Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
 

"Bob" wrote

A number of us have argued in the past for the diversion of the twice
an hour Reading to Waterloo services to run via Heathrow to Paddington
initially by linking with the Heathrow Connect service thereby needing
no new train paths. This could eventually feed into Cross Rail.The
freed paths from Staines High Street to Waterloo could be taken by
extending two of the four Heathrow Express services to Waterloo - where
the Eurostar terminal becomes vacant. IIRC Siemens Desiro stock works
happily between Paddington and Heathrow already on 25kv and also on
750v DC to Reading from Waterloo. The West Coast mainline Desiros have
both pantagraphs and third rail beams - having been diverted from SWT -
so I assume that the operation of dual voltage trains meeting Heathrow
and Crossrail Tunnel standards would not present at least one
manufacturer with overwhelming technical difficulties. The number of
level crossings could well be an issue. The need to lengthen platforms
to accomodate ten-twelve car trains also needs to be considered.

I agree that a medium term aspiration should be to link Crossrail with
Airtrack, but at this stage it would be better to argue for Crossrail and
Airtrack to be approved separately, as currently planned. After that, thne
case could be worked up for linking them - would the cost, particularly of
platfrom lengthening, be justified by the benefits obtained. If passengers
from SWT stations west of Staines are diverted to Crossrail would there be
enough capacity through Heathrow and on the GWML between Hayes and Acton,
including for freight? Another consideration is how to serve T4 - the
current plan is to divert HEx to T5, and extend Heathrow Connect to T4 (with
a half-hourly T123 - T4 shuttle while Heathrow Connect remains 2tph), but I
cannot recall seeing a definitive pattern for Crossrail and HEx services.

Peter

Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
 

In message , Roland
Perry writes

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

Possible, but there are two stations next to level crossings which would
have to be rebuilt with low-level platforms. And there wouldn't be room
to sink the line between Barnes junction and the first crossing at Rocks
Lane - in fact it would be difficult to get low enough before the second
crossing at White Hart Lane.

Which reminds me - there are actually four level crossings, not three,
between Barnes and Richmond.

However, there's room for a passing loop between North Sheen and
Mortlake - it looks like enough land was taken for a possible future
extension of the four-track line from Clapham Junction to Barnes onwards
to Richmond, or may be there was once a long siding there. Perhaps it
might be possible to utilise that so that the fast services could
overtake the stoppers.

--
Paul Terry

Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
 

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
...

Close the level crossings. Let the Highway authorities sort out
alternative access.

Does anyone know if Network Rail have any legal obligations to keep level
crossings open for a certain number of minutes per hour or can they just say
stuff the cars, it's not our problem.

Peter Smyth

Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
 

In message , Graeme Wall
writes
In message
(Nick Cooper) wrote:

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 11:31:44 +0000, Paul Terry
wrote:

In message .com, Bob
writes

Both the DfT and the Airtrack forum believe the scheme could be
operating in 2011, in time for the London Olympics in 2012.

I've never understood how more trains could be projected down the line
between Barnes and Twickenham, given the frequency of the existing
services and the constraints of three level crossings on the way.

Radical thought: Three bridges?!

That's one hell of a detour to go via Three Bridges surely?

I'm *so* glad I wasn't the only one to think that, Graham! :-)
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
 

In message , at 14:26:02 on Wed, 28 Dec
2005, Paul Terry remarked:
In message , Roland
Perry writes

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

Possible, but there are two stations next to level crossings which
would have to be rebuilt with low-level platforms.

Yes, just sink them like the rest of the line.

And there wouldn't be room to sink the line between Barnes junction and
the first crossing at Rocks Lane

Too steep a grade? What's the problem with a road bridge at Rock's Lane?
It doesn't look like a built up area from the map I have here.

- in fact it would be difficult to get low enough before the second
crossing at White Hart Lane.

A bit over 0.6 mile. The ramp down from Blackfriars to City Thameslink
is about a third of that distance.
--
Roland Perry

Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
.uk...
In message , at 13:34:18 on Wed, 28 Dec
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?

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.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
 

In message , Roland
Perry writes

In message , at 14:26:02 on Wed, 28 Dec
2005, Paul Terry remarked:

Possible, but there are two stations next to level crossings which
would have to be rebuilt with low-level platforms.

Yes, just sink them like the rest of the line.

It could certainly help the need to provide longer platforms on the line
- but the main problem with sinking the line is the cost, which could
easily eat-up most of the Airtrack budget before the line gets anywhere
near Heathrow.

And there wouldn't be room to sink the line between Barnes junction
and the first crossing at Rocks Lane

Too steep a grade? What's the problem with a road bridge at Rock's
Lane? It doesn't look like a built up area from the map I have here.

Sorry - my mistake. The first pair of level crossings are in Vine Road,
just west of Barnes junction. Its then 500 yards to the next crossing in
White Hart Lane - there would probably be enough room to sink the line
in that distance, although up trains would frequently have to stop on
the incline to allow Hounslow loop trains to cross.

But I don't think any of it is likely, given the cost and disruption of
sinking several miles of very busy commuter railway - re-routeing the
Reading and/or Windsor services looks a much more attractive option.

--
Paul Terry

Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
 

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 14:26:02 on Wed, 28 Dec 2005,
Paul Terry remarked:
In message , Roland Perry
writes

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

And there wouldn't be room to sink the line between Barnes junction and
the first crossing at Rocks Lane - in fact it would be difficult to get
low enough before the second crossing at White Hart Lane.

A bit over 0.6 mile. The ramp down from Blackfriars to City Thameslink is
about a third of that distance.

0.6 miles = 960 m; at a grade of 1:30, which i think is the steepest you
can sensibly have, that's enough to drop 32 metres. That seems more than
enough! IANAEngineer, but if we want a W8 gauge route, we need 3.6 m
clearance above the rail; allowing 1.4 m from the top of the 'railspace'
to the deck of the road, that's 5 metres that needs to be dropped, for a
slope of 1:192, which really doesn't seem a lot.


tom

--
Judge Dredd. Found dead. Face down in Snoopy's bed.

Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
 

Paul Terry wrote:

In message , Nick Cooper
writes

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 11:31:44 +0000, Paul Terry
wrote:

I've never understood how more trains could be projected down the line
between Barnes and Twickenham, given the frequency of the existing
services and the constraints of three level crossings on the way.

Radical thought: Three bridges?!

It would be very nice (from my point of view!) but the cost would eat up
most of the Airtrack budget, given property prices in the area!

Even more radical thought - Six Cul-de-sacs?!

(or should that be Culs-de-sac... blessed French plurals...)

Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
 

In message , ab
writes

Even more radical thought - Six Cul-de-sacs?!

No. As I have already said, the level crossings provide the only
alternative to the already near-gridlocked South Circular for large
parts of the borough - which already has some of the poorest emergency
response times in London because of this problem.

Create six cul-de-sacs and you might as well not bother to respond to
many 999 calls! Cul-de-sacs would not help at all.

Bridges (or sinking the line) would help matters considerably - but the
cost is phenomenal, given that even the tiniest lineside properties are
worth half a million, and some considerably more.

And as for the environmental impact - well Richmond residents are famed
for being to get-up a powerful lobby against a single misplaced piece of
street furniture (let alone the potential incursion of Crossrail into
their borough) - so don't hope for any crossing closures!

--
Paul Terry