Crossrail

[Salif]

Hmm, Tories and cuts in public transport spending.........how terribly familiar.

Labour are bad, but the Tories will destroy what little this country has left.

Crossrail is needed, FACT!

[sotonsi]

Originally Posted by cle

Some do and some don't - I think Hong Kong and Japan's systems do, and London's breaks even but is down due to the backlog of maintenance (and accompanying loss of weekend revenue etc...).

And all those years of undercharging, especially once Oyster came. Now, I'm all for cheap PT, and don't think the tube needs to turn a profit, but you have to notice that it would make a profit if it charged the going rate.

I'm not sure if it could ever be profitable enough to meaningfully invest in expansion - even the congestion charge money hasn't bought too much, except fresh air carrying buses around Oxford St.

Congestion Charge costs nearly as much as it takes in to collect the money. It was too successful, hence why it went up to £8, else it would be loss-making.

You'd have thought it could at least have paid for the short Bakerloo extension to Camberwell, before deciding where it might go next!

Camberwell would probably be about £800 million. Not having the CC zone would give you something in the ball park of £80 million of that (after all the set up costs haven't been paid back - pretty much just paying operation costs and a little bit more for buses), the profit would give you about £8 million of that. It wasn't really a money making scheme - it was far more about politics (especially the western extension).

Originally Posted by Salif

Hmm, Tories and cuts in public transport spending.........how terribly familiar.

Labour are bad, but the Tories will destroy what little this country has left.

IIRC one of the first things Labour did was kill off most of the transport schemes in the country. They tried to blackmail Manchester in order for the city to get a lot of tram extensions and killed tram schemes in Leeds, Liverpool and South Hampshire. They greatly exacerbated the Tories privatisation, making the most out of PPP (I can't think of a major project that wasn't), which completely backfired with Metronet. They made Ken (even when he returned to Labour folds) really have to work to get funding for things such as Crossrail.

It took to the third term, when they realised that massively under-investing in transport was stupid and started doing minor improvements.

Are the Tories good - no, are Labour any better - no, they are pretty much same, if not worse.

Crossrail is needed, FACT!

but Labour have pretty much bankrupted the country. Crossrail is needed (though other schemes, and schools and hospitals and so on are needed more), but do we have the money to spend on it? Crossrail, if you remember, is such a big project that it took until the peak of the biggest bubble to get the OK, loads of little projects that have similar (or better) scale benefits for their cost had to be sacrificed on the altar of Crossrail, to the god of the Financial Industry, that has now betrayed us big time. On the other hand, it's now the area that needs a big boost (though surely the billions already given in bail outs count towards that) - after all, it's the only way our country can stay afloat in economic terms.

Sorry to get party political, but the Tories cancelling Crossrail would be the fault of Labour - firstly for not agreeing with Ken early on and funding it sooner (ie, a few years before our credit rating hit rock bottom and our national debt soared higher than the moon), secondly for pretty much bankrupting the country and leaving the Tories with no option. Labour's recent record is as bad as the Tories on funding transport infrastructure and if you go back 2 years, it was far worse.

[Sesquip]

Hong Kong's profit comes from owning the land above the stations, not the operating income of the railway itself. IIRC.

[sarflonlad]

When there was money around this should have been built and settled.

Spain went on a huge infrastructure binge. The UK didn't. Which country will have the infrastructure in place to revitalise its cities when the upturn comes?

However, given they now have route maps up around tott court road - to pull this would be a bit embarrassing for both TFL and Boris, a Tory.

[ChrisH]

Originally Posted by Sesquip

Hong Kong's profit comes from owning the land above the stations, not the operating income of the railway itself. IIRC.

Correct. Maintenance costs are also lower because it's not so old and decrepit as the Underground.

[Garth38]

Perhaps if the crossrail proposal was re-modelled on the current Thameslink upgrade (eg private train companies running multiple routes through central London) the costs could lowered because the tax payer wouldn't be AS responsible for the running of the trains?

