On Thu, 4 Jun 2015 12:06:21 +0100, Robert
wrote:

On 2015-06-04 10:36:20 +0000, Graeme Wall said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-33002819

Now they can start building the railway... :-)

Indeed. But it would be good if Crossrail/TfL/NR could add some more
West and Northwest destinations, Gerards Cross, Tring, anywhere. :-)

Still, this is a happy day for GB rail development. This tunnel is
going to be a real game-changer.

e27002 aurora wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jun 2015 12:06:21 +0100, Robert
wrote:

On 2015-06-04 10:36:20 +0000, Graeme Wall said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-33002819

Now they can start building the railway... :-)

Indeed. But it would be good if Crossrail/TfL/NR could add some more
West and Northwest destinations, Gerards Cross, Tring, anywhere. :-)

Yes, I think there's still a hope that Crossrail will provide the WCML
locals to Tring, but I don't know if there's been any progress on the idea.
It may have to wait till the start of the Euston rebuilding for HS2. I
don't think there's any chance that they'll also serve the Chiltern line.


Still, this is a happy day for GB rail development. This tunnel is
going to be a real game-changer.

Through the requirement that all trains using it be built for it (as with
the new Thameslink) does reduce the flexibility: you can't just route any
old electric train through either of these cross London routes (or the East
London line), unlike the West London line.

On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 08:07:26 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
e27002 aurora wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jun 2015 12:06:21 +0100, Robert
wrote:

On 2015-06-04 10:36:20 +0000, Graeme Wall said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-33002819

Now they can start building the railway... :-)

Indeed. But it would be good if Crossrail/TfL/NR could add some more
West and Northwest destinations, Gerards Cross, Tring, anywhere. :-)

Yes, I think there's still a hope that Crossrail will provide the WCML
locals to Tring, but I don't know if there's been any progress on the idea.
It may have to wait till the start of the Euston rebuilding for HS2. I
don't think there's any chance that they'll also serve the Chiltern line.

The longer and more complex a route becomes the less reliable it becomes.
IMO I think the tradeoff has already gone a bit too far towards the latter
by running trains all the way to reading. Personally I think crossrail should
have remained pretty much within the M25 boundary with decent interchange to
further destinations.

--
Spud

On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 08:50:49 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 08:07:26 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
e27002 aurora wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jun 2015 12:06:21 +0100, Robert
wrote:

On 2015-06-04 10:36:20 +0000, Graeme Wall said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-33002819

Now they can start building the railway... :-)

Indeed. But it would be good if Crossrail/TfL/NR could add some more
West and Northwest destinations, Gerards Cross, Tring, anywhere. :-)

Yes, I think there's still a hope that Crossrail will provide the WCML
locals to Tring, but I don't know if there's been any progress on the idea.
It may have to wait till the start of the Euston rebuilding for HS2. I
don't think there's any chance that they'll also serve the Chiltern line.

The longer and more complex a route becomes the less reliable it becomes.
IMO I think the tradeoff has already gone a bit too far towards the latter
by running trains all the way to reading. Personally I think crossrail should
have remained pretty much within the M25 boundary with decent interchange to
further destinations.

"Train already left the station" so to speak. The only branch that is
truly self-contained is the South-eastern one to Abbey Wood. The
North-eastern branch will be shared with trains from Liverpool Street,
and some freight.

Likewise 1GW will still be running locals on the GW reliefs and there
will be significant freight from Acton. IMHO, things could be
simplified by taking 1GW trains off the reliefs and having Crossrail
provide the entire passenger service.

In message , at 10:25:57 on
Fri, 5 Jun 2015, e27002 aurora remarked:
The only branch that is truly self-contained is the South-eastern one
to Abbey Wood. The North-eastern branch will be shared with trains
from Liverpool Street, and some freight.

My understanding is that Crossrail will have exclusive use of one of the
pairs of tracks to Shenfield, and everything else will use the other
pair. This is, of course, one of the reasons it's only going as far as
Shenfield, rather than Chelmsford (which would be a more logical place
in terms of passenger flow if the infrastructure had existed).
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 08:07:26 +0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

e27002 aurora wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jun 2015 12:06:21 +0100, Robert
wrote:

On 2015-06-04 10:36:20 +0000, Graeme Wall said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-33002819

Now they can start building the railway... :-)

Indeed. But it would be good if Crossrail/TfL/NR could add some more
West and Northwest destinations, Gerards Cross, Tring, anywhere. :-)

Yes, I think there's still a hope that Crossrail will provide the WCML
locals to Tring, but I don't know if there's been any progress on the idea.
It may have to wait till the start of the Euston rebuilding for HS2. I
don't think there's any chance that they'll also serve the Chiltern line.


Still, this is a happy day for GB rail development. This tunnel is
going to be a real game-changer.

Through the requirement that all trains using it be built for it (as with
the new Thameslink) does reduce the flexibility: you can't just route any
old electric train through either of these cross London routes (or the East
London line), unlike the West London line.

You can't route any old train down the WLL; it needs to be DC-capable
south of North Pole and AC-capable north of North Pole or else
self-powered.

