Talk:Crossrail

Multi-crossrail

This article refers to both Crossrails - so surely the introduction needs to say two tunnels rather than one? --ALargeElk | Talk 14:57, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ah! Now I see where you are coming from. I had read your "two tunnels" as though referring to two tunnels paddington-stratford and paddington-custom house, and not to Crossrail 1 & 2. Given that, realistically, only Crossrail 1 is a serious project at the moment I think it would be misleading to talk about #2 in the sense of a 'live' programme at the moment, indeed whenever "Crossrail" is discussed in the media it is only Crossrail *One* that is actually being referred to (very few people realising that #2 exists in any way). Re-reading it, I think the current article is way too strong about #2 (which isn't even on TfL's expectation list at present), especially as it may even revert to the Merton-Hackney tube concept. It might make sense to re-edit as "Crossrail is an east-west project ... and there exists an outline proposal for a SW/NE 'crossrail 2' at some later date, although no funding has been made available nor construction schedule proposed." --[[User:VampWillow|VampWillow]] 17:55, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Intercity routes?

Will these tunnels be used by intercity trains? For example, could we see trains from Bristol and the West Country running to Liverpool Street, or trains from East Anglia runing through to Paddington? Tompw 01:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

No - it's really only for local stopping services along the described route (Maidenhead/Heathrow - Shenfield/Abbey Wood). It wouldn't be possible to run to Bristol without full electrification as far as there (diesel trains cannot run in the London tunnels). I don't think there would be room in the timetable either... In theory it would be possible for trains to run from East Anglia through to Heathrow and Maidenhead, but this is highly unlikely. Willkm 12:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about the diesel/tunnel issue... but still, it would be nice for East Anglia trains to run to Paddington or Heathrow - it would make journeys through London easier, as well as allowing better access for commuters. Tompw 17:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, if HST2 turns out to be dual mode 25KV OLE / diesel-electric, then it could run through the tunnels... :-) Tompw

If the DoT ever finally make good on their proposal to reopen the Oxford-Cambridge route to passengers (and replace the missing section), East Anglia trains could either join the GWR line at Oxford or come into Paddington or Marylebone via everyone's favourite disused station, Verney Junction. Iridescenti 23:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Wewrn't the Varsity Line plans put in jeopardy due to a lake? (I prefer Quanton Road on that line :)) Simply south 23:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, we used to have steam trains when the London underground system started! (shows just how old parts of our underground system are!)

Use MailRail Tunnels?!?

Don't know who thought that was a plausible idea.

It's preposterous that a 9ft diameter tunnel outfitted to run automated, third rail powered, letter and package trains on a 2 ft guage would be of any use for full sized rolling stock. lol

I am moving those paragraphs here MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 17:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The Tunneled section from Paddington via Oxford Street to Farringdon, Liverpool street and Whitechapel is identical to the recently closed underground Post Office railway (MailRail) and suggests these tunnels should be used as a starting point, and the underground mail rail stations to be possibly used as the lines' Central London stations.

Considering that MailRail is a 2 ft guage railway, running double tracked in a 9 ft tunnel, and provided with very small stations designed for handling letters and packages, such an idea is preposterous. [1]

Moorgate–Liverpool St link

I am intrigued by the reference to a "disused Moorgate to Liverpool Street mainline station link". (I thought I knew most of the disused rail links in London.) Can anyone provide more information? Vilĉjo 11:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It did exist - it ran along Met lines from Moorgate to just west of Liverpool Street, then curved north to surface at the old Liverpool Street platform one - this was why pl 1 at liverpool street had to be accessed by the footbridge prior to reconstruction. The link opened 1 Feb 1870 & closed in 1904, and the curve used for storing rolling stock. The track was lifted in 1916 and the curve turned into the staff canteen. Iridescenti 23:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move - per discussion. There's been little conversation on this subject for a week, and consensus seems to be that Crossrail (London) would be more appropriate, but that it's not necessary. I personally would suggest just going ahead and making the move to that if you truly believe a disambig is necessary; or better yet, just create Crossrail (disambiguation) with a {{otheruses}} header at the top. Patstuart^talk|edits 01:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Crossrail → London Crossrail — Refers to the Crossrail scheme acrss London so deserves this name. There is also both an Edinburgh Crossrail and a proposed Glassgow Crossrail. I also propse turning Crossrail into a disambiguation page (added on 12:44, 7 January 2007 by Simply south but "subst:" omitted). (Ooops!)Simply south 17:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey - Support votes

Survey - Oppose votes

• Oppose That would imply the project is called London Crossrail, which it isn't. Either move it to Crossrail (London) , or put a link to Crossrail (disambiguation) on the Crossrail page. --88.110.235.235 01:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

As it's name is Crossrail, wouldn't Crossrail (London) be more accurate ? -- Beardo 16:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this comes about because there is a Glasgow Crossrail (2 mentions in first ten pages of Google search). Crossrail is habitually called, eh, "Crossrail" throughout official documents; where qualified, "Crossrail London" is used (very occasionally), and rarely "LondonRail" appears to be used. In the DoT, it's known as the The Crossrail Hybrid Bill was introduced to the House of Commons on 22 February 2005. I'll sit on the fence on this one, but if it ain't broke, why is it being fixed? Kbthompson 11:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

With above, unless the Scots (or anyone else) starts throwing their toys out of their pram becuase there is real confusion, why move ??? Its not as if its like confusing the several Victoria stations, etc Pickle 20:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Fair use rationale for Image:Crossrail.PNG

Image:Crossrail.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Rationale updated --AlisonW 20

03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

SO ITS A HYBRID BILL?

The 'hybrid bill' being passed through Parliament is mentioned on three separate occasions, and all are written in a style suggesting that the reader didn't already know about it. Jake the Editor Man 11:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Other lines and naming

The word "Crossrail" these days is used to refer solely to Line 1, including by CLRL themselves. I think the article should be reorganised to reflect this. --82.45.163.4 08:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the various texts inc TfL, HMG, etc you'll see that "Crossrail" without a number refers to the (on-going sage of!) the East-West line 1, but that they still use "Crossrail n" for the other two. I've clarified that in the opening paragraph more clearly though. --AlisonW 10:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Richmond revival

I've removed the unsourced claims about the Richmond branch being revived, because the idea is dubious enough it shouldn't even be mentioned without a cite. --82.45.163.4 15:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Abbey Wood and Custom House

How is that extension going to work? If it was going to take over that ex-area of the NLL, this conflicts with that between Custom House and North Woolwich it is going to be possibly preserved. Simply south 22:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the tunnel portal will be located close to Custom House. The route will then use the ex-NLL alignment until it dives under the Thames in a new tunnel. In other words the previous section of the NLL between Custom House and North Woolwich be a part of the route. As an aside, this section of the NLL is now "owned" by the project, and so it has responsibility for a tunnel --> Connaught Tunnel!! <Michael Caine>"Not a lot of people know that!!"</Michael Caine>. Canterberry 23:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

But if the preservation goes ahead, won't the plans have to change? Simply south 10:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the plans on the Crossrail site, it does appear that they are using the alignment of the former NLL, but mostly below the surface. So the surface route might be saved for a preserved line. The only thing is that I was sure that Crossrail now owned the route, but perhaps I was wrong. The fly in the ointment will be at Custom House, where Crossrail will build a station, and will also have tunnel portals, so I do not know where the preserved railway is going to fit! Having said that, I don't believe that the project will ever come about ... its too expensive! So perhaps the preserved railway people are thinking along the same lines. Canterberry 10:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)