| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...UD318&refer=uk
quote London's $32 Billion Crossrail Proposal Clears House of Commons By Reed V. Landberg Dec. 13 (Bloomberg) -- London's effort to build the 16 billion-pound ($32 billion) Crossrail link from Heathrow Airport to Canary Wharf won the support of the House of Commons today, bringing the 18-year-old proposal closer to reality. The lower chamber of Parliament approved the Crossrail Bill at its third reading without a vote, allowing the proposal to pass to the upper House of Lords in the coming weeks. Both houses must approve the measure for it to become law. Prime Minister Gordon Brown's Labour government along with the Conservative and Liberal Democrat opposition parties support the plan, which would spur the U.K.'s biggest transport infrastructure project since the Channel Tunnel and ease the strain on the aging train network in the capital. ``It will support the development of London as a world city,'' Tom Harris, a junior transport minister in Brown's government, said in Parliament in London today. Stephen Hammond, a Conservative lawmaker who shadows Harris, said he supported the bill but wanted more details about how the Treasury, London businesses and residents of the city would finance the plan. The railway will connect Heathrow airport with central London and then run 5 miles (8 kilometers) east to the Canary Wharf office development starting in 2017. The project includes digging two 14-mile (22-kilometer) tunnels beneath central London. Construction may begin in 2010 and would reduce congestion on the London Underground. Bechtel Group Inc., the San Francisco-based construction company that built the Channel Tunnel, was hired in 2005 to oversee the design of Crossrail. London Mayor Ken Livingstone has said Bechtel will be one of a handful of companies considered to build the railway. Construction may begin in 2010. Unquote Will the Lords be able to amend the bill so that Reading, Ebbsfleet and possibly Stansted become the logical termini? |
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
In message
Mwmbwls wrote: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...UD318&refer=uk quote London's $32 Billion Crossrail Proposal Clears House of Commons [snip] Will the Lords be able to amend the bill so that Reading, Ebbsfleet and possibly Stansted become the logical termini? No. unless they want to kill it completely. -- Graeme Wall This address is not read, substitute trains for rail. Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html |
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 00:13:43 -0800 (PST), Mwmbwls
wrote: Will the Lords be able to amend the bill so that Reading, Ebbsfleet and possibly Stansted become the logical termini? As I understand it, the Lords may amend (or reject) any Commons-originated Bill except a Money Bill (the Budget, in effect). If the Lords amends a Bill, those amendments must be approved by the Commons before Royal Assent can be sought. Should the Commons disagree with Lords amendments, the Lords then can either withdraw them, allowing the Bill to go to RA; or it can insist on them, possibly resulting in a game of Parliamentary ping-pong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_...dom_Parliament |
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
On 14 Dec, 08:13, Mwmbwls wrote:
(snip) Will the Lords be able to amend the bill so that Reading, Ebbsfleet and possibly Stansted become the logical termini? BBC London radio has a monthly (ish?) phone-in with Mayor Ken Livingstone, and I listened to the last one in November. On it he said what everyone else has already said about taking Crossrail on to Reading - that there is a lot of work due to happen at Reading soon, and that would offer a good opportunity to extend Crossrail on to terminate there. Given the timescale of Crossrail, it would seem quite possible that when it opens it will run through to Reading. Regarding Ebbsfleet, the Mayor also said that he hoped the line could be extended to terminate there as well (as per the original plan), and that it was possible that by the time Crossrail opens work may have got started to bring it to Ebbsfleet. The Lords aren't going to try and do anything stupid that might jeopardise the overall progress of the Bill - if they did, it would just be reversed in the Commons and they would earn themselves a harsh condemnation from many quarters. |
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
"Mwmbwls" wrote in message ... Will the Lords be able to amend the bill so that Reading, Ebbsfleet and possibly Stansted become the logical termini? When I saw your thread title, I thought it would be a report on how the Lords were already proposing changes - however I see nothing other than a report that the commons stages are complete. Is the title wishful thinking? Paul |
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
On 14 Dec, 12:51, "Paul Scott" wrote:
"Mwmbwls" wrote: Will the Lords be able to amend the bill so that Reading, Ebbsfleet and possibly Stansted become the logical termini? When I saw your thread title, I thought it would be a report on how the Lords were already proposing changes - however I see nothing other than a report that the commons stages are complete. Is the title wishful thinking? Paul It would appear to be just that! |
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
On 14 Dec, 13:07, Mizter T wrote:
On 14 Dec, 12:51, "Paul Scott" wrote: "Mwmbwls" wrote: Will the Lords be able to amend the bill so that Reading, Ebbsfleet and possibly Stansted become the logical termini? When I saw your thread title, I thought it would be a report on how the Lords were already proposing changes - however I see nothing other than a report that the commons stages are complete. Is the title wishful thinking? Paul It would appear to be just that! It would be nice if the lords were to force them to rebuilt the nice buildings they plan to obliterate on the way. It seems to me almost as if its routing, and the structure of its stations has been deliberately designed to demolish anything nice that developers and modernist idiologs like Norman Foster and Richard Rogers wouldn't be able to demolish any other way. I don't see why they should be allowed to pull down things like the buildings on Cowcross Street and replace them with some huge office block or glassy steel windowed box; they should be forced to rebuild it all, like at the forecourt of St. Pancras, or at least to rebuild it according to the new design if its too expensive to reuse the same bricks etc. |
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
On Dec 14, 5:51 pm, lonelytraveller
wrote: I don't see why they should be allowed to pull down things like the buildings on Cowcross Street and replace them with some huge office block or glassy steel windowed box; they should be forced to rebuild it all, like at the forecourt of St. Pancras, or at least to rebuild it according to the new design if its too expensive to reuse the same bricks etc. Why? Should all new trains be built to look like the Rocket? |
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Rupert Candy wrote:
On Dec 14, 5:51 pm, lonelytraveller wrote: I don't see why they should be allowed to pull down things like the buildings on Cowcross Street and replace them with some huge office block or glassy steel windowed box; they should be forced to rebuild it all, like at the forecourt of St. Pancras, or at least to rebuild it according to the new design if its too expensive to reuse the same bricks etc. Why? Should all new trains be built to look like the Rocket? Yes. That would be WICKED COOL. tom -- Linux is like a FreeBSD fork maintained by 10 year old retards. -- Encyclopedia Dramatica |
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
On Dec 14, 8:13 am, Mwmbwls wrote:
Will the Lords be able to amend the bill so that Reading, Ebbsfleet and possibly Stansted become the logical termini? I live in Reading and I don't want Crossrail to come here. Why? Because Crossrail will be a stopper service. I want to catch an HST to Paddington, overtaking the slow Crossrail trains past Maidenhead, and then change for the ride into central London (or beyond). Taking it all the way to Reading would increase the already sky-high cost and take away capacity for other, more useful, trains for Reading. Dan |
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
"Dan G" wrote I live in Reading and I don't want Crossrail to come here. Why? Because Crossrail will be a stopper service. I want to catch an HST to Paddington, overtaking the slow Crossrail trains past Maidenhead, and then change for the ride into central London (or beyond). Taking it all the way to Reading would increase the already sky-high cost and take away capacity for other, more useful, trains for Reading. If Crossrail is extended to Reading the Main (Fast) Lines will still be available for 125 mph trains running non-stop (or possibly calling at Slough) between Paddington and Reading. But if it terminates at Maidenhead how are London to Twyford/Henley passengers to be catered for, or passengers travelling to Reading from intermediate stations? Will there be a Paddington - Reading stopping service sandwiched between Crossrail trains (using capacity which really ought to be kept for freight)? Or will passengers have to use Crossrail, and change at Slough or Maidenhead for a shuttle service? Or will Main Line capacity be used up with 90 mph trains calling at Slough, Maidenhead and Twyford (perhaps crossing to the Relief Lines at Dolphin, Maidenhead East or Ruscombe once the Crossrail service has thinned out - and the crossing move eats capacity)? While Crossrail can be justified as a stopping service within Greater London, as Acton Main Line and Hanwell would undoubtedly get much more use if they had a decent service) stopping all Maidenhead trains at Iver and Taplow is daft, as in population terms these two stations at least are in the middle of nowhere. The argument that saddling Crossrail with the cost of rebuilding and resignalling Reading would make Crossrail unaffordable is sound, but the argument that even if these necessary improvements are funded separately, as they will be, Crossrail still can't go there is weak. However, it has to be realised that although Reading is only two stations further than Maidenhead it is actually half as far again as Paddington to Maidenhead. Peter |
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
On 14 Dec, 18:33, Rupert Candy wrote:
On Dec 14, 5:51 pm, lonelytraveller wrote: I don't see why they should be allowed to pull down things like the buildings on Cowcross Street and replace them with some huge office block or glassy steel windowed box; they should be forced to rebuild it all, like at the forecourt of St. Pancras, or at least to rebuild it according to the new design if its too expensive to reuse the same bricks etc. Why? Should all new trains be built to look like the Rocket? That would be nice. |
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
In message
, lonelytraveller writes On 14 Dec, 18:33, Rupert Candy wrote: On Dec 14, 5:51 pm, lonelytraveller wrote: I don't see why they should be allowed to pull down things like the buildings on Cowcross Street and replace them with some huge office block or glassy steel windowed box; they should be forced to rebuild it all, like at the forecourt of St. Pancras, or at least to rebuild it according to the new design if its too expensive to reuse the same bricks etc. Why? Should all new trains be built to look like the Rocket? That would be nice. No it wouldn't. The Rocket was a locomotive, so it couldn't carry many passengers if any, and it could be very unpleasant travelling on it at this time of year. As far as I am concerned it would be nice if all new trains were built with more seat width (there are an awful lot of fatties commuting into London these days) and more leg room. -- Jane British OO, American and Australian HO, and DCC in the garden http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html |
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Peter Masson wrote:
"Dan G" wrote I live in Reading and I don't want Crossrail to come here. Why? Because Crossrail will be a stopper service. I want to catch an HST to Paddington, overtaking the slow Crossrail trains past Maidenhead, and then change for the ride into central London (or beyond). Taking it all the way to Reading would increase the already sky-high cost and take away capacity for other, more useful, trains for Reading. If Crossrail is extended to Reading the Main (Fast) Lines will still be available for 125 mph trains running non-stop (or possibly calling at Slough) between Paddington and Reading. But if it terminates at Maidenhead how are London to Twyford/Henley passengers Hey, don't forget Marlow! to be catered for, or passengers travelling to Reading from intermediate stations? Will there be a Paddington - Reading stopping service sandwiched between Crossrail trains (using capacity which really ought to be kept for freight)? Or will passengers have to use Crossrail, and change at Slough or Maidenhead for a shuttle service? Or will Main Line capacity be used up with 90 mph trains calling at Slough, Maidenhead and Twyford (perhaps crossing to the Relief Lines at Dolphin, Maidenhead East or Ruscombe once the Crossrail service has thinned out - and the crossing move eats capacity)? Yes. I suspect that demand for trips between Twyford and London, and between Reading and stations on the way to London, is very small compared to the demand further in along the line. Even if Crossrail could run to Reading, i really doubt that the demand would justify more than a few tph. Doing all the electrification work etc just for that seems daft. Might as well interleave a few non-Crossrail Reading stoppers. Or couple a diesel loco onto a few Crossrail trains at Maidenhead! Actually, i'm skeptical about the value of extending beyond Slough, really. Maidenhead has lots of demand, but would be better served by stopping some fast trains, allowing Crossrail to focus on London. Here are some passenger numbers (from Wikipedia, 2004/5 figures, millions of entries and exits per year) for public amusement: Reading 13.297 Twyford 1.083 Maidenhead 3.272 Taplow 0.149 Burnham 0.822 Slough 4.448 Langley 0.482 Iver 0.111 West Drayton 0.742 Hayes & H'ton 1.229 Southall 0.865 Hanwell 0.154 West Ealing 0.384 Ealing Broadway 6.307 Acton Main Line 0.115 I'm surprised how low some of the London ones are. I imagine this is due to competition from the tube, which will change post-Crossrail. Will be interesting to see. While Crossrail can be justified as a stopping service within Greater London, as Acton Main Line and Hanwell would undoubtedly get much more use if they had a decent service) stopping all Maidenhead trains at Iver and Taplow is daft, as in population terms these two stations at least are in the middle of nowhere. Where does Iver stand with respect to the Green Belt? Seems like somewhere that's ideal for plonking down some of these hundreds of thousands of houses we need. Ditto Taplow, i suppose. tom -- The most successful people are those who are good at plan B. -- James Yorke |
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
On 15 Dec, 13:24, Jane Sullivan wrote:
(snip) As far as I am concerned it would be nice if all new trains were built with more seat width (there are an awful lot of fatties commuting into London these days) and more leg room. -- Jane Why not approach that problem from the other end? |
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
"Tom Anderson" wrote Reading 13.297 Twyford 1.083 Maidenhead 3.272 Taplow 0.149 Burnham 0.822 Slough 4.448 Langley 0.482 Iver 0.111 West Drayton 0.742 Hayes & H'ton 1.229 Southall 0.865 Hanwell 0.154 West Ealing 0.384 Ealing Broadway 6.307 Acton Main Line 0.115 i.e. Twyford is busier than all intermediate stations except Maidenhead, Slough, Hayes & H, and Ealing Bdy. That seems to be before counting passengers transferring from the Henley branch. While Crossrail's current position is that it will run an entirely stopping service, I think there is a case for a mixture of semi-fast and stopping trains, at least west of West Drayton and possibly east of Stratford. Peter |
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
On 15 Dec, 14:49, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"Tom Anderson" wrote Reading 13.297 Twyford 1.083 Maidenhead 3.272 Taplow 0.149 Burnham 0.822 Slough 4.448 Langley 0.482 Iver 0.111 West Drayton 0.742 Hayes & H'ton 1.229 Southall 0.865 Hanwell 0.154 West Ealing 0.384 Ealing Broadway 6.307 Acton Main Line 0.115 i.e. Twyford is busier than all intermediate stations except Maidenhead, Slough, Hayes & H, and Ealing Bdy. That seems to be before counting passengers transferring from the Henley branch. While Crossrail's current position is that it will run an entirely stopping service, I think there is a case for a mixture of semi-fast and stopping trains, at least west of West Drayton and possibly east of Stratford. Peter A-la Thameslink's current patterns? |
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
On 15 Dec, 13:24, Jane Sullivan wrote:
In message , lonelytraveller writes On 14 Dec, 18:33, Rupert Candy wrote: On Dec 14, 5:51 pm, lonelytraveller wrote: I don't see why they should be allowed to pull down things like the buildings on Cowcross Street and replace them with some huge office block or glassy steel windowed box; they should be forced to rebuild it all, like at the forecourt of St. Pancras, or at least to rebuild it according to the new design if its too expensive to reuse the same bricks etc. Why? Should all new trains be built to look like the Rocket? That would be nice. No it wouldn't. The Rocket was a locomotive, so it couldn't carry many passengers if any, and it could be very unpleasant travelling on it at this time of year. You wrote "built to look like" not "built to function like". It could easily look like the Rocket but function like a modern locomotive. And it would therefore be nice. |
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
Tom Anderson wrote:
Where does Iver stand with respect to the Green Belt? Therein. |
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, John Rowland wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote: Where does Iver stand with respect to the Green Belt? Therein. Curses. tom -- The major advances in civilization are processes that all but wreck the societies in which they occur. -- Alfred North Whitehead |
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
On 14 Dec, 22:51, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"Dan G" wrote I live in Reading and I don't want Crossrail to come here. Why? Because Crossrail will be a stopper service. I want to catch an HST to Paddington, overtaking the slow Crossrail trains past Maidenhead, and then change for the ride into central London (or beyond). If Crossrail is extended to Reading the Main (Fast) Lines will still be available for 125 mph trains running non-stop (or possibly calling at Slough) between Paddington and Reading. Network Rail are trying to remove stops on the fast lines twixt Paddington & Reading. And I think they'll finally take this opportunity should Crossrail make it to Reading, which I think it might - although Ken Livingstone won't be able to spend any money on it as it's outside his jurisdiction, as is Ebbsfleet. Yes, I think Reading commuters are right to be worried about any extension to Reading. With the relocation of the Paddington platforms for Crossrail, there will certainly be an opportunity to charge extra to Reading commuters to travel on the HSTs to Paddington, and a cheaper option to use Crossrail all the way. Ken will definitely ensure that Travelcards are usable on the cross-London section, so a Crossrail plus all zones season that don't operate the main gates on Paddington station will definitely be an option over a more expensive HST plus all zones travelcard. There are naturally plus points as well though - for those passengers travelling from further than Reading - they won't have so many commuters doing the short-hop & not removing their bulky coats before sitting down! I do find Reading commuters a pain the a**e for that reason....and the overcrowding that results as hundreds clamber on at the last moment at Paddington.... There's a further benefit for Twford passengers too - see below. But if it terminates at Maidenhead how are London to Twyford/Henley passengers to be catered for, or passengers travelling to Reading from intermediate stations? Will there be a Paddington - Reading stopping service sandwiched between Crossrail trains (using capacity which really ought to be kept for freight)? Or will passengers have to use Crossrail, and change at Slough or Maidenhead for a shuttle service? The latter I suspect - a new fast cross-over before Maidenhead - the Crossrail trains using the bay platform there will keep the down slow platform clear for arriving trains - would allow fast trains run as far as the crossover & then run slow from Maidenhead to Reading (and possibly beyond - slow train to Oxford perhaps?) 