On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Andrew Heenan wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote ...
Andrew Heenan remarked:
Not my area, and I wouldn't presume to guess.
But I am sure of one thing:
"Not Shenfield"

Bluff. Called.
[There's nowhere "slightly" further out than Shenfield that has the
capacity to turn the requisite number of trains]

Sneaky Pedant called:

1. I was not bluffing - I was expressing a view. Sorry about that.
2. When you quoted me, you chose to miss a key point:
"There are, of course, many options east of Liverpool Street, and a lot may
depend on who's in power come 2018."

I repeat, "Not my area, and I wouldn't presume to guess" - instead of trying
to be smart (and merely being smug) why not *use* your local knowledge to
see what other possibilities there are.

Warning: this may require an open mind and tad of imagination - do your
best.

Just imagine *you* are planning an East-West high capacity, high frequency
rail service, and you have a free choice of terminus, and go for it!

[tip: it is theoretically possible for More Than One to be used]

So please do enlighten us. And none of this "not my area" nonsense, please
- if you know enough to be certain that there are better options than
Shenfield, then you know enough to suggest some.

(And please don't tell me there's not one station on the Eastern that is
more appropiate than Shenfield - or I, and many others, will cease to
believe a word you say.)

Really? Who are these many others, and how do you know about them?

If Roland, or anyone else, wants to claim that no terminus is more
appropriate than Shenfield, and backs that up with reasoned arguments,
then the correct response is to consider those arguments. Dismissing them
out of hand is the act of someone driven by overwhelming affection for
their own opinions, not any interest in the truth.

As it happens, i also think there's no better option than Shenfield. The
GEML is four-track to Shenfield, and has two two-track branches beyond
that. That means you can run Crossrail as a stopping service to Shenfield
with one pair of tracks entirely to itself, and leave the other pair for
non-stop long-distance services, with no possibility of performance
pollution between the two. Running those Crossrail trains beyond Shenfield
supplies residents of those towns with a stopping service into London
which they simply won't use. Making some of the Crossrails non-stop on the
fasts to points beyond Shenfield, and filling in the deficit on the slow
lines with Liverpool Street-terminating trains, throws away the advantages
of segregation. Turning some of the Crossrails off short of Shenfield -
say up the West Anglia, to suburban destinations or Stansted, means taking
trains away from the stations towards Shenfield, which means a net
reduction in service on an already overcrowded line. So, we have one
useless option, one impractical one, and one actively harmful one.

I look forward to hearing your suggestion.

tom

--
I'm angry, but not Milk and Cheese angry. -- Mike Froggatt

On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Andrew Heenan wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote:
And where is the obvious place "past Shenfield"? Colchester is the
nearest that makes sense.
Wha? Chelmsford?
Doesn't have the required capacity to turn trains. The track beyond
Shenfield is also already quite busy with longer distance trains.

I suspect you've missed the point of Crossrail; it could substitute for
some of those trains, not necessarily add to them.

No it couldn't. Those trains run fast between Shenfield and Liverpool
Street, only stopping at Stratford if anywhere. Crossrail won't do that.
You can't replace a fast train with one which is all stops across half of
London.

You also couldn't run those extended trains fast from Shenfield, as that
would mean cutting back the suburban commuter service, which is very
heavily used. And you can't introduce Liverpool Street terminators to make
up the difference, as then you have performance pollution between the two
lines. Some services like that already planned as part of Crossrail, and
they're enough of a worry from an operational point of view.

tom

--
I'm angry, but not Milk and Cheese angry. -- Mike Froggatt

In message
Graham Murray wrote:

Graeme Wall writes:

Line 2 has an elevated section which crosses the throat of Gare du Nord.

More than half of line 6 is elevated.

Forgot that one, I've got some nice shots of the trains crossing the Seine
taken from the Eiffel Tower.

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

On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 09:52:56 on Thu, 4 Dec
2008, Andrew Heenan remarked:
"Roland Perry" wrote ...
Andrew Heenan remarked:
Not my area, and I wouldn't presume to guess.
But I am sure of one thing:
"Not Shenfield"

Bluff. Called. [There's nowhere "slightly" further out than Shenfield
that has the capacity to turn the requisite number of trains]

Just imagine *you* are planning an East-West high capacity, high frequency
rail service, and you have a free choice of terminus, and go for it!

My first choice would be Stratford, with the existing inbound trains all
stopping there before terminating at Liverpool St. If that's too close
to London, use Gidea Park (the original inner suburban terminus) again
interchanging with all the inbound trains there. Shenfield is OK, but a
bit of a luxury in terms of build cost,

What build cost? The line's already there and working perfectly. It has
OHLE. I have a feeling the platforms are even the right length (mostly).

and inconveniently distant if the Crossrail trains are
all-station-stoppers.

Aren't Shenfield trains stoppers already?

tom

--
I'm angry, but not Milk and Cheese angry. -- Mike Froggatt

"Roland Perry" wrote in
Just imagine *you* are planning an East-West high capacity, high frequency
rail service, and you have a free choice of terminus, and go for it!
My first choice would be Stratford, with the existing inbound trains all
stopping there before terminating at Liverpool St. If that's too close to
London, use Gidea Park (the original inner suburban terminus) again
interchanging with all the inbound trains there. Shenfield is OK, but a
bit of a luxury in terms of build cost, and inconveniently distant if the
Crossrail trains are all-station-stoppers.

Stratford makes perfect sense to me; indeed, I find it distinctly weird that
there is no proposed link to HS1 - that's one of several reasons why I am
convinced the map will change once the thing is built.
--

Andrew

"She plays the tuba.
It is the only instrument capable
of imitating a distress call."

"Peter Campbell Smith" wrote :
... many passengers appreciate the ability to travel from,
say, south London to King's Cross without having to change to the tube.
If
you're mobility-impaired, elderly or have luggage, it's a significant
benefit.
The other operational benefit is not having to disperse huge passenger
inflows at terminals, and of course there is an operational disbenefit in
that disruption in south London propagates to Bedford and vice versa.
I spent a while shuttling between various industrial sites around Paris
and
the RER really is a boon for that: in London it would have been
train-tube-
train, but in Paris it was typically one quick change at Chatelet.

I totally agree; I still dream of an elevated railway linking charing cross
with Marylebone, and Waterloo to Euston for just those reasons.

But don't worry, I'm not holding my breath on those proposals!
--

Andrew

"She plays the tuba.
It is the only instrument capable
of imitating a distress