Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
 

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
(Roland Perry) wrote:
remarked:

(snip)
What's happening at North Sheen?

They only have half a footbridge. It's an island platform with a
level crossing adjacent but passengers from one side have to cross
the line by the level crossing to reach the footbridge to access the
platforms. The MP has been complaining there is no money to restore
the other half of the footbridge.

And that's a *highways* problem??

Only because so much money is being spent on highways and not the railway.

By that logic you could say it's an NHS problem, an assylum seekers
problem or an Iraq war problem, depending on which newspaper you read...

How much does it cost Network Rail and the TOCs involved every time yet
another lorry hits the underbridge at Ely? It's the third most struck
bridge in the country.

It is sheer incomptence that bridges are struck so frequently that
people can identify what the thrid most struck bridge in the country is!

All you need to do to prevent that sort of incident is install a clunk
bar in front of the bridge. If the truck doesn't get to the bridge, it
can't cause any damage.

--
Aidan Stanger
http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk

Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
 

John Rowland wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote...
2005, Paul Terry remarked:

Possibly Rocks Lane (actually a pair of crossings)

I think you mean Vine Road?

could be closed - but ironically that is the only one
with adjacent land that might make a bridge possible.
Bridges are the only (expensive) alternative to the
other two.

Why can't the railway be put in a shallow concrete sided cutting?

Because the Beverley Brook would be in the way.

But if you want an underground construction megaproject, why not build a
faster straighter new line and at the same time bring a railway to part
of London that doesn't have any: a new tunnel from just after Clapham,
with stations at Roehampton and Twickenham, surfacing somewhere around
Feltham?

I still think that the best solution would be a Crossrail branch from
Wormwood Scrubs to Richmond, taking over most of the Windsor Lines services
out from there. There is room for four tracks on the ground for most if not
all of this part of the NLL. The Richmond to Clapham Junction line could
then easily handle the remaining local services.

Last time I travelled on that stretch of NLL I came to the opposite
conclusion. Looking at aerial photographs, I can't see how there could
be room for four tracks. In some parts of Acton (around Acton Lane and
the Acton Central LC) there doesn't even seem to be room for three!

Unfortunately I think getting a Crossrail line to take over any of the
Windsor Lines services will either require a lot of tunnelling or a
route via Heathrow (as featured in the Superlink plan).

--
Aidan Stanger
http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk

Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
 

In article , (Aidan Stanger) wrote:

It is sheer incomptence that bridges are struck so frequently that
people can identify what the thrid most struck bridge in the country
is!

It's more than incompetence. It's unfair road competition in the freight
industry.

All you need to do to prevent that sort of incident is install a clunk
bar in front of the bridge. If the truck doesn't get to the bridge, it
can't cause any damage.

Apparently not as the idea has been considered but not adopted.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
 

In message , at
07:41:00 on Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Colin Rosenstiel
remarked:
It is sheer incomptence that bridges are struck so frequently that
people can identify what the thrid most struck bridge in the country
is!

It's more than incompetence. It's unfair road competition in the freight
industry.

Not sure what you mean. Sounds like you are saying one trucking company
is deliberately bashing the bridge to harm another trucking company.

--
Roland Perry

Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
 

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
07:41:00 on Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Colin Rosenstiel
remarked:
It's more than incompetence. It's unfair road competition in the freight
industry.

Not sure what you mean. Sounds like you are saying one trucking company
is deliberately bashing the bridge to harm another trucking company.

I think Colin meant that one freight industry (road freight) has an unfair
advantage because the financial cost of a 'bridge bash' is unfairly borne
by another frieght industry (rail freight). Even though a 'bridge bash'
is usually (always?) the fault of the road feight operator.

If the true cost (including the cost of delay to many trains) of
the bridge bash was borne by the trucker - or more likely the
trucker's insurance - then the operating costs of road freight would
increase.

It is, of course, based on the hypothis that railtrack doesn't sue
truckers insurance to recover the costs... which I doubt, 'cos it's
an obvious move on their part.

--
RIP Morph (1977-2005)

Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
 

In message , at 19:16:29 on Fri,
6 Jan 2006, Mike Bristow remarked:
It's more than incompetence. It's unfair road competition in the freight
industry.

Not sure what you mean. Sounds like you are saying one trucking company
is deliberately bashing the bridge to harm another trucking company.

I think Colin meant that one freight industry (road freight) has an unfair
advantage because the financial cost of a 'bridge bash' is unfairly borne
by another frieght industry (rail freight). Even though a 'bridge bash'
is usually (always?) the fault of the road feight operator.

If the true cost (including the cost of delay to many trains) of
the bridge bash was borne by the trucker - or more likely the
trucker's insurance - then the operating costs of road freight would
increase.

It is, of course, based on the hypothis that railtrack doesn't sue
truckers insurance to recover the costs... which I doubt, 'cos it's
an obvious move on their part.

Exactly. I've never seen anyone explain why Railtrack don't claim the
costs. The perpetrator is hardly difficult to identify!
--
Roland Perry

Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
 

In article , (Roland Perry) wrote:

In message , at 19:16:29 on
Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Mike Bristow :
It's more than incompetence. It's unfair road competition in the
freight industry.

Not sure what you mean. Sounds like you are saying one trucking
company is deliberately bashing the bridge to harm another trucking
company.

I think Colin meant that one freight industry (road freight) has an
unfair advantage because the financial cost of a 'bridge bash' is
unfairly borne by another frieght industry (rail freight). Even
though a 'bridge bash' is usually (always?) the fault of the road
feight operator.

If the true cost (including the cost of delay to many trains) of
the bridge bash was borne by the trucker - or more likely the
trucker's insurance - then the operating costs of road freight would
increase.

It is, of course, based on the hypothis that railtrack doesn't sue
truckers insurance to recover the costs... which I doubt, 'cos it's
an obvious move on their part.

Exactly. I've never seen anyone explain why Railtrack don't claim the
costs. The perpetrator is hardly difficult to identify!

They may not have the witnesses.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
 

In message , at
00:12:00 on Sat, 7 Jan 2006, Colin Rosenstiel
remarked:
I've never seen anyone explain why Railtrack don't claim the
costs. The perpetrator is hardly difficult to identify!

They may not have the witnesses.

What, next to Ely Station? And the whole country is laced with CCTV.
Perhaps they should move the one from the Ely station waiting room
(where it seems to spend most of its time monitoring a pair of very
uncomfortable and empty bench seats) and stick it next to the bridge...
--
Roland Perry

Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
 

In article ,
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
They may not have the witnesses.

The Motor Insurers' Bureau should cover the cost, then.

--
RIP Morph (1977-2005)

Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
 

Mike Bristow ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying :

They may not have the witnesses.

The Motor Insurers' Bureau should cover the cost, then.

Maybe the truck's insurers are alleging that it wasn't the truck driver's
fault? Perhaps the bridge just ran out into the road in front of the truck?