|
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
http://www.wandsworthguardian.co.uk/..._rail_link.php
Quote AirTrack, a direct line between Terminal Five and South West Trains' suburban rail network to the south and west of the airport, is outlined in a document about the South Western train network franchise.The inclusion of AirTrack in the Department for Transport (DfT) consultation paper means rail companies need to make proposals to operate the service in their bids for the franchise.A DfT spokeswoman said it was looking carefully at AirTrack in the future development of Heathrow.She said: "We expect to reach some conclusions in the course of the coming year. Key issues will include identifying a promoter and sources of funding." Both the DfT and the Airtrack forum believe the scheme could be operating in 2011, in time for the London Olympics in 2012. Unquote One source of funding could be the West of London Congestion Charge centred on Heathrow. The BAA Chief Executive suggested that this would be necessary last year and Airtrack could be the trigger to make it happen. Spellthorne Council has in addition to environmental issues concerning the route worries that people will go to Staines and park their cars there and commute into the airport - including Staines in the congestion zone (with appropriate residents rebate) could address that problem. As has been previously discussed in these groups I have always felt that Airtrack and Crossrail should be integrated to provide comprehensive access to one of Britains key transport nodes not only from the centre of London but from the M4 and M3 corridors. I do hope that in crossing the t's and dotting the i's in the SWT refranchising that this possibility is not ruled out. |
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
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. Would it mean diverting the Windsor service round the Hounslow loop - and would that in any case free up enough slots? -- Paul Terry |
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
|
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
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?! Would it mean diverting the Windsor service round the Hounslow loop - and would that in any case free up enough slots? -- Nick Cooper [Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!] The London Underground at War, and in Films & TV: http://www.nickcooper.org.uk/ |
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
|
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
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! -- Paul Terry |
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
Paul Terry wrote: II'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. Would it mean diverting the Windsor service round the Hounslow loop - and would that in any case free up enough slots? This will be part of the consideration that bidders for the SWT franchise will have to make. There is also the question of freight to consider as the West London Line is increasingly occupied by new passenger services http://www.tfl.gov.uk/rail/downloads...ve-summary.pdf 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. |
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
In message ,
Colin Rosenstiel writes Close the level crossings. Let the Highway authorities sort out alternative access. Its not a simple question of resident access - at the moment the crossings are the only alternative to the South Circular for emergency services (hence some of the worst response times in London) and for emergency diversions off the South Circular. The fire station, in particular, is to the north of the railway and would therefore be cut off from most of the borough. One of the crossings is also on a bus route. Possibly Rocks Lane (actually a pair of crossings) 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. -- Paul Terry |
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
apologies - "pantographs" - too much sherry trifle |
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
In message , at 13:34:18 on Wed, 28 Dec
2005, Paul Terry remarked: Possibly Rocks Lane (actually a pair of crossings) 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? -- Roland Perry |
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 |
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?
|
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
|
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?
|
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
wrote 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. It would, but it would be well nigh impossible to devise a fast rail route on which robust paths could be provided - Airtrack to Clapham Junction, but then either reverse at Stewarts Lane, or negotiate Factory Junction, Herne Hill, Tulse Hill to get to the Brighton Line or GWML, WLL, and Brighton Line, all three of which are congested, and the link via Acton Wells and Willesden Junction is slow (I suppose when E*s go it would not be impossible to reopen the Old Oak Common East to North Pole spur) or resurrect the idea of going via Dudding Hill on to the MML then via Thameslink. I suppose if the Central Railway ever gets built it would not be completely impossible to construct a few spurs and beg some paths between the freights. Peter |
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
|
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
Peter Masson wrote: wrote 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. It would, but it would be well nigh impossible to devise a fast rail route on which robust paths could be provided - Airtrack to Clapham Junction, but then either reverse at Stewarts Lane, or negotiate Factory Junction, Herne Hill, Tulse Hill to get to the Brighton Line or GWML, WLL, and Brighton Line, all three of which are congested, and the link via Acton Wells and Willesden Junction is slow (I suppose when E*s go it would not be impossible to reopen the Old Oak Common East to North Pole spur) or resurrect the idea of going via Dudding Hill on to the MML then via Thameslink. I suppose if the Central Railway ever gets built it would not be completely impossible to construct a few spurs and beg some paths between the freights. Peter I was referring to the Airtrack proposal showing the link to the Wokingham-Redhill line. I'll see if there is a link to it. I saw the article in a newspaper about a month ago. |