It would also provide more options for rail travellers by allowing services from further a field to be run directly in Central London, Heathrow and Docklands. With the current rigid all stops service being built (its utter madness to have Maryland station still on the proposed route), I doubt very much we're going to see a huge rise in people commuting from Shenfield to Maidenhead. However if there was an express service from say Reading to Chelmsford surely that would help promote trade and travel between the two and so make crossrail far more value for its money as well as finally linking all the above together.

Provisions could even be made to include Standstead on one of the routes via Tottenham Hale and then Stratford?

[sotonsi]

Originally Posted by Garth38

Perhaps if the crossrail proposal was re-modelled on the current Thameslink upgrade (eg private train companies running multiple routes through central London) the costs could lowered because the tax payer wouldn't be AS responsible for the running of the trains?

err, I don't think there's any difference between Thameslink and Crossrail in terms of whose running the trains - OK, different franchises (maybe even a different franchisee, but I doubt it) but nothing else but that.

With the current rigid all stops service being built (its utter madness to have Maryland station still on the proposed route),

why is it utter madness? How would you serve Maryland without undermining the whole thing. Anyway, in the West (ie the non-metro bit) the service pattern isn't every stop.

I doubt very much we're going to see a huge rise in people commuting from Shenfield to Maidenhead.

No, it won't change commutes much - it will stop people changing onto the Central line at Stratford, and would allow better access to Docklands for North Kent and Thames Valley commuters.

However if there was an express service from say Reading to Chelmsford surely that would help promote trade and travel between the two and so make crossrail far more value for its money as well as finally linking all the above together.

But you can't do that and have metro services on the GEML, or relieve the Central line. Shenfield was there from day 1 - the original point of Crossrail was simply to extend the Shenfield route to the West End, so as to remove the third branch off the Central line. Whether, with the watering down of that function, it needs to do that is a different matter, however most of the brownie points (congestion relief, regeneration) come from having the Shenfield metro services.

Provisions could even be made to include Standstead (sic) on one of the routes via Tottenham Hale and then Stratford?

well you could, but that still leaves the GE Electrics problem (and the Lea Valleys would be better going via Isle of Dogs and helping with the underserving problem there, rather than direct to Liverpool Street).

[Bowater]

Originally Posted by Garth38

Perhaps if the crossrail proposal was re-modelled on the current Thameslink upgrade (eg private train companies running multiple routes through central London) the costs could lowered because the tax payer wouldn't be AS responsible for the running of the trains?

It would also provide more options for rail travellers by allowing services from further a field to be run directly in Central London, Heathrow and Docklands. With the current rigid all stops service being built (its utter madness to have Maryland station still on the proposed route), I doubt very much we're going to see a huge rise in people commuting from Shenfield to Maidenhead. However if there was an express service from say Reading to Chelmsford surely that would help promote trade and travel between the two and so make crossrail far more value for its money as well as finally linking all the above together.

Provisions could even be made to include Standstead on one of the routes via Tottenham Hale and then Stratford?

In time a Thameslink format will almost cetainly develop.

[cle]

I think fast services to Reading would work with hubbed and well timed feeder services. Maybe 4 or 5 tph shuttles to Paddington (some Slough?) before joining the regular route - this would keep it simple and the two platforms could be the current relief ones there, rather than the proposed northern ones which would be needed for slow trains - as these would run down the fast tracks. I think the eastern end of Crossrail is ok to stay local - Shenfield Metro and Docklands between them will need all the capacity, sadly!

This would effectively put Reading on the tube map - passengers from the Bedwyn line, Oxford slow line, Oxford itself, Henley line, Basingstoke line, Swindon and further west like Bath, Bristol etc... could change there for fast, direct services to all over Central London.

If it's 25 mins to Paddington, that means 30 mins to Oxford St, 35 mins to the City and 40 odd to the Docklands - compare that to journeys today changing at Paddington and there's a huge saving. I think it would be incredibly popular, maybe to the detriment of Paddington - and certainly to the gain of the town of Reading.

Paddington station could lose some slower stopping services (like the Bedwyn trains and Oxford slows) and free up capacity for long-distance services.

[Garth38]

Originally Posted by sotonsi

err, I don't think there's any difference between Thameslink and Crossrail in terms of whose running the trains - OK, different franchises (maybe even a different franchisee, but I doubt it) but nothing else but that.

