On Fri, 21 May 2010 05:36:52 -0700 (PDT), Andy
wrote:
On May 21, 1:20*pm, Bruce wrote:
As I don't know the cost of that particular use of the word
"expensive" I cannot comment.

As it appears to be a tender for a new flyover, we'll have to wait for
the exact meaning of expensive.


There must be a pre-estimate available. I haven't followed Crossrail
in detail so I wouldn't know where to look.


On Maidenhead: *Please don't think for a single minute that Crossrail
terminating at Maidenhead was ever seriously considered except as a
ruse to avoid the costs of rebuilding Reading to be blamed on
Crossrail.


Why not, all the plans only mention Maidenhead and include siding
space.


It was a ruse.


I know it is ridiculous not to goto Reading, but as a stop gap
measure it is better than just turning most of the service around at
Paddington.


It is claimed that all the modelling has shown the westbound trains
are likely to be near empty after Paddington. What would be the point
of carting fresh air on to Maidenhead?


On Abbey Wood: *I supported Basil Jet's suggestion of building
Shenfield - Heathrow which, by definition, excludes any tunnelling at,
near or towards Abbey Wood. *A step plate junction on the Shenfield -
Heathrow "main line" is all that would be needed to allow a later
extension to Abbey Wood ... *


I would hope that the junction tunnel would build anyway, in the same
way as the junction tunnel for the connection to the East Coast was
built at St. Pancras.


A step plate junction is a short spur tunnel that would allow further
tunnelling to take place with almost no disruption of the main line.


... except that we all know it would probably go to Gravesend, and
"Abbey Wood" is just another "Maidenhead".

Gravesend is probably stretching it, as that would involve a lot of
interrunning with the current South Eastern services beyond Slade
Green / Dartford.


I made the comment because terminating at Abbey Wood seems to make
about as much sense as stopping at Maidenhead.


The sensible point of Crossrail seems to have been
to take over existing services in their entirety, not mix with others,
in order to stop importing delays. So they wanted complete control of
the relief lines on the western side and of the electric lines on the
eastern side. I doubt that they could be given that on any extension
beyond Abbey Wood.


The same would apply to Oxford and Bedwyn, both of which could or
should eventually end up being served by Crossrail. London commuters
on the GW main line shouldn't all have to change at Paddington.

On 21 Mai, 15:35, Bruce wrote:

It is claimed that all the modelling has shown the westbound trains
are likely to be near empty after Paddington. *What would be the point
of carting fresh air on to Maidenhead?


Theyx may be near empty by the time they approach Maidenhead, but
stopping at Paddington is definitely too early. Look at Ealing
Broadway for example. The Circle Line is heavily loaded here as is the
District. Catching the FGW Turbo and changing at Paddington is by far
the fastest way into London and the Turbos are often cramed to
capacity here too.

"amogles" wrote in message

On 21 Mai, 15:35, Bruce wrote:

It is claimed that all the modelling has shown the westbound trains
are likely to be near empty after Paddington. What would be the point
of carting fresh air on to Maidenhead?


Theyx may be near empty by the time they approach Maidenhead, but
stopping at Paddington is definitely too early. Look at Ealing
Broadway for example. The Circle Line is heavily loaded here as is the
District.

I assume you mean the Central Line?

On Fri, 21 May 2010 06:53:34 -0700 (PDT), amogles
wrote:

On 21 Mai, 15:35, Bruce wrote:

It is claimed that all the modelling has shown the westbound trains
are likely to be near empty after Paddington. *What would be the point
of carting fresh air on to Maidenhead?


Theyx may be near empty by the time they approach Maidenhead, but
stopping at Paddington is definitely too early. Look at Ealing
Broadway for example. The Circle Line is heavily loaded here as is the
District. Catching the FGW Turbo and changing at Paddington is by far
the fastest way into London and the Turbos are often cramed to
capacity here too.


Valid points, but surely the most important thing is to get Crossrail
under way? Where it terminates and whether the branch to Abbey Woof
via Canary Wharf is included are peripheral to getting the core route
under way. Everything else can be added later.

And just as the mythical western terminus of Maidenhead got initial
approval for Crossrail in better fiscal times, a western terminus at
Heathrow would cut project costs allowing it to go ahead in these
straitened times. It would also allow Ealing Broadway to be served by
the trains that don't terminate at Paddington.

On May 21, 6:53*am, amogles wrote:
On 21 Mai, 15:35, Bruce wrote:

It is claimed that all the modelling has shown the westbound trains
are likely to be near empty after Paddington. *What would be the point
of carting fresh air on to Maidenhead?

Theyx may be near empty by the time they approach Maidenhead, but
stopping at Paddington is definitely too early. Look at Ealing
Broadway for example. The Circle Line is heavily loaded here as is the
District. Catching the FGW Turbo and changing at Paddington is by far
the fastest way into London and the Turbos are often cramed to
capacity here too.

Ealing Broadway always looked like a good station at which to turn
back Crossrail trains to me. The new facilities could replace the
Central Line terminus. But, apparently the Ruislip branch of the
Central could not justify increased frequencies.

On May 21, 10:26*am, Bruce wrote:
And just as the mythical western terminus of Maidenhead got initial
approval for Crossrail in better fiscal times, a western terminus at
Heathrow would cut project costs allowing it to go ahead in these
straitened times. *It would also allow Ealing Broadway to be served by
the trains that don't terminate at Paddington.

Yes, but there isn't room for all the trains at Heathrow, and adding
it would be prohibitively expensive. That's the problem.

Descoping Maidenhead until Crossrail can run to Reading makes a lot of
sense, but then the right answer is to turn trains at Hayes &
Harlington, ideally by a rebuild that puts a couple of terminating
tracks between the through tracks. All you need is to demolish
platform 1, slew the tracks so that the up main runs in the old down
main and the down main runs where platform 1 used to be, extend
platform 5 under the bridge, and hook it all up with pointwork. Bingo,
you have a useful terminating station that can take the service it
needs. Not cheap, but a whole lot cheaper than most of the
alternatives. (If you want to go even cheaper, you use the existing
bay and turn some other trains at West Ealing or something.)

As for taking out Abbey Wood, that's pretty idiotic for the reasons
previously cited. And I can't think of a good way to descope it and
still achieve the necessary at Canary Wharf. On the other hand, it's
pretty expensive to tunnel all the way from Whitechapel to Woolwich.

On Fri, 21 May 2010 08:44:12 -0700 (PDT), Alistair Bell
wrote:

On May 21, 10:26*am, Bruce wrote:
And just as the mythical western terminus of Maidenhead got initial
approval for Crossrail in better fiscal times, a western terminus at
Heathrow would cut project costs allowing it to go ahead in these
straitened times. *It would also allow Ealing Broadway to be served by
the trains that don't terminate at Paddington.

Yes, but there isn't room for all the trains at Heathrow, and adding
it would be prohibitively expensive. That's the problem.


No it isn't, because I am not suggesting spending any more money at
Heathrow than has already been planned. Heathrow would get the number
of trains it needs, and no more, so no need for additional capacity
there, and the rest should terminate at Paddington.

I'm afraid your problem seems to have vanished.


Descoping Maidenhead until Crossrail can run to Reading makes a lot of
sense, but then the right answer is to turn trains at Hayes &
Harlington, ideally by a rebuild that puts a couple of terminating
tracks between the through tracks. All you need is to demolish
platform 1, slew the tracks so that the up main runs in the old down
main and the down main runs where platform 1 used to be, extend
platform 5 under the bridge, and hook it all up with pointwork. Bingo,
you have a useful terminating station that can take the service it
needs. Not cheap, but a whole lot cheaper than most of the
alternatives. (If you want to go even cheaper, you use the existing
bay and turn some other trains at West Ealing or something.)


See above.


As for taking out Abbey Wood, that's pretty idiotic for the reasons
previously cited. And I can't think of a good way to descope it and
still achieve the necessary at Canary Wharf. On the other hand, it's
pretty expensive to tunnel all the way from Whitechapel to Woolwich.


All the more reason for leaving it until later.

I am not convinced of the necessity to build to Canary Wharf at this
time. Elsewhere, Mizter T made a good case for Canary Wharf, but only
on the basis of serving developments that aren't yet built. My
response was that, overall, the City of London and Docklands will have
an excess of office accommodation for at least the next decade. So
why are we rushing to build more in Docklands?

If these Docklands office developments are really so profitable that
they must go ahead, let the developers pay a substantial contribution
towards the cost of Crossrail. Then they can have the Canary Wharf
branch.

