Extending Crossrail to Reading - ongoing discussion, merged topic

[whole diary]

[gpn01]

I've often wondered what's wrong with raising money through bonds, and the conclusion I have come to is that there's not enough money in it for the government's supporters.

I might be talking out of my hat here but I think that if a bond is raised then it shows as a debt obligation and needs to be included in the Govt's calculation of its Puiblic Sector borrowing.  That would screw up Gordon's "Golden Rules" (remember those that he used to say were streadfast/unbreakable, etc?  If something is funder through PFI then it stays off the balance sheet and isn't included - so it's a neat way for the government to fund schemes and increase UK^▸ (United Kingdom) Plc's finance obligations (=how much we owe) without affecting UK Plc's "debt" (= how much we owe).

[bemmy]

I've often wondered what's wrong with raising money through bonds, and the conclusion I have come to is that there's not enough money in it for the government's supporters.

I might be talking out of my hat here but I think that if a bond is raised then it shows as a debt obligation and needs to be included in the Govt's calculation of its Puiblic Sector borrowing.  That would screw up Gordon's "Golden Rules" (remember those that he used to say were streadfast/unbreakable, etc?  If something is funder through PFI then it stays off the balance sheet and isn't included - so it's a neat way for the government to fund schemes and increase UK^▸ (United Kingdom) Plc's finance obligations (=how much we owe) without affecting UK Plc's "debt" (= how much we owe).

You're probably right, I hadn't thought of it like that. Needless to say it's exactly the kind of accounting trick that has got us into the mess we are in. A few people have benefited from these schemes in the short term, we'll all pay for it in the long run.

[willc]

Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere, but here it is anyway. Bit of an under-the-radar pre-bank holiday special from DafT, but you would have thought they would have made a bit more fuss about it...

Friday 1 May 2009 09:39   
Department for Transport (National)

New Crossrail route safeguarded

The Government today safeguarded a potential Crossrail route from Maidenhead to Reading.

Whilst there is no current commitment to extend Crossrail out to Reading, safeguarding provides additional protection against future developments on the route.

Transport Minister Andrew Adonis said:

"Our current priority is to get on with the delivery of the Crossrail Project as it is currently planned, but safeguarding would provide additional protection against developments impacting on future operational requirements.

"Safeguarding will also allow the line to be electrified in the future and for Crossrail to be extended if a case can be made to do so."

Notes for editors

1. The Department for Transport (DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)) has issued Safeguarding Directions to protect a potential extension of Crossrail from Maidenhead Station to Reading West Junction. This follows a consultation on the draft Directions which closed on 25 July 2008.

2. The aim is to ensure that developments along this rail corridor do not impact on the ability to extend Crossrail in the future. Crossrail Ltd (CRL), a wholly owned subsidiary of TfL^» (Transport for London - about), has responsibility for delivering the Crossrail scheme and is responsible for safeguarding this corridor.

3. The Safeguarding Direction has been issued to Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) by the Secretary of State. The LPAs are required to consult CRL when determining planning applications for land within the limits shown on the safeguarding plans attached to the direction.

4. The Crossrail project currently terminates at Maidenhead. No decision or commitment to extend it further west to Reading has been made. However, DfT believes it sensible to safeguard this corridor for a potential extension of Crossrail to Reading. Safeguarding will also allow us to carry out alternative works, such as electrification, that could enable future operational requirements to be met.

5. Crossrail will run 118 km from Maidenhead and Heathrow in the west, through new twin-bore 21 km tunnels under central London to Shenfield and Abbey Wood in the east. It will bring an additional 1.5 million people within 60 minutes commuting distance of London's key business districts. When Crossrail opens in 2017 it will increase London's public transport network capacity by 10 per cent, supporting regeneration across the capital, helping to secure London's position as a world leading financial centre, and cutting journey times across the city. Preparatory works will continue throughout 2009 and main Crossrail construction starts in 2010

[IndustryInsider]

To be honest I thought Ruth Kelly's lot had already safeguarded the route? Perhaps I'm getting that confused with the Crossrail 2 route from North-West to South East London?

Either way, it is a sensible thing to do - had it not been done it would be outrageous, but as the release says offers no commitment to actually do it. Despite hating the phrase, surely this has to be the biggest 'no-brainer' out there in railwayland?

