http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23429410-details/Crossrail+link+to...

A decision on whether to extend the £16billion Crossrail scheme to Reading
will be made in the New Year, it emerged today.

Transport minister Tom Harris is looking at whether the cross-London rail
line can be linked to Reading without significantly increasing the cost of
the project.

The decision is understood to be "evenly balanced".

Construction on the long-delayed project will start in 2010 with the first
trains running in 2017.

The 74-mile route stretches from Maidenhead in the east to Canary Wharf and
beyond by way of Heathrow, the West End and the City.

With the scheme expected to benefit the economy by as much as £68billion
over the next few decades, Ministers have faced sustained lobbying from MPs
anxious for their constituencies to be linked to the route.

Extending the line to Reading could be done without having to amend the
Crossrail Bill, which has just passed through the House of Commons.

One possibility is to give the go ahead to the extension in principle but
not guaranteeing it will be built until finances are clearer.

D

In message eclipse.net.uk>, at
20:34:52 on Tue, 25 Dec 2007, Dave p.com> remarked:

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.

On Dec 26, 1:27 am, Roland Perry perry.co.uk> wrote:

The box was guaranteed.

The station was the bit that was funded later.

In message
<7595cc75-d8b9-4f00-82e5-a1e93d964b11@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, at
04:58:25 on Wed, 26 Dec 2007, D7666 hotmail.com> remarked:

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.

"Dave" p.com> wrote:

"Adrian the Rock" roscalen.com> wrote in message
news:47725881.1679500@news.demon.co.uk

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:

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.

On 25 Dec, 20:34, "Dave" p.com> wrote:

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 -- a slow service, or
none at all. When I lived in Twyford there were fast services that
stopped maidenhead/burnham/taplow/slough/hayes/ealing/paddington, they
then added in west drayton, iver and langley when they stopped the
slough all-stops for Heathrow Connect, severly worsening service for
the Slough->Reading corridor. An all stops service will be painful,
especially as frequency won't increase.

In message
q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, at
08:46:24 on Thu, 27 Dec 2007, Paul Weaver isorox.co.uk>
remarked:

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).

Adrian the Rock wrote:

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.

For journeys to/from London, this means Maidenhead is probably about
right. Reading is a big traffic-generator, and if it wants to fund the
extension, no problem.

If any trains are extended to Reading, though, I'd say it should be
the Heathrow ones, not the Maidenhead ones.