Dave Arquati wrote:
wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote:
I don't think I'd bother going that far. Taking over as far as
Hammersmith is probably OK because Crossrail serves several of the H&C's
most important destinations. However, it goes nowhere near Victoria and
is a bit of a walk from places like Monument in the City. We know that
Richmonders don't want Crossrail to replace their District service, and
Ealing Broadway will already have Crossrail.
Good points, against which I have no argument.
Shared running would also be a very poor idea as the trains would be so
different and there would be the inevitable performance pollution.
Shared running would only start east of Turnham Green. Interlining
with the North London Line should not be very difficult. It only has
about 3 to 4 trains per hour. The Piccadilly Line is a real problem.
Perhaps the solution to that would be to have CrossRail also take over
the Rayners Lane service. This would double Piccadilly Line service to
Heathrow.
Not sure exactly what you're suggesting here. Is it:
- Crossrail via Ladbroke Grove & Shepherd's Bush to Rayners Lane via
Ealing Common and to Richmond via Gunnersbury
- District continues to run to Ealing Broadway...?
No, the Piccadilly would retain the 'fast pair' and continue to serve
Heathrow. Richmond, Ealing Broadway and Rayners Lane would be served
by CrossRail by way of Ladbroke Grove and a re-instated link at
Hammersmith. The District Line would become an Upminster to Wimbledon
and Edgware Road to Kensington Olympia Service.
That results in four western Crossrail branches with shared use between
Gunnersbury and Richmond, between Hammersmith and Turnham Green and
between Acton Town and Ealing Common!
The only shared use would be between Gunnersbury and Richmond.
CrossRail would utilize the trackes currently occupied by the District
Line.
One of the issues raised by the Montague report was that too many
branches at each end would mean poorer reliability, as it's more
difficult to ensure that trains arrive at the core section on time for
their path - making achievement of the 24tph core service difficult.
Having so much shared use to the west would be a recipe for disaster.
The beauty of taking over as far as Hammersmith is that it is
self-contained *and* reduces the number of services trying to interleave
on the northern Circle.
And I think that is a fair point. Whilst I think this conversation is
interesting, I don't see the idea I have outlined as a practical
option. The link at Hammersmith pretty much rules it out. But, under
this idea, Circle Line working becomes much simpler. The H&C goes away
and the District is less complex.
The problem here is the purchase and demolition of all that has been
built in the intervening years. There is also the issue of the many
differing platform lengths en route to the two termini.
However, if there District Line was reduced to an Upminster to
Wimbledon service plus an Edgware Road to Kensington Olympia shuttle,
Circle Line operation would become simplicity itself!
Crossrail operation would be a lot more complicated, though!
Not really given the minimal amount of shared track, i.e. the NLL. I
don't think this idea is do-able, but it beats turning 24 tph back at
Paddington.
I'd say four branches is complicated! Making good use of the 14tph
(24tph really would be a waste!!) seems eminently sensible - but I'd
rather have Crossrail built with those 14tph wasted to begin with, but
scope for future expansion, than see a bloated single-phase project sink.
Thank you for correcting my 24 tph! That is what 9 hours COBOL
progamming does to the brain! :-). And I agree, let's see CrossRail
built. We can campaign for more, and better, branches later.
Adrian.