Crossrail franchise
 

The "Two Crossrail questions" thread set me thinking. Paddington is
currently FGW territory. Liverpool St is "One Land". So when (yes when)
Crossrail gets built how do the franchises align?

Possibilities:

1) "Paddington (currently FGW) franchise" + "Liverpool St (currently One)
franchise + a 3rd franchise for Crossrail bringing competition at both ends
between the enw Crossrail franchise and the incumbents. (3 franchises)
2) One big franchise covering Paddington + Liverpool St + Crossrail (1
franchise)
3) One of the Paddington or Liverpool St incumbents gets to run Crossrail
bringing competion to the area they don't currently serve.(2 franchises)
4) The incumbents remain in place and run Crossrail as a joint venture.(2
franchises + JV).

Personally, I reckon FGW could do with some competition so I favour 1 or 4.

Crossrail franchise
 

On Aug 2, 6:14 pm, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:
The "Two Crossrail questions" thread set me thinking. Paddington is
currently FGW territory. Liverpool St is "One Land". So when (yes when)
Crossrail gets built how do the franchises align?

Possibilities:

1) "Paddington (currently FGW) franchise" + "Liverpool St (currently One)
franchise + a 3rd franchise for Crossrail bringing competition at both ends
between the enw Crossrail franchise and the incumbents. (3 franchises)
2) One big franchise covering Paddington + Liverpool St + Crossrail (1
franchise)
3) One of the Paddington or Liverpool St incumbents gets to run Crossrail
bringing competion to the area they don't currently serve.(2 franchises)
4) The incumbents remain in place and run Crossrail as a joint venture.(2
franchises + JV).

Personally, I reckon FGW could do with some competition so I favour 1 or 4.

Another option - as a result of Ken/Boris exercising his Mayoral
powers over railways outside London - TfL assume responsiblity for
Crossrail and lets the franchise as part of London Overground/
Underground ensuring that maximum connectivity with the existing TfL
network - after all Crossrail has unlike Thameslink not been designed
as an equivalent RER but merely a full gauge fast tube.

Crossrail franchise
 

On Aug 2, 6:14 pm, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:
The "Two Crossrail questions" thread set me thinking. Paddington is
currently FGW territory. Liverpool St is "One Land". So when (yes when)
Crossrail gets built how do the franchises align?



The White Paper seemed to imply a separate franchise for Crossrail.

I wouldn't worry too much as to how Crossrail will fit into current
franchises. In the last 10 years we have moved through three different
models of franchise organisation/term. Crossrail is unlikely to be
built for at least another 10 years, maybe even 15. Who is to know
what franchises will look like that far ahead, never mind who will be
running them.

Crossrail franchise
 

On 2 Aug, 18:37, Bob wrote:
On Aug 2, 6:14 pm, "Graham Harrison"



wrote:
The "Two Crossrail questions" thread set me thinking. Paddington is
currently FGW territory. Liverpool St is "One Land". So when (yes when)
Crossrail gets built how do the franchises align?

Possibilities:

1) "Paddington (currently FGW) franchise" + "Liverpool St (currently One)
franchise + a 3rd franchise for Crossrail bringing competition at both ends
between the enw Crossrail franchise and the incumbents. (3 franchises)
2) One big franchise covering Paddington + Liverpool St + Crossrail (1
franchise)
3) One of the Paddington or Liverpool St incumbents gets to run Crossrail
bringing competion to the area they don't currently serve.(2 franchises)
4) The incumbents remain in place and run Crossrail as a joint venture.(2
franchises + JV).

Personally, I reckon FGW could do with some competition so I favour 1 or 4.

Another option - as a result of Ken/Boris exercising his Mayoral
powers over railways outside London - TfL assume responsiblity for
Crossrail and lets the franchise as part of London Overground/
Underground ensuring that maximum connectivity with the existing TfL
network - after all Crossrail has unlike Thameslink not been designed
as an equivalent RER but merely a full gauge fast tube.

This is certainly my favourite option! I think they should be given
control of the entire London suburban rail network and run it as part
of the Overground as franchises expire..

Crossrail franchise
 

On Aug 2, 6:58 pm, Neal wrote:


This is certainly my favourite option! I think they should be given
control of the entire London suburban rail network and run it as part
of the Overground as franchises expire..

It may have escaped your notice but Maidenhead and Shenfield are not
part of London, so why should Ken or Boris run the trains that serve
them? Fine by me if London ratepayers pick up the tab, but I somehow
suspect that that's not the intention.

To put it another way, if Ken or Boris should run those trains, why
shouldn't they run all the trains that serve London? I somehow think
that the people of Glasgow, Leeds, Manchester, etc, might have
something to say about their trains to London being run by the MoL.
Even if you exclude those trains, the London commuter-belt goes out a
long way these days: Bournemouth, Bristol, Northampton, Grantham,
Cambridge, Norwich, Southend.

Crossrail franchise
 

On Aug 2, 7:11 pm, W14_Fishbourne wrote:
It may have escaped your notice but Maidenhead and Shenfield are not
part of London, so why should Ken or Boris run the trains that serve
them? Fine by me if London ratepayers pick up the tab, but I somehow
suspect that that's not the intention.

Indeed, but then neither are Amersham, Epping or Watford.

In the 1930s this was solved by making the responsible body be a
committee, with various representation from London, Essex,
Hertfordshire, Middlesex, Kent, Buckinghamshire and Surrey.

--
Abi

Crossrail franchise
 

On Aug 2, 7:11 pm, W14_Fishbourne wrote:
It may have escaped your notice but Maidenhead and Shenfield are not
part of London, so why should Ken or Boris run the trains that serve
them?

Maidenhead is about the same distance out as Chesham, and Shenfield's
barely outside at all. It's the publicly stated aim of TfL to have
more control over the inner-suburban network, and later this year they
gain powers to negotiate changes to services on it.

Since Crossrail is DfT/TfL led, I think it being TfL run is a safe
bet, though it'll also be advertised as a National Rail service. A lot
like the extended East London Line.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

Crossrail franchise
 

wrote in message
oups.com
On Aug 2, 7:46 pm, " wrote:
On Aug 2, 7:11 pm, W14_Fishbourne
wrote:

It may have escaped your notice but Maidenhead and Shenfield are not
part of London, so why should Ken or Boris run the trains that serve
them? Fine by me if London ratepayers pick up the tab, but I somehow
suspect that that's not the intention.

Indeed, but then neither are Amersham, Epping or Watford.

In the 1930s this was solved by making the responsible body be a
committee, with various representation from London, Essex,
Hertfordshire, Middlesex, Kent, Buckinghamshire and Surrey.

--
Abi



I think any discussion about Cross Rail is premature. Very.

I cant seen any such line opening before 2016/7, even if it is
approved, and if there is finance available.

It's another Thameslink millstone......

With the binary Olympics mindset* currently prevailing, it's hard to
imagine construction work on Crossrail starting before 2012. Given that
it'll probably take another five years to build, 2017 does seem like the
earliest likely opening date, assuming it's not abandoned long before
that.

* If you can put an Olympics tag on it, there are no funding or other
obstacles; if not, forget it.

Crossrail franchise
 

"W14_Fishbourne" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Aug 2, 6:14 pm, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:
The "Two Crossrail questions" thread set me thinking. Paddington is
currently FGW territory. Liverpool St is "One Land". So when (yes
when)
Crossrail gets built how do the franchises align?



The White Paper seemed to imply a separate franchise for Crossrail.

I wouldn't worry too much as to how Crossrail will fit into current
franchises. In the last 10 years we have moved through three different
models of franchise organisation/term. Crossrail is unlikely to be
built for at least another 10 years, maybe even 15. Who is to know
what franchises will look like that far ahead, never mind who will be
running them.

I seem to recall that in 1912 there was similar discussion about whether the
Titanic's deck-chairs should be run on a different franchise.

Regards

Jonathan

Crossrail franchise
 

Another option - as a result of Ken/Boris exercising his Mayoral
powers over railways outside London - TfL assume responsiblity for
Crossrail and lets the franchise as part of London Overground/
Underground ensuring that maximum connectivity with the existing TfL
network - after all Crossrail has unlike Thameslink not been designed
as an equivalent RER but merely a full gauge fast tube.- Hide quoted text -

Building on my earlier suggestion - the Scottish (because they always
are) Chancellor will no doubt appreciate that TfL control is a great
way of making Boris responsible for getting the banks and property
companies who will benefit from increased land values to stump up the
cash for Crossrail - especially if at the same time making London
shoulder the cost for any Jubilee line extension type cost overruns -
(roughly in the same way the SNP have threatened Edinburgh Council
with over run costs on the Edinburgh trams, or Border Councils with
costs on the Waverley line.) By the way for those who don't feel they
are part of London the Government is to allow the Mayor and TfL to
increase or decrease service levels on trains outside the London
boundary. No doubt some contributor can draw the boundaries of this
influence - on Thameslink/FCC IIRC I think this will extend to Saint
Albans.

Crossrail franchise
 

"Bob" wrote in message
oups.com...

....... - Crossrail has unlike Thameslink not been designed
as an equivalent RER but merely a full gauge fast tube.- Hide quoted
text -

I'm not sure this view is correct. Surely the way Crossrail trains will be
sharing tracks on existing routes to Maidenhead, Shenfield and Abbey Wood,
is just like Thameslink; the only main difference is their central London
tunnel will be new, not secondhand...

By the way for those who don't feel they
are part of London the Government is to allow the Mayor and TfL to
increase or decrease service levels on trains outside the London
boundary. No doubt some contributor can draw the boundaries of this
influence - on Thameslink/FCC IIRC I think this will extend to Saint
Albans.

No need to guess, the boundaries of TfL's influence were published on the
DfT website, 'line by line', a couple of weeks ago; including the services
to St Albans as you mentioned.

They don't allow TfL to increase or decrease services unilaterally, though,
but as follows:

"The changes I have announced today will allow TfL to propose and pay for
improvements on some key commuter services that start or end just outside
the GLA boundary. At the same time the new arrangements make sure the
interests of passengers from just outside London are protected by their own
elected representatives."

http://tinyurl.com/2fen9r

I was looking at another forum last week where someone reckoned Ken had been
given the listed network as part of London Rail - amazing how people can
read too much into these announcements...

Paul S

Crossrail franchise
 

On Aug 2, 10:28 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
I'm not sure this view is correct. Surely the way Crossrail trains will be
sharing tracks on existing routes to Maidenhead, Shenfield and Abbey Wood,is just like Thameslink; the only main difference is their central London tunnel will be new, not secondhand...

There was a prolonged and at some stages heated debate about whether
Crossrail should be built as full gauge inner city metro or be
extended into the London surburban area. Destinations such as High
Wycombe, Reading and Oxford were considered together with beyond
Ebbsfleet siggestions

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/sq...007%202005.htm

Uncle Roger covered the debate in the above article from the archive
section of Informed Sources Alcydon Rail.

The need to contain costs by containing risk won the day. It was
suggested that the further Crossrail Trains went out into the country
the greater was the possibility of knock on delays which would then
affect the core central section - as happens from time to time with
Thamesink. When the Crossrail Bill was introduced in Parliament there
was a major row raised by those MPs whose constituencies fell just
outside the Crossrail area especially from the honourable members for
Reading. Now that Reading Station rebuild has been addressed in the
HLOS there may a case for reviewing the case for wires beyond
Maidenhead and minimising the dislocation effects of construction -
although having seen the results of the Portsmouth blockade now might
be a good to hide behind a barricade.

Crossrail franchise
 

On Aug 2, 10:28 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:


No need to guess, the boundaries of TfL's influence were published on the
DfT website, 'line by line', a couple of weeks ago; including the services
to St Albans as you mentioned.


Would this be the list that included "* Services from Paddington,
terminating at Slough;"? Funny, there haven't been any of those since
Heathrow Connect was introduced over 2 years ago!

Dear old DfT, on the ball as usual. Watch out for an announcement soon
of plans to build a motorway round London.

Crossrail franchise
 

Maybe I dreamed it, but didn't I read somewhere in the White Paper or
its supporting material that the building/operation of the central
tunnel will be handed over to Network Rail?

Crossrail franchise
 

An article and a leader from today's FT suggest dovetailing Thameslink
and Crossrail.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f30a134a-413...0779fd2ac.html

Quote
Crossrail crawling closer to green light
By Christopher Adams and Bob Sherwood
Published: August 2 2007 22:49 | Last updated: August 2 2007 22:49
It has been a long time in coming. Now, after years of wrangling over
the route, its vast cost and who should pay for it, Crossrail is
inching closer to fruition.
Political momentum behind the east-west rail route that would link
Berkshire with Essex via Heathrow and Canary Wharf is growing.
Ministers need no convincing of the economic benefits and the need to
ease congestion on London's overcrowded commuter networks. Moreover,
approval for Crossrail could help Labour in next year's London mayoral
elections.
A bill is being debated in the Commons and is expected to clear
parliament next spring, paving the way for a swift start to
construction.
In theory, a green light could come by the autumn. In reality, this is
far from guaranteed. Eighteen years on from its genesis, under
Margaret Thatcher's premiership, the biggest stumbling block to
Crossrail remains its financing, where a deal is as elusive as ever.
As the government prepares for what one senior official called "tough
discussions" with business, the London mayor and city transport
authorities, it is the split between private and public funding that
will be most difficult to resolve.
The drawn-out negotiations, and the need to keep the project
affordable, means recent projections for an opening as early as 2015
look optimistic. Even assuming agreement is reached by the time
departmental spending totals are pencilled in for the next three
years, Whitehall insiders expect slippage in the project's timetable.
Services may be a decade away.
According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, there are a number of
reasons why a more protracted timetable could suit the government.
The institute says that an early start to Crossrail's construction,
well before building work on the 2012 London Olympic Games is
complete, could contribute to a spending squeeze, in part because the
two projects would be competing for similar suppliers. It says that a
modest delay might allow the scheme to be built more cheaply.
There are, also, wider implications for the public finances, the IFS
says. Were the extra demands on the construction industry from
parallel work on the Olympics and Crossrail to inflate the rail
project's bill, the prospect of breaking one of Gordon Brown's fiscal
rules - to keep net debt at a stable and prudent level - may increase.
Public sector net debt was forecast by the Treasury in this year's
Budget to be 38.2 per cent of national income in 2007-08, rising to
38.8 per cent in 2009-10 and 2010-11, before dropping back to 38.6 per
cent of national income.
Carl Emmerson, IFS deputy director, says that, assuming Alistair
Darling, the chancellor, adheres to the 40 per cent limit on debt
imposed by Mr Brown, then "significant new projects would be
difficult" during the period covered by the pending review.
"It might not be possible for new significant projects to go ahead
without squeezing other investment programmes," he says.
Putting off Crossrail's construction "might make it easier to deliver
the project in a cost-effective way". Staggering demand for suppliers
could contain the expense.
Douglas Oakervee, Cross London Rail Link's chief executive, insists
that the timing of the two projects should dovetail. His team has
completed modelling that shows workers could migrate to Crossrail.
This has allayed the concerns of some in government. And the Treasury
has said nothing to suggest the fiscal rules are a constraint. Even
so, it would be a brave man that banked on a 2015 start for train
services.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/7c1a3e0a-412...0779fd2ac.html

The government must tackle infrastructure problems
Published: August 2 2007 20:02 | Last updated: August 2 2007 20:02
Only in Britain would people think the chance of securing a new train
line to be the chief virtue of hosting the Olympics.
Now, completion of the east-west Crossrail link before the 2012 Games
remains in doubt. And in a context of tight infrastructure spending,
Londoners seem doomed to making do with water pipes laid in Victorian
times, Underground stations that look as if they had their last
makeover when they were serving as wartime bomb shelters.
Unhappy commuters aside, the state of British infrastructure is a real
constraint on economic growth. France cites its sleek infrastructure -
ranging from high-speed trains to cheap nuclear power - as one of the
top attractions for foreign investors. By contrast, "Heathrow hassle"
is proving a compelling reason for international executives to avoid
London, and the CBI employers' body cites infrastructure problems
among its top concerns.
Nor is it simply a London issue. Business leaders in all corners of
the UK are complaining of missed meetings and pessing for better east-
west road links, upgrading of congested northern motorways, more
runways and better access to regional airports.
The government's focus, judging by July's rail policy paper, is on in-
creasing capacity through pragmatic improvements to existing networks
rather than splashy new investments, through longer trains rather than
a new north-south line.
This bias against grand projects is sensible, given that the UK's main
constraints stem from congestion rather than a lack of connections.
But with businesses and passengers set to make a higher financial
contribution - through road-pricing, rail fares and possible
supplementary rates - the government needs to translate its policy
into rapid and tangible improvements.
One area where it could show more ambition would be in accelerating
the planned pilots for road-pricing schemes - potentially sweetening
their introduction for motorists by dedicating receipts to further
infrastructure investment.
A swift conclusion to the competition authorities' investigation of
BAA's airport monopoly would also lessen frustrations, as would a real
move to eliminate the uncertainties of the planning process for major
projects.
Finally, there is Crossrail - rapidly,becoming a symbol of government
prevarication over infrastructure investment. It is time to set a firm
date for starting - and completing - Crossrail.The private sector must
be involved early in talks over funding. It is time the government
moved Britain beyond the Victorian era.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007
Unquote
l

Crossrail franchise
 

"Bob" wrote in message
oups.com...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/7c1a3e0a-412...0779fd2ac.html

The government must tackle infrastructure problems
Published: August 2 2007 20:02 | Last updated: August 2 2007 20:02
Only in Britain would people think the chance of securing a new train
line to be the chief virtue of hosting the Olympics.
Now, completion of the east-west Crossrail link before the 2012 Games
remains in doubt.

There's an understatement - look at the timescales from now for the ELLX ,
late 2010? - or Thameslink phase 1, 2011?? The outstanding work in both
cases is comparatively trivial compared to Crossrail, surely...

Paul

Crossrail franchise
 

On Aug 2, 7:11 pm, W14_Fishbourne wrote:
To put it another way, if Ken or Boris should run those trains, why
shouldn't they run all the trains that serve London? I somehow think
that the people of Glasgow, Leeds, Manchester, etc, might have
something to say about their trains to London being run by the MoL.

I don't really mind who runs my trains as long as they're clueful. If
a rail-friendly body like the Scottish Executive (or, indeed, TfL)
would like to annex Oxfordshire and take it out of the hands of the
muppets at the DfT, that's just fine with me.

Richard

Crossrail franchise
 

On Thu, 2 Aug 2007, Paul Scott wrote:

"Bob" wrote in message
oups.com...

....... - Crossrail has unlike Thameslink not been designed as an
equivalent RER but merely a full gauge fast tube.- Hide quoted text -

I'm not sure this view is correct. Surely the way Crossrail trains will
be sharing tracks on existing routes to Maidenhead, Shenfield and Abbey
Wood, is just like Thameslink; the only main difference is their central
London tunnel will be new, not secondhand...

AIUI, there won't be a huge amount of track-sharing. Crossrail gets
exclusive use of the slow tracks on the GWML, although it'll share with
HEx from Airport Junction to Heathrow Central. In the east, there will
still be non-Crossrail services on the GEML slows, but i think they'll all
be Shenfield - Liverpool Street, so sort of a second service of Crossrail
- in fact, it would make a lot of sense to have the Crossrail operator run
them, rather than the GE franchisee.

By the way for those who don't feel they are part of London the
Government is to allow the Mayor and TfL to increase or decrease
service levels on trains outside the London boundary. No doubt some
contributor can draw the boundaries of this influence - on
Thameslink/FCC IIRC I think this will extend to Saint Albans.

No need to guess, the boundaries of TfL's influence were published on
the DfT website, 'line by line', a couple of weeks ago; including the
services to St Albans as you mentioned.

http://tinyurl.com/2fen9r

This sounds like the stealthy implementation of the 'london regional rail
authority' plan that Bob Kiley floated early in his reign. I can't find a
map or report about that, but Dave says the boundary proposed was:

* Chiltern: Aylesbury via Amersham & High Wycombe
* Silverlink: Metro services to Watford Junction, the Croxley Link and Watford - St Albans Abbey
* Thameslink: Luton to Gatwick Airport
* Great Northern: Stevenage
* West Anglia: Hertford East & Stansted Airport
* Great Eastern: Shenfield
* LTS: Basildon & Tilbury
* Kent Link: Dartford
* South Eastern: Swanley, Otford & Sevenoaks
* South Central: Oxted, Gatwick Airport, Caterham, Tattenham Corner, Epsom Downs, Dorking
* South West: Guildford, Working, Shepperton, Virginia Water, Windsor & Eton Riverside
* Great Western: Slough / Windsor & Eton Central

The boundary in the GNN report you cite is a bit smaller.

tom

--
Standing on the shoulders of Google

Crossrail franchise
 

On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 16:54:34 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote:

....... - Crossrail has unlike Thameslink not been designed as an
equivalent RER but merely a full gauge fast tube.- Hide quoted text -

I'm not sure this view is correct. Surely the way Crossrail trains will
be sharing tracks on existing routes to Maidenhead, Shenfield and Abbey
Wood, is just like Thameslink; the only main difference is their central
London tunnel will be new, not secondhand...

AIUI, there won't be a huge amount of track-sharing. Crossrail gets
exclusive use of the slow tracks on the GWML, although it'll share with
HEx from Airport Junction to Heathrow Central.

What happens to GWML freight? Surely it won't use the fast lines -
will it all be sent round via Staines?

Crossrail franchise
 

"asdf" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 16:54:34 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote:

....... - Crossrail has unlike Thameslink not been designed as an
equivalent RER but merely a full gauge fast tube.- Hide quoted text -

I'm not sure this view is correct. Surely the way Crossrail trains will
be sharing tracks on existing routes to Maidenhead, Shenfield and Abbey
Wood, is just like Thameslink; the only main difference is their central
London tunnel will be new, not secondhand...

AIUI, there won't be a huge amount of track-sharing. Crossrail gets
exclusive use of the slow tracks on the GWML, although it'll share with
HEx from Airport Junction to Heathrow Central.

What happens to GWML freight? Surely it won't use the fast lines -
will it all be sent round via Staines?

I got the same idea as Tom from various press reports. They are wrong. I
don't know what will happen to freight but, at the very least, I expect the
Mendip stone trains to continue. There will also be a two train per hour
service Reading/Twyford/Maidenhead/Slough/Hayes/Ealing/Paddington and
another two trains all stations Reading to Slough according to recent
letters in the Maidenhead Advertiser. The Greenford service will be
reduced to a shuttle from West Ealing.

Crossrail franchise
 

At 11:25:17 on Fri, 3 Aug 2007 Paul Scott opined:-


"Bob" wrote in message
roups.com...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/7c1a3e0a-412...0779fd2ac.html

The government must tackle infrastructure problems
Published: August 2 2007 20:02 | Last updated: August 2 2007 20:02
Only in Britain would people think the chance of securing a new train
line to be the chief virtue of hosting the Olympics.
Now, completion of the east-west Crossrail link before the 2012 Games
remains in doubt.

There's an understatement - look at the timescales from now for the ELLX ,
late 2010? - or Thameslink phase 1, 2011?? The outstanding work in both
cases is comparatively trivial compared to Crossrail, surely...

I seem to remember that, even before that disastrous day when London was
awarded the Olympics, it was stated that Crossrail would not be
completed before 1913. Why didn't they go for the 1916 Olympics?
--
Thoss

Crossrail franchise
 

On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 19:44:18 +0100, thoss wrote:

Only in Britain would people think the chance of securing a new train
line to be the chief virtue of hosting the Olympics.
Now, completion of the east-west Crossrail link before the 2012 Games
remains in doubt.

There's an understatement - look at the timescales from now for the ELLX ,
late 2010? - or Thameslink phase 1, 2011?? The outstanding work in both
cases is comparatively trivial compared to Crossrail, surely...

I seem to remember that, even before that disastrous day when London was
awarded the Olympics, it was stated that Crossrail would not be
completed before 1913. Why didn't they go for the 1916 Olympics?

Your brain seems to be suffering from the millennium bug.

And yes, it has been the case for a number of years that the project
could not have been completed before 2013.

Crossrail franchise
 

On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 17:57:01 +0100, Graham Harrison wrote:

AIUI, there won't be a huge amount of track-sharing. Crossrail gets
exclusive use of the slow tracks on the GWML, although it'll share with
HEx from Airport Junction to Heathrow Central.

What happens to GWML freight? Surely it won't use the fast lines -
will it all be sent round via Staines?

I got the same idea as Tom from various press reports. They are wrong. I
don't know what will happen to freight but, at the very least, I expect the
Mendip stone trains to continue. There will also be a two train per hour
service Reading/Twyford/Maidenhead/Slough/Hayes/Ealing/Paddington and
another two trains all stations Reading to Slough according to recent
letters in the Maidenhead Advertiser.

This service pattern, of course, is only part of the plan for if
Crossrail ends at Maidenhead.

Crossrail franchise
 

"thoss" wrote in message
...
At 11:25:17 on Fri, 3 Aug 2007 Paul Scott opined:-


"Bob" wrote in message
groups.com...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/7c1a3e0a-412...0779fd2ac.html

The government must tackle infrastructure problems
Published: August 2 2007 20:02 | Last updated: August 2 2007 20:02
Only in Britain would people think the chance of securing a new train
line to be the chief virtue of hosting the Olympics.
Now, completion of the east-west Crossrail link before the 2012 Games
remains in doubt.

There's an understatement - look at the timescales from now for the ELLX ,
late 2010? - or Thameslink phase 1, 2011?? The outstanding work in both
cases is comparatively trivial compared to Crossrail, surely...

I seem to remember that, even before that disastrous day when London was
awarded the Olympics, it was stated that Crossrail would not be
completed before 1913. Why didn't they go for the 1916 Olympics?

It was cancelled due to WW1 IIRC...

Paul

Crossrail franchise
 

On Aug 3, 4:54 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
AIUI, there won't be a huge amount of track-sharing. Crossrail gets
exclusive use of the slow tracks on the GWML, although it'll share with
HEx from Airport Junction to Heathrow Central.

From the opening of the committee on Jan 2006:
"On the Great Western main line Crossrail will share the slow or so-
called relief lines with freight and complementary passenger services
to Reading. The intercity services and Heathrow will continue to use
the fast or main lines during normal operation."
http://www.publications.parliament.u...-i/uc83702.htm

I don't think things have changed. The other services are all stops
Reading-Slough, plus the Reading-Paddington semi-fast is meant to have
same-platform interchange at Ealing Broadway, which means relief
lines.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

Crossrail franchise
 

"Tom Anderson" wrote

AIUI, there won't be a huge amount of track-sharing. Crossrail gets
exclusive use of the slow tracks on the GWML, although it'll share with
HEx from Airport Junction to Heathrow Central.

AIUI Crossrail won't have exclusive use of the Relief Lines - freight and,
if Crossrail terminates at Maidenhead, a Paddington - (intermediate stops) -
Maidenhead - Twyford - Reading service will continue, though Crossrail will
be able to dictate the paths other operators may use. Provision of a
diveunder at Acton (for freight joining from Acton Wells or Acton Yard) is
indicative that freight will continue to use teh Relief Lines.

Peter

Crossrail franchise
 

On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Graham Harrison wrote:

"asdf" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 16:54:34 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote:

....... - Crossrail has unlike Thameslink not been designed as an
equivalent RER but merely a full gauge fast tube.- Hide quoted text -

I'm not sure this view is correct. Surely the way Crossrail trains will
be sharing tracks on existing routes to Maidenhead, Shenfield and Abbey
Wood, is just like Thameslink; the only main difference is their central
London tunnel will be new, not secondhand...

AIUI, there won't be a huge amount of track-sharing. Crossrail gets
exclusive use of the slow tracks on the GWML, although it'll share with
HEx from Airport Junction to Heathrow Central.

What happens to GWML freight? Surely it won't use the fast lines -
will it all be sent round via Staines?

I got the same idea as Tom from various press reports. They are wrong.

I got the idea from one of the rail study reports - but as i established
in another thread, those are also wrong!

There will also be a two train per hour service
Reading/Twyford/Maidenhead/Slough/Hayes/Ealing/Paddington and another
two trains all stations Reading to Slough according to recent letters in
the Maidenhead Advertiser.

Letters from someone authoritative, i take it?

Regardless, Thanters' quote from the select committee says the same thing,
and that's as authoritative as it gets (apart from Clive, of course).

tom

--
Mathematics is the door and the key to the sciences. -- Roger Bacon

Crossrail franchise
 

"Peter Masson" wrote in message
...

"Tom Anderson" wrote

AIUI, there won't be a huge amount of track-sharing. Crossrail gets
exclusive use of the slow tracks on the GWML, although it'll share with
HEx from Airport Junction to Heathrow Central.

AIUI Crossrail won't have exclusive use of the Relief Lines - freight and,
if Crossrail terminates at Maidenhead, a Paddington - (intermediate
stops) -
Maidenhead - Twyford - Reading service will continue, though Crossrail
will
be able to dictate the paths other operators may use. Provision of a
diveunder at Acton (for freight joining from Acton Wells or Acton Yard) is
indicative that freight will continue to use teh Relief Lines.


This map was pointed out recently on ORR site, gives a fair idea of the
impact of crossrail on the existing lines...

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pd...le_line_GW.pdf

Paul

Crossrail franchise
 

thoss wrote:
At 11:25:17 on Fri, 3 Aug 2007 Paul Scott opined:-

"Bob" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/7c1a3e0a-412...0779fd2ac.html

The government must tackle infrastructure problems
Published: August 2 2007 20:02 | Last updated: August 2 2007 20:02
Only in Britain would people think the chance of securing a new train
line to be the chief virtue of hosting the Olympics.
Now, completion of the east-west Crossrail link before the 2012 Games
remains in doubt.
There's an understatement - look at the timescales from now for the ELLX ,
late 2010? - or Thameslink phase 1, 2011?? The outstanding work in both
cases is comparatively trivial compared to Crossrail, surely...

I seem to remember that, even before that disastrous day when London was
awarded the Olympics, it was stated that Crossrail would not be
completed before 1913. Why didn't they go for the 1916 Olympics?

Berlin was in line for that, but there was a problem with the wrong sort
of kaiser.

AIUI there was no plan to complete Crossrail by 2012, but people just
assumed it would be done by then, and perhaps Crossrail's backers didn't
do all they could to dispel the impression many people had got.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Crossrail franchise
 

On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Paul Scott wrote:

This map was pointed out recently on ORR site, gives a fair idea of the
impact of crossrail on the existing lines...

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pd...le_line_GW.pdf

Interesting!

Just west of the portal is a feature comprising a plethora of crossovers,
a two-track siding, through lines and a platform around the whole lot. I
assume this is the famous Westbourne Park turnback siding. I read recently
that it would be possible for passengers to be turned off the train here;
i assume that's what the platform's for. However, the map makes it look
like there will be platform faces on the through lines as well. Is this
then, in effect, a station? Just one where no trains will stop?

tom

--
Technology is anything that wasn't around when you were born. -- Alan Kay

Crossrail franchise
 

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Paul Scott wrote:

This map was pointed out recently on ORR site, gives a fair idea of
the impact of crossrail on the existing lines...

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pd...le_line_GW.pdf

Interesting!

Just west of the portal is a feature comprising a plethora of
crossovers, a two-track siding, through lines and a platform around
the whole lot. I assume this is the famous Westbourne Park turnback
siding. I read recently that it would be possible for passengers to
be turned off the train here; i assume that's what the platform's
for. However, the map makes it look like there will be platform faces
on the through lines as well.

Not necessarily. The map makes no distinction between a platform edge
facing the track and the back of a single platform bounded by a wall. Look
at platforms 1 and 12 at Paddington, for example.

However, one would expect a turnback siding with two tracks would have at
most an island platform bewteen the tracks. Perhaps there is an intention
to have platforms on the running lines here for emergency use.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

Crossrail franchise
 

Tom Anderson wrote:

Just west of the portal is a feature comprising a plethora of crossovers,
a two-track siding, through lines and a platform around the whole lot. I
assume this is the famous Westbourne Park turnback siding. I read recently
that it would be possible for passengers to be turned off the train here;
i assume that's what the platform's for. However, the map makes it look
like there will be platform faces on the through lines as well. Is this
then, in effect, a station? Just one where no trains will stop?

The environmental statement specifically states the sidings will have
four tracks/platforms, so I'm surprised to see there aren't two
running lines in addition. The northernmost platform appears to double
as the eastbound running line.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

Crossrail franchise
 

On Sat, 4 Aug 2007, Mr Thant wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

Just west of the portal is a feature comprising a plethora of
crossovers, a two-track siding, through lines and a platform around the
whole lot. I assume this is the famous Westbourne Park turnback siding.
I read recently that it would be possible for passengers to be turned
off the train here; i assume that's what the platform's for. However,
the map makes it look like there will be platform faces on the through
lines as well. Is this then, in effect, a station? Just one where no
trains will stop?

The environmental statement specifically states the sidings will have
four tracks/platforms, so I'm surprised to see there aren't two running
lines in addition. The northernmost platform appears to double as the
eastbound running line.

It says:

"8.3.6 A reversing facility will be constructed at Westbourne Park, to the
west of Royal Oak portal to enable Crossrail trains terminating at
Paddington to turn around. To meet safety requirements that all trains are
cleared of passengers before going out of service, Crossrail must provide
a facility where trains terminating at Paddington can be inspected. To
ensure that services following behind are not significantly delayed, the
facility needs to ensure that trains being inspected can be overtaken or
two trains can be inspected concurrently.

"8.3.7 The reversing facility will consist of:

- two 210 m length island platforms and four tracks; and
- emergency access to/from the street via footbridges."

The key phrase seems to me to be "trains being inspected can be overtaken
or two trains can be inspected concurrently"; the 'or' means that you need
to be able to have a through train overtake a single stopped train, or to
have two trains stopped at once. Two roads in either direction does that.
Now, this description, and the maps attatched, indicate that we've got an
Edgware Road-like setup, with all four roads going through around two
islands. The diagram i was commenting on above shows something different -
through lines at the edge, and terminating bays in the middle. I assume
that's just out of date.

tom

--
Love as a principle and order as the basis; progress as the goal.

Crossrail franchise
 

In article , Paul Scott
writes
This map was pointed out recently on ORR site, gives a fair idea of the
impact of crossrail on the existing lines...

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pd...le_line_GW.pdf

It would appear that a turntable is going to be added to North Pole
Depot!

I also note that the new eastern access to North Pole is curiously
indirect.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

Crossrail franchise
 

"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message
...
In article , Paul Scott
writes
This map was pointed out recently on ORR site, gives a fair idea of the
impact of crossrail on the existing lines...

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pd...le_line_GW.pdf

It would appear that a turntable is going to be added to North Pole Depot!

I also note that the new eastern access to North Pole is curiously
indirect.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:
The turntable is presumably a like-for-like replacement for the one at the
current Old Oak Common depot, which EWS seem to be ceding to Crossrail. The
access to North Pole seems indirect, but this is presumably to allow use of
the existing carriage line flyover towards the Relief lines, rather than
having a direct access to the Down Main, which would mean all light engine
workings etc having to cross the Up Main on the flat. How much use do EWS
make of their current depot at Old Oak at present- it seems to be largely a
repository for stored stock. The North Pole premises would seem to be
somewhat overspecified, unless the idea is also to transfer FGW HST
maintenance or servicing there.
Brian

Crossrail franchise
 

In article , BH Williams
writes
The
access to North Pole seems indirect, but this is presumably to allow use of
the existing carriage line flyover towards the Relief lines, rather than
having a direct access to the Down Main, which would mean all light engine
workings etc having to cross the Up Main on the flat.

That's not what I mean. The plan shows an access from the Down Main at
Portobello Junction, but any train making that access will have to run
half way to the flyover, shunt backwards into a headshunt, then run
forwards into the depot. One additional crossover anywhere between
Portobello and the flyover would make things a lot simpler.

Obviously you want access off the flyover, and that will require use of
the headshunt. But why force the double reverse on anything coming out
of the south side of Paddy?

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

Crossrail franchise
 

On Aug 6, 4:46 pm, "Clive D. W. Feather" cl...@on-the-
train.demon.co.uk wrote:
Obviously you want access off the flyover, and that will require use of
the headshunt. But why force the double reverse on anything coming out
of the south side of Paddy?

The layout at Shenfield is equally curious:
http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pd...le_line_GE.pdf

Why is the Southend down diveunder connected solely to the Crossrail
up platform?

Also, no crossovers are shown in the central section:
http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pd...central_SE.pdf

Unless I've missed something, there should be one east of Farringdon.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

Crossrail franchise
 

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:11:55 -0700, W14_Fishbourne
wrote:

On Aug 2, 6:58 pm, Neal wrote:


This is certainly my favourite option! I think they should be given
control of the entire London suburban rail network and run it as part
of the Overground as franchises expire..

It may have escaped your notice but Maidenhead and Shenfield are not
part of London, so why should Ken or Boris run the trains that serve
them? Fine by me if London ratepayers pick up the tab, but I somehow
suspect that that's not the intention.

To put it another way, if Ken or Boris should run those trains, why
shouldn't they run all the trains that serve London? I somehow think
that the people of Glasgow, Leeds, Manchester, etc, might have
something to say about their trains to London being run by the MoL.
Even if you exclude those trains, the London commuter-belt goes out a
long way these days: Bournemouth, Bristol, Northampton, Grantham,
Cambridge, Norwich, Southend.

In New York, the Connecticut commuter trains are run jointly by the
Connecticut Dept. of Transportation and the Metropolitan Transportation
Authority. They pay for the line in accordance with the proportion of trackage
in each state.

No reason why TfL shouldn't run Crossrail with Essex along the same lines.
--
Chris Hansen | chrishansenhome at btinternet dot com
| http://www.christianphansen.com
| http://chrishansenhome.livejournal.com

Crossrail franchise
 

On 6 Aug, 18:38, Mr Thant
wrote:
Also, no crossovers are shown in the central section:http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pd...ingle_line_cen...

Unless I've missed something, there should be one east of Farringdon.


ISTR this got dropped at some point during the consultation process,
because it would've been underneath something highly breakable.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

Crossrail franchise
 

On Mon, 6 Aug 2007, Mr Thant wrote:

On Aug 6, 4:46 pm, "Clive D. W. Feather" cl...@on-the-
train.demon.co.uk wrote:

Obviously you want access off the flyover, and that will require use of
the headshunt. But why force the double reverse on anything coming out
of the south side of Paddy?

The layout at Shenfield is equally curious:
http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pd...le_line_GE.pdf

Why is the Southend down diveunder connected solely to the Crossrail
up platform?

It's not - look at the colours again; Crossrail only uses the northernmost
island, via the existing track to the south of it (in orange), plus a new
stub on the north side (in red). The down Southend is accessed from the
blue and black track which runs past the north side of the middle island.

Furthermore, if you look at the mess of pointwork to the west, it looks
like there's a way to get trains from the slows to the Crossrail platform
without conflicting with moves from the fasts to the non-Crossrail
platforms: trains coming in on the down slow take the westernmost slip
linking that line to the new loop that leads into the new northern
terminating track; leaving, they take the slip onto the current down slow
(resignalled for up trains), and then the westernmost new slip linking the
current up and down slows. That would mean no Crossrail train ever runs on
the current up slow east of the westernmost new slip, and so trains coming
along the down fast and bound for Southend can use this, reached via the
new slip linking the down fast to the current up slow, to get to the
middle island and the down Southend. The odd thing is that you can't reach
the southern face of the northern island that way: there would have to be
a crossover in place of the slip that leads from the current down slow to
the new Crossrail terminating track. This only creates conflict between
Crossrail trains arriving into the southern platform and those departing
the northern platform, though; there's no conflict with trains on the
fasts. If enough things are bidirectionally signalled, then such a
conflict could be smoothed over by working the departing train into the
new loop, passing the arriving train on the wrong side, then reaching the
up slow via two slips (one new, one old) in rapid succession. If there was
another train arriving at that point, it would hit it, but there won't be.

Also, no crossovers are shown in the central section:
http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pd...central_SE.pdf

That seems like a really bad idea. Any problem in the tunnel means
reversing everything at the portals.

tom

--
OK, mostly because of Tom, but not only because of his bloody irritating
character and songs.