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 08:07:26 +0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

e27002 aurora wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jun 2015 12:06:21 +0100, Robert
wrote:

On 2015-06-04 10:36:20 +0000, Graeme Wall said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-33002819

Now they can start building the railway... :-)

Indeed. But it would be good if Crossrail/TfL/NR could add some more
West and Northwest destinations, Gerards Cross, Tring, anywhere. :-)

Yes, I think there's still a hope that Crossrail will provide the WCML
locals to Tring, but I don't know if there's been any progress on the idea.
It may have to wait till the start of the Euston rebuilding for HS2. I
don't think there's any chance that they'll also serve the Chiltern line.


Still, this is a happy day for GB rail development. This tunnel is
going to be a real game-changer.

Through the requirement that all trains using it be built for it (as with
the new Thameslink) does reduce the flexibility: you can't just route any
old electric train through either of these cross London routes (or the East
London line), unlike the West London line.

You can't route any old train down the WLL; it needs to be DC-capable
south of North Pole and AC-capable north of North Pole or else
self-powered.

Yup, plenty of diesels on the WLL, but zero on Crossrail, Thameslink and
the ELL.

On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 22:42:09 +0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 08:07:26 +0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

e27002 aurora wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jun 2015 12:06:21 +0100, Robert
wrote:

On 2015-06-04 10:36:20 +0000, Graeme Wall said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-33002819

Now they can start building the railway... :-)

Indeed. But it would be good if Crossrail/TfL/NR could add some more
West and Northwest destinations, Gerards Cross, Tring, anywhere. :-)

Yes, I think there's still a hope that Crossrail will provide the WCML
locals to Tring, but I don't know if there's been any progress on the idea.
It may have to wait till the start of the Euston rebuilding for HS2. I
don't think there's any chance that they'll also serve the Chiltern line.


Still, this is a happy day for GB rail development. This tunnel is
going to be a real game-changer.

Through the requirement that all trains using it be built for it (as with
the new Thameslink) does reduce the flexibility: you can't just route any
old electric train through either of these cross London routes (or the East
London line), unlike the West London line.

You can't route any old train down the WLL; it needs to be DC-capable
south of North Pole and AC-capable north of North Pole or else
self-powered.

Yup, plenty of diesels on the WLL, but zero on Crossrail, Thameslink and
the ELL.

cough!
"You can't just route any old electric train ..... unlike the West
London line."
/cough!

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 22:42:09 +0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 08:07:26 +0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

e27002 aurora wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jun 2015 12:06:21 +0100, Robert
wrote:

On 2015-06-04 10:36:20 +0000, Graeme Wall said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-33002819

Now they can start building the railway... :-)

Indeed. But it would be good if Crossrail/TfL/NR could add some more
West and Northwest destinations, Gerards Cross, Tring, anywhere. :-)

Yes, I think there's still a hope that Crossrail will provide the WCML
locals to Tring, but I don't know if there's been any progress on the idea.
It may have to wait till the start of the Euston rebuilding for HS2. I
don't think there's any chance that they'll also serve the Chiltern line.


Still, this is a happy day for GB rail development. This tunnel is
going to be a real game-changer.

Through the requirement that all trains using it be built for it (as with
the new Thameslink) does reduce the flexibility: you can't just route any
old electric train through either of these cross London routes (or the East
London line), unlike the West London line.

You can't route any old train down the WLL; it needs to be DC-capable
south of North Pole and AC-capable north of North Pole or else
self-powered.

Yup, plenty of diesels on the WLL, but zero on Crossrail, Thameslink and
the ELL.

cough!
"You can't just route any old electric train ..... unlike the West
London line."
/cough!

Many modern EMUs are dual voltage and could travel on the WLL, but not the
other lines.

On 06/06/2015 05:10, Recliner wrote:
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 22:42:09 +0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 08:07:26 +0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

e27002 aurora wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jun 2015 12:06:21 +0100, Robert
wrote:

On 2015-06-04 10:36:20 +0000, Graeme Wall said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-33002819

Now they can start building the railway... :-)

Indeed. But it would be good if Crossrail/TfL/NR could add some more
West and Northwest destinations, Gerards Cross, Tring, anywhere. :-)

Yes, I think there's still a hope that Crossrail will provide the WCML
locals to Tring, but I don't know if there's been any progress on the idea.
It may have to wait till the start of the Euston rebuilding for HS2. I
don't think there's any chance that they'll also serve the Chiltern line.


Still, this is a happy day for GB rail development. This tunnel is
going to be a real game-changer.

Through the requirement that all trains using it be built for it (as with
the new Thameslink) does reduce the flexibility: you can't just route any
old electric train through either of these cross London routes (or the East
London line), unlike the West London line.

You can't route any old train down the WLL; it needs to be DC-capable
south of North Pole and AC-capable north of North Pole or else
self-powered.

Yup, plenty of diesels on the WLL, but zero on Crossrail, Thameslink and
the ELL.

cough!
"You can't just route any old electric train ..... unlike the West
London line."
/cough!

Many modern EMUs are dual voltage and could travel on the WLL, but not the
other lines.


Err, many modern EMUs are equipped for dual voltage operation, only a
subset can actually do so.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.