just remember that the current estimated cost of Crossrail is the same
> as the Jubilee Line Extension (roughly the same length of tunnel,
> twice as many stations) AND the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (same length
> of tunnel plus 60 miles of track) AND the WCML works (revamp of 400+
> route miles, Trent Valley quadrupling) PUT TOGETHER.
>
> Ian

That figure sounds high to me.

The passenger carryings on Crossrail may render it one of the world's
most utilized railway lines. It will not quite have the cappacity of
a Paris RER line.


IMHO, there is no choice, Crossrail has to be built.

"Boltar" <boltar2003.uk> wrote
>
>Would there be any point in a new east-west tube line? Does the
>central line need relieving much?

The initial motivation for a new east-west cross-London line, which was
developed into Crossrail, was the severe overcrowding of the Central Line,
especially between Stratford and Chancery Lane.

Peter

"Michael Bell" <michael@beaverbell.co.uk> wrote

> Pardon my innocence, but I always thought that once an Act of
> Parliament was passed, that was IT! It HAS to be done.
>
No - in the context of building railways the Act gives permission for the
railway to be built, and for compulsory purchase of the necessary land, but
it does not order HM Treasury or anyone else to hand over the necessary
funds. The 19th century is liiered with railway Acts that came to nothing
because the promoters could not raise the necessary capital.. Parliament
usually imposed a time limit - and many companies went back to Parliament,
some of them time and time again, for an extension of time. More recently,
British Rail obtained powers to build quite a number of lengths of railway
and never used them.

Peter