[eightf48544]

What a load of nonsense, are Daft saying that  the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) is going to be closed West of Maidenhead if Crossrail doesn't happen or the GMWL line is not going to be electrified? Surely the route and electrification plans could be safeguarded  quite easily by making planning authorities consult Networkrail on any applications to develope on land next to the railway, this would automatically safeguard all rail routes and future electrification. Also by giving Crossrail permission for electrification to Reading it doesn't bode well for GWML electrification. In my opinion GMWL electrification should be started now it's an ideal scheme to kick start the economy. Then Crossrail just use the wires when they pop out of their tunnel at Westbourne Park.   

It's beauacratic gooble de gook caused by the  stupid way we run the railway in this country, but it also very dangerous because what it actually saying is that Crossrail will have the Relief Lines from Reading so what happens to the stone trains and other freight, which presumably another part of DaFt wants to increase? They can't share  the mainlines with HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) from Reading  to Acton. Crossrail is already likely to cause enough problems by virtually monopolising the Relief Lines from Maidenhead. 

 

[willc]

I think you are over-estimating Crossrail's influence somewhat. Everyone involved sat down around a table and thrashed out access rights for the various operators after long and loud complaints that Crossrail would be allowed to ride roughshod over the rest.

This announcement is simply a sensible precaution, as there is no accounting for what some councils will give planning permission for (eg the Gerrards Cross Tesco tunnel) - that's why they have done it.

How on earth doesn't it bode well for GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) electrification? I just don't know where you're coming from on this. The two things would be complementary and as Industry Insider says, Reading has always been the place where Crossrail should end, especially now that the question of where the money to resignal and remodel Reading station was coming from has been taken out of the equation.

[onthecushions]

I never understood what was being "protected" and the media (19 year old trainee reporters never been on a train) did not enquire either.

A travelling companion working for Xrail explained that an extra (5th) track was to be included up to Maidenhead, otherwise the TT couldn't work. The "protection" West of Maidenhead meant red-lining land for acquistion for a fifth track to Reading. Fancy 3 relief lines?

Whether Xrail survives the crunch is another matter - there are rumblings in the press already.

OTC

[Btline]

What exactly needs protecting? I take it there are no plans to rip up the slow lines!

And Xrail won't work - FGW^▸ (First Great Western) HSS^▸ (High Speed Services) will be slowed down by LTV^▸ (London [and] Thames Valley) (Thames Turbos from Banbury and Oxford) trains stopping on the fast lines.

We need an extra track (or two). We need it NOW.

And electrification is unlikely:

- the gov have made this clear by ordering a multi-million pound DIESEL train set for the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line), instead of getting their act together, and starting a rolling programme;

- the Severn Tunnel can't be wired easily, so it would not be worth it until the Severn Barrage is built.

[Electric train]

What exactly needs protecting? I take it there are no plans to rip up the slow lines!

And Xrail won't work - FGW^▸ (First Great Western) HSS^▸ (High Speed Services) will be slowed down by LTV^▸ (London [and] Thames Valley) (Thames Turbos from Banbury and Oxford) trains stopping on the fast lines.

We need an extra track (or two). We need it NOW.

And electrification is unlikely:

- the gov have made this clear by ordering a multi-million pound DIESEL train set for the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line), instead of getting their act together, and starting a rolling programme;

- the Severn Tunnel can't be wired easily, so it would not be worth it until the Severn Barrage is built.

The protection is a legal tool, it ensures that no land within the current railway boundary can be sold or substantial other use be made of it without referance to the Crossrail project.


The decision on electrification of the GWML has not been made as yet, the new trains for the GWML could easily be deployed else where.

There are certain technical challenges to electrifying the Seven Tunnel, talking to our National specialists where I work they do not see anything that can not be overcome, there is plenty of clearance, the biggest problem with most Victorian tunnels is the strength of the brickwork and whats behind it

[willc]

- the gov have made this clear by ordering a multi-million pound DIESEL train set for the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line), instead of getting their act together, and starting a rolling programme;

The new fleet is several years off anyway and they can quite easily change the order from diesel power cars to electric well before Hitachi cut a single piece of metal.

