Peter Masson wrote:

I can understand HEx staying a separate service, though the arguments are
similar to incorporating GatEx into other Brighton line services, with GatEx
running through to Brighton, Worthing, etc. But I would have thought a good
case could be made for incorporating Airtrack into Crossrail, with Crossrail
adding destinations such as Guildford, and Reading via Bracknell. This would
go some way to balancing out the eastern and western ends of Crossrail, and
avoid the need for so many Crossrail trains to terminate at Paddington.

An eminently sensible suggestion that in effect blends the Airtrack and
Crossrail proposals. It will no doubt be resisted by the flat earth
promoters of Crossrail who are fixated by "May be it's because I'm a
Londoner thinking" and who appear to regard the M25 as a latter day
Offa's Dyke.
However in view of the fact that Crossrail has received a large number
of objections -
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...938998,00.html
- the promoters might come to the realisation that a project that
sensibly maximises the hinterland of rail access to Heathrow might be
integral to getting the broader parliamentary support necessary to get
the Crossrail bill on the statute book. In fact it might be sensible to
suggest that as Phase 1 of Crossrail that they build Airtrack which
requires by comparison less new infrastructure - the Staines chord and
the relatively short Terminal Five link.
I also believe the idea of running HEx Paddington-Heathrow-Waterloo has
merit - If the recent "Open Skies". agreement concluded with the United
States is ratified there will be a significant increase in the number
of US carriers seeking to fly to Heathrow - so choice of fast routes
to central London makes sense.



Peter

"Bob" wrote

An eminently sensible suggestion that in effect blends the Airtrack and
Crossrail proposals. It will no doubt be resisted by the flat earth
promoters of Crossrail who are fixated by "May be it's because I'm a
Londoner thinking" and who appear to regard the M25 as a latter day
Offa's Dyke.
However in view of the fact that Crossrail has received a large number
of objections -
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...938998,00.html
- the promoters might come to the realisation that a project that
sensibly maximises the hinterland of rail access to Heathrow might be
integral to getting the broader parliamentary support necessary to get
the Crossrail bill on the statute book. In fact it might be sensible to
suggest that as Phase 1 of Crossrail that they build Airtrack which
requires by comparison less new infrastructure - the Staines chord and
the relatively short Terminal Five link.
I also believe the idea of running HEx Paddington-Heathrow-Waterloo has
merit - If the recent "Open Skies". agreement concluded with the United
States is ratified there will be a significant increase in the number
of US carriers seeking to fly to Heathrow - so choice of fast routes
to central London makes sense.

Joining Crossrail to Airtack would add costs compared with keeping the
projects separate. For example, the trains would have to be dual-voltage
enabled, whereas the current Crossrail proposals are 25kV AC only, while
Airtrack will be 3rd rail DC, and it's trains won't need to be to the
enhanced standards for running through the tunnels to Heathrow 123. There
would also need to be a substantial programme of platform-lengthening on the
lines to be used by Airtrack, as Crossrail depends on trains longer than the
160 metre standard of the SWT Windsor lines. Other disbenefits to be costed
or mitigated might include diverting all Reading via Bracknell, and
Chertsey, trains via Heathrow and Crossrail, so that passengers for South
West London would have to change at Staines High Street. Running more
Crossrail trains via Heathrow would use up more Relief Line capacity between
Paddington and Airport Junction, and there are already objections from
freight operators that they might lose out. Nevertheless I consider that it
would be overall worthwhile to, first of all, approve both projects
separately, then study whether there would be net benefits of joining them.
However, I do understand Crossrail's current reluctance to consider
'add-ons', such as Reading, Ebbsfleet, or, for that matter, Airtrack,
because any adding to the cost of the project could easily result in it yet
again getting kicked into the long grass.

Peter

In article .com, Bob
writes
However in view of the fact that Crossrail has received a large number
of objections -
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...938998,00.html
- the promoters might come to the realisation that a project that
sensibly maximises the hinterland of rail access to Heathrow might be
integral to getting the broader parliamentary support necessary to get
the Crossrail bill on the statute book.

Don't read too much into the number of objections.

I've been involved in putting in a formal petition against the Crossrail
Bill. Not because we want to kill Crossrail, but because that's the only
way to get our issues (to do with relocation of telco equipment)
addressed. I suspect that the majority of objections are on a similar
basis.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: