Talk:Crossrail/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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. Iridescent 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!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.0.15 (talk) 11:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

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. Iridescent 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)

I think it's definitely time now to move all of the stuff about other lines to Cross London Rail Links Ltd (or whatever) and have this solely about what used to be called "Line 1". Anyone object? --82.45.163.4 13:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Possibly split instead actually. One about the Line and one about the company\scheme. Simply south 13:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's pretty much what I'm proposing, and the article about the line should be named "Crossrail". --82.45.163.4 00:03, 7 October 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)

Crossrail will run on the NLL alignment between east of Custom House and just before North Woolwich, which means the heritage railway is doomed, no question. A big chunk of this section will be underground, but that's because of the takeover of Connaught Tunnel, which is an existing part of the NLL/heritage railway. --82.45.163.4 13:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hounslow Route

Does anyone know what is happening with this? I know that Hounslow Council were strongly pushing it as a low-cost addition to the existing proposal, but I have heard little else about this and it was not part of the announced route. Has Crossrail officially rejected this scheme, or is it considered a possible future extension like Reading or Ebbsfleet? Lord Cornwallis (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it came ou tafter the Crossrail route selection process was complete, so no official answer was ever given, it was just ignored. The Crossrail management seem very good at pushing forward with the project and not getting bogged down with rethinks. --Mr Thant (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

BAA has announced Crossrail funding package

Someone familiar with this article may care to incorporate this news bulletin (found in passing):

Crossrail gets £230m BAA funding (BBC News - 04 Nov 08)

EdJogg (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Alternative Routes

Should the Alternative Routes section be moved to a seperate article such as Proposed Routes of Crossrail of even a more broad-ranging History of Crossrail, which could cover the entire history of the project from back when it was first proposed. The problem with it is that at the moment the route is pretty firmly set, so the listed alternative routes have less relevance to the article as it stands. I don't think they should be deleted as they contain quite valuable information, but a seperate article would seem to me to solve this.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Oppose 86.158.195.95 (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose Scottcabal (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.181.72 (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose - theres no need - everything people want at the moment is right here. There's no point flooding the site with stuff about crossrail.. it's not that big a project on a global scale 86.136.138.73 (talk) 10:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
5. Weak Oppose - maybe once construction/running has actually started, the sheer amount of content on this page might mean the majority of the history would be better elsewhere, but for now I say leave it. --Peeky44 (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I would still say leave it after that... otherwise not only will people have to go to loads of other places to get info but it wouldnt be needed. I mean... Are there pages upon pages about the Victoria Line. The stations yes but not the line itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottcabal (talk • contribs) 17:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware most of these responses are socks of one slightly irational anti-Crossrail blocked user, but there are a couple of genuine replies here. I'd still advocate a seperate section for a History of Crossrail as there is an extensive history to the project (some of which is already included here, some of which is not). The alternative routes would fit neatly into that, wheras here they do not. The other option seems to be deleting them completly. At the end of the day, various past proposed routes have very little bearing on the actual crossrail. This project is not new and over the years there have been numerous different suggested routes.

It's worth adding this isn't a straw poll, so I don't know why people are voting.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair comment. I kind of got sucked into the voting by previous responses, without properly reading the proposal. A History of Crossrail article sounds better than one purely about proposed routes, although I appreciate much of the content would be similar. I would still be of the opinion that until substantial building work is under way, to the point where the scheme could not be amended, it is unwise to remove the bits about other possibilities. It shouldn't be much longer now, as long as the government/treasury don't pull the plug... --Peeky44 _{What's on your mind?} 11:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the anticipated usage?

Does anyone know the forecast annual number of journeys? Comparing this information with the statistics for the existing systems (London Underground 1.197 billion, London Overground 100 million, DLR 60 million, National Rail in London 1.5 billion according to Metro systems by annual passenger rides) would be a useful way to assess the importance of the project. Choalbaton (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Crossrail problems

To the people that say I'm directing my protest at the wrong places....

I contacted crossrail, southeastern trains, tfl, crossrail, downing street and the developers about it with my valid grievances... namely there are now no longer any music venues of that size in london that I can get back from at night due to kent having a very bad train timetable so AT LEAST 75% of gigs now mean I have to get a hotel too - at the price of £50 a time... which i can't afford to do at the moment as due to illness im now the only earner in the household. kent also has bad links to the rest of the country and london is the only city i can get to for gigs - if you live in say milton keynes you can go to several shows on the toue. there is also the fact that the music scene is declining - hammersmith palais has gone, astoria has gone, astoria 2 has gone, electric ballroom soon to go.... the music scene is dying. Astoria was historic but if they replace it I don't care... I care about both affording to go to gigs, and the music scene dying.

Only crossrail bothered to reply to my letters, which were written without moaning, and all they did was link me to an online transcript of a meeting about astoria being demolished. no responding to my grievances from them or any other party.... so i am resorting to extreme measures.... which I am sorry for... but they are needed. In these hard times if people don't care about people being forced to waste their own money, or about the culture and music scene of the country declining then hard times call for a hard response.