[Chris from Nailsea]

From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page):

MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) calls Reading Crossrail plans 'little or no use'


The ^14.8bn rail link will connect Berkshire and Buckinghamshire to Essex and Kent via London and is currently planned to finish in Maidenhead

Plans to extend Crossrail to Reading "are of little or no use", one of the town's MPs has said.

Rob Wilson said the metro link from Reading to London would be double the journey time offered by First Great Western's current service.

The Tory MP is in talks with Crossrail Minister, Stephen Hammond, about also offering "semi-fast services".

The Department for Transport (DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)) said it was "carrying out a further detailed evaluation of the proposal".

The ^14.8bn rail link is set to open in 2018 and will provide an east-west route across London and the South East.

Both Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin and shadow infrastructure minister Lord Adonis have called for an extension to Reading.

But Reading East MP Mr Wilson said the current proposals were "highly unsatisfactory" and "inappropriate" for Reading commuters. He said the main sticking points were the hour-long journey time - compared with First Great Western's 30-minute service - and the "Tube-style trains" which do not offer toilets, catering or "comfortable seats from which to work".

He is proposing semi-fast services of about 40 minutes a few times per hour to be competitive with First Great Western.

The DfT, responsible for the rail extension, said: "Work to evaluate the proposal will be concluded in the early part of 2014".

[eightf48544]

We seem to be caught up by Parkinsons "Law of triviality". Having ageed billions to be spent on building Crossrail electrifying the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line), rebuiding Reading and providng a depot at Reading we are now arguing about a trivial amount of money for Crossrail to serve Reading. Most of which will have to be on spent amending the Crossrail Act of Parliament to say Crossail can now go to Reading. The bulk of the infrastructure will all be in place except maybe to lengthen the platforms at Twford.

I've always said Crossrail doesn't work West of Westbourne Park.

[ellendune]

Surely Crossrail trains should replace the local stopping services from Reading to Paddington in their entirety rather than having services from Reading to Maidenhead to join in with them.

That said no-one would expect a Reading to Paddington traveller to use them any more than they would use the local stopping service at the moment. 

Why would the Act need to change just to alter the services if no changes in infrastructure would be required.

[4064ReadingAbbey]

Surely Crossrail trains should replace the local stopping services from Reading to Paddington in their entirety rather than having services from Reading to Maidenhead to join in with them.

That said no-one would expect a Reading to Paddington traveller to use them any more than they would use the local stopping service at the moment. 

Why would the Act need to change just to alter the services if no changes in infrastructure would be required.

Firstly I don't think that there are any services planned to run simply from Reading to Maidenhead, there is however a proposal for a two-per-hour Reading to Slough shuttle fitting in with the two-per-hour outer-suburban services running through to Paddington. Having said that, I must admit that I don't see any advantage in extending Crossrail services to Reading.

From what I have read and heard about the Crossrail trains as they are currently foreseen they will be optimised for the "metro' character of the inner London services. On page 43 of the December 2013 Modern Railways there is a quote saying "the new Class 345s will be a 'step on from the Overground'." To me this implies longitudinal seats and no toilets.

Such a design is perfectly adequate for high density services in and around a major city, but to me it does not seem in any way appropriate for journeys lasting up to an hour out into the country.

Similarly breaking the outer-suburban services at Reading to connect with the Reading to Paddington services seems a retrograde step for passengers travelling from, say, Pangbourne to Maidenhead.

Unless Crossrail adopts a similar stopping pattern between Reading and Paddington to that currently existing, rather than an 'all stations' pattern even using trains with greater acceleration and higher top speed than the 165/166s the journey time to central London will be longer than now, even with a change at Paddington for passengers to and from points west of about Slough. Unless great care in the design of Crossrail's service pattern is taken, the net effect will be a less attractive service for people living 'out in the sticks' than is currently the case.

[Oxman]

I was told once that more people commute into Reading than commute from Reading to London. The current Crossrail scheme is, of course, London centric. Now, if only the politicians (including the MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) for Reading East) can open their eyes, look away from London, and appreciate the needs of Reading commuters, then there might be sufficient support and will power to extend Crossrail services from Maidenhead to Reading.