On Jan 1, 4:41*am, Robert Cox wrote:
On 2010-12-31 16:25:53 +0000, said:





On Fri, 31 Dec 2010 14:48:11 +0000, Robert Cox wrote:

On 2010-12-31 12:25:15 +0000, tim.... said:

"Robert Cox" wrote in message
news:2010123019233514223-coppercapped@gmailcom...
On 2010-12-30 11:03:23 +0000, said:

On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 02:09:02 -0800 (PST), 1506 wrote:

On Dec 30, 9:16 am, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:
The current plan is to terminate Crossrail at Maidenhead I believe.

During past discussions I recall various people putting forward the idea
that Reading would be a more logical terminus. Others pointed out that
there wasn't much point as long as Reading wasn't remodelled.

Well, now we're getting the remodelling AND the wires will one day pass
through Reading to Oxford and Newbury.

The question I have is does it make more sense to leave the Crossrail
terminus at Maidenhead or extend it to (or beyond?) Reading at some point in
the future?

Clearly, the question is almost rhetorical. *Crossrail should go to
Reading.

This is just thinking small. *Crossrail joins up two mainlines - so why
not run services such as Bristol - Norwich (once the knitting
permits) ?

In the timescale you are writing about, it is highly likely that Oxford
will be re-connected to Cambridge using the old LNWR line in some
fashion.

You are joking, of course?

It's taken them 25 years of discussion to not even get an agreed plan
to re-open the railway that is still in situ.

IMHO they will never ever get around to filling in the bit that isn't
there anymore.

tim

Er, yes! 'Cos I thought that travelling from Bristol to Norwich in a
through train via Tottenham Court Road was also a humorous concept.

More sensible surely than having to change at Liverpool Street and
Paddington. *After all the railway doesn't expect passengers from London
to Edinburgh to get off the train south of the Tyne, then travel on the
Metro to another station north of the river to join another train
for the rest of the journey to Edinburgh.

From the passenger's perspective I agree with you - if possible the
number of changes should be minimised. After all, one doesn't
(usually!) change cars during a journey.

But the point here is that if your suggestion is adopted two very
different types of trains will be using the same tunnels. Mixing low
density Intercity-type trains (which I assume would be used for the
Bristol to Norwich passengers) with the high capacity metro-type trains
which will be offered for the Hayes to Ilford type of journey will
cause all sorts of loading and unloading issues. It certainly will not
improve the journey experience of the long distance passenger if he or
she is pushed and shoved by people only travelling from Paddington to
Tottenham Court Road.

The Crossrail tunnels will cost billions and will have to be
intensively used to make any sort of financial sense. To maximise the
throughput station dwell times have to be minimised and this means
using vehicles which are optimised for the metro role. Intentionally
reducing the throughput of the tunnel from the theoretical maximum of
24 or 30[1] trains per hour in the peaks helps neither the groups of
people the tunnel is intended to help nor does it make operational
sense. Intercity stock is not designed to permit 20 sec station stops
or to accommodate large numbers of standing passengers[2].

If sufficient demand can be shown to exist for journeys from the 'The
West' to East Anglia then a more suitable and lower cost route should
be used. This could be arranged by either using existing routes
(although both the North London Line and routes and those via
Birmingham are suffering increasingly from congestion) or a judicious
combination of re-opened or new construction. But do not send long
distance intercity trains under the centre of London in the Crossrail
tunnels.

[1] The S-Bahn tunnel under Munich shows that such a throughput can be
reached and maintained for the peak periods.

[2] If it is intended to run the intercity trains non-stop between
Paddington and Liverpool Street then although the intercity passengers
may travel in comfort, because of the reduced metro capacity the local
passengers will be worse off.

Crossrail's central section is likely to be one of the most intensely
utilized urban railroads outside of Tokyo. Think TfL Central Line
plus some! It will only work with a dedicated fleet of high capacity
purpose built trains. Moreover, signaling and control systems will be
designed for this type of service. There is NO prospect of other
trains sharing the tunnels.