Talk:Crossrail

New York Times Article: 31 July 2017: London’s New Subway Symbolized the Future. Then Came Brexit.

Looks to be a very good source for this article:

London’s New Subway Symbolized the Future. Then Came Brexit.

Crossrail is a megaproject meant to bind London together. But in the wake of Britain’s vote to leave the European Union, it may signal the end of an ambitious era.
By Michael Kimmelman. published: July 31, 2017

a 3:10 video accompanies

Crossrail: Monetizing Time

By Stephen Farrell, published July 27, 2017
A new super-subway is coming to London. Crossrail opens next year, but it is already transforming neighborhoods.

Limiting depth of sections shown in the table of contents

I reduced the depth of sections shown in the table of contents so that sub-sub-sections were not shown, as in H:LIMITTOC. I think this makes the table of contents much easier to read - most of the subsubsections do not need to be shown that early on, e.g. each of the invidual new stations. However, this was reverted by @Mike1901: who said "Fix TOC location per MOS". I'm not sure what Mike1901 meant here - the location of the TOC was not changed, it was just shortened. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Absolutelypuremilk: I don't disagree - it's just that tag also moves the TOC to wherever it's placed. I've now resolved it as we both intended! Mike1901 (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Absolutelypuremilk: There should never be content between the TOC and the first section heading. Anything placed there is inaccessible, it's covered at H:TOC. Generally speaking, never place a forced TOC (including one produced by {{TOC limit}}) anywhere other than the position that an automatic TOC would normally appear. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Splitting off article

I am going to split off the "Construction" section into its own article - any objections? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Procedural Support - as long as you can find more content on it to add to the article. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 11:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Why? To shorten this article? I would actually prefer to split out the Future Developments. Some of the content of that section is less relevant to this article than the Construction section and would be better off separated. --TBM10 (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes to shorten it - do you mean the Plans section or the Extensions subsection? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Both plans and extensions. Or, alternatively, the History section? I just think that at the present moment the Construction section is very relevant to this article, as the line is indeed currently under construction. --TBM10 (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I have created History of the Crossrail line as per your suggestion. Any comments or suggestions are welcome. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Good work. --TBM10 (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention & effort. One things that crosses my mind is that there was some discussion about the Crossrail vs. Elizabeth line subject matter. My suggestion was that Crossrail=construction project and Elizabeth Line=actual operational line, and this seemed to find favour. With that in mind, a History of Crossrail article may become redundant once construction ends and the line goes into operation. Not wishing to negate your fine editing work, of course, but this may come up in future. Cnbrb (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

No problem, I agree with your suggestion, but I'm not sure that the article will be redundant, although perhaps the title might need to be changed. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• We've currently got 3 articles. The operational information is in TFL Rail which would be renamed to Elizabeth line. The construction information here in Crossrail. But do we need the third History of Crossrail article in the long-term? Once the line is operational, I'd think much of the operational stuff would be in the then main article at Elizabeth line. Nfitz (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, I'd like to see a Elizabeth line page from 2018 with operational stuff, and a Crossrail (project) (or similar title) about the history and construction of the line. Similar to the separation of the Jubilee line and Jubilee line extension pages. Turini2 (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Special fares to Heathrow?

The map in the article has the notice "special fares apply" on the Heathrow branch. What is the source for this? [1] rather implies there is no special fare planned. Gyorokpeter (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm currently the one responsible for that map and I got the idea from ticketing section. Admittedly it lacks citation. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Heathrow Terminal 5

It has been announced that Crossrail will go to Heathrow Terminal 5

• mediacentre.heathrow.com
• London Reconnections article

... so if editors would like to update cop, maps etc. that would be great. Cnbrb (talk) 10:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Limmo Peninsula

Where is it? We don't have a Limmo article, and the only hits Google finds are on Crossrail's website. Marnanel (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

It's where the River Lea meets the Thames, basically. Not surprising that the only google hits are for Crossrail related stuff - not much has happened around there since the Thames Ironworks and Shipbuilding Company closed. Some links for your perusal. [2]Turini2 (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Propose change of article title to Elizabeth Line (with Crossrail as a redirect)

Now that the line has an official name that will be widely known to the public, I propose that the article is retitled to Elizabeth Line, with Crossrail searches/links redirecting to Elizabeth line

--194.72.50.58 (talk) 12:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)