I've just skim-read the Montague Report, finally available four months
late at:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C168319D8

It raises various concerns over the way Cross London Rail Links Ltd
(CLRL) have costed the project, highlighting both overestimates and
underestimates.

It analysed 6 different route options:
Option 1: Paddington to Shenfield and the Isle of Dogs
Option 2: Paddington to Shenfield and Abbey Wood
Option 3: Paddington to Shenfield and Ebbsfleet
Option 4: Heathrow, Maidenhead and Paddington to Shenfield and Ebbsfleet
Option 5: Heathrow, Maidenhead, Kingston and Paddington to Shenfield and
Ebbsfleet
Option 6: Heathrow, Maidenhead and Paddington to Shenfield and the Isle
of Dogs (variant
of Option 4)

They found Option 5 to have the highest cost-benefit ratio at 2.14:1
although seemed to prefer Option 4 at 1.97:1 since it was cheaper with
fewer operational issues and avoiding residential backlash on the
Kingston route.

I was rather surprised to hear about Maidenhead; apparently it was a
late addition to CLRL's plans (after Kingston), although the first I
heard of it was about 4 hours ago.

The other main concerns the report raised were that the complexity of
the branches meant that the proposed 24tph through the core section was
unachievable given that it would require Crossrail trains to arrive at
Network Rail "interfaces" on time (within 5 mins) over 95% of the time.
I think this assumed that Crossrail would not be segregated on any of
the branches except Shenfield.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Dave Arquati wrote:
I've just skim-read the Montague Report, finally available four
months late at:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C168319D8

[...]

The other main concerns the report raised were that the complexity
of the branches meant that the proposed 24tph through the core
section was unachievable given that it would require Crossrail
trains to arrive at Network Rail "interfaces" on time (within 5
mins) over 95% of the time. I think this assumed that Crossrail
would not be segregated on any of the branches except Shenfield.

Unfortunately Crossrail have taken down their consultation site with all
the detailed information, but IIRC there will still be fast trains to
Liverpool Street from Shenfield and Romford.

Crossrail is certainly not segregated in West London, sharing tracks
with FGWL DMUs on the GreatWestern main line (hence the proposal to
replace some of these as far as Maidenhead), and with SWT services
between Richmond and Kingston. Also there would be flat junctions with
the NLL at Gunnersbury and Richmond.

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

In message , Richard J.
writes
I think this assumed that Crossrail
would not be segregated on any of the branches except Shenfield.

Unfortunately Crossrail have taken down their consultation site with all
the detailed information, but IIRC there will still be fast trains to
Liverpool Street from Shenfield and Romford.

Is the proposal to segregate the trains on the Shenfield branch? Is that
by commandeering two of the existing four lines (which would surely
cause conflicts between Southend and Chelmsford trains sharing the
remaining two) or are they proposing to triple the tracks (an expensive
exercise especially through places like the Brentwood cutting).
--
Roland Perry

The spur to Kingston is likely to be dropped(and I was told this from
a very senior source at Tfl) due to cost considerations and will save
a substantial amount of money. Besides the Kingston link will go
through an area notorious for middle class articulate whingers who
have already started on certain aspects of the scheme and will no
cause untold misery if anything get's in their way.

The Maidenhead option is a far better option as it also extends
electrifcation from Hayes Junction, hopefully they will also consider
extending Crossrail onto Reading. Bearing in mind the importance of
the Thames Valley corridor linking with Ciry and the East will have
much bigger benefits.

Martin

Dave Arquati wrote in message ...
I've just skim-read the Montague Report, finally available four months
late at:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C168319D8

It raises various concerns over the way Cross London Rail Links Ltd
(CLRL) have costed the project, highlighting both overestimates and
underestimates.

It analysed 6 different route options:
Option 1: Paddington to Shenfield and the Isle of Dogs
Option 2: Paddington to Shenfield and Abbey Wood
Option 3: Paddington to Shenfield and Ebbsfleet
Option 4: Heathrow, Maidenhead and Paddington to Shenfield and Ebbsfleet
Option 5: Heathrow, Maidenhead, Kingston and Paddington to Shenfield and
Ebbsfleet
Option 6: Heathrow, Maidenhead and Paddington to Shenfield and the Isle
of Dogs (variant
of Option 4)

They found Option 5 to have the highest cost-benefit ratio at 2.14:1
although seemed to prefer Option 4 at 1.97:1 since it was cheaper with
fewer operational issues and avoiding residential backlash on the
Kingston route.

I was rather surprised to hear about Maidenhead; apparently it was a
late addition to CLRL's plans (after Kingston), although the first I
heard of it was about 4 hours ago.

The other main concerns the report raised were that the complexity of
the branches meant that the proposed 24tph through the core section was
unachievable given that it would require Crossrail trains to arrive at
Network Rail "interfaces" on time (within 5 mins) over 95% of the time.
I think this assumed that Crossrail would not be segregated on any of
the branches except Shenfield.

In article , Martin
Whelton wrote:
Besides the Kingston link will go
through an area notorious for middle class articulate whingers who
have already started on certain aspects of the scheme and will no
cause untold misery if anything get's in their way.

If there is a town in Japan called Kamikaze, perhaps Richmond upon
Thames could be twinned with it. Crossrail is/was a golden opportunity
for the Borough but everywhere people only see problems, not benefits
and opportunities.

Mind you, as I pointed out a while back, the main line goes through
Surbiton because 1830's Kingstonians fought hard to keep it out and so
protect their coaching trade.

--
Tony Bryer

Roland Perry wrote:
writes
I think this assumed that Crossrail
would not be segregated on any of the branches except Shenfield.

Unfortunately Crossrail have taken down their consultation site with all
the detailed information, but IIRC there will still be fast trains to
Liverpool Street from Shenfield and Romford.

Is the proposal to segregate the trains on the Shenfield branch? Is that
by commandeering two of the existing four lines (which would surely
cause conflicts between Southend and Chelmsford trains sharing the
remaining two) or are they proposing to triple the tracks (an expensive
exercise especially through places like the Brentwood cutting).

The former, although some recent versions of the plan have given up on
the segregation idea.

Martin Whelton wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote in message ...

I've just skim-read the Montague Report, finally available four months
late at:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C168319D8

It raises various concerns over the way Cross London Rail Links Ltd
(CLRL) have costed the project, highlighting both overestimates and
underestimates.

It analysed 6 different route options:
Option 1: Paddington to Shenfield and the Isle of Dogs
Option 2: Paddington to Shenfield and Abbey Wood
Option 3: Paddington to Shenfield and Ebbsfleet
Option 4: Heathrow, Maidenhead and Paddington to Shenfield and Ebbsfleet
Option 5: Heathrow, Maidenhead, Kingston and Paddington to Shenfield and
Ebbsfleet
Option 6: Heathrow, Maidenhead and Paddington to Shenfield and the Isle
of Dogs (variant
of Option 4)

They found Option 5 to have the highest cost-benefit ratio at 2.14:1
although seemed to prefer Option 4 at 1.97:1 since it was cheaper with
fewer operational issues and avoiding residential backlash on the
Kingston route.

I was rather surprised to hear about Maidenhead; apparently it was a
late addition to CLRL's plans (after Kingston), although the first I
heard of it was about 4 hours ago.

The other main concerns the report raised were that the complexity of
the branches meant that the proposed 24tph through the core section was
unachievable given that it would require Crossrail trains to arrive at
Network Rail "interfaces" on time (within 5 mins) over 95% of the time.
I think this assumed that Crossrail would not be segregated on any of
the branches except Shenfield.
The spur to Kingston is likely to be dropped(and I was told this from
a very senior source at Tfl) due to cost considerations and will save
a substantial amount of money. Besides the Kingston link will go
through an area notorious for middle class articulate whingers who
have already started on certain aspects of the scheme and will no
cause untold misery if anything get's in their way.

The Maidenhead option is a far better option as it also extends
electrifcation from Hayes Junction, hopefully they will also consider
extending Crossrail onto Reading. Bearing in mind the importance of
the Thames Valley corridor linking with Ciry and the East will have
much bigger benefits.

Martin

If they electrified to Reading then it would also be possible to run
other services from Reading direct to Heathrow. Kingston can wait for
Crossrail 2 :-)

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Roland Perry wrote in
:

In message , Richard J.
writes
I think this assumed that Crossrail would not be segregated on any of
the branches except Shenfield.

Unfortunately Crossrail have taken down their consultation site with all
the detailed information, but IIRC there will still be fast trains to
Liverpool Street from Shenfield and Romford.

Is the proposal to segregate the trains on the Shenfield branch? Is that
by commandeering two of the existing four lines (which would surely
cause conflicts between Southend and Chelmsford trains sharing the
remaining two) or are they proposing to triple the tracks (an expensive
exercise especially through places like the Brentwood cutting).

The Shenfield service is pretty much segregated already: a few longer
distance services use the electric (=slow) lines between Liverpool Street
and Stratford, mainly due to the fact that there are simultaneous
departures (at xx.00 to Norwich, when Ipswich tunnel reopens, and Southend
and at xx.45 to Ipswich (currently diverted to Harwich) and Clacton).

Only on Sundays do fast trains to Romford use the slow lines.

This leaves the Maryland problem (note that Maryland does not appear on any
of the Crossrail maps ...)

"David Jackman" wrote in message
52.50...

This leaves the Maryland problem (note that Maryland does not appear on
any
of the Crossrail maps ...)


Does anybody know what they might be? About a year ago CLRL ltd sent me an
email assuring me that Maryland would continue to be served by other
services, but I can't see it if all the inner suburbans are going to go to
Crossrail. Is there a plan to use spare capacity at Liverpool Street to take
some of the Tilbury line trains via Woodgrange Park that I don't know about?
(I would have thought Liverpool Street - Stratford - Barking - Rainham -
Tilbury could potentially be quite popular).

Or are they planning to close Maryland - and if so, why? Is to too close to
the planned portal, or do they just not think it's important enough to add
an extra minute to the journey?

Jonn Elledge

"Jonn Elledge" wrote in
:


"David Jackman" wrote in message
52.50...

This leaves the Maryland problem (note that Maryland does not appear
on any of the Crossrail maps ...)


Does anybody know what they might be? About a year ago CLRL ltd sent me
an email assuring me that Maryland would continue to be served by other
services, but I can't see it if all the inner suburbans are going to go
to Crossrail. Is there a plan to use spare capacity at Liverpool Street
to take some of the Tilbury line trains via Woodgrange Park that I
don't know about? (I would have thought Liverpool Street - Stratford -
Barking - Rainham - Tilbury could potentially be quite popular).

Or are they planning to close Maryland - and if so, why? Is to too
close to the planned portal, or do they just not think it's important
enough to add an extra minute to the journey?

Jonn Elledge




Crossrail trains will be 10 cars. Maryland only has room for 8 with no
room to extend at either end (there are road bridges). Therefore Crossrail
trains can't serve Maryland.

I can see three possible solutions to this problem:

a) (Crossrails stated proposal) A "rump" service - presumably either Gidea
Park/Ilford to Liverpool Street, serving Maryland. The slow lines
currently have slightly more than 12 trains per hour in the peak so this
makes sense, though it would be less than ideal operationally. Off-peak it
is a nonsense.

b) Fit selective door opening and stop Crossrail services but only open the
doors on the front 8 cars. (the 375 fleet in Kent makes extensive use of
selective door opening, as does the existing underground, so there are
plenty of precedents)

c) Close Maryland.

David