Sorry I thought TfL were going to be responsible for running the crossrail services and it wasn't going to be franchised out?

Originally Posted by sotonsi

why is it utter madness? How would you serve Maryland without undermining the whole thing.

It takes one minute from the doors closing at Maryland to the doors opening again at Stratford. It is nothing but an inconvenient and un-necessary stop for myself and every other commuter on the line who doesn't live near Maryland Station. Stratford is close enough, people who use Maryland Station can walk or bus it there. What’s more we're going have this pathetic system of Maryland commuters only being able to use certain carriages because the station platform isn't long enough. It's more hassle than it’s worth.

Originally Posted by sotonsi

Anyway, in the West (ie the non-metro bit) the service pattern isn't every stop.No, it won't change commutes much - it will stop people changing onto the Central line at Stratford, and would allow better access to Docklands for North Kent and Thames Valley commuters.But you can't do that and have metro services on the GEML, or relieve the Central line. Shenfield was there from day 1 - the original point of Crossrail was simply to extend the Shenfield route to the West End, so as to remove the third branch off the Central line. Whether, with the watering down of that function, it needs to do that is a different matter, however most of the brownie points (congestion relief, regeneration) come from having the Shenfield metro services.

Yes crossrail will be convenient for those on the Shenfield metro who work in the West End but a lot of people on that line work in The City and docklands. They therefore have no need for the central line in their daily commute. Also think outside the box. Let’s just say crossrail was built with an express service and metro service option into Essex. Even if you worked in the West End and lived along the Shenfield Metro/crossrail but found yourself on a metro service that went to L-pool Street and not into the crossrail tunnel, you could simple change at Stratford onto a crossrail service. Whether this was another crossrail metro or an express service from further afield wouldn’t matter because it would still get you into the West End and provide relieve for the central line. Plus I never claimed I wanted Shenfield excluded, I was merely making the point that commuters would be better served by a crossrail that offers a variety of destinations! This could include different locations in Kent, Essex, Berkshire etc etc.

Originally Posted by sotonsi

well you could, but that still leaves the GE Electrics problem (and the Lea Valleys would be better going via Isle of Dogs and helping with the underserving problem there, rather than direct to Liverpool Street).

I think for now a regular service via Stratford (maybe as part of crossrail) on up to Tottenham Hale with the potential re-opening of the old Lea Bridge Station would be sufficient. Remember once at Stratford you will have two DLR lines and the Jubilee to get you down to docklands.

[sotonsi]

Originally Posted by Garth38

Sorry I thought TfL were going to be responsible for running the crossrail services and it wasn't going to be franchised out?

It might be like Overground, which is franchised out, but that's it - a different franchiser to Thameslink.

It takes one minute from the doors closing at Maryland to the doors opening again at Stratford. It is nothing but an inconvenient and un-necessary stop for myself and every other commuter on the line who doesn't live near Maryland Station. Stratford is close enough, people who use Maryland Station can walk or bus it there. What’s more we're going have this pathetic system of Maryland commuters only being able to use certain carriages because the station platform isn't long enough. It's more hassle than it’s worth.

So close the station is what you want? Fair enough. However if it's there, it needs to be served.[quote]Yes crossrail will be convenient for those on the Shenfield metro who work in the West End but a lot of people on that line work in The City and docklands. They therefore have no need for the central line in their daily commute.[/qupte]Indeed they don't, but we're talking about the tons of people who join the Central line at Stratford, mostly off the 'third branch'. Crossrail without Shenfield doesn't do a good job of relieving the Central line, the original problem that it tried to solve. As the scheme developed, it has become jack-of-all and master-of-none. It will fail to serve the eastern branches with enough capacity. And you have the cheek to suggest that the best thing Crossrail needs is to perform yet another function, spreading it's resources so thin that you cannot do anything effectively.

I prefer longer distance destinations, but that undermines the political reasons such as congestion relief and regeneration, because you cannot serve Shenfield and destinations further away. I still don't know how they justified, from the figures they gave, how could serve Docklands and Shenfield, as it becomes unable to support growth in demand on either.

Also think outside the box, just because an express service and metro service both use the same crossrail tunnel, it doesn't mean they need to use the same track outside of it.

