|
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
In message , at
14:59:00 on Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Colin Rosenstiel remarked: Whoever these "competitors" are, why should *they* pay to sort out the railway's problems? The railway doesn't have a problem (apart from the footbridge at North Sheen station). I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that they had a "problem" related to the number of trains they could get along the line as a result of the number of level crossings, and wanted to increase the capacity. If that's their "problem", they need to pay to solve it. If it isn't a "problem", then discussion over. -- Roland Perry |
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
|
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
In message , at
16:50:00 on Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Colin Rosenstiel remarked: I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that they had a "problem" related to the number of trains they could get along the line as a result of the number of level crossings, and wanted to increase the capacity. If that's their "problem", they need to pay to solve it. If it isn't a "problem", then discussion over. The railway doesn't have a problem. Road users who find the crossings almost always closed have a problem. Sometimes open is better than closed entirely. If this is the only issue, I do wonder why some people (yourself included) are advocating closure. -- Roland Perry |
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
In message ,
Colin Rosenstiel writes The railway doesn't have a problem. Road users who find the crossings almost always closed have a problem. If there was no problem for the railway, why should they ever go to the cost of opening another level crossing gate again, anywhere? In fact, I think they would find themselves in contravention of the Level Crossings Act, and the various statutory orders that lay down very precisely how each individual crossing must be designed and operated. Whether or not such orders lay down minimum opening times, I do not know - but clearly blocking busy roads for most minutes in the hour would excite quite a lot of interest (two of the Sheen crossings are on B roads, one of which is a bus route). Generally, the Railway Inspectorate has opposed long barrier downtimes, because they inevitably lead to dangerous activity by frustrated motorists and pedestrians. It will be interesting to see what happens. I didn't find the operational aspects of the Airtrack proposals well thought through - having started by saying that existing services wouldn't be affected, they now admit that a few morning peak Reading services will have to go. They then say that the whole thing depends on new paths being found by reliability and efficiency gains on the current line - they want to use the recently vacated slots, which were the main cause of constant delays on the line. Then they have "assumed" that additional platform space will become available at Waterloo, which is hopeful given the uncertain future of Waterloo International (which would make an excellent Heathrow checkin, except that the likely passenger numbers are far too few to make it worthwhile). And I cannot see any sign that they have considered such matters as the already far-too overcrowded approach into Waterloo from the Windsor lines, where 5-minute delays at the station throat are commonplace - or, indeed, how they hope to project additional fast services through the four level-crossings between Barnes and Richmond! -- Paul Terry |
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
.uk... Sometimes open is better than closed entirely. If this is the only issue, I do wonder why some people (yourself included) are advocating closure. For my part, the aim was to help emergency vehicles get through. -- 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?
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ays_610690.pdf I came across this Arup study on Airtrack produced in June and released by the DfT in mid December. At first glance it mentions the service issues and constraints on the Windsor lines. Is anybody already familiar with it? - any views? |
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
|
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
Louis Krupp writes:
For what it's worth, emergency vehicle drivers here in the Wild, Wild West always defer to three things: School buses with lights flashing, school zones with lights, and trains. Kids can't be expected to know what the lights and siren are all about, and trains can't be expected to stop in time, so we don't mess with them. See the "stuff happens" analysis of one accident: http://www.co.washington.or.us/sheri...a/max_cart.htm Bad choice of example. Although the report uses the word "train", in British parlance Portland's MAX would be a tram system. Big trams, like in Nottingham, and they do go fast when off the public streets, but they're not like real trains. The "stop signal" that the "train" passed in that report would be an ordinary traffic light. -- Mark Brader | "...where did they get the sunlight in such a hurry? I know | it can be delivered in about eight minutes, but there must Toronto | be lots of paperwork involved." -- Michael Wares |
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
In message , at
21:07:00 on Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Colin Rosenstiel remarked: The railway doesn't have a problem. Road users who find the crossings almost always closed have a problem. Sometimes open is better than closed entirely. If this is the only issue, I do wonder why some people (yourself included) are advocating closure. Because money is being leeched away from the railway in the road interest. I wouldn't describe "keeping level crossings open" as leeching money away from the railway. In any event, there is no longer any pretence that the railway is a public service. It is a set of private companies operating for profit. No-one forced any of the ToCs to bid. They understand the nature of the business, and must take the rough with the smooth. Even to the extent that railway problems cannot be resolved, like restoring the full footbridge at North Sheen. What's happening at North Sheen? -- Roland Perry |
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
"Bob" wrote in message oups.com... http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ays_610690.pdf I came across this Arup study on Airtrack produced in June and released by the DfT in mid December. At first glance it mentions the service issues and constraints on the Windsor lines. Is anybody already familiar with it? - any views? An interesting idea, that I hadn't seen before, for dealing with capacity issues at Reading platforms 4A and 4B - reinstate the subway under the GWML and divert the North Downs (Gatwick and Guildford) trains into platform 10. But how would this sit with the aspiration to extend Crossrail from Maidenhead to Reading? And would it give an opportunity for VXC to extend regularly to Gatwick/Brighton (or Portsmouth) via Guildford - apparently the main constraint is obtaining paths from the GWML on to the spur to the North Downs Line? The report also highlights the weakness of the Airtrack proposals as far as access to Heathrow is concerned - fine to T5, but passengers will have to change to get to T123, and change twice, or get a bus, to T4. But through running from HEx, Heathrow Connect or Crossrail would involve dual voltage, not a big problem with stock, but the T5 platform lines would have to be dual voltage, instead of keeping 3rd rail DC and OHLE AC tracks separate. Peter |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:20 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk