Tom Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Richard J. wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

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,

Is that (the common) he

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=51.4...&t=h&z=17&om=1

Yes. The station is not named on the map, but it's shown as just west of
the bend in Goldhawk Road

? I can't actually find anything marked with that name on any maps!

If it is, i'm a little surprised it was quite that far west - i
would have thought Seven Stars Corner (Addenswick Rd x Goldhawk Rd)
would have been a better location. Seems not!

You mean Paddenswick Road, not Addenswick. The extension is very
crudely drawn, and it may be that the planned positions of the stations
were different.

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.

It seems strange that they wanted to keep the route in tunnel all
the way to Gunnersbury; the current track layout means you can surface
at Turnham Green and go from there (via Chiswick Park, ish)
without getting in anyone's way.

As indeed Crossrail planned to do at one stage with their Corridor 6
proposal to Richmond and beyond.

Maybe it wasn't always like that, or they thought a stop at the Green
itself was more useful.

The latter I should think. The actual Green at Turnham Green ("Turnham
Green Church" in bus parlance) is a more central location than TG
station for Chiswick's shopping centre along the High Road, plus the
Town Hall and Chiswick Empire theatre (in those days). It's served by 8
bus routes today.

There's a photo of the map at
http://rjnews.fotopic.net/p47472218.html

Splendid! Although that map's geography is a bit suspect with
respect to the exact positions of roads and stations and things.

Agreed.

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

"Graham Murray" wrote in message
...
"tim....." writes:

Well this wouldn't be the first time. Cross country runs "under the
wire"
all the way from Birmingham to Manchester and York to Edinburgh, which is
much further than this piddly little bit of track to PR.

Which they did not used to do.

I know. All the more reason to suggest that diesels under the wires is now
acceptable.

tim

In uk.transport.london Tom Anderson wrote:
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.

Possibly-ignorant question: why can't some Bakerloo trains go beyond Queen's
Park? I looked on the interweb but couldn't find anything about some trains
being different to others.

Kake

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007, Kake Pugh wrote:

In uk.transport.london Tom Anderson wrote:

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.

Possibly-ignorant question: why can't some Bakerloo trains go beyond
Queen's Park? I looked on the interweb but couldn't find anything about
some trains being different to others.

Sorry, i phrased that badly. All Bakerloo trains are, as far as i'm aware,
capable of going beyond Queen's Park - it's just that some don't currently
have the opportunity to do it, because north of there, the track is also
used by suburban trains from Euston (QP being where the Bakerloo tunnels
and Euston surface tracks join up), so there isn't enough capacity (AIUI).

Continuing the tunnel from QP would have meant trains which currently
terminate at QP to let Euston trains go through could carry on somewhere
else instead. However, the current plan is for the suburban service to
Euston to be extinguished (or sort of replaced by surface trains that run
from the NLL via a link at Camden Town, but terminate at QP), with only
the Bakerloo using the track north of QP, so the tunnel would be pointless
in that respect.

tom

--
If you tolerate this, your children will be next.

On 29 Dec, 13:35, Kake Pugh wrote:
Possibly-ignorant question: why can't some Bakerloo trains go beyond Queen's
Park? *I looked on the interweb but couldn't find anything about some trains
being different to others.

They physically can, but the track after Queen's Park is shared with
the Watford DC Line, and passenger demand isn't all that great, so
there's not much point in running all trains any further.

U

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

"Richard J." wrote:
Colin McKenzie wrote:

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...

Glad to hear this - the suggestion of every train stopping at every
station to Maidenhead seemed utter madness to me too.

Firstly, it's been standard and established practice for many years
now to have separate outer and inner suburban services on major London
suburban/commuter lines. For example the Brighton lines have their
Metro and Sussex Coast services, out of KX the inners run to Welwyn
GC/Hertford N, and so on.

In many cases the underground itself provides a third group of
"ultra-inner" services. Most of these don't run alongside NR routes,
but obvious examples are the District/Central lines to
Ealing/Richmond/W Ruislip and the Jubilee to Stanmore. So in effect
the inner suburban services over NR are usually the second tier, not
the first.

I am also thinking by analogy to why Thameslink has been so
successful. Clearly one major factor is the Brighton-Bedford trains,
which clearly fall in the outer category. It does worry me that the
Mayor of London's crowd seem sometimes to overlook the importance of
these links, as they run largely outside their 'patch' (witness the
forthcoming truncation of the Southern WLL service, though I
acknowledge the constraints of the track layout between Falcon Jct and
Balham do provide some rationale for those plans.)

On the GWML, the inner suburban service traditionally terminated at
Slough, with outers running to Reading/Oxford/Newbury etc. This was
changed when the planet-scorchers' parlour branch opened, so the inner
suburbans are now Padd - Hayes & H. The extended journey times of
all-stations trains would probably be a significant disincentive for
travellers from stations west of Slough.

Colin McKenzie wrote:

(Adrian the Rock) wrote:

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. =A0Bring the Old Oak - Northolt East line back
into proper use, rebuild the main line platforms at Greenford, making
this the first stop out of Padd, then run all-stations to Princes
Risboro and Aylesbury (some trains probably terminating at High
Wycombe). =A0But this is clearly too extensive to be sensible to include
in the initial project.

The principle of an all-stations service stands, so you'd need to give
serious thought to reallocating the Central Line tracks beyond about
Greenford...

No, because this is mixing underground and inner suburban stopping
patterns.

... First stop out of Paddington should be North Acton, then
the new Park Royal interchange.

I agree Park Royal interchange would make sense.

Capacity between Paddington and Old Oak Junction is a problem.

Maybe, but given there are 6 tracks for most if not all of the
stretch, I'd have thought that would probably not be insuperable.

"Adrian Auer-Hudson, MIMIS" wrote:

There are two issues with this idea. Firstly it would mean an
expensive electrification of the route to Aylesbury by way of Prices
Risborough.

Agreed, but if done properly it could even provide Aylesbury commuters
with a faster service than via Amersham.

Secondly, there is the Birmingham service to consider. It would
either have to remain a DMU operation with many miles under the wire,
or would have to terminate at Risborough or High Wycombe.

I would envisage it continuing with DMUs. A pity it can't also run to
Padd, which has far better connections and facilities for
longer-distance travellers than Marylebone, but I'd be surprised if
there were a capacity problem between Northolt East Jct and Risboro
that couldn't be addressed by the reinstatement of a few platform
loops eg Gerrards Cross.

However in the longer term I can see a lot of merit in electrifying
the GW&GC line to Birmingham. As the shortest London-Bham route, I
don't feel it's currently being fully exploited, and I'd have thought
it could be used better to relieve the current congestion on the Bham
- Coventry stretch.

Adie

Tom Anderson wrote:
Sorry, i phrased that badly. All Bakerloo trains are, as far as i'm aware,
capable of going beyond Queen's Park - it's just that some don't currently
have the opportunity to do it [...]

Ah, I see - thank you! (And also Mr Thant.)

Kake

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 18:00:13 +0000, Tom Anderson wrote:

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.

Possibly-ignorant question: why can't some Bakerloo trains go beyond
Queen's Park? I looked on the interweb but couldn't find anything about
some trains being different to others.

Sorry, i phrased that badly. All Bakerloo trains are, as far as i'm aware,
capable of going beyond Queen's Park - it's just that some don't currently
have the opportunity to do it, because north of there, the track is also
used by suburban trains from Euston (QP being where the Bakerloo tunnels
and Euston surface tracks join up), so there isn't enough capacity (AIUI).

There's only 3tph from Euston north of Queens Park, but many more
Bakerloo trains than that terminate at QP.

I think the main reason is simply that the outer part of the line
doesn't require as high-frequency a service as the central part.

It's interesting that the arrangement here is the reverse of the
normal situation - instead of one central route with two outer
branches, there are two routes from the centre combining to form one
outer branch. I'd say the clever bit about the Bakerloo tunnel is that
it would re-balance the situation (especially with the District
currently having too many western branches).

"Adrian the Rock" wrote in message
...
"Richard J." wrote:
Colin McKenzie wrote:

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...

Glad to hear this - the suggestion of every train stopping at every
station to Maidenhead seemed utter madness to me too.

I can't see why.

Most people would say that the fixed interval, all stations service, is what
makes the German S-Bahns so sucessful. London to Maidenhead is a very
similar distance to Munich to Freising (or some other end of line station).

tim

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 14:45:59 GMT, (Adrian the
Rock) wrote:

"Richard J." wrote:
Colin McKenzie wrote:

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...

Glad to hear this - the suggestion of every train stopping at every
station to Maidenhead seemed utter madness to me too.

Firstly, it's been standard and established practice for many years
now to have separate outer and inner suburban services on major London
suburban/commuter lines. For example the Brighton lines have their
Metro and Sussex Coast services, out of KX the inners run to Welwyn
GC/Hertford N, and so on.

Isn't there a precedent here from the Japanese high-speed lines?

They run flights of trains which go non-stop to a major station, and
then every station to the next major station, where they terminate.
The timing is such that connections in each direction provide a
quicker service than the alternative of all-stations plus limited stop
services.

For Crossrail you could use Hayes and Harlington, Slough and
Maidenhead as the major intermediate stations. Time the trains so that
the non-stop arrives at the major station just after the stopper has
arrived. This would require extra platform faces for cross-platform
connections, of course, and reversing facilities. Hayes and Harlington
trains continue to Heathrow.
--
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org