Indeed, however you also have to remember that there's not enough Crossrail trains on Shenfield, plus we'll see Thameslink being a nightmare to run (at the moment the central section is deliberately incredibly slow so as to have lots of recovery time). 24tph from (initially) 4 branches (via Elephant, SEML, BML slow, BML fast) to the south will need a lot of work.

To truly think outside the box, may I suggest not trying to solve all of London (north of the Thames)'s rail problems in one scheme. May I also suggest, along with the original Crossrail report (1949) that you should have one type of service on a line, at both ends (and gave a long list of reasons why). For instance the Fleet line was going to be mid-range suburban: Aylesbury, Tring and High Wycombe to Sevenoaks and Gravesend; the Thameslink equivalent was to be completely Metro and so on.

Crossrail should either be completely metro (ie not beyond Slough) or completely regional (ie not serving the Shenfield metro). Likewise Thameslink should be one or the other (I suggest Thameslink as a metro/suburban, with Crossrail 3 covering the regional side of things). Short of an Uxbridge Road tube, I prefer the latter. Serve Lea Valley outer destinations, plus Medway and Southend, with Bedwyn and Reading in the East. You just cannot serve Shenfield as well.

There are currently four tracks on the line from Shenfield to L-Pool St, two for the metro/future planned crossrail and two for express services from further afield. Why not make allowances for the express services to switch onto the metro/crossrail tracks just before the tunnel entrance???

Because having both options will kill Crossrail? Who wants to spend billions on a line that cannot sort out the problems it set out to solve and will massively unreliable?

That way the metro services will not be disrupted and you can have a mixture of services that stop at all stops inside the crossrail tunnel.

Bare in mind both planned branches demand 15-18tph and are getting 12, there's no chance that you could add another branch, denying either other branch service. The Metro services would be massively disrupted, not least by the self-contained nature of the line (it's effectively an extension of the GWML to Abbey Wood/Shenfield, with a flat crossing or two near Stratford and a branch to Liverpool Street Mainline) being removed, as well as the cut in frequency.

Plus I never claimed I wanted Shenfield excluded, I was merely making the point that commuters would be better served by a crossrail that offers a variety of destinations! This could include different locations in Kent, Essex, Berkshire etc etc.

You CANNOT serve Shenfield metro, Docklands and another branch (after all, it's really pushing it to try to serve both). I repeat, you CANNOT serve another Eastern branch! 2 is bad enough.

I think for now a regular service via Stratford (maybe as part of crossrail) on up to Tottenham Hale with the potential re-opening of the old Lea Bridge Station would be sufficient. Remember once at Stratford you will have two DLR lines and the Jubilee to get you down to docklands.

You mean like the Stratford-Lea Valley services that already exist? Serving the Lea Valley from Crossrail NEEDS to go via the Isle of Dogs to give Isle of Dogs the service demand requires.

[taikoo.city]

Originally Posted by Sesquip

Hong Kong's profit comes from owning the land above the stations, not the operating income of the railway itself. IIRC.

They still make profit on railway operation although it doesn't make up the majority of their income...

[spoonsbeatfish]

Hey I just read that several buildings along the length of the Crossrail project are being bought and then demolished to allow construction/access/larger entrances etc

But that in most cases buildings will be rebuilt above them e.g. New Astoria. How is this being done/contracted out/organised? Is there any potential to make a profit on these new buildings with even better transport facilities? I'm assuming that they were largely bought with CPO's so were not massively overcharged but that there are relatively few builds and costs in relation to the whole project i.e. there may be profits made but a small proportion of the whole cost of the project?

Can anyone enlighten me?

[CharlieP]

I wussed out and drove to work instead of cycling this morning when I head all the dire heavy rain predictions, but it meant I got to hear an interesting report about Crossrail on the Today programme some time just after 08:00 - it should be available on Listen Again.

Also on the BBC website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8051185.stm

[Horizon911]

...yep, there was just a report on the BBC News channel live from Canary Wharf. In short, the construction of Crossrail has started!! The report was showing the first pile driver going into the water at CW which is where the station will go.

