Why wasn't Crossrail built in the 90s?

[Sad Sprinter]

I've heard so many reasons why, varying from Ken Clarke canned it as Chancellor, competition with the Jubilee Line extension and the Government worried it'll somehow screw-up railway privatisation. Any concrete answers out there?

 

[JonathanH]

The economic downturn of the early 1990s effectively did for it but it is not exactly clear how it would have worked alongside the way the railway was privatised. I think there are some comments from other posters on it on this forum.

'ChiefPlanner' is the expert on this - https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ot-have-been-built.122913/page-2#post-2355603

 

[Bald Rick]

It was effectively ‘hibernated’ when Governement chose to prioritise the jubilee line extension, and couldn’t afford both in cash or Parliamentary time. There’s a famous letter from the then SoS (possibly Rifkind) to the BR Chairman saying ‘sorry, I know you won’t like this, but...’ - I’ve got a copy of it somewhere, possibly in the NSE book.

 

[JonathanH]

This is (part of) a debate from parliament in 1996.

Crossrail - Hansard - UK Parliament

Hansard record of the item : 'Crossrail' on Monday 22 April 1996.

hansard.parliament.uk

Mr. Gapes

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future of crossrail. [24720]

The Minister for Transport in London
(Mr. Steve Norris)

As my right hon. Friend has told the House, crossrail has its place in the sequence of major London projects. The Government are committed to it going ahead as a joint venture with a substantial private sector contribution.

Mr. Gapes

Many people and many organisations in London, including London Pride Partnership, the Corporation of London and the Association of London Government, were bitterly disappointed by the Government's announcement a few weeks ago. As Londoners, we feel that crossrail has been delayed unnecessarily and we hope that the Minister will give an assurance that the Government remain firmly committed to crossrail's implementation at an early date, as it is necessary for our city's economic vitality and for journeys across the city, because it links our main railway stations. May we have that assurance?

Mr. Norris

If Londoners are disappointed, it is probably largely because they have relied on the disinformation about the status of crossrail which has been spread by the Opposition. The reality is that, in London, we are proceeding with the Jubilee line extension which is due to open on 28 March 1998—book your tickets now—and we have already announced that the £650 million Thameslink 2000 scheme will follow thereafter, to be followed by the channel tunnel rail link, which is a scheme of around £2.7 billion. We have made it clear that, from a financial and logistics standpoint, it is right that crossrail should follow those projects. That is prudent and sensible government, something that Londoners understand when they are exposed to it but something that I do not expect Opposition Members to begin to understand.

 

[Grumpy Git]

Every major infrastructure project in the UK seems to be built 25 years too late.

 

[py_megapixel]

Every major infrastructure project in the UK seems to be built 25 years too late.

I'm looking forward to Castlefield improvements in 2042 then!

 

[Grumpy Git]

I'm looking forward to Castlefield improvements in 2042 then!

I look forward to having a ride on it for my 80th birthday!

 

[JonathanH]

Every major infrastructure project in the UK seems to be built 25 years too late.

I guess there is an issue around the availability of construction workers, not just money. It just isn't possible to build a load of huge projects concurrently and they have to form an orderly queue.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Too long ago now , and almost too painful to recall.

Yes - the London area commuting demand crashed from the glory days of the mid to late 1980;s - but the support from the various parts of "mother railway" (which included our good friends and allies at LUL) , was pretty much always there. It was virtually a "shovel ready" railway project , and note , the work was pretty much done "in house" without alliances and partnerships etc. Yes - there were sound environmental statements and policies. The Networker derived class 341 build was pretty advanced.

I suppose - the project was ill served by the Parliamentary process - a team of 4 on the Select Committee were never really persuaded - one of which was amazingly sponsored by the RMT who voted against it (to the astonishment of many) , but the key decisions (as ever) were probably driven by the Treasury and it's agents , so an easy option was to confirm the JLE extension (and we know how well the signalling for that went) was a bit optimistic - but it did open , and with the prospect of the 1994 act and privatisation make a commitment to Thameslink 2000 , embedded in Railtrack to no real tangible result , but again it did eventually appear.

So Crossrail was parked , - but I await with some pleasure an eventual ride on it. My oldest boy will be just 30 when it starts to roll , he was in a pram when his father put in the hours to no avail on the project. So 25 years late is not far off.

A different project , but on reflection covering the Docklands and to SE Kent is a great idea.

 

[JonathanH]

A different project , but on reflection covering the Docklands and to SE Kent is a great idea.

The urban landscape to the west of London out to West Drayton is so very different now from the mid 1990s as well. It is interesting to consider what demand Crossrail opening in the early 2000s would have seen and whether it would have hastened redevelopment sooner.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

The urban landscape to the west of London out to West Drayton is so very different now from the mid 1990s as well. It is interesting to consider what demand Crossrail opening in the early 2000s would have seen and whether it would have hastened redevelopment sooner.

Indeed - the development down the Thames corridor was well advanced even then - especially around Hayes , Slough and Reading , - whereas with the kindest wishes in the World , not so on the proposed Aylesbury leg where the Chiltern stakeholders would have resisted any change whatsoever.