Also.... as I said... I can easily reconnect to the net if I am banned or use one of my 4 or 5 users on here.... its not that hard... and to the people that keep messaging me asking which article I'm reffering to - the fact I keep talking about crossrail should be a hint.... and yes I know I'm sarcastic but so? 86.137.252.17 (talk) 15:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit that removed the above comment - as the user had indeed been asked to post an explaination - which was prompty removed and the user blocked. However I would strongly suggest the banned user does not reconnect and post again until the block has expired Scottcabal (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Management Aspects (Authorisation)

This entire section seems to consists of historical stuff which hasn't got removed. Only the last line is of relevance and that is also reported elsewhere in a more appropriate section. I am intending to delete it in the next week or so unless anyone feels differently.--Pedantic of Purley (talk) 08:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Overhead electrification in the central tunnel

The article doesn't mention this at all. I believe the plan is for a rigid overhead rail but haven't seen a reliable reference for this. Does anyone have one ?--Pedantic of Purley (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a copy of a conference report (by the IEE, now the IET) on Crossrail that mentions this. However, I am aware that this is still under review. Bhtpbank (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

"five-car electric multiple units, which will operate in pairs"

I believe this is not true. At a talk given by a senior Crossrail person I was told they would be fixed formation ten carriage trains. The reason for this is because platform edge doors will be used so it make no sense to split the train into two rakes. Platform edge doors are necessary to control airflow which means some of the ventilation shafts can be omitted. Actually that should read equivalent of ten carriage trains since articulation may be used. Again a reliable source for all this would help--Pedantic of Purley (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Cost

Is the cost of the project (a well known subject of much debate) a deliberate ommission from the article? WatcherZero (talk) 08:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hayes and Hartlington

The map in the design section (which claims it is correct as January 2010) refers to Hayes and Hartlington. Could someone with editing skills please remove the superfluous 't' ? Pedantic of Purley (talk) 09:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

NR considering connection to WCML - report

According to Transport Extra, NR is considering diverting/terminating WCML slow lines via/at Old Oak Common [which is v near the WCML at Willesden Junction], "to free up capacity at Euston for HS2".see "Crossrail to Milton Keynes allows HS2 into Euston" Is this too WP:CRYSTAL or can it be added to this article? (and WCML).--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good addition to the article. As long as it's phrased in terms of "NR is planning..." rather than "NR will...", it shouldn't be much of a WP:CRYSTAL problem. bobrayner (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This is covered in NR's London and South East Route Utilisation Strategy available on the network rail website so I would argue it can be mentioned and the RUS cited.Pedantic of Purley (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Tricky sentence

Hi. In 2.7. Stations, we have this: "10 new sets of platforms being built with most[which?] existing stations on the route will receive platform extensions to cope with the 200 metre long trains." What is this sentence-oid meant to say, please, and can it be recrafted to say it a little more clearly please? Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 06:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC) PS If it is still to start with "10" it would be even nicer than bunny-wunnies if it could start with "Ten" instead. :)

Seems perfectly clear;

10 new sets of platforms being built [at the central stations, as opposed to the branch stations which are already present]

[In contrast,] existing stations [the branch ones referred to above] on the route will receive platform extensions

[these extensions are so they can] cope with the 200 metre long trains.

That okay?- _J.Logan`^t: 09:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and no. To be honest I still think it's a difficult sentence, and whilst your explanation is helpful, it would be even better if the meaning were clear without it needing explaining. However YMMV, indeed it obviously does. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The wording isn't too bad, I think, but there's still some room to improve it. How about this? "Crossrail requires significant work on station infrastructure. Platforms will be lengthened at existing stations on the route, to cope with the 200 metre long trains, whilst 10 new sets of platforms are being built at the central stations..."

Thanks. I think that is much better, and it has the advantage that it is clear, and works in English. I'd be pleased to see this wording in use. Looking on, I see that the next sentence reads: "New platforms will be built to a 250 metre length to enable 240 metre long trains to run in the future as passenger numbers rise." This comes with a slight feeling of non-sequitur when we've just been talking about 200m trains, and is confusing because it says "New platforms" when we've just been talking about new-and-extended platforms. This of course is what is meant, and indeed the source is clearer than our paraphrase, as it just says "Crossrail station platforms will be 250 metres in length... " thereby wrapping the whole thing up in one. If it does seem bad to keep saying "Crossrail" too often in the article, how about this? "The new and extended platforms will be built to a 250 metre length to enable 240 metre long trains to run in the future as passenger numbers rise." or, OK if you want CR in there then "Crossrail platforms will be built ..." or even "All Crossrail platforms ..." or just "All platforms ..." So in total this might give you something like:

"Crossrail requires significant work on station infrastructure. Platforms will be lengthened at existing stations on the route, to cope with the 200 metre long trains, whilst 10 new sets of platforms are being built at the central stations. All platforms will be built to a 250 metre length to enable 240 metre long trains to run in the future as passenger numbers rise."

How would that be? Cheers DBaK (talk) 11:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to say "IF passenger numbers rise"? -- Alarics (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

On further reflection could I suggest this:

"Crossrail requires significant work on station infrastructure. Platforms will be lengthened at existing stations on the route, to accommodate 200-metre-long trains. At the 10 new stations in the central core, 250-metre-long platforms are being built to enable 240-metre-long trains to run in the future if passenger numbers make this necessary." -- Alarics (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Groovy. bobrayner (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear - I'm sorry if I am becoming a pain in the A over this but, unless I am (as usual) missing the point, surely Alarics's fine new version changes the sense? To me it now seems to say that (a) existing station platforms are being lengthened to take 200-metre trains and (b) the ten new setups will be built for 240-metre trains. I didn't think that that was what the source said, but rather that, while the trains will initially be 200m, all the platforms are being built or lengthened to take 240m trains. No?? Or am I just totally confused? Sorry, and helpppp! DBaK (talk) 21:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC) (PS I might shut up for a while now ...)

Just for ease of reference here's the source (is it reliable)? "Crossrail station platforms will be 250 metres in length to accommodate 200-metre trains that will pass through each station, as well as enabling longer 240-metre trains to operate in the future as passenger demand increases" Cheers DBaK (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for misunderstanding what was proposed. So how about this:

Crossrail requires significant work on station infrastructure. Although initially the trains will be 200 metres long, platforms at the 10 new stations in the central core are being built to enable 240-metre-long trains to run in the future in case passenger numbers make this necessary. Similarly, at the existing stations on the route, platforms will be lengthened accordingly. -- Alarics (talk) 05:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that's absolutely brilliant, thank you. Clear, matches the source, doesn't confuse me! :) Cheers 08:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Alarics are you going to go ahead and drop it in now? I nearly did so but didn't want to jump the gun. I think it's good to go now, and anyway can serve as the basis for further debate if others disagree. Cheers DBaK (talk) 07:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. -- Alarics (talk) 09:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Services - existing Liverpool St. - Shenfield to continue in parallel?

The Services section implies that the existing Liverpool Street - Shenfield service will continue overground alongside Crossrail. Is this true or a mistake? It is implied elsewhere throughout the article and on wikipedia that Cross-rail is to take over and replace the metro service currently provided by NXEA and its successor. -- Fursday 07:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Spelling Mistake on the Crossrail Route map

I've found a spelling mistake on the map below, can you find it? If you don't know it reads Hayes & Hartlington instead of Hayes & Harlington. I don't know how to fix it so could someone else? Thanks Likelife (talk) 10:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Tried, but it added a black box so I reverted. Hopefully there's someone more competent with Inkscape than me. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed -at least on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CrossrailLine1Map.svg -I assume this will copy over to wikipedia soon?? if not someone else please do it as I don't known how.

TIP - you can open SVG files using a text editor eg in windows use notepad or wordpad - it's text readable - and trivial to correct spellings - looks like an XML file. Hope that helps in future.Mddkpp (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Top speed contradiction

see Crossrail#Rolling_stock - top speed 160 or 145 - the old link is dead - new ones say 145 http://www.crossrail.co.uk/assets/download/4962 or http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/news/single-view/view/crossrail-rolling-stock-contract-invitations-to-negotiate-issued/archiv/2012/02.html .. Mddkpp (talk) 15:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

If someone can find an archived version of that dead link that would be much appreciated.15:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge remnants

You can see the edit effects in this diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crossrail&diff=484614489&oldid=484602565 -more removed than merged -mostly due to lack of clarity on dates, and sources rather than anything catastrophically wrong - on the other hand not clear if missing info is that valid in the article anyway..

From "1989/1990 proposals"

This service even went as far as preparatory work on rolling stock, with concept drawings for what was planned to be Class 341 trains released. A number of alternative routes on the west side were considered, including regional services to Amersham and Watford in the north-west, and Reading in the west. All have now been dropped in favour of the core proposal.

Just needs a source, I've added a link to British Rail Class 341 and 342 in the "see also" section, as it is not currently in the text.

also

Dropped routes

Various routes have been included in earlier drafts of the Crossrail scheme, but no longer feature. These include:

• Paddington to Kingston upon Thames via Richmond, part of the "preferred route" published in 2003, but dropped in 2004 due to a combination of local opposition, uncertainty over the route, cost, and insufficient return on the envisaged investment. This would conceivably have run either overland or via a tunnel to the existing track through Gunnersbury and Kew (which would no longer be used by the District Line), and thence to Richmond and Kingston on existing mainline track.
• A south-eastern route beyond Abbey Wood to Dartford and Northfleet, connecting with High Speed 1. This was rejected due to the need to share track with existing services, leading to potential performance difficulties. However, much of this route has been revived in the safeguarding directive for Abbey Wood-Gravesend.
• A north-western route to Aylesbury, taking over Chiltern services. This originally used the Dudding Hill Line, and later involved a new tunnel. Other branches in this direction to High Wycombe and Watford Junction were also proposed. None of these made it past the 2003 route consultation.

Again, needs a source - there seems to be some WP:OR but much of it seems valid- also the "2003 proposal" isn't mentioned in the current history section - so I could work out how to merge this properly. If someone can source this but doesn't want to do the work leave a link to the source and I will try to fix.

Final removal http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crossrail&diff=484614489&oldid=484614338 - see edit summary - it's not clear if this is WP:OR or not - as it is undated and unreference I can't merge it, or keep as is - as above if someone can source please leave a link.Oranjblud (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Superlink merge proposal

I propose merging (or perhaps more accurately "redirecting") the page Superlink (railway network) to Crossrail#Superlink, 2004

• The topic "Superlink" has significant coverage - though practically all of it dates to December 2004, it includes BBC, Guardian, London newspapers, etc etc. As such it can be said to be notable.
• However it is an unbuilt, self promoted proposal, existing only as "powerpoint presentations", and mostly attracting attention because of its relation to the crossrail topic.

As such I think it is only really suitable as a sub-topic of this page - ie it has little real notability outside the scope of this article. The map might be included. I can't find the CLRL review, however there is substantial coverage in :

Department for Transport (2007), Further Responses to the Government's Consultation on the Crossrail Bill Environmental Statement, The Stationery Office

The "Superlink" article contains some bloat and fluff, (there is as much info in the single paragraph in this article) and I fear plays into the continuing self-promotional activities of Michael Schabas and friends. I think this is a sound editorial decision and would propose a merge.Oranjblud (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree but I think there needs to be mention of the wider philosophical context, which is that it raises the question what kind of railway Crossrail is supposed to be. Superlink's view (this was given considerable coverage in the railway press at the time) was that Crossrail was being perceived in too narrow and local terms, and made more sense as a broader regional project. A point worth making, as Schabas has said himself, is that if, as recently suggested, Crossrail plans are to be adapted west of Paddington to take some or all WCML outer-suburban trains away from Euston, that in itself would move some way towards the concept that Superlink was proposing. -- Alarics (talk) 06:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes looking at the article again I see there is a lack of "rationale for building", and "service patterns" etc.. Judging from Crossrail Ltd.'s response to Superlink (linked above and elsewhere) it looks as if Crossrail intend(ed) to run a full metro type timetable - hence leaving no space for through or regional trains.

I'm not sufficiently familiar with the London transport network to begin writing the "reason for building section". Crossrail's website cites shorter journey times/less crowding etc but I don't know the background to to this.. It would certainly be worth adding any responses to the rational (such as those given by Superlink) to that section, once it is written..Oranjblud (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The main reason put forward for building Crossrail, as I understand it, is simply to increase east-west capacity and thereby relieve the very overloaded underground network, above all the Central line and the Paddington-Liverpool St section of the Circle/Hammersmith line. Maybe the article ought to make that more clear at the start. It is this rather local focus that Schabas and co were criticising, I think - their view was that, if you are going to spend this enormous amount of money on a new tunnel across central London, you ought to spread its benefits as widely as possible by having more connections of regional scope. -- Alarics (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

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 gauge 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]

Given the way people get squashed in during the rush hour, not necessarily (g).

There may have been an idea that following the route of the postal tunnels would guarantee that the route would be clear of obstructions, and reduce the amount of waste to be removed (although you'd be removing concrete, not clay, of course). Doubt that it ever went beyond that general idea— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcus Rowland (talk • contribs) 22:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Dead links and update and other stuff

Links from www.crossrail.. (excluding press releases go dead rapidly and in most cases don't seem to have been archived eg http://www.crossrail.co.uk/the-railway/getting-approval/background http://www.crossrail.co.uk/the-railway/getting-approval/parliamentary-bill http://www.crossrail.co.uk/route/tunnelling/ .I fixed some rolling stock and tunnelling links but not the rest. It might be a good idea to find non-primary (news) sources that are more stable and not use www.crossrail... unless necessary - there are several civil-engineering websites that appear to be long-term-stable, plus the main news sites eg BBC, Times etc.

Some of the info I found was very out of date - eg awards of contracts took place in 2010 but wasn't in as of 2012.

There also may be a need for someone to cleanup the content - there are mentions of the tunnels in the sections "design", "construction" and "tunnels" - the question arises - where does new info go? - Oranjblud (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Moved new comment to bottom, hope no-one minds DBaK (talk) 09:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Tunnel portals

I don't know if the article needs to discuss who won the contracts for these, or whether a description of what/where/when is needed - but it currently is absent..

merge proposal

I propose the merge the short "construction" section into the "design" section, renaming this "Design and constrcution". The details of the construction follow on (logically) in the same section as the description of the design. Any issues encountered during construction would then be close to the relavent design description in the text etc etc. This also prevents duplication problems mentioned above.

Please state your objections or approval.. If no one objects I'll do it in a week or so..Oranjblud (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I did this, but a slightly different way - see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crossrail&diff=484617070&oldid=484615338 - edit summary should explain..

It's likely that this can be improved on - the division between "history - construction" - and "design" still causes minor duplication/splitting Oranjblud (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

2. Another different merge

I see that Crossrail#History and Crossrail#Earlier_proposals appear to directly duplicate each other - I can't see any reason for this - it definately need cleaning up - though I'd appreciate it if someone else more familiar with the history did this.

I note that Crossrail#Alternative_proposed_routes is unreferenced, and may be too much detail for an unbuilt proposal - the bullleted lists could at least be converted to prose. - It's not clear what date this section relates to at all. This needs fixing and referencing, or moving to the talk page until it can be presented in a clearer way.

Maybe there is a need for separate articles on earlier unbuilt plans if substantial information exists. I have to question stuff that starts Various routes have been included in earlier drafts of the Crossrail scheme, but no longer feature which then has substantially exposition - this is close to WP:OR, or just too much coverage. Readers should be presented with the informatin, but not extensive editorialisation on what did and didn't make it in subsequent plans.. Any volunteers? Oranjblud (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I've done this - see section below.Oranjblud (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Biggest project etc

I added references to the Greater Paris Express project, another 100+km long urban transport project for a matter of comparison between the London and Paris metropolis. Final figures regarding length to be update with finalisation of both projects. PurpleEyes (talk) 11:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC) moved here for clarity, hope this was OK DBaK (talk) 09:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

My problem with this is that you replaced a referenced claim that it is the biggest construction project in Europe with another claim that it is the second, but the reference given there does not seem to support the claim unless we sit down and do a load of sums, with which I wouldn't know where to start, and which seems to be getting towards forbidden pleasures like OR and SYNTH for which the punishment is summary execution, apparently. If I were to read that sentence and see a ref at the end of it, I would expect to go to a page where a RS confirms that it is indeed the second largest - and not because I've had to work it out, but because it is there in black and white (other shades also available) on the destination page. Please don't get me wrong here. I have no hostile intent whatsoever and I am sure you may well be right - it's just that I don't feel that what you've done in the article is right, yet. Further, I don't think that we can or should play the game of updating it all the time - what happens if/when it becomes the third or fourth largest? It seems like we might be making it a bit of a hostage to fortune. (And if I ever get round to tidying my shed this would push it yet further down the list you see.) I don't think that there is anything at all wrong with the well-referenced claim that it is the biggest now, or was last Tuesday, or whatever - that is part of its history and should not be lost by our striving to keep everything current - it's perhaps just a question of wording. In other words, I don't think that the biggest-now claim should be dismissed even if you do produce a good source saying it's the second biggest from next Friday! Sorry for the flippancy but I hope you see where I am coming from with this. I am reverting the edit again now but would very much welcome more debate and input from other editors. I am not up for a fistfight over this - I just think we should proceed carefully. Oh, and I loved the RATP article btw, so thanks for that! With best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 09:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Archiving

Is there any chance that some nice person could set up an archive for this talk page? We've got stuff on here going back to Roman times. And if you do please feel free to remove this request as it's more sort of meta-Talk than talkie-talk! Thanks ... DBaK (talk) 10:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done, see here. MiszaBot I (talk · contribs) runs once a day, in alphabetic order, so I don't expect any action until some time between 01:00 and 02:00 tomorrow. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks very much. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Plague burial location

Hi, I hope you don't mind but I edited the bit about the plague burial site. It previously specified that the burials were found in the City of London ward of Farringdon Without. The problem with this is that most of Charterhouse Square, and one side of Charterhouse Street/Carthusian Street, are not in the City at all but in Islington - the boundary runs along the street and the street runs along the south side of the square. So you'd need to be very, very sure of where exactly the burials are to be able safely to say that they are in the City - they might be, but we don't really know. And, with the greatest respect to its fine journalists, I don't think the Metro story can be taken as a RS for the precise geography of this matter, and note that Crossrail's own story doesn't specify the borough at all. Indeed, if they are saying that the dig is in the road round the gardens per se, rather than Charterhouse Street/Carthusian Street, where there is no shaft that I can see, then it's definitely Islington. However this is a bit RS-ish (DBaK wandering around EC1 looking down holes) so I think that rather than try to specify Islington it's best to leave it slightly more open by just saying Farringdon, in the non-ward sense. (To be honest I would think Clerkenwell even better, but maybe that is just me.) Oh and if you want to look at ward boundaries (and worry about where Within and Without start and end!) then this is useful. Cheers DBaK (talk) 09:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

What's new and what's not?

I don't think this article explains very well what is actually new track and what is just new services on old track. Most of the route and track that Crossrail will run seem to be already parts of existing lines.

As I understand it, Crossrail will use parts of these existing lines:

• Great Western Main Line
• Heathrow Rail Link
• Great Eastern Main Line
• A disused part of the North London Line formerly used by Silverlink

The existing and new track to be used by Crossrail. I made this map, but I'm no expert, so comments and suggested improvements would be very welcome.

However, the article is not explicit in saying this. I'd like to change the article to make this more clear; otherwise it is easy to be under the misunderstanding that all the track from Maidenhead to Shenfield will be new, and that's not nice.

The opening sentence currently (and I think ambiguously) says:

Crossrail is a railway, 118 km (73 mi) in length, under construction in South East England. It will link Berkshire and Buckinghamshire via Greater London to Essex with 42 km (26 mi) of new tunnels.

The ambiguity comes from it saying how much new tunnel there will be without saying how much (or how little) new surface-level track there will be. I think the amount of new surface-level track is approximately zero, but this is not clearly stated in the article.

I think the article should open with something like:

Crossrail is a railway line that is under construction in Central London. Its 118 km (73 mi) route will use existing lines to the west (in Berkshire and Buckinghamshire) and east (in Essex) of London, in addition to 42 km (26 mi) of new tunnels.

Also it would be great if someone with greater familiarity with the subject were to add (or help me to add) clarification about what exactly is going on. I will do what I can, but I'd appreciate help. -- Travelpleb (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you are right that the introduction needs rewording to at least make clearer that most of the project incorporates existing lines. Maybe part of the problem is that Crossrail arguably means two things - it will be in one sense a short physical railway line (more or less the new tunnel), and in another sense a marketing name for (or for the operator of) a train *service* that will run from Maidenhead to Shenfield and etc. etc. The latter sense is what the article should probably be mainly about in the long term, but perhaps inevitably during the present construction phase the focus is on the new tunnel rather than the future services. Especially since we are still not absolutely clear what services will in fact run, e.g. will it end up going to Reading, will a link be put in to the WCML for outer-suburban services that currently go into Euston, and so on. -- Alarics (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I've had a go at making the introduction clearly state the differences between the construction project and the trains that will run on it.Travelpleb (talk) 11:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Much better. I've tweaked it a little bit further for even greater clarity. -- Alarics (talk) 06:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. It really helps make clear what's happening now and what is planned to happen.Travelpleb (talk) 06:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

(unindent) Also, the 'North London Line' section is much smaller than your highlighting above suggests. Only the area immediately east of Custom House (essentially, the Connaught Tunnel and approaches) is reusing old line. The tunnel under the Thames, the line from there as far as Abbey Wood, and the underground station at Woolwich in between are all brand-new.--Peeky44 _{What's on your mind?} 09:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Accessibility

I would imagine the TFL would make each station accessible in conformity with British disability laws as part of the upgrade, it would be the least they could do, aside from electrifying the line for normal trains. Could someone check if they are going to do so and if so update the route map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.42.160 (talk) 07:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

They don't have to (between Stratford to Shenfield and Paddington to Maidenhead) as they aren't completely new stations or platforms. They are upgrading some stations but not all because of money. I believe if they did get more funding they would but its mainly up to the Department for Transport's national Access For All programme. Its more likely that the DfT might add some stations to the upgrade list. Likelife (talk) 11:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Loading gauge?

Can anyone ascertain the loading gauge of the new sections under construction? I haven't managed to track down a reliable source, just various discussions on forums. KarenSutherland (talk) 11:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Map?

Reading Maidenhead Slough Heathrow 4 Paddington Abbey Wood Shenfield M.K. Ctl Gravesend

Reading Maidenhead Slough Heathrow 4 Paddington Abbey Wood Shenfield M.K. Ctl Gravesend

Hi, this article really could use a map of the rail line superimposed onto London. Something like the existing detail for Old Oak Common but for the entire project. This should be placed at the top of the article, in one image giving the new reader instantly a good idea of where the line is drawn. CapnZapp (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

While it's possible to use {{location map}} for the said purpose, the problem is that currently there is no base map large enough to cover the whole Crossrail alignment. {{Location map United Kingdom Greater London}} still misses Maidenhead to Slough. So literally you need to ask someone to make a new base map specifically for Crossrail. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 13:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

A base map covering this sort of area - which is South East England - might be suitable, but of course the actual map detail would need to be very different. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I created {{Location map UK England Southeast close‎}} because file:South East England districts 2011 map.svg comes in handy, but it still looks too large for Crossrail (proposed extension included). -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

On a separate note, could someone edit the original Line 1 image as it currently shows Woolwich as being above ground whereas it should be below ground. Simply south...... disorganising disorganisation for just 7 years 17:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The station is drawn using <use xlink:href="#stg" x="636" y="199.5" id="Woolwich" />. I think that all that needs doing is to alter "#stg" to "#stt" --Redrose64 (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you just do it as I cannot edit .svg please? Simply south...... disorganising disorganisation for just 7 years 18:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done using Microsoft WordPad - you don't need a special svg editor, because a svg image is very like HTML - plain text and <tags> --Redrose64 (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Simply south...... disorganising disorganisation for just 7 years 21:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

lead section: "Europe's largest railway project".

This statement is dubious, even if supported by source. Larger than the TGV system in France? Larger than the high-speed systemin Spain? And largest by what measure? Bold statements require strong and preferably multiple sources. Not that we are likely to find any consensus among experts about which project in Europe is the largest. AadaamS (talk) 09:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The largest infrastructure project in Europe, meaning of the things which are not finished yet, this one is biggest. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

This is almost the same wording used in a BBC report about the project: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22733839 - 0:26 seconds into the report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.8.185 (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, a comparison between Crossrail and the whole TGV would be an Apples:Oranges comparison. If one wants to compare anything in Britain to the TGV (or LGV), that would have to be HS1 and the proposed HS2, not Crossrail. M Carling 05:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

mattbuck The article says Crossrail is Europe's largest railway and infrastructure construction project, but if they mean what you wrote, it should say: Crossrail is Europe's largest railway and infrastructure project under construction. AadaamS (talk) 08:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

M Carling Yes the comparison is not good, but the statement in the article makes no such qualification. I propose that we add the qualifier of its kind to the article, even if this is vague beause it doesn't clarify by which measure. Having watched the source I am not wiser as to by which measure this is the biggest project. Is there a Guinness world record for this? AadaamS (talk) 08:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The point is that when something is finished it is no longer a project, it just is. I'm not saying Crossrail is larger than the TGV network, just that the TGV network is no longer a project. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

When an infrastructure project has finished construction it goes into the maintenance phase.AadaamS (talk) 11:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Gotthard Base Tunnel is under construction and at 57 km is longer than the Crossrail tunnel. The GBT article is well referenced and is likely reliable. So Crossrail is certainly not the longest project of its kind. AadaamS (talk) 11:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

This whole discussion can be solved by simply adding "one of" to the start of this statement (and pluralise projects), thereby showing it is still a major project and getting rid of any uncertainty. Simply south...... cooking letters for just 7 years 12:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Adding "one of" would indeed be necessary, the fr:Grand Paris Express project under construction for 2035 is also longer, at 200km. 129.199.147.39 (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually I think that without a WP:RS listing railway construction projects by order of "size" I don't see how adding this statement to the article adds any value. Why not simply write what the cost of the project is and how many tunnels or length of track is being constructed and leave it at that? Far too much of this article is based on primary source as it is already. AadaamS (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that it is currently the largest in terms of people working on it. Obviously there are longer tunnels ongoing, but they aren't anywhere near as complex (think stations, fitting everything into London's crowded under- and over-ground environments etc...).--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Pontificalibus, do you have a WP:RS as evidence for it being by the number of people employed in the project? I don't dispute that it's a large infrastructure project, but saying it is the largest in Europe is a strong claim and strong claims require strong sources to back it up. The BBC citation given doesn't say how it is the largest. AadaamS (talk) 12:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Plenty of reliable sources say it is "Europe’s largest infrastructure project" (1, 2, 3) I will now try and find some that qualify exactly what they mean by that.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Something where several projects are listed by size would be perfect. I think of the sources you listed that Atkins would be counted as a primary source since they are railway contracting company directly involved in Crossrail, the same reasoning goes for the gov.uk source. AadaamS (talk) 08:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/crossrail/?goback=.gde_2576718_member_235869733

  Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 12:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The BS-map section still looks bad

I see now why there is an eyesore of a 'enlarge' icon right in the middle of the map since apparently there is no room to mention how complicated the track system will be between the proposed Kensal Town station and Paddington. Perhaps that should be done away with all together if the map can't handle it as I can't stand that stupid 'enlarge' icon being somewhere that disrupts the overall look of the main BS-map itself. Especially where it's placed right beside Paddington Station's name. You'll be pleased to hear that I won't try and edit it again as it will cause the entire map to crash, though I still LOATHE the overall look of the map. (D31 (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)David31584D31 (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC))

@David31584: To remove the enlargement icon and link for Paddington, all you needed to do was remove the {{enlarge|London Paddington station}} from Template:Crossrail RDT - there was no need to change anything else. It is those other changes that caused the ancillary damage. But if you don't like its presence there, please don't remove it again without discussion; you have been reverted twice already (assuming that you and 86.153.151.54 (talk) are the same person), please see WP:BRD.

If it is the overall look of the whole map that you don't like, please note that it is just one of many hundreds of such maps, known as RDTs, which share a common styling that is described at WP:RDT. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Try telling that to Wikipedia, who just loves to do things the hard way and just messes everything up at the slightest human error. Anyway there's no point to editing it as I said I won't do it again as it does provide a vital link, but it still looks ugly and disrupts the organization of the map. (D31 (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)David31584D31 (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC))

The BS-map section looks bad

In my computer the initial section starting from bs-map looks screwed up. How can this be fixed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tian2992 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@Tian2992: It looks screwed up because these four edits by David31584 (talk · contribs) broke it. These edits have since been reverted by Useddenim (talk · contribs), so the page should look fine now. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@Redrose64: thanks, much better now Sebastian 02:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Split article to Operations and Infrastructure

Seeing that the concession winner has been announced, I propose that the article should be split into the Crossrail route and the Crossrail (train operating company) just like it is for Thameslink. Any thoughts? Likelife (talk) 10:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Makes sense to me. Once it starts having a significant legal personality, then yes the TOC article needs to be created. We can always 'move' it when they get round to having a sensible name. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Go ahead, especially with Crossrail 2 under discussion. Simply south ...... time, department skies for just 8 years 17:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• support. This was always going to be needed at some point, and while now is at the very beginning of the window in which it would make sense, it is not premature and the distinction is only going to get greater from this point forward. Thryduulf (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Agree precedent set with London Overground & London Overground Rail Operations and Thameslink Programme & Thameslink (train operating company). D47817 (talk) 04:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Great, I'll get it done shortly, some help would be appreciated Likelife (talk) 09:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Loading gauge

I've been trying to get a source for the loading gauge of Crossrail (or at least for the new infrastructure) for a while. The closest I've found is this letter, which seems to authorise the central section not to meet the GB loading gauge. ("GB" refers to the European derivation of the international UIC standards). Presumably it means that the tunnels will be smaller then the GB loading gauge, but it doesn't actually specify the loading gauge that will be used. Anyone have any better info? KarenSutherland (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of TfL Rail in the route diagram template

I have already done that in Chinese version so you may discuss if you guys want the same change to be applied here. (zh.wp uses the updated Lua version of RDT so the markups are different from English version but icon IDs are the same.) -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

We use miles not km.

"Crossrail is a 118-kilometre (73-mile) railway line".

I'm not usually offended by the first line of an article. This is English wikipedia. Most of the English-speaking-world by pop. use miles. And all of Britain, where the line is, only uses miles. I have no problem with metricating the whole world, even the US, but currently, we use miles.

I'd prefer: "Crossrail is a 73-mile (118-km) railway line" --LeedsKing (talk) 08:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• What do teh sources use? The new tunnels will be being built in metric, as will be the new track not in tunnels. The new sections will probably be maintained in metric. The existsing stuff may be a mix still. Thryduulf (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

All modern engineering is done in metric so all data for crossrail are in metres and kg. It is possible that converted figures for the old system will be provided for the sentimental, but that is what they will be - conversions. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• @LeedsKing: wrote: "Most of the English-speaking-world by pop. use miles." I doubt this assertion is provable, particularly if you count former colonies, where English is an official language, even though it is a second language for most citizens. The English language article says English is an official language in 67 countries. The USA is just about the only holdout that hasn't officially made the metric system the official system. Canada, Australia, NZ and the UK all made metric the official system many decades ago.

So, use miles in the USA, and metric everywhere else. Geo Swan (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Great Britain might be "officially" metric, but that doesn't prevent things like road signs from not showing kilometres, or road speed limits (which are laid down in law) from being expressed in miles per hour. No policeman has ever stopped me on a charge of doing 55 km/h in a 48 km/h street. As for the railways of Great Britain, they're still primarily surveyed in miles, chains and yards. The stretch between Paddingon and Heathrow Tunnel Junction is dual-surveyed in both miles, chains and yards and in metres; several new lines (including Heathrow Tunnel Junction to the Heathrow termini) is surveyed in metres alone, but this is not universal: Airport Junction to Heathrow Tunnel Junction is a new line, but that's dual-surveyed (Heathrow Tunnel Junction is 12 miles 27 chains from Padd). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Serious weakness

A serious weakness in this article is that it makes no attempt to explain WHY it uses 7 metre wide tunnels, instead of 3.5 metre wide tunnels. 7 metre wide tunnels will generate four times as much muck as a 3.5 metre wide tunnel.

Perhaps the decision was made so large pits won't have to be excavated to mine out room for the stations -- if any section of tunnel is wide enough to accommodate a station platform. If so, perhaps contributors thought the decision to bore super-wide tunnels was obvious.

