Crossrail to be stopped!

Maybe the S Stock order could be scaled-back, Eurofighter-style, thus not wasting the money spent on the D Stock refurb?

Apologies, I should have called it "Crossrail could be stopped if Tories get in!"

I think that is not a bad idea Alex.

That would require 90% of the expensive bits of infrastructure, plus 6 tracking the GWML, plus finding somewhere to put terminating platforms at Stratford.

There aren't any major buts of Crossrail you can remove without the whole scheme not making sense anymore.

They are not going to stop the project now, they have already started construction and issuing CPOs.....oh hang on, <thumps forehead> this is the incompetent British government we are talking about here, how silly of me!!!

I suggest you read the article again, especially the first line. This is nothing to do with the current Government. This is a prediction of what will happen if the Conservatives win the next general election

Um hate to go against the grain, but I think it would be catastrophic for London if Crossrail were cancelled. Political momentum on the only large scale transport project would be entirley lost, no new project would be forthcoming and it wouldn't release extra funding for Tube upgrades either as the capital would be used to pay back National debt. So London gets nothing new. That nation gets nothing new, capital investment decreases and we go back to Thatcherite years where fat-cats get fatter but there's no investment.

Having said that, I will probably vote Tory, but that's more to do with my stark dislike for Labour than any affinity for the other brand of Popularist political meandering that our 2 party system currently offers.

It would be disappointing but not altogether surprising if this were to happen. However I do think the ELL, Thameslink works and tube upgrades should all be completed in preference to Crossrail. As others have mentioned the Abbey Wood branch is pretty crucial for the whole project so an abbreviated Crossrail is possible, which would then better serve the Canary Wharf traffic. Unfortunately Shenfield would be for another day but the benefits would be significant as that would be a starter for Chelney, then going on to sort out the Piccadilly/District branches in the west. Icing on the cake would be a district extension/tram to tackle the Greenford branch line.

Agreed. We're talking about 3 things really:

1. A lot of the money involved will be private. It won't end up on any other public scheme.

2. Any money from the government will just mean less debt or will be swallowed up by something else. Chances are it won't be a rail infrastructure project.

3. New rail projects will be avoided like the plague because they will be viewed as unpopular and seen as only having cost and not benefit.

We've been here before in previous decades. Let's not go through all that again.

All of the above agreed which is why I said it would be disappointing. Of course I'd like for the project to go ahead as it is but I was just exploring possibilities other than the project being scrapped in its entirety (which was, after all, the title of the thread).

What a strange and warped sense of history you have! Fat cats have done extremely well under Labour and credit crunch or not the gravy train continues!
Labour can take no credit whatsoever for giving CrossRail the go-ahead after sitting on the project for 10 years. They can't be blamed for stopping it but they were in no hurry to get it built and just as they sold London Underground down the river they washed their hands of CrossRail. It is unfortunate that unlike the MPs expenses row, which is small beer in comparison to the £taxpayers billions thrown away every year, no-one will be held to account for the fudge that is the policy on transport infrastructure.
Under Labour the wheels continue to turn in the same old way and the Tories will do exactly the same in the same old way because they have all the excuses in the book at their disposal.
Whether CrossRail is built or not will have little effect on anything because the moment passed more than 10 years ago and by the time what was planned is built it will simply not be fit for purpose, and Britain will carry on in the same old way making do as it has done for decades put sticking plaster over everything. British politicians simply haven't got a clue!

Indeed: 'Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy' IIRC. I suppose we're all surfing the Kondratiev wave...... ;D

I wouldn't describe the financial services sector as in government hands or ownership, even if (without exaggeration) there has been a large bailout that has included the City and Canary Wharf, nor is it desirable to enforce where the sector spends its money - it's still private sector money even if the government has a stake in it or leant/gave some of it. The financial sector has not collapsed and will still (and should) be planning for eventual recovery and growth

I therefore see no change of priorities and executive decisions from the financial sector.

I don't think the country's on its knees and should ditch financial services for industry or mining/agriculture (even though I think non-Eurozone manufacturing would be great and a new role for the northern/midland cities).

Therefore I don't see the need for transport projects based in/on London to be ditched or modified just because most of us have had it up to here with banks.

Clearly the CW branch has economic benefits and if we are to be totally pessimistic and assume the it won't then the country certainly won't be building lines to Shenfield for commuters without jobs.

In the current recession it's interesting to note that Crossrail is still being financially backed. It won't be except by direct government money if the CW branch were ditched.

Personally I'm all for an increase in government money for transport and public services (maybe they could legislate to rid these sectors of too much middle and upper management while they're at it) but it's not realistic to think it's going to happen or that suddenly all the spiralling costs won't happen.

JLE was different. It was a private sector contribution only in part (as was the route modification) and it all went wrong as did Metronet. That's a sign of how it's often private companies who collapse but if we're going to go all historical, then look at British Leyland. BLMC was a private company that collapsed, had strikes etc, was bailed out, then as British Leyland it took no money from the tax-payer for 6 years, even then it was a bit of investment for new models. It was successfully downsized and profitable under it's newly privatised BAE ownership but after a few years they and their private successors messed it up. Look at BR - dull and corporate but contributing to the coffers when rail travel was historically low. Does this mean government natonalisation is a good idea? Or should these things be left entirely to the private sector to just go bust and make lots of short-term money for their board members and share owners?

Whatever, we're left with a Crossrail project in a PPP world.

Would the plan be different if it was all government money? I doubt it. Clearly its the government that wants Shenfield and Maidenhead/Reading as part of stage one, and the SE branch was always part of stage two and it makes economic sense.

It is virtually all government money. The only contributions from business are:

• £230m from BAA
  
• £150m from the Canary Wharf Group
  
• £200m from the City of London (which is hardly private)
  
• some similarly sized amount from the developer for the Woolwich station box
  

The rest is split between Network Rail*, DFT and TfL/GLA, which are all publicly funded bodies. The GLA plans to recoup £3.5bn of its contribution through business rates, but will be paying upfront for the construction.

Or in summary, around £15bn of the £15.9bn upfront cost comes from public funds, and the ultimate plan is only for £4.4bn to be contributed directly by business, or about 28%.