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.

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

In article , (Paul Terry) wrote:

In message .com,
Bob

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?

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

--
Colin Rosenstiel

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/

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?



--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

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

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.

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

apologies - "pantographs" - too much sherry trifle

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