Given the £ billions in profits that property developers will gain
from Crossrail, it does appear to me that they should be paying a heck
of a lot more towards its cost than they have agreed to so far. So
let them pay more, otherwise it's Shenfield to Heathrow only.

On May 21, 2:35*pm, Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 05:36:52 -0700 (PDT), Andy
wrote:

On May 21, 1:20*pm, Bruce wrote:

A step plate junction is a short spur tunnel that would allow further
tunnelling to take place with almost no disruption of the main line.


I know what a step plate junction is, but they are still more
expensive than putting in the junction tunnel at the correct location
in the first place. They could even put the junction trackwork in, as
was done at Heathrow when the Heathrow Express was first built. The
Abbey Wood branch has several more tunnels, which is where the money
could be saved.

... except that we all know it would probably go to Gravesend, and
"Abbey Wood" is just another "Maidenhead".

Gravesend is probably stretching it, as that would involve a lot of
interrunning with the current South Eastern services beyond Slade
Green / Dartford.

I made the comment because terminating at Abbey Wood seems to make
about as much sense as stopping at Maidenhead.


But Maidenhead makes more sense than terminating at Paddington, it is
replacing existing services. Abbey Wood does at least provide
interchange possibilities from further east.

The sensible point of Crossrail seems to have been
to take over existing services in their entirety, not mix with others,
in order to stop importing delays. So they wanted complete control of
the relief lines on the western side and of the electric lines on the
eastern side. I doubt that they could be given that on any extension
beyond Abbey Wood.

The same would apply to Oxford and Bedwyn, both of which could or
should eventually end up being served by Crossrail. *London commuters
on the GW main line shouldn't all have to change at Paddington.

Crossrail, in its current incarnation, is planned for the slower,
shorter distance services, not the expresses. Much like the RER in
Paris, importing delays from the wider network will be limited by
running trains on their own tracks where possible. Personally, I think
Oxford and Bedwyn would be too complex to integrate with the idea of
an inner suburban service on the other side of London. The rolling
stock is planned for inner suburban use and passengers might not be
happy to be stuck in it for outer suburban journeys. Also, passengers
further out on the eastern end will have to change at Liverpool Street
or Stratford, why should passengers on the western end be any
different, they will still save time getting to the city compared to
currently. Of course, there are the alternative Superlink plans which
would integrate the longer distance services in a similar central
tunnel.

On May 21, 3:26*pm, Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 06:53:34 -0700 (PDT), amogles
wrote:

On 21 Mai, 15:35, Bruce wrote:

It is claimed that all the modelling has shown the westbound trains
are likely to be near empty after Paddington. *What would be the point
of carting fresh air on to Maidenhead?

Theyx may be near empty by the time they approach Maidenhead, but
stopping at Paddington is definitely too early. Look at Ealing
Broadway for example. The Circle Line is heavily loaded here as is the
District. Catching the FGW Turbo and changing at Paddington is by far
the fastest way into London and the Turbos are often cramed to
capacity here too.

Valid points, but surely the most important thing is to get Crossrail
under way? *Where it terminates and whether the branch to Abbey Woof
via Canary Wharf is included are peripheral to getting the core route
under way. *Everything else can be added later.

And just as the mythical western terminus of Maidenhead got initial
approval for Crossrail in better fiscal times, a western terminus at
Heathrow would cut project costs allowing it to go ahead in these
straitened times. *It would also allow Ealing Broadway to be served by
the trains that don't terminate at Paddington.

And my point is that running to Maidenhead is probably a better bet
than running to Heathrow, once the (unknown to us) costs of building a
new flyover are taken into account. You can adsorb the Slough
terminators and transfer the calls from the semi fast trains at
stations west of Slough. Remember that BAA will probably demand some
money to use their infrastructure, especially if the Heathrow Express
ends to give capacity for Crossrail.

My personal opinion is that the Abbey Wood branch will probably be
much more expensive than the Heathrow and Maidenhead works combined
and so neither of the latter are likely to be sacrificed.

On Fri, 21 May 2010 10:46:39 -0700 (PDT), Andy
wrote:

I know what a step plate junction is, but they are still more
expensive than putting in the junction tunnel at the correct location
in the first place. They could even put the junction trackwork in, as
was done at Heathrow when the Heathrow Express was first built.


So put in a step plate junction, a very short section of tunnel, plus
the trackwork. We're talking about small sums of money about which I
have no wish to argue.