In message

1506 wrote:

On Dec 1, 10:36*am, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008, 1506 wrote:
On Nov 27, 6:24*am, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008, Boltar wrote:

And probably a question of loading gauge too I suspect.

I *think*, but am not sure, that the H&C trains are wider and taller
than Crossrails will be. However, i think Crossrail carriages will be
longer, which increases their effective size on curves, so you could
be right. And of course they'll be much longer, which would mean
platform alterations, and the moving of the crossover at Hammersmith.

All true, but in the bigger picture, these are minor engineering type
problems.

In the bigger picture, isn't pretty much everything we discuss on this
group? What it comes down to is how much cold, hard cash has to be
stumped up for it, and how much value it delivers in return. I'm not
saying that Crossrailing the H&C branch wouldn't be good value for money,
but i don't think you can just wave away the costs as minor engineering
type problems.

Yes! In this instance the cost of conversion of the Hammersmith branch
would be a very small part of the overall cost of Crossrail. It would be
mitigated by saving the cost of the reversing sidings at Paddington. The
main issues would be platform widening and platform geometry.

Hammersmith to Shepherds Bush inclusive are straight platforms, I don't
recall any of the ones from there up to Royal Oak being curved but it's been
a long time since I used that section.


--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html