It would have probably boosted the present Park Royal /OOC area revitalisation.

I guess really ,with that wonderful tool of hindsight we were too complacent in making the case for congestion relief on the Central and other LUL lines , as well as the Great Eastern Inners. There were bigger issues on Docklands which we naively assumed would be sorted with just the JLE. More needed of course , and of course the unmentioned Heathrow market....even post COVID......

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It was effectively ‘hibernated’ when Governement chose to prioritise the jubilee line extension, and couldn’t afford both in cash or Parliamentary time. There’s a famous letter from the then SoS (possibly Rifkind) to the BR Chairman saying ‘sorry, I know you won’t like this, but...’ - I’ve got a copy of it somewhere, possibly in the NSE book.

The scheme actually authorised and built is very different from that originally proposed, although the central section is largely the same.
The earlier plans never quite gelled, especially at the western end (ie where to send the second leg).
The Abbey Wood section was a later addition, aimed at extracting private sector funding for the project and offering direct Canary Wharf-Heathrow services.
The project also morphed over time from a BR-led regional scheme to a TfL-led commuter scheme, and the plans reflected their different priorities.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

The scheme actually authorised and built is very different from that originally proposed, although the central section is largely the same.
The earlier plans never quite gelled, especially at the western end (ie where to send the second leg).
The Abbey Wood section was a later addition, aimed at extracting private sector funding for the project and offering direct Canary Wharf-Heathrow services.
The project also morphed over time from a BR-led regional scheme to a TfL-led commuter scheme, and the plans reflected their different priorities.

A major issue - contested by Tower Hamlets in the original bill - was the impact on Allen Gardens (very near the hardly functioning East London line as it was then) , where the bored tunnel would have come to the surface and eventually joined the Great Eastern "E" lines towards what was then Mile End Sand sidings. This avoided expensive tunnelling - and this concept allowed Tower Hamlets in their rebuttal of the scheme to open up a dialogue on the question of the viability of the whole project. With some success obviously.

Pushing the tunnel portal eastwards to where it is now , made things very much easier. (along with playing the Docklands card)

Hindsight is a wonderful gift.

 

[yorksrob]

This is (part of) a debate from parliament in 1996.

Crossrail - Hansard - UK Parliament

Hansard record of the item : 'Crossrail' on Monday 22 April 1996.

hansard.parliament.uk

Ah yes, Thameslink 2000. When did that happen again ?!

 

[Cowley]

This is (part of) a debate from parliament in 1996.

Crossrail - Hansard - UK Parliament

Hansard record of the item : 'Crossrail' on Monday 22 April 1996.

hansard.parliament.uk

Mr Gapes is a great name for somebody that was fighting for some new tunnels…

 

[JonathanH]

Mr Gapes is a great name for somebody that was fighting for some new tunnels…

MP for Ilford South, Mike Gapes, who left the Labour Party in 2019. Obviously, he had among the most significant vested interest in Crossrail given his constituency.

 

[Cowley]

MP for Ilford South, Mike Gapes, who left the Labour Party in 2019. Obviously, he had among the most significant vested interest in Crossrail given his constituency.

Thanks for that. I think I have actually heard of him now I think about it.

 

[Bald Rick]

Ah yes, Thameslink 2000. When did that happen again ?!

It didn’t.

Mr Gapes is a great name for somebody that was fighting for some new tunnels…

Met him. Lovely bloke.

 

[WesternLancer]

Every major infrastructure project in the UK seems to be built 25 years too late.

Yes, although ref crossrail I recall thinking after seeing the RER in Paris in early 80s IIRC that London would do well with something like that. For context I was just a bit over my 11th birthday...

The useful assessment would not be the endless appraisals before finally deciding decades late it would be a good idea to build the infrastructure, but instead a cost analysis of the money spent and increased costs of the project associated with not building it 25 years earlier....

 

[Taunton]

I certainly recall (as it impacted our business) a government ministerial statement that the only wanted one major tunneling project under way in Britain at one time, as otherwise prices would skyrocket and it would need to draw in non-UK main contractors. Certainly Channel Tunnel was coming to an end, Jubilee Line Extension was looking to start, and the resources to tunnel Crossrail were considered to be just not there domestically. It was also considered that with DLR to Bank and the JLE, that was quite enough infrastructure investment for Canary Wharf, and other MPs were getting restless about it.

 

[greyman42]

If it had been built in the early 90s, could it have saved York Carriageworks?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

If it had been built in the early 90s, could it have saved York Carriageworks?

Impossible to say ....were not the 365's authorized as a "help them out" measure which just happened to be around an election. The wagon building programe for "EWS" did not really make a difference.

The BRB plans for MK5 I/C stock were , I think , binned for the 365's , but apart from the 53x8 car 341 sets were part of a much bigger NSE aspiration for a new generation of Networker + trains , which remained an aspiration.

We all know of course where and when the Thameslink major build happened. (The 700's , give and take a handful of 387's for a modest 12 car scheme in the new century)

 

[JonathanH]

If it had been built in the early 90s, could it have saved York Carriageworks?

It was never going to be built in the early 90s and it isn't clear that York would have been pinning its hopes on Crossrail.

York carriage works really needed the class 471 order for the Kent Coast to follow on from the 465s, then a fleet of Networkers for what we now call c2c and earlier slam door replacement on the rest of the Southern region.

 

[Ianno87]

I certainly recall (as it impacted our business) a government ministerial statement that the only wanted one major tunneling project under way in Britain at one time, as otherwise prices would skyrocket and it would need to draw in non-UK main contractors. Certainly Channel Tunnel was coming to an end, Jubilee Line Extension was looking to start, and the resources to tunnel Crossrail were considered to be just not there domestically. It was also considered that with DLR to Bank and the JLE, that was quite enough infrastructure investment for Canary Wharf, and other MPs were getting restless about it.

And HS1 filled the gap between the JLE and Crossrail. Plus the Olympics (as "big infrastructure project").

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I certainly recall (as it impacted our business) a government ministerial statement that the only wanted one major tunneling project under way in Britain at one time, as otherwise prices would skyrocket and it would need to draw in non-UK main contractors. Certainly Channel Tunnel was coming to an end, Jubilee Line Extension was looking to start, and the resources to tunnel Crossrail were considered to be just not there domestically. It was also considered that with DLR to Bank and the JLE, that was quite enough infrastructure investment for Canary Wharf, and other MPs were getting restless about it.

Ironic that since then, we have had HS1, Crossrail and now HS2 built by EU/UK consortia, with "foreign" experience as a premium score in the bids.
With overseas input to electrification projects as another bonus (SNCF for HS1, F&F, Inabensa, Austrian Powerlines etc etc).

Back in the day (1975), HMG said we could afford only one mega-project, of Channel Tunnel, new London Airport and Concorde.
Concorde won as it couldn't be cancelled because we had agreed not to with the French.
Concorde lived its life and is now dead and buried, we do have a (privately-funded) Channel Tunnel, and we are still waiting for a 3rd London Airport.

 

[43096]

Ironic that since then, we have had HS1, Crossrail and now HS2 built by EU/UK consortia, with "foreign" experience as a premium score in the bids.
With overseas input to electrification projects as another bonus (SNCF for HS1, F&F, Inabensa, Austrian Powerlines etc etc).

Back in the day (1975), HMG said we could afford only one mega-project, of Channel Tunnel, new London Airport and Concorde.
Concorde won as it couldn't be cancelled because we had agreed not to with the French.
Concorde lived its life and is now dead and buried, we do have a (privately-funded) Channel Tunnel, and we are still waiting for a 3rd London Airport.

Last I counted, London had at least six airports in its surrounding area.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Ironic that since then, we have had HS1, Crossrail and now HS2 built by EU/UK consortia, with "foreign" experience as a premium score in the bids.
With overseas input to electrification projects as another bonus (SNCF for HS1, F&F, Inabensa, Austrian Powerlines etc etc).

Back in the day (1975), HMG said we could afford only one mega-project, of Channel Tunnel, new London Airport and Concorde.
Concorde won as it couldn't be cancelled because we had agreed not to with the French.
Concorde lived its life and is now dead and buried, we do have a (privately-funded) Channel Tunnel, and we are still waiting for a 3rd London Airport.

Which will not happen. LHR, LCY, LGW, STN, LTN - there are enough.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

It was never going to be built in the early 90s and it isn't clear that York would have been pinning its hopes on Crossrail.

York carriage works really needed the class 471 order for the Kent Coast to follow on from the 465s, then a fleet of Networkers for what we now call c2c and earlier slam door replacement on the rest of the Southern region.

Odd to think that BR actually had a major rolling stock replacement programme planned , especially for the NSE area. To be fair the cascades and shuffling around of fleets in the early / mid NSE period was done pretty well thoroughly.

I could of course comment on the relative simplicity in those days of fleet cascades , compared to "market forces" and processes.

Yes Concorde hardly touched the real day to day life of commuter and even business travellers , the Channel Tunnel was a bit of a challenge financially (the 1970's one was binned again in times of economic distress and was not the money saved used in reduction of the EEC butter mountain etc) , and of course HS1 was a very major rewrite of plans to bring the route in via Warwick Gardens and Peckham etc. Actually , the route chosen to SPX via Stratford and tunnelling under much of East London , was definately the right answer , much like Crossrail having an Abbey Wood / Canary wharf was.

 

[Ianno87]

Which will not happen. LHR, LCY, LGW, STN, LTN - there are enough.

Stansted is the Third London Airport. Hence why the Engineers Line Reference for the Stansted Airport branch is TLA.

 

[tbtc]

I suppose - the project was ill served by the Parliamentary process - a team of 4 on the Select Committee were never really persuaded - one of which was amazingly sponsored by the RMT who voted against it (to the astonishment of many)

'sure my ignorance, by why did the RMT vote against it?

My assumption would be that a huge infrastructure project that would take lots of vehicles off the road/ stimulate loads of jobs/ boost the economy etc might also mean fewer "safety critical" jobs (if the plans meant that there was an increase in DOO) and that their role meant protecting the interests of their members rather than any kind of "bigger picture" stuff - but there may be more to it than that!