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
wrote: Peter Masson wrote: wrote 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. It would, but it would be well nigh impossible to devise a fast rail route on which robust paths could be provided - Airtrack to Clapham Junction, but then either reverse at Stewarts Lane, or negotiate Factory Junction, Herne Hill, Tulse Hill to get to the Brighton Line or GWML, WLL, and Brighton Line, all three of which are congested, and the link via Acton Wells and Willesden Junction is slow (I suppose when E*s go it would not be impossible to reopen the Old Oak Common East to North Pole spur) or resurrect the idea of going via Dudding Hill on to the MML then via Thameslink. I suppose if the Central Railway ever gets built it would not be completely impossible to construct a few spurs and beg some paths between the freights. Peter I was referring to the Airtrack proposal showing the link to the Wokingham-Redhill line. I'll see if there is a link to it. I saw the article in a newspaper about a month ago. The proposal was a short spur from the Staines line allowing trains to travel through Woking and Guildford with infill electrification allowing access to Gatwick. Timings wouldn't be fast in modern terms, but would be faster than the M25/M23 alternative. |
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article , (Roland Perry) wrote: 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. That's a ludicrous claim. There were no motor vehicles when the railway was built. Nowadays it's not even a significant detour. I'm surprised the residents of Vine Road haven't got it closed as a rat run years ago. Perhaps it's because they find it convenient to be able to go either north or south from their home without needing to battle through the jams at the A205/A306 junction. Also, my map says there is a sports ground and bowling green between the two level crossings, with road access possible only from Vine Road. In addition to the two Vine Road crossings, there are three more, at White Hart Lane, Sheen Lane (by Mortlake station, B351) and Manor Road (B353). Closing these crossings would put intolerable pressure on other roads that bridge the railway. As in many parts of London, the railways are a significant constraint on the free movement of people and goods. You suggest that the "highway authorities" should solve the problem. That just means that the cost would fall on the council tax payers of L.B. Richmond-upon-Thames. Evidently you don't live there. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
wrote: wrote: Peter Masson wrote: wrote I suppose if the Central Railway ever gets built it would not be completely impossible to construct a few spurs and beg some paths between the freights. Peter I was referring to the Airtrack proposal showing the link to the Wokingham-Redhill line. I'll see if there is a link to it. I saw the article in a newspaper about a month ago. The proposal was a short spur from the Staines line allowing trains to travel through Woking and Guildford with infill electrification allowing access to Gatwick. Timings wouldn't be fast in modern terms, but would be faster than the M25/M23 alternative. http://airtrack.org/what_is_airtrack.htm Found it! |
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
In article , (Richard J.) wrote:
Colin Rosenstiel wrote: In article , (Roland Perry) wrote: 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. That's a ludicrous claim. There were no motor vehicles when the railway was built. Nowadays it's not even a significant detour. I'm surprised the residents of Vine Road haven't got it closed as a rat run years ago. Perhaps it's because they find it convenient to be able to go either north or south from their home without needing to battle through the jams at the A205/A306 junction. Also, my map says there is a sports ground and bowling green between the two level crossings, with road access possible only from Vine Road. As I said, a road problem. The sports ground could be accessed via the Hounslow Loop crossing anyway. In addition to the two Vine Road crossings, there are three more, at White Hart Lane, Sheen Lane (by Mortlake station, B351) and Manor Road (B353). Closing these crossings would put intolerable pressure on other roads that bridge the railway. This is quite a common problem. Look at the issues in London with river bridge approaches. As in many parts of London, the railways are a significant constraint on the free movement of people and goods. You suggest that the "highway authorities" should solve the problem. That just means that the cost would fall on the council tax payers of L.B. Richmond-upon-Thames. Evidently you don't live there. The way roads developments are funded it would fall on the Treasury but would rightly be seen as roads and not rail expenditure. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article , (Richard J.) wrote: Colin Rosenstiel wrote: In article , (Roland Perry) wrote: 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. That's a ludicrous claim. There were no motor vehicles when the railway was built. Nowadays it's not even a significant detour. I'm surprised the residents of Vine Road haven't got it closed as a rat run years ago. Perhaps it's because they find it convenient to be able to go either north or south from their home without needing to battle through the jams at the A205/A306 junction. Also, my map says there is a sports ground and bowling green between the two level crossings, with road access possible only from Vine Road. As I said, a road problem. No, you implied there wasn't a problem ("The traffic can perfectly well use Rocks Lane ..."). -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
In message , at
21:57:00 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. That's a ludicrous claim. There were no motor vehicles when the railway was built. Nowadays it's not even a significant detour. It would be if *all* the crossings in question were closed. -- Roland Perry |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:36 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk