In article ,
(Colin McKenzie) wrote:

Big benefit of Crossrail is not having to change at current termini.

Unless you're a cyclist currently using Paddington or Liverpool St! Then
you're totally stuffed!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Colin McKenzie wrote:
Adrian the Rock wrote:
"Dave" wrote:
A decision on whether to extend the £16billion Crossrail scheme
to Reading will be made in the New Year, it emerged today...

Good news that they're giving this question a second thought. I
suspect, however, that even if they decided to stick with
Maidenhead for the initial development, the case to extend to Reading
subsequently would be so compelling that it'd happen one
way or the other anyway.

Big benefit of Crossrail is not having to change at current termini.
If you're far enough out, it's better to get a fast train to the
terminus and change anyway.

I hope the principle that Crossrail should be all-stations has been
established.

Then you'll be disappointed. The planned Crossrail timetable involves
some trains non-stopping certain stations west of Paddington in order to
leave paths for some west-of-Maidenhead FGW trains on the relief lines.
I don't see anything wrong with that. Why do you think that, say, Acton
Main Line or Hanwell must have the same frequency of service as Ealing
Broadway?
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007, Adrian the Rock wrote:

I think sometimes it's better to start off with a finite, achieveable
project even if the case for bigger things seems powerful. Because one
thing often does lead to the next.

Quite true: better to have something small but certain you can build on
than castles in the air.

The other extension to Crossrail that seems fairly obvious to me is to
extend the trains currently planned to terminate at Paddington up the
former GW&GC joint line.

The less obvious but (IMNERHO) even better idea is to assimilate the
Hammersmith & City line west of Paddington. It improves the service there,
and also simplifies the sub-surface lines, allowing them to run a more
reliable service too. Gauge issues etc, though.

tom

--
Is this the only way to get through to you?

On 28 Dec, 01:25, Tom Anderson wrote:
The less obvious but (IMNERHO) even better idea is to assimilate the
Hammersmith & City line west of Paddington. It improves the service there,
and also simplifies the sub-surface lines, allowing them to run a more
reliable service too. Gauge issues etc, though.

I think the portal's too far west for this. By the time Crossrail
trains surface on the north side of the GWML, the H&C is about to turn
south away from the line, and I wouldn't think it's practical to build
a flyover in the space available.

I like the idea of heading to Uxbridge via a sharp turn to North
Ealing, so that all Piccadilly Line trains can go to Heathrow, but I
doubt there's a business case for it.

U

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

In article ,
Colin Rosenstiel writes
In article ,
(Colin McKenzie) wrote:

Big benefit of Crossrail is not having to change at current termini.

Unless you're a cyclist currently using Paddington or Liverpool St! Then
you're totally stuffed!

Or you don't want to go across London!
--
John Alexander,

Remove NOSPAM if replying by e-mail

"Mr Thant" wrote in message
...
On 28 Dec, 01:25, Tom Anderson wrote:
The less obvious but (IMNERHO) even better idea is to assimilate the
Hammersmith & City line west of Paddington. It improves the service
there,
and also simplifies the sub-surface lines, allowing them to run a more
reliable service too. Gauge issues etc, though.

I think the portal's too far west for this. By the time Crossrail
trains surface on the north side of the GWML, the H&C is about to turn
south away from the line, and I wouldn't think it's practical to build
a flyover in the space available.

I like the idea of heading to Uxbridge via a sharp turn to North
Ealing, so that all Piccadilly Line trains can go to Heathrow, but I
doubt there's a business case for it.


Could they not just transfer that bit back to the District line using a few
more of the new S stock to provide the traction, and up the Picc frequency
to Heathrow?

Paul S

On 28 Dec, 09:57, "Paul Scott" wrote:
Could they not just transfer that bit back to the District line using a few
more of the new S stock to provide the traction, and up the Picc frequency
to Heathrow?

But then you'd have to take trains away from the other District
branches, or find more capacity further east. Rumour is that the
District Ealing Broadway and Piccadilly Uxbridge branches will swap
over at some point, but I don't think this plan has any official
status.

U

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

In message
, Mr
Thant writes

Could they not just transfer that bit back to the District line using a few
more of the new S stock to provide the traction, and up the Picc frequency
to Heathrow?

But then you'd have to take trains away from the other District
branches, or find more capacity further east. Rumour is that the
District Ealing Broadway and Piccadilly Uxbridge branches will swap
over at some point, but I don't think this plan has any official
status.

Having asked this question at work I've been advised that there is no
substance to it at all - just somebody's theory that has grown legs on
t'internet it seems.
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Mr Thant wrote:

On 28 Dec, 09:57, "Paul Scott" wrote:

Could they not just transfer that bit back to the District line using a few
more of the new S stock to provide the traction, and up the Picc frequency
to Heathrow?

But then you'd have to take trains away from the other District
branches, or find more capacity further east. Rumour is that the
District Ealing Broadway and Piccadilly Uxbridge branches will swap over
at some point, but I don't think this plan has any official status.

New to me.

There's been a plan hanging around for decades now for a couple of miles
of tunnel from Shepherd's Bush to Turnham Green, by means of which the
Central line could take over the Richmond branch of the District. There
was a matching plan for another 2.5 mile tunnel from Queen's Park to North
Acton, by which the Bakerloo could take over the Ealing Broadway branch of
the Central. You reduce the District by one branch, increase the Bakerloo
by one, and keep the Central at two, although they're different.

The clever bit about the Bakerloo tunnel is that it allows trains that
would otherwise have to reverse at Queen's Park to go somewhere; if the
plan to reorganise the DC lines comes to pass, so that all Bakerloo trains
can go beyond Queen's Park, with NR trains (from the Overground)
terminating there, this becomes a less good plan. The not so clever bit is
that the reasonably direct Central line route into town from Ealing
Broadway gets replaced by a rather round-the-houses Bakerloo one. Although
post-DC-reshuffle, that tunnel, arranged slightly differently, might
actually be a rather clever way of extending the Overground from Queen's
Park to Ealing Broadway, bringing an orbital route to a major interchange
(which by then will have Crossrail, and so less need for a Central line
branch).

A variant of that i dreamed up is to ditch the tunnels, and just build a
couple of flying junctions to transfer the Richmond branch to the
Piccadilly at Chiswick Park, and the Uxbridge branch to the Central at
Park Royal, with the Ealing Broadway branch just closing post-Crossrail.
Doesn't really help Heathrow, though.

tom

--
Everyone in the world is doing something without me.

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Mr Thant wrote:

On 28 Dec, 09:57, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
Could they not just transfer that bit back to the District line
using a few more of the new S stock to provide the traction, and
up the Picc frequency to Heathrow?

But then you'd have to take trains away from the other District
branches, or find more capacity further east. Rumour is that the
District Ealing Broadway and Piccadilly Uxbridge branches will
swap over at some point, but I don't think this plan has any official
status.

New to me.

There's been a plan hanging around for decades now for a couple of
miles of tunnel from Shepherd's Bush to Turnham Green, by means of
which the Central line could take over the Richmond branch of the
District.

It even made the Tube Map in (I think) 1920, with a branch of the
Central London Railway from Shepherd's Bush to Gunnersbury shown as
"under construction", though it never was AFAIK. According to this map
poster, which is on show at the Museum Depot during open weekends,
stations were planned at Goldhawk Road, Stamford Brook Common, Turnham
Green (next to the existing station), Turnham Green (near the green) and
Gunnersbury. The Central extension from Wood Lane to Ealing Broadway is
also shown as "under construction", and it was opened later in 1920.

There's a photo of the map at http://rjnews.fotopic.net/p47472218.html
Click 'Next' for a close-up of the Gunnersbury branch.

According to Barker & Robbins (A History of London Transport), the
Gunnersbury branch was authorised in 1913.

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)