[DarJoLe]

Crossrail gets out of the sidings after 20 years
Robert Mendick and Katharine Barney
15.05.09

Work started today on a new railway under London that will transform travel across the capital.

Crossrail, the rail link that joins east and west London, is finally getting built after 20 years of wrangling and at a cost of at least £16 billion.

Gordon Brown today hailed the start of construction as a historic moment for the city. He said: “Many people said it would never be built, but today we are celebrating a defining moment for London, as Crossrail's construction gets under way.”

London Mayor Boris Johnson this morning pressed the button that drove the first concrete pile into place on a building site at Canary Wharf. It is the first stage in a massive building project — the largest in Europe — that will see two huge tunnels bored about 100 feet below London. If all goes to plan, the high-speed rail link, joining Maidenhead in Berkshire with Shenfield in Essex along 73 miles of track, should be completed by 2017.

It will see new stations the size of cathedrals built at Canary Wharf, Paddington, Bond Street, Tottenham Court Road, Farringdon, Liverpool Street and Whitechapel. The project, described as “epic” in scale, will employ as many as 14,000 people.

When completed, Crossrail will be capable of operating 24 trains an hour at peak, each travelling at up to 100mph. Mr Brown said: “Crossrail will not only mean faster journey times across the capital and beyond, it will also bring a massive economic boost to the city, creating thousands of jobs and adding at least £20 billion to our economy.”

Crossrail first received official backing as far back as 1989 when Margaret Thatcher's government published a study advocating an east-west service. Its then projected cost was £900 million.

But Crossrail's chances of ever being built appeared to have vanished when in 1994 the Conservative government scrapped it on cost grounds. It was periodically revived in the following decade but finally got the green light in October 2007, when — only days before he was expected to call a general election which he shied away from — Mr Brown officially gave it the go-ahead.

Mr Johnson said today: “The years of hesitation, irresolution and vacillation are over, the shovels have tasted earth and the construction of a railway that is crucial to the economic prosperity of this great city has begun.

“This will create and support thousands of jobs and relieve congestion. When the first of Crossrail's chariots glides smoothly along its lines it will change the face of transport for ever.”

The scheme, which also includes a section running through to Abbey Wood in south-east London and a spur line to Heathrow, will be funded by central government, Transport for London and the private sector.

But Baroness Valentine, chief executive of business group London First, said: “Crossrail will bring 72,000 people per hour at peak time to and from the capital's centre, linking Heathrow directly to Canary Wharf and the Thames Gateway to the City and the West End. It will add 10 per cent to London's rail capacity.

“Some may ask if we can afford it. It's the wrong question. Can we afford not to build Crossrail?”

Reader Views
Here's a sample of the latest views published.

When I worked on Crossrail in the 1990's, the value was 2.5 Billion. There's inflation for you.
- Barry, Bedford England

Wgy is there a pic of Boris Johnson accompanying this story when he and his party have been opposing Crossrail for years and only last week threatened to pull the plug on it if they get into power ?
- Keith Price, Luton, England

It's about time. The seven million people who live in London and the millions who live in the South East will benefit from it when it's done.
- Sean, London

Congrats to everyone who showed vision in getting this project off the ground.
- Jamoco, Old st, London

Its not just banks and MPs - there is a view among some seasoned professionals that, increasingly over the past 20 years, some of these mega projects in the UK have, like some banks, become feeding grounds for private sector firms to make super profits through poorly scoped out contracts and use of very expensive consultants who could have been recruited directly to the public sector for one of third of the price - all at taxpayers expense. Given that the projects involve vast sums of public money (CrossRail is £16 billion!) the sector requires specialist regulation, the current level of which inadequate to even begin to identify potential misuse of funds.
Let us hope that CrossRail does not overpay on our behalf for delivering the necessary east-west link.
- Jim, london

This project is why Boris is the man to lead London to success. Under his predecessor Crossrail was nothing more than political soundbites, photocalls in front of computer generated fantasies and an inflated budget that meant no-one was willing to get down to the real hard work of building it. Since Boris has become Mayor he has worked tirelessly to drive costs to acceptable levels, get to the nitty gritty of construction work and finally, today, we see the fruits of this hard-work. Crossrail is going to revolutionise travel across London, making it easier, faster and cleaner and this is all down to the Mayor. Thank you Boris, all Londoners owe you an extreme debt of gratitude today, and this will be shown by your re-election in 2012 and hopefully 2016 when you officially open this new route through our capital.
- Oliver D. Brinston, Belgravia Village, London

What is the aim of building this line and who will it help when it is finished?
- Mike M, Bedford England

[mtj73]

I got a few pics last week of them getting ready to start piling at CW. http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=cros...12304575%40N04

Edit to add

What is the aim of building this line and who will it help when it is finished?
- Mike M, Bedford England

What a guy! Just stay in bed Mike.

[sotonsi]

Crossrail gets out of the sidings after 20 years
Robert Mendick and Katharine Barney
15.05.09

Work started today on a new railway under London that will transform travel across the capital.

Crossrail, the rail link that joins east and west London, is finally getting built after 20 years of wrangling and at a cost of at least £16 billion.

Gordon Brown today hailed the start of construction as a historic moment for the city. He said: “Many people said it would never be built, but today we are celebrating a defining moment for London, as Crossrail's construction gets under way.”

London Mayor Boris Johnson this morning pressed the button that drove the first concrete pile into place on a building site at Canary Wharf. It is the first stage in a massive building project — the largest in Europe — that will see two huge tunnels bored about 100 feet below London. If all goes to plan, the high-speed rail link, joining Maidenhead in Berkshire with Shenfield in Essex along 73 miles of track, should be completed by 2017.

It will see new stations the size of cathedrals built at Canary Wharf, Paddington, Bond Street, Tottenham Court Road, Farringdon, Liverpool Street and Whitechapel. The project, described as “epic” in scale, will employ as many as 14,000 people.

When completed, Crossrail will be capable of operating 24 trains an hour at peak, each travelling at up to 100mph. Mr Brown said: “Crossrail will not only mean faster journey times across the capital and beyond, it will also bring a massive economic boost to the city, creating thousands of jobs and adding at least £20 billion to our economy.”

Crossrail first received official backing as far back as 1989 when Margaret Thatcher's government published a study advocating an east-west service. Its then projected cost was £900 million.

But Crossrail's chances of ever being built appeared to have vanished when in 1994 the Conservative government scrapped it on cost grounds. It was periodically revived in the following decade but finally got the green light in October 2007, when — only days before he was expected to call a general election which he shied away from — Mr Brown officially gave it the go-ahead.

Sloppy journalism...

• I thought it got back down to £13 billion?
• How is 100mph "high-speed"? It's fast, but "high-speed" has a specific meaning.
• The Tories only kind of scrapped it on cost grounds - they could only afford one line, and Crossrail was the third priority, behind the JLE and Chelney.
• The timing of the green light wasn't electioneering as far as I can tell - the bill was in parliament before talk of elections begun. Still it came too late. I guess Gordon knowing he wouldn't be at HM Treasury when the scheme got the go ahead was why it was allowed to even consider getting off the start line again. Brown and Darling will be known through history as the second worst Chancellor/Transport Secretary combo, second only to Brown/Prescott (who wasn't Transport Secretary, because Labour really didn't care and stuffed it into an already rather full portfolio) both these pairs failed to invest in infrastructure when the going was good - good economy, Government spending high. They finally got around to doing something, but too little, too late.

Good news, hopefully the success of Crossrail will mean that other schemes, that will fix the mess that trying to do too much with Crossrail will be fixed, as well as a few other problems (mostly in S, SE and NE London).

Hopefully this won't be a second start of four or whatever - the 2nd Avenue Subway in New York has been on the cards for years and started several times. They are currently linking the "Stubway" to the rest of the network, finishing it off and finally beginning to run trains. The "Stubway" is a couple of miles of tunnel pretty much ready and waiting for tracks to be laid, connections to be added and stations to furnish. It was built in the 70s and then the 2nd Ave Subway got scrapped again, mid-way through construction.

[mtj73]

Has it gone down to £13 billion? First I have heard, but I have always thought £16 bil too high anyway.

[potto]

@ Oliver D. Brinston of 'Belgravia Village' (sic)