24 Crossrail trains an hour leaves little or no room for extra trains to fit in on the same tracks as Crossrail, so there's little room for any other way of running slow (non-Crossrail) to Reading - even if you remove, say, half of those (12) that would probably terminate at Heathrow. I doubt it would be as many as 12 trains to Heathrow though - I can't see the customer levels for heathrow needing a train every 5 minutes (12 an hour). So maybe 6 Heathrows and 18 to Maidenhead would be a better assumption? Still no real room to insert slow Readings in between the CRossrails after Hayes though. Or will Main Line capacity be used up with 90 mph trains calling at Slough, Maidenhead and Twyford (perhaps crossing to the Relief Lines at Dolphin, Maidenhead East or Ruscombe once the Crossrail service has thinned out - and the crossing move eats capacity)? As I said earlier, those stops that would be necessary on the fast lines are, I think, unlikely and those passengers would be on the Crossrail trains to wherever they terminate to change trains. With these fast to Maidenhead trains, commuters from there and Twyford will get a faster service....which is something that they've been after for some time now - viz Theresa May's campaign. While Crossrail can be justified as a stopping service within Greater London, as Acton Main Line and Hanwell would undoubtedly get much more use if they had a decent service) stopping all Maidenhead trains at Iver and Taplow is daft, as in population terms these two stations at least are in the middle of nowhere. Indeed - maybe only half of those Crossrails travelling beyond Heathrow junction could miss those stops out? That would still give these stations a train at least every 15 minutes.... The argument that saddling Crossrail with the cost of rebuilding and resignalling Reading would make Crossrail unaffordable is sound, but the argument that even if these necessary improvements are funded separately, as they will be, Crossrail still can't go there is weak. However, it has to be realised that although Reading is only two stations further than Maidenhead it is actually half as far again as Paddington to Maidenhead. I suspect for these reasons Crossrail will get to Reading, even if only half of them do, with the others terminating at Maidenhead as planned - indeed, there are extra platform(s) in the Reading remodelling to allow for this, just in case the decision is taken. This would then allow for passenger expansion west of Reading on the long distance services, which is a DfT aspiration. Chris |
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
"Chris" wrote in message ... 24 Crossrail trains an hour leaves little or no room for extra trains to fit in on the same tracks as Crossrail, so there's little room for any other way of running slow (non-Crossrail) to Reading - even if you remove, say, half of those (12) that would probably terminate at Heathrow. I doubt it would be as many as 12 trains to Heathrow though - I can't see the customer levels for heathrow needing a train every 5 minutes (12 an hour). So maybe 6 Heathrows and 18 to Maidenhead would be a better assumption? Still no real room to insert slow Readings in between the CRossrails after Hayes though. Your proposals haven't accounted for about half the crossrail trains not going any further than the turnback sidings at the 'ghost station' at Westbourne Park? Paul S |
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
In article ,
Jane Sullivan wrote: In message , lonelytraveller writes Why? Should all new trains be built to look like the Rocket? That would be nice. No it wouldn't. The Rocket was a locomotive, so it couldn't carry many passengers if any, and it could be very unpleasant travelling on it at this time of year. Fanny Kemble seems to have managed OK.. -- Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair) |
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
On 15 Dec, 19:08, Chris wrote:
On 14 Dec, 22:51, "Peter Masson" wrote: "Dan G" wrote I live in Reading and I don't want Crossrail to come here. Why? Because Crossrail will be a stopper service. I want to catch an HST to Paddington, overtaking the slow Crossrail trains past Maidenhead, and then change for the ride into central London (or beyond). If Crossrail is extended to Reading the Main (Fast) Lines will still be available for 125 mph trains running non-stop (or possibly calling at Slough) between Paddington and Reading. Network Rail are trying to remove stops on the fast lines twixt Paddington & Reading. And I think they'll finally take this opportunity should Crossrail make it to Reading, which I think it might - although Ken Livingstone won't be able to spend any money on it as it's outside his jurisdiction, as is Ebbsfleet. (big snip) Just because Reading and Ebbsfleet are outside Greater London doesn't mean TfL can't deal with them. If the DfT were to give the money and the go-ahead to TfL for either project then they could thus be in charge of delivering that project and the services that run on it, as a kind of contractor. Bear in mind that just under half of TfL's annual income comes from a central government grant. In addition TfL are responsible for operating rail services outside of Greater London, in Buckinghamshire (LU Met line), Essex (Central line), and Hertfordshire (London Overground to Watford Jn and LU Metropolitan line). TfL were pushing an embryonic proposal that would've led to the creation of a London Regional Rail Authority - this would stretch beyond Greater London into the home counties, and would somehow 'take control' of commuter and local London services. AIUI the plan was that the authority would have been led by TfL but would have had inputs from those counties it covered, including a mechanism of democratic accountability (i.e. a board of councillors from the relevant local authorities of the area covered). This has all been put on the back burner, but the Mayor and TfL are certainly keen on having more control over rail services in Greater London, so similar proposals might well come round again, especially after TfL have had some time to prove their competence by running the London Overground network. |
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
|
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
|
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
Paul Scott wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message ... 24 Crossrail trains an hour leaves little or no room for extra trains to fit in on the same tracks as Crossrail, so there's little room for any other way of running slow (non-Crossrail) to Reading - even if you remove, say, half of those (12) that would probably terminate at Heathrow. I doubt it would be as many as 12 trains to Heathrow though - I can't see the customer levels for heathrow needing a train every 5 minutes (12 an hour). So maybe 6 Heathrows and 18 to Maidenhead would be a better assumption? Still no real room to insert slow Readings in between the CRossrails after Hayes though. Your proposals haven't accounted for about half the crossrail trains not going any further than the turnback sidings at the 'ghost station' at Westbourne Park? For the westbound peaks, out of 24 tph through central London, 14 will reverse at Paddington (via Westbourne Park sidings), 4 will go to Heathrow, and 6 will go west of Hayes on the GWML, of which 2 will terminate at West Drayton, leaving just 4 to Maidenhead. Although all Crossrail trains will stop at all stations east of London, this is not true west of Paddington, particularly off-peak. This is supposed to be in order to leave paths on the relief lines for FGW trains to/from Reading and further west. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
"Richard J." wrote in message .uk... Paul Scott wrote: "Chris" wrote in message ... .........So maybe 6 Heathrows and 18 to Maidenhead would be a better assumption? Still no real room to insert slow Readings in between the CRossrails after Hayes though. Your proposals haven't accounted for about half the crossrail trains not going any further than the turnback sidings at the 'ghost station' at Westbourne Park? For the westbound peaks, out of 24 tph through central London, 14 will reverse at Paddington (via Westbourne Park sidings), 4 will go to Heathrow, and 6 will go west of Hayes on the GWML, of which 2 will terminate at West Drayton, leaving just 4 to Maidenhead. Although all Crossrail trains will stop at all stations east of London, this is not true west of Paddington, particularly off-peak. This is supposed to be in order to leave paths on the relief lines for FGW trains to/from Reading and further west. Exactly. The previous poster has gone off and proposed a whole raft of difficulties, without first having a glance at the published proposals... Paul |
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
Paul Scott wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message ... 24 Crossrail trains an hour leaves little or no room for extra trains to fit in on the same tracks as Crossrail, so there's little room for any other way of running slow (non-Crossrail) to Reading - even if you remove, say, half of those (12) that would probably terminate at Heathrow. I doubt it would be as many as 12 trains to Heathrow though - I can't see the customer levels for heathrow needing a train every 5 minutes (12 an hour). So maybe 6 Heathrows and 18 to Maidenhead would be a better assumption? Still no real room to insert slow Readings in between the CRossrails after Hayes though. Your proposals haven't accounted for about half the crossrail trains not going any further than the turnback sidings at the 'ghost station' at Westbourne Park? They won't actually do that - it's another accounting fiction, like "We're not going to Reading". |
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
John Rowland wrote:
Paul Scott wrote: "Chris" wrote in message ... 24 Crossrail trains an hour leaves little or no room for extra trains to fit in on the same tracks as Crossrail, so there's little room for any other way of running slow (non-Crossrail) to Reading - even if you remove, say, half of those (12) that would probably terminate at Heathrow. I doubt it would be as many as 12 trains to Heathrow though - I can't see the customer levels for heathrow needing a train every 5 minutes (12 an hour). So maybe 6 Heathrows and 18 to Maidenhead would be a better assumption? Still no real room to insert slow Readings in between the CRossrails after Hayes though. Your proposals haven't accounted for about half the crossrail trains not going any further than the turnback sidings at the 'ghost station' at Westbourne Park? They won't actually do that - it's another accounting fiction, like "We're not going to Reading". And "we're not going to Terminal 5 at Heathrow". (Current plans are to serve T123 and T4 only.) I agree that some of the current plans look odd, but I don't have your confidence that sense will prevail. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, John Rowland wrote:
Paul Scott wrote: "Chris" wrote in message ... 24 Crossrail trains an hour leaves little or no room for extra trains to fit in on the same tracks as Crossrail, Your proposals haven't accounted for about half the crossrail trains not going any further than the turnback sidings at the 'ghost station' at Westbourne Park? They won't actually do that - it's another accounting fiction, like "We're not going to Reading". *raises eyebrow* What makes us think this is the case? tom -- Jim-Jammity Jesus Krispy Kreme Christ on a ****-rocket! |
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, Richard J. wrote:
For the westbound peaks, out of 24 tph through central London, 14 will reverse at Paddington (via Westbourne Park sidings), 4 will go to Heathrow, and 6 will go west of Hayes on the GWML, of which 2 will terminate at West Drayton, leaving just 4 to Maidenhead. Although all Crossrail trains will stop at all stations east of London, this is not true west of Paddington, particularly off-peak. This is supposed to be in order to leave paths on the relief lines for FGW trains to/from Reading and further west. Hang on, what? The relief lines are the slow lines, right? Does that mean that some Crossrails will run on the fast lines? Or that they'll skip stops while running on the reliefs? How does this help provide paths for longer-distance trains - by letting them run on the reliefs without getting slowed down? Why is this necessary off-peak if it's not needed in the peaks? Which stations are going to get skipped? tom -- Jim-Jammity Jesus Krispy Kreme Christ on a ****-rocket! |
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
On 16 Dec, 19:49, Tom Anderson wrote:
Hang on, what? The relief lines are the slow lines, right? Does that mean that some Crossrails will run on the fast lines? Or that they'll skip stops while running on the reliefs? How does this help provide paths for longer-distance trains - by letting them run on the reliefs without getting slowed down? There'll be a half-hourly semi-fast Reading-4 or 5 stations-Paddington diesel service that uses the relief lines. If all other trains stopped at all stations it would quickly catch up with them. There's also the problem of freight, which shares the Crossrail lines this end (freight runs on the GEML fasts, so isn't affected by Crossrail). Why is this necessary off-peak if it's not needed in the peaks? I looks like there's more stop-skipping in the peaks to me, so my answer would be that there isn't. Which stations are going to get skipped? See diagrams he http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pd...fT-Apx4-E5.pdf U -- http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/ A blog about transport projects in London |
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, Peter Masson wrote:
"Tom Anderson" wrote Reading 13.297 Twyford 1.083 Maidenhead 3.272 Taplow 0.149 Burnham 0.822 Slough 4.448 Langley 0.482 Iver 0.111 West Drayton 0.742 Hayes & H'ton 1.229 Southall 0.865 Hanwell 0.154 West Ealing 0.384 Ealing Broadway 6.307 Acton Main Line 0.115 i.e. Twyford is busier than all intermediate stations except Maidenhead, Slough, Hayes & H, and Ealing Bdy. That seems to be before counting passengers transferring from the Henley branch. Yes. So it should have fast trains, not Crossrail! HA! Didn't think i'd get out of that one, did you? :) Point taken, though, Twyford is a far more important station than i'd realised. While Crossrail's current position is that it will run an entirely stopping service, I think there is a case for a mixture of semi-fast and stopping trains, at least west of West Drayton and possibly east of Stratford. True. These could also be non-Crossrails, though: Reading/Henley - Twyford - Maidenhead - fast to Ealing Broadway, fast to Paddington perhaps, running on the reliefs in the large spaces between the 6 tph of Crossrail with a little bit of flighting. As has been suggested, these could also be the cis-Reading part of the Oxford stoppers. This would reduce the amount of electrification and the number of new trains needed, make Crossrail a bit simpler, and give passengers from those stations a faster ride into London. The downside would be that there wouldn't be through trains from beyond Maidenhead to beyond Paddington; there would be same-platform interchange to such trains at Ealing Broadway, though. tom -- Jim-Jammity Jesus Krispy Kreme Christ on a ****-rocket! |
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
Mr Thant wrote:
On 16 Dec, 19:49, Tom Anderson wrote: Hang on, what? The relief lines are the slow lines, right? Does that mean that some Crossrails will run on the fast lines? Or that they'll skip stops while running on the reliefs? How does this help provide paths for longer-distance trains - by letting them run on the reliefs without getting slowed down? There'll be a half-hourly semi-fast Reading-4 or 5 stations-Paddington diesel service that uses the relief lines. If all other trains stopped at all stations it would quickly catch up with them. There's also the problem of freight, which shares the Crossrail lines this end (freight runs on the GEML fasts, so isn't affected by Crossrail). Why is this necessary off-peak if it's not needed in the peaks? I looks like there's more stop-skipping in the peaks to me, so my answer would be that there isn't. Using your reference (if I understand it - see below), the skips are just different. Maidenhead Crossrail trains skip Burnham and Taplow off-peak and skip Southall and Hanwell in the peaks, the latter two stations being served by the peak-only West Drayton trains. Which stations are going to get skipped? See diagrams he http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pd...fT-Apx4-E5.pdf What a terrible document! Having clearly defined the Crossrail service periods of peak, shoulder peak, off-peak and quiet, it then goes on to show colour-coded diagrams with no colour key, and using terms like "off-peak (busy)/contra peak". However, I guess (there's no date on the document) that it may be more up-to-date than the figures I was using, derived from a parliamentary written answer from 2005, at http://shorl.com/hanudikoniti . Goodness knows why we need to go ferreting around in these sorts of document. Why isn't the service pattern on the Crossrail site? -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
In message i
Tom Anderson wrote: [snip] Point taken, though, Twyford is a far more important station than i'd realised. It taps into a lot of traffic from the Wokingham area which would otherwise have to take the slow service to Waterloo. -- Graeme Wall This address is not read, substitute trains for rail. Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html |
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, Graeme Wall wrote:
In message i Tom Anderson wrote: Point taken, though, Twyford is a far more important station than i'd realised. It taps into a lot of traffic from the Wokingham area which would otherwise have to take the slow service to Waterloo. Ah, i see. Hmm. It looks like a train from Wokingham to Waterloo takes 68 minutes; a train from Twyford to Paddington which stops at Maidenhead only takes 32, and one which stops at eight stations on the way takes 50 minutes. Crossrail would presumably be more like 50 minutes. Would people use it instead of the fast train? Would they even use it in place of the Wokingham train? If not, the value of Crossrail at Twyford is maybe less than the passenger numbers indicate. I suppose you have to factor in the value of having a single-seat ride all the way into town against those time differences. tom -- Well, I'm making a list too. But I'm also preparing appropriate retribution. -- Graham |
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, John Rowland wrote: Paul Scott wrote: "Chris" wrote in message ... 24 Crossrail trains an hour leaves little or no room for extra trains to fit in on the same tracks as Crossrail, Your proposals haven't accounted for about half the crossrail trains not going any further than the turnback sidings at the 'ghost station' at Westbourne Park? They won't actually do that - it's another accounting fiction, like "We're not going to Reading". *raises eyebrow* What makes us think this is the case? I don't know what makes "us" think it, but what makes *me* think it is that I was told it by someone heavily involved in the project (I can't remember who). |
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
In message i
Tom Anderson wrote: On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, Graeme Wall wrote: In message i Tom Anderson wrote: Point taken, though, Twyford is a far more important station than i'd realised. It taps into a lot of traffic from the Wokingham area which would otherwise have to take the slow service to Waterloo. Ah, i see. Hmm. It looks like a train from Wokingham to Waterloo takes 68 minutes; a train from Twyford to Paddington which stops at Maidenhead only takes 32, and one which stops at eight stations on the way takes 50 minutes. Crossrail would presumably be more like 50 minutes. I would hope an electrified service would do better than that. Would people use it instead of the fast train? Would they even use it in place of the Wokingham train? It's still around 20 minutes quicker and Twyford station is easier to access than Wokingham. IIRC the car park at the latter takes about a dozen cars. If not, the value of Crossrail at Twyford is maybe less than the passenger numbers indicate. I suppose you have to factor in the value of having a single-seat ride all the way into town against those time differences. Total journey time should be a lot less, especially for those working in the City. -- Graeme Wall This address is not read, substitute trains for rail. Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html |
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
... In message i Tom Anderson wrote: .... Would people use it instead of the fast train? Would they even use it in place of the Wokingham train? It's still around 20 minutes quicker and Twyford station is easier to access than Wokingham. IIRC the car park at the latter takes about a dozen cars. 268 according to http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/statio...ml#Interchange -- David Biddulph |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:07 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk