In article ,
Jack Taylor wrote:

"TheOneKEA" wrote in message
oups.com...

How good is road access from the M25 corridor to Denham? If it's no
good or regularly jammed, then siting the parking lot at Denham Golf
Club would probably be a poor move.

Actually I was getting my geography a bit confused there, so disregard
the comments abount Denham itself! DGC is actually south of the M25,
which runs between DGC and GX (for some reason I was having a mental
aberration and thinking that it was between Denham and DGC). There is,
however, a considerable amount of spare land in the area. DGC actually
lies very close to the A40/A413 junction and just up the M25 from
junction 1a, the M25/M40 interchange, so a spur from that junction ought
to be possible, assuming that the land can be acquired. A DGC Parkway
would not necesssarily have to be exactly on the existing site, it could
move further from the Golf Club and closer to the M25 to facilitate a
Parkway-style station, serving traffic from the M25, M40, A40 and A413,
if properly planned.


The record for previous initiatives of this kind is not very encouraging.
There were similar proposals many years ago for a park and ride at Iver on
the GWML which is practically adjacent to the M25 and has lots of unused
land adjacent to the station. I believe the DfT objected because it would
require a new junction on the M25, and it would also generate more traffic
on nearby motorways rather than relieving them.

David

In article ,
Dave Arquati wrote:

Noo... don't send Chiltern services into Paddington! Marylebone is
getting two new platforms this year so Chiltern should manage OK. The
line from Northolt into Paddington would also need some major trackwork
as it is, at present, extremely slooooow.

Of course in steam days this was a very fast stretch with speeds of around
80mph not uncommon through Greenford in the up direction, and 27-28min
running times for High Wycombe-Paddington. What a contrast with the sad
neglected state of the line today.

David

gwr4090 wrote:
In article ,
Dave Arquati wrote:


Noo... don't send Chiltern services into Paddington! Marylebone is
getting two new platforms this year so Chiltern should manage OK. The
line from Northolt into Paddington would also need some major trackwork
as it is, at present, extremely slooooow.


Of course in steam days this was a very fast stretch with speeds of around
80mph not uncommon through Greenford in the up direction, and 27-28min
running times for High Wycombe-Paddington. What a contrast with the sad
neglected state of the line today.

David

Can anyone back me up on this? When I first came to Birmingham in 1972,
I am sure the journey from Watford Junction took about 1hr 20 mins. Now
this is being touted as a target speed for the far future.

--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause. -Chico Marx

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955

"Martin Edwards" wrote in message
...

Can anyone back me up on this? When I first came to Birmingham in 1972,
I am sure the journey from Watford Junction took about 1hr 20 mins. Now
this is being touted as a target speed for the far future.

In the 1971-72 imetable fast trains from atfrod Junction to Birmingham New
Street took 1h17m, with one stop at Coventry. They now take 1h16m, with two
stops, Coventry and Birmingham International, and there is prospect of some
further acceleration. However, in 1971-72, fast trains from Watford Junction
to Birmingham only ran in the morning peak - last one was 1002. After this
you'd have had to travel on the much slower local (now Silverlink) service.
Now they're hourly all day.

Peter

"gwr4090" wrote in message
...

The record for previous initiatives of this kind is not very encouraging.
There were similar proposals many years ago for a park and ride at Iver on
the GWML which is practically adjacent to the M25 and has lots of unused
land adjacent to the station. I believe the DfT objected because it would
require a new junction on the M25, and it would also generate more traffic
on nearby motorways rather than relieving them.

Yet Haddenham & Thame Parkway went ahead, without objections and with no
improvement to the local road system whatever - access only being via the
back road that parallels the A418 between Aylesbury and Thame! As the car
park at that station now extends almost to the A418 at the northern end, it
is surprising that access there hasn't been improved, given the number of
cars that thunder along the back road. Many of theses are local but there
are also many users who drive to H&T Pkwy from the M40.

On that basis, even a DGC Parkway without a direct M25 connection, serving
the local area, the A40 and A418 would be of benefit and would relieve the
pressure on the centre of Gerrards Cross and the area to the west of
Chorleywood.

gwr4090 wrote:

The record for previous initiatives of this kind is not very encouraging.
There were similar proposals many years ago for a park and ride at Iver on
the GWML which is practically adjacent to the M25 and has lots of unused
land adjacent to the station. I believe the DfT objected because it would
require a new junction on the M25, and it would also generate more traffic
on nearby motorways rather than relieving them.

The M25/M4/M40/Heathrow area is one of the busiest and most congested
sections of the motorway network. The proposed park and ride station
at Iver would only have made the situation worse.

Far better to encourage people to travel by train from further out, to
the point where the train portion of their journey is maximised.

Tony

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
gwr4090 wrote:

The record for previous initiatives of this kind is not very encouraging.
There were similar proposals many years ago for a park and ride at Iver
on
the GWML which is practically adjacent to the M25 and has lots of unused
land adjacent to the station. I believe the DfT objected because it would
require a new junction on the M25, and it would also generate more
traffic
on nearby motorways rather than relieving them.

The M25/M4/M40/Heathrow area is one of the busiest and most congested
sections of the motorway network. The proposed park and ride station
at Iver would only have made the situation worse.

Far better to encourage people to travel by train from further out, to
the point where the train portion of their journey is maximised.

Tony

There would also be considerable local opposition to building in green belt
land. Proposals for a GC freight terminal and a theme park at Hillingdon
were seen off for this reason. The third runway at Heathrow cannot be built
unless the already very high levels of air pollution are reduced. What
looks like 'spare land' to the casual observer is in fact highly appreciated
countryside, such as Denham Country Park.

Peter Masson wrote:
"Martin Edwards" wrote in message
...

Can anyone back me up on this? When I first came to Birmingham in 1972,
I am sure the journey from Watford Junction took about 1hr 20 mins. Now
this is being touted as a target speed for the far future.


In the 1971-72 imetable fast trains from atfrod Junction to Birmingham New
Street took 1h17m, with one stop at Coventry. They now take 1h16m, with two
stops, Coventry and Birmingham International, and there is prospect of some
further acceleration. However, in 1971-72, fast trains from Watford Junction
to Birmingham only ran in the morning peak - last one was 1002. After this
you'd have had to travel on the much slower local (now Silverlink) service.
Now they're hourly all day.

Peter


Thanks for the update. Unfortunately the Silverlink service only rusn
to Northampton, having been bounced out of New Stret in the interest of
free markets.

--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause. -Chico Marx

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955

"Orienteer" wrote:

There would also be considerable local opposition to building in green belt
land. Proposals for a GC freight terminal and a theme park at Hillingdon
were seen off for this reason.

And rightly so.

The third runway at Heathrow cannot be built
unless the already very high levels of air pollution are reduced.

Same comment applies.

What looks like 'spare land' to the casual observer is in fact highly
appreciated countryside, such as Denham Country Park.

It is so often the case that developers, construction professionals
and townies in general see green space merely as a potential
construction site, without taking the time to appreciate its value for
other purposes, or indeed for no particular purpose at all.

We live on a very crowded island. Our landscape is unique and
precious. Open spaces should be nurtured and protected from the
over-development for which future generations will not forgive us.


Tony

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005, Dave Arquati wrote:

TheOneKEA wrote:

But what would replace the Greenford triangle, to allow HSTs to
reverse formation after interesting diversions in the West Country?

I'm sure some alternative could be found. A giant turntable, perhaps...
or setting up some sort of circuit around the Willesden railway lands.

Half-pipe?

tom

--
So the moon is approximately 24 toasters from S****horpe.