Jump to content

Talk:Crossrail 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Chelsea-Hackney Line)

Three routes?

[edit]

In the article, it lists two routes which were planned for this line. Underneath, it then reads "Of the three routes in south-west London the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea initially favoured the first, but now supports the second". To what is this refering to? Simply south 11:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Route diagram

[edit]

I've added a route diagram to this article. For clarity, I left out some of the details mentioned in the diagram on Central Line such as motorway crossings. Also, the Woodford/South Woodford interchange is Difficult, and I don't know the precise mechanics of how that's going to work, so I've simplified it to marking those two stations as junctions (rather than doing all that funky stuff with the branching line symbols).

If someone could produce an actual map a la Image:Central Line.svg, that would be super awesome.  — Scott • talk 03:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Western route

[edit]

There have been stories in some railway journals about a western route from Chelsea to Fulham, Barnes, Hounslow and Heathrow Airport or Southall. I cannot remember which journals or the exact route. If someone else knows, can it be added to the article? 139.133.7.37 (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC) L. E. Greys[reply]

Proposed Chelsea-Hackney Line Services

[edit]

Based on reading up on things, i have made SIMPLE diagrams of what i forsee for services on the future Central Line and with the proprosed Chelsea-Hackney Line. Just ideas in my sandbox. Check it out please.Dkpintar (talk) 13:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other Proposals

[edit]

I can see someone has gone to quite a lot of effort in adding to this section but I would query whether any of it is more than speculation unworthy of an encyclopedia. There are only two references provided. One is to the excellent but now out-of-date alwaystouchout.com and I can't say it really supports what is written. The other is an out-of-date ELL map showing Clapham Junction as interchanging with Crossrail 2 - but this is not shown on later maps.

In all honesty I think the whole section should be removed but that seems a bit drastic. What do others think ?--Pedantic of Purley (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Having just read it, it does seem like wishful speculation. There seems to be no supporting material on the web, and I've not heard of it in published form either. Something just doesnt quite seem right. OutrageousBenedict (talk) 04:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes ... it's tricky because as you say someone seems to have put in a lot of work - but without citations it's very difficult to tell what these proposals were, when they were active, what importance they had and so on. On balance I wonder if it should perhaps go, or is there a chance of encouraging the author to justify this passage? Best wishes, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 07:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've zapped it; OR at best but certainly no valid sources have covered this concept which, clearly, would have received pres coverage in the areas concerned (it didn't). If some sources can be found then it can easily be retrieved from history. The Clapham Junction is still, sfaiaa, a valid connection as there is still a safeguarded curve under the river (though not safeguarded any further than that) in the direction of the Junction. --AlisonW (talk) 09:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At least the information is archived if it turns out to be reliable! However, I notice now that the use of the Northern Heights line is completely gone from the artical. This perhaps should have stayed, as a reference for it can be found at the eminent CULG [1], and it predated the alterations by the other chap. OutrageousBenedict (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As fabulous as CULG is, Clive doesn't give a citation that I can find for the mention, and I think it would be better to cite whatever the original source is (presuming it exists).  — Scott • talk 18:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, strongly. It is fascinating stuff but the Northern Heights idea is massive and really does require a good, direct, verifiable source otherwise we run the risk of just repeating speculation. One good ref and yep, whack it back in, but until that wonderful day I honestly feel it mist stay out. Prove me wrong with a good ref and I will buy you a chocolate orange! :) DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 07:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does this help any? http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/strategyfinance/strategy/londoneastweststudy.pdf#page=33 Grover Snodd (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting but the document speculates on all sorts of routes. The next page is one from Wimbledon to Liverpool Street mainly in tunnel! This is blue-sky thinking from a previous generation at the SRA - not serious proposals.--Pedantic of Purley (talk) 04:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original Plan

[edit]

The first plans refered to were actually from Hammersmith. Saying 'South West' London in this instance may seem confusing, as its Hammersmith is far more west than it is south-west. I know its a pedantic point, but it undermines what the point of the introduction was. South West - North East is a relatively new concept, but the idea of West - North East has a far longer pedigree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OutrageousBenedict (talk • contribs) 10:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Line vs line

[edit]

The article has been made completely inconsistent in its use of "Line" or "line" due to recent changes made. The wikipedia convention is to follow the LUL convention and use "line" when following the name of a tube line. One can argue that this is grammatically wrong but it is probably more important to be consistent than correct. In any case it is what people as used to as this is what appears in official publications. I have attempted to be consistent throughout this article and with other wikipedia articles and change all references to "line" except where they should obviously remain e.g. referring to a source where "Line" was used.--Pedantic of Purley (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is "safeguarding"?

[edit]

I don't know if that's some kind of British slang, but clarification in the article would be appreciated. Google "safeguarding rail" gets this article as the first hit, so it seems kind of unique. Gigs (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it means 'protecting from development' in this instance. In other words, the land where the line will run cannot be used for any other purpose. If the line wasn't safeguarded, a property developer could buy the land and build something where the track would go, providing an obstacle. NRTurner (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are right. But there seems to be more subtlety to it than that. How do you "re-safeguard" a proposed line? What does that imply? If you could do something with the article to help clarify these issues (or maybe even start an article on the subtleties of rail route safeguarding in the UK), that would be great. Gigs (talk) 03:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was in a government document, source

The development of large scale infrastructure, such as roads or railways, takes a considerable length of

time. To protect the proposed alignment from conflicting development the Secretary of State can issue a direction under Articles 10(3) 14(1) and 27 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995. The Secretary of State issues the safeguarding to local planning authorities in the form of the direction, plans and explanatory notes. The direction requires the local planning authorities to consult TfL (through its agent CLRL) when determining planning applications for land within the limits shown on the plans attached to the direction.

referred to as the Chelney line, Hacksea line

[edit]

Is it? Are there sources of such references or are these coinings? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 10:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Latest Developments ('RAIL' Magazine issue 8th August 2012)

[edit]

There is an interesting article released today in 'RAIL' Magazine in which the Regional Route (described as Route 'B') is gaining increasing favour with TfL. Economic indicators would suggest that returns on this option are now signifcantly stronger than the earlier option. I am happy to provide a comprehensive quotation of the article on the Talk page here, as I am simply not brave enough to tackle it's introduction to the Article. Ds1994 (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Current status of this article

[edit]

This article has been due a working-over given the departure of the current plans from the 2008 safeguarded route. As a result, I moved it to "Crossrail 2" from its previous title of "Chelsea–Hackney line". An anonymous editor had added details of the current route options, but unfortunately made something of a mess by moving a large chunk of the article up to the top without rewriting it to reflect its new position. I did a bit of copy-editing to clean that up, but the "current plans" section still needs work. Particularly, it needs to integrate better with the "2010s" section; at present, a reader could be forgiven for thinking that the new route options are entirely the work of London First.  — Scott • talk 17:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crossrail 2 Consultation

[edit]

TfL have published the results of a public consultation into Crossrail 2 which is available here: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/crossrail_2_Consultation_Report.pdf SheffGruff (talk) 13:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Route diagram

[edit]

I have added in a lot of detail from the [[2]] https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/crossrail2/october2015/ to the route diagram template. I was a little put out that the corrections I have made based on the new consultation were reverted to wrong version because they contained "dross". If you want to remove the TPH data, please do it whilst maintaining the other corrections.  BRIANTIST  (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is taking place at at Template talk:Crossrail 2.  — Scott • talk 10:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guesstimate of completion date

[edit]

I know nothing about construction of rail or tube lines, so I was wondering what a rough guide would be to completion date? Twenty years from today?, 30 years?, 40 years?, half a century from today? I ask this because the article gives no inkling of how long it might take to complete this line once it gets started. Thank in advance to anybody who might know something about these type of projects.88.105.111.93 (talk) 11:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Might be good to look at Crossrail, which started in May 2009 and full services will start in December 2019, so ten years for construction, but the main determinant of when it will open is likely to be the time until construction starts. The first proposals for Crossrail were in 1948 so hopefully the preconstruction phase of Crossrail 2 will be slightly quicker than that! Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crossrail 2. 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:

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Crossrail 2. 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:

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) 21:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Crossrail 2. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 21:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition to Crossrail 2 - Accuracy

[edit]

See recent page history. The "Support Soho" group did not issue the statement about "deeply worrying", so I changed it to say that the chairman said it, which is more accurate. The fact that the chairman happens to be Stephen Fry rather than Fred Bloggs seemed to notable, so I included that. I was accused of "name dropping", which is rather unkind and untrue - if the chairman had been Fred Bloggs and not Fry, I would still have added it. Would "Sport and Politics" have deleted the change for the same reason? I suspect not! I rather think that it is "Sport and Politics" doesn't want the article suggest that Crossrail 2 has some celebrity opposition, maybe? Anyway, I have put the "chairman" bit back, leaving out Fry's name. 86.130.176.228 (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above ascribes an awful lot of innuendo and conjecture which does not belong on an article talk page. Please always assume good faith, and avoid commenting on contributors as per WP:NPA. If there are issues with a specific contributor comment on that users talk page. Regarding Fry and/or Bloggs, I oppose the use of any name of anyone. It is not notable information. Sport and politics (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None of which addresses the accuracy issue, so I have put back "chairman". As for "innuendo" - I think saying that I was "name-dropping" was more innuendo than my post above - in fact, your reverts have been very non-good-faith! By your accusations of "name dropping", you do not seem to believe that I was trying to make the article more accurate and add notable information. I was. Please do not accuse me again, and any response ahould address the accuracy issue. 84.43.93.98 (talk) 11:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Current Project Status

[edit]

Isn't Crossrail 2 currently just about as dead as Old Marley or at least a Norwegian Blue Parrot? Mon 2 Nov 2020 11.03 EST: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/nov/02/crossrail-2-plans-shelved-transport-for-london-funding-deal Shouldn't the article somehow reflect that?

Atlant (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. A lot of proposals about new lines or other infrastructure enhancements get picked up on Wikipedia. If an MP says "I think it would be great if a new London to Edinburgh line was built" that gets a life of its own, irrespective of whether the MP has any support, and disregarding the (un)likelihood of the Treasury handing out the money. The trouble is that many wihsful thinkers feel that if the article is kept going, that will somehow increase the chances of the line being built. The article ought to be deleted, but that would cause so much hostility. One of the weaknesses of Wikipedia, unforunately. Afterbrunel (talk) 07:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article shouldn't be deleted, but updated with sourced statements about its current status (i.e. "shelved"). There may be other articles and templates around which need their references to Crossrail 2 checking and removing if no longer appropriate. Bazza (talk) 10:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Bazza 7. Deleting it just because it's been "shelved" would be a wasted of many editors' time. Even changing the first sentence to "was a proposed..." would be fine if sources confirm it's no longer viable etc. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 11:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crossrail_2&oldid=1206832156"