Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
 

"ab" wrote in message
...
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...)
IIRC, the French is 'voies sans issue'- 'cul-de-sac' is a little
vulgar.......
Brian

Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
 

"Paul Terry" wrote in message
...
In message , ab
writes

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

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.

You could close the crossings for all vehicles except emergency vehicles,
which would have priority over trains.

--
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?
 

B.H. Williams:
IIRC, the French is 'voies sans issue'- 'cul-de-sac' is a little
vulgar.......

I've definitely seen "cul-de-sac" on a sign in Montreal. It was
a few decades ago, though. (Today I'd expect a pictogram, just
as I would in France.)
--
Mark Brader | "This is a moral that runs at large;
Toronto | Take it. -- You're welcome. -- No extra charge."
| -- Oliver Wendell Holmes

Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
.uk...
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?

- 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.

That part of the TL line probably has a very low PSR (20 or 30 mph, I would
guess).

--
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 , at 20:01:40 on Wed,
28 Dec 2005, John Rowland
remarked:
Why can't the railway be put in
a shallow concrete sided cutting?

- 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.

That part of the TL line probably has a very low PSR (20 or 30 mph, I would
guess).

It also runs N/S rather than E/W, which is just as (ir)relevant :-)
--
Roland Perry

Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
 

In article , (John Rowland) wrote:

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.

How does that meet the considerable Putney traffic needs?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
 

In article , (Paul Terry) wrote:

In message , Roland
Perry writes

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

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.

Vine Road is a good example of what I mean. Close the crossings. The traffic can perfectly well use Rocks Lane which is a perfectly good bridge across the railway. If the highway authority don't like that /they/ can build the bridge at their expense. Dyers Lane was closed this way some years ago.

White Hart Lane and Sheen Lane are more of a problem, I accept.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
 

In message , at
20:51:00 on Wed, 28 Dec 2005, Colin Rosenstiel
remarked:
Vine Road is a good example of what I mean. Close the crossings. The
traffic can perfectly well use Rocks Lane which is a perfectly good
bridge across the railway. If the highway authority don't like that
/they/ can build the bridge at their expense.

Isn't the problem that the highway was there first? The railway will
have been constructed on the basis that the highway remained open as
much as possible. If the railway want to renege on that bargain, /they/
can pay.
--
Roland Perry

Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
 

Peter Masson wrote:
"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

What size market exists for travellers between Heathrow and Gatwick I
wonder? There are frequent coach links, until fairly recently (early
1990s?) a roughly 90 minute frequency S61 Helicopter service, and in
the 1960s and 1970s Westward Airways had a BN Islander aircraft passing
over our house almost hourly. It would be good to take some of those
coaches off the M25/M23.

Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
 

In article , (John Rowland) wrote:

"Paul Terry" wrote in message
...
In message , ab
writes

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

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.

You could close the crossings for all vehicles except emergency
vehicles, which would have priority over trains.

Whatever. The question is, why is this a problem the railway should be expected to pay to sort out?

--
Colin Rosenstiel