It is not obvious, and the article should explain this. It should explain it in a prominent place -- not buried in an obscure place in the article. Geo Swan (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I've given a referenced answer, and I think the reference is worth reading. If you think I have buried the answer, please dig it up! Thincat (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Crossrail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090803115157/http://www.crossrail.co.uk:80/the-railway/getting-approval/parliamentary-bill to http://www.crossrail.co.uk/the-railway/getting-approval/parliamentary-bill
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120610183936/http://www.crossrail.co.uk/route/surface/south-east-section/woolwich-station to http://www.crossrail.co.uk/route/surface/south-east-section/woolwich-station

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Lorries

I'm trying to understand why the health and safety section of this article doesn't discuss the members of the public killed by Crossrail lorries. Crossrail is responsible for huge numbers of lorry movements and the consequences of those are as significant as anything that happens on site. If you put "Crossraal lorry safety" into Google you'll find countless press releases, Evening Standard articles, people selling Crossrail-specific lorry safety equipment, hauliers promising "Crossrail compliance", etc etc. Not discussing the topic at all in this article is weird. --90.195.148.226 (talk) 09:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it is undue, a project as large as this is bound to have lots of lorries and therefore some people killed by them. Unless the numbers killed are significantly larger than for other similar projects then I don't think it's necessary. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Ridiculous to include these accidents. Do we mention on the Scania AB article every cyclist killed by a Scania lorry? No. --TBM10 (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Rapid transit

Wouldn't the railway, at least the central section be classified as rapid transit like the S-Bahn? TfL seems to think so, on their site it says "We hope that Crossrail will provide a service that sets the benchmark for metro railway services in Europe." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.54.2.76 (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Crossrail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111003150203/http://www.wharf.co.uk/2011/04/crossrail-will-leave-a-positiv.html to http://www.wharf.co.uk/2011/04/crossrail-will-leave-a-positiv.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

When is renaming

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TfL_Rail says "The service will be re-branded as the Crossrail Elizabeth Line in May 2017 when the new Class 345 trains are introduced" but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossrail says "The central section and a large portion of the line ... is due to open in December 2018; at that time the service will be renamed the Elizabeth line." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.34.78 (talk) 10:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The TFL rail article was incorrect, I have corrected it and added this reference Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Mind you, who's Rpobert...? 79.68.139.189 (talk)

Oh dear, fixed that as well. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Elizabeth line

Crossrail has just been officially renamed as the Elizabeth Line. Somebody with much better editing skills than I should update this page accordingly - http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/crossrail-named-the-elizabeth-line-royal-title-unveiled-as-the-queen-visits-bond-street-a3186791.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.165.144.162 (talk) 11:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking: Crossrail for the route, Elizabeth line for the service. Second opinion on this? --Marianian^(talk) 15:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Is it not the other way round? The Elizabeth line is looking to be the first of three Crossrail lines.   JaJaWa |say hello  15:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The news seems to suggest that "Elizabeth line" covers to whole alignment from Reading/Heathrow to Shenfield/Abbey Wood. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 16:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The official, and common, name is and will remain Crossrail. Not until December 2018 will it be re-branded as the Elizabeth line, and even then the common name may well remain as Crossrail. Certainly, the article should still refer to Crossrail in the main, until December 2018. --TBM10 (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

It's been called Crossrail for 20 years, it will still be even if TfL want a publicity stunt. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

For the time being, it might be helpful to retain a logical split between Crossrail as the name for the construction project, and Elizabeth Line for the actual line when it opens. A similar split emerged between East London line extension and London Overground when all that was being built.Cnbrb (talk) 09:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

This seems to be a good idea, IMO. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

So, is there any chance that we could agree a way forward with this and display it prominently here, and point people to it when they edit the article against that consensus. Otherwise I fear that the whole name/logo/capitalisation/etc thing will just turn into a bit of a barn dance and go chugging on till, say, 2019. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Good idea, I agree. The distinction seems to be emerging of Crossrail = construction project, Elizabeth Line = future line when operational, recently supported in an article on London Reconnections. Does that seem a sensible way of thinking? It does to me. Cnbrb (talk) 11:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Crossrail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.crossrail.co.uk/route/surface/south-east-section/woolwich-station
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111006150710/http://www.docklands24.co.uk/news/travel/crossrail_mock_ups_for_stations_that_will_last_100_years_1_832242 to http://www.docklands24.co.uk/news/travel/crossrail_mock_ups_for_stations_that_will_last_100_years_1_832242
• Added archive http://collections.europarchive.org/tna/20100408232230/http:/www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/rail-electrification.pdf to http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/rail-electrification.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/passenger/franchises/greater-anglia/invitationtotender.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www2.dft.gov.uk/consultations/archive/2010/2010-07/consultation.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Lead trim

The lead is far too long (should be around 4 paragraphs) so I will try and trim it down a bit. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Splitting of historic proposals

What do other editors think about splitting off the sections on the historic proposals for Crossrail, which are not really relevant to the current development (and to most people looking for information on Crossrail)? While this article is currently not so long as to make it unreadable, I imagine that as building progresses and more content is added that it will be necessary to split the article up Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Any opinions here? I will split it off if no one disagrees. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Crossrail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080929213433/http://www.parliament.uk:80/parliamentary_committees/crossrail.cfm to http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/crossrail.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120817171350/http://www.tfl.gov.uk/static/corporate/media/newscentre/archive/17095.html to http://www.tfl.gov.uk/static/corporate/media/newscentre/archive/17095.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429020953/http://www.riagb.org.uk:80/images/news_documents/1302261683.pdf to http://www.riagb.org.uk/images/news_documents/1302261683.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.crossrail.co.uk/assets/library/document/d/original/d08tunnelconstructionmethodology1.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.crossrail.co.uk/assets/library/document/c/original/crossrail_project_bulletin_23_web.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160516152102/http://www.lcacc.org:80/access/ to http://www.lcacc.org/access/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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? [2] 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)

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. [3]Turini2 (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Image mistake

I noticed the images under timetable (e.g. File:Crossrail phase5.png) have a mistake regarding the Abbey wood branch. They all include the proposed extension out past Dartford rather than terminate at Abbey Wood. Someone able to fix these? They've been wrong since 2015.- _J.Logan`^t: 21:05, 22 December 2017 (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)

Yes in December 2018 I would support this page moving to Elizabeth line, History of Crossrail moving to Crossrail (project). Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)