Talk:Crossrail/Archive 2

Passenger numbers
"Crossrail has predicted annual passenger numbers of 200 million from its opening in late 2018; this would represent a considerable increase on the 1,700 million carried on the British national rail network in 2015–16, and will relieve pressure on the London Underground, especially the Central line."

I deleted the phrase this would represent a considerable increase on the 1,700 million carried on the British national rail network in 2015–16, because I consider it spurious accounting. These are not additional journeys but almost all a transfer from other underground lines. User:Likelife disagreed and reverted. Yes, there will certainly be a net increase but nothing like 200M. I suggest that the text as it stands is at best wp:crystal but more honestly wp:SYN and/or wp:OR. Comments? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree - I'm also unsure that the 200m is in addition to the 1,700m... How many people that currently ride TFL Rail + GWR will move to riding the Elizabeth line? Some of these won't be new riders...Turini2 (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Fares
I know that there is a ticketing section, but shouldn't there be a section on fares? It has been announced that (excepting Heathrow) the usual tube fares will apply in Zones 1-6. Additionally travelcards and Oyster/contactless capping for zone 6 will be applied to Heathrow. Difbobatl (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2018 (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)


 * Please note previous discussion here: Talk:Crossrail/Archive_1
 * I believe they're probably right that at least it should remain as-is for the time being at least. Not that I feel strongly about this.- J.Logan`t : 13:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, I think it should stay as Crossrail until December 2018. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Surely this article, about the Crossrail construction project and railway line should remain in this article with the current or similar name, while the TfL Elizabeth Line service on Crossrail and other lines would be a separate article; similar to the existing TfL Rail article - perhaps just rename that one. Otherwise there's a lot if irrelevant baggage in this article once the service is operational. Nfitz (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Delay
Paddington to Abbey Wood will now open in Autumn 2019 rather than December 2018. Presumably news sources will be published shortly. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow! That's quite a delay! I see it's up on BBC News now. Cnbrb (talk) 13:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Costs
It would be really helpful if the costs of construction were shown. Ideally this should be a breakdown showing how much each station and each tunnel cost, as well as other elements like signalling and management. This could be in the form of a table, possibly with original budget and actual cost shown. Presumably the source information is in the public domain? FreeFlow99 (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

2018 bailout & reschedule
To nobody's surprise, Crossrail is being bailed out to the tune of £3bn. Also to nobody's surprise, it's not going to open in autumn 2019.

Crossrail delay: £1.4bn bailout as autumn 2019 launch delayed - BBC News

Delayed Crossrail could cost almost £3bn more than planned - the Grauniad

The dates and budgets info in this article is all now out of date of course, so perhaps it would be worth changing references to autumn 2019 to "unknown". There will probably be a new 2020 launch date announced before the end of this year, so keep an eye out. Cnbrb (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * With regard to the Timeline section, I have updated the information based on the latest reports. It now appears that the Reading → Paddington section will come into operation before the central section, so I have updated the timeline to reflect latest projections. If any of this seems inaccurate, let me know. Cnbrb (talk) 12:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Late 2020/Early 2021 needs new citations
Editors have replaced the original (cited) opening dates with the latest info, but have left the original citations in place. Could someone rectify, please? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It was a drive-by edit by an anonymous IP editor - unfortunately they never reply. I've added a new reference - you are welcome to replace it with something more concrete as the report all seems a bit "may be". Cnbrb (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

2022
I think I've given up trying to keep this article up to date. 🙄



Cnbrb (talk) 11:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe put the updates on hold for now? I know it’s a pain. Just gather the sources at the moment then use it later. Vincent LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 05:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. It just needs some generic wording that it's undergoing several delays with an eternally shifting completion date. Otherwise it's a Sisyphean task. Cnbrb (talk) 07:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

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.

Railway line
A few years ago there was a discussion on calling Crossrail a railway line (What's new and what's not?). It was agreed upon that Crossrail is a project that includes newly built and existing lines but now it says railway line in the beginning again. I would like to change the introduction to make that clear.--PhiH (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I suspect that the problem arises because Elizabeth Line redirects there. So it seems to me that it is time to split the article so that Crossrail is clearly about the engineering project and we have a new article, Elizabeth Line, that is about the live service, like Victoria Line. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There is also the article TfL Rail which is about the concession and more or less about the service. Maybe that article could be extended with contents from this article thus splitting project and service. Elizabeth line would than redirect to TfL Rail.--PhiH (talk) 11:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Bazza (talk) 11:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it was this discussion from 2016, the upshot of which was that this article should be primarily about the construction project, and until opening, this article should temporarily also be about the line. It was suggested that we should wait until the line actually opens, and then the article should be split into Crossrail and Elizabeth Line. As I mentioned back then, a similar split emerged between East London line extension and London Overground when all that was being built.


 * I had heard a rumour that Crossrail has been delayed slightly, so I'm not sure that the time is quite right for a split just yet. Cnbrb (talk) 12:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

now that we have a firm opening date, shall we create the Elizabeth Line article and change this article to be about the construction project? Bellowhead678 (talk) 10:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi - thanks for the ping! Yes I agree with this approach, as discussed above. The time is probably OK - we don't need to wait for the actual opening as it is imminent. Cnbrb (talk) 10:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The actual "opening" (i.e. service as planned, even ignoring Bond Street) is many months off according to the press today but, as the current single article has degenerated into a messy mixture of service and infrastructure, your proposal makes much sense. Bazza (talk) 10:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, BEBOLD and just do it.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport. Bazza (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggest that the article being created is Elizabeth line, with lowercase "line" to match other London rail services. Bazza (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that this article should be called Elizabeth line and the construction (and crossrail 2/3) stuff should be moved to a new crossrail article. Difbobatl (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The majority of this article is about Crossrail and not about the Elizabeth line so the article title should remain as it is. Only a few passages need to be moved into a new article about the Elizabeth line. --PhiH (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @ Mattdaviesfsic FYI - editors are working on splitting this article - given the imminent opening of the Elizabeth line. Turini2 (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree with moving "History of the Crossrail line" into this article - there is more than enough content to justify a separate history article, even if a few paragraphs are moved to an Elizabeth line article. Bellowhead678 (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Missing service pattern
The proposed service pattern has been removed and not replaced - I think it was a table. Needs editing by someone who knows the facts, or restoration of the previous table from an earlier version. I have flagged the location with "clarification needed". Hyperman 42 (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The location is in Section 5, Services, immediately before 5.1, Timeline. Hyperman 42 (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Action needed on lead
The last paragraph of the lead currently states "The total estimated cost rose from an initial budget of £14.8 billion to £18.7 billion by August 2020. Originally planned to open in 2018, the project has been repeatedly delayed. The COVID-19 pandemic paused works for several months and, in late 2020, reduced the number of workers that could be safely on-site."

That text is supported by references so there is no reason it should not be in the article. However, it is not covered elsewhere in the article and therefore should not be in the lead. Does somebody want to work their magic and put the content in the right place in the article with the appropriate summary back in the lead? I have already moved existing references out of the lead as they are properly covered elsewhere in the article. TIA. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Elizabeth Line
Two questions:

1. Isn't it about time this article was split into Crossrail and Elizabeth Line?

2. Is the Heathrow spur also called the Elizabeth Line?--Dave F63 (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I think the idea is to take the existing TfL Rail article and rename it as that is about the line that exists right now. this should obviously stay as Crossrail because it is about the development of the project - but some content could move over. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. The split is being discussed above. Cnbrb (talk) 01:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As for the "isn't it about time" question, the (uncited!) statement in the lead reads The central section of the line is scheduled to open on 24 May 2022 so, given that there will be an upsurge in readers over the next two weeks, why not do the split now? Do we really have to be x years late and y million over budget too, before we are ready to roll? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point. Agree we should do it now. b.t.w. Statements made in the lead should summarise the (cited) content of the article. The 24 May date is properly cited lower down in the article. Citations are not needed in the lead section. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I've created a draft page in my sandbox. Feel free to edit this - I'll create the page in a couple of days if there are no objections. Bellowhead678 (talk) 14:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks great. Thanks for kicking it off. In History, I'd suggest shortening the approval section by at least 50%, but also add a short section on construction and commissioning, summarising much of what is in the Crossrail into a couple of paragraphs. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Just added a big pile of station photos for you... Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks to everyone for their edits! I'll publish it tomorrow. Bellowhead678 (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In place of TfL Rail? 10mmsocket (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that TfL Rail be left as a former operator, rather than be deleted or become a redirect. The EL would have never used the 360s for Heathrow,, so it seems fair to leave it as "operations transferred to the Elizabeth line"... Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 02:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Just published it now - I would envisage copying over some more service-related content to the Elizabeth line or TfL Rail articles from here (and some of it here is essentially redundant now). I'll let someone with more knowledge on it than me do that though... Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 03:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I mostly right behind what has been done. However I believe that the "Further proposals" section belongs here in Crossrail, not in the Elizabeth line article, because lots of them have been proposed in the past but I don't believe that any of them have yet been given go-ahead for the future. Thus they're part of Crossrail project history for now. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Happy to leave it here, I was simply going for consistency. I'll create a template on the EL article then. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. And will you remove the duplicate text there? 10mmsocket (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will. (Or at least significantly reword it). Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm a little uncertain about the "Further proposals" - I understand that they are previously mooted developments, some of which may yet come to pass - historically proposed previously forthcoming future developments, perhaps. It's getting a bit like the Douglas Adams explanation of grammar for time travellers. I think as all this develops, it may be appropriate for some material to appear in both articles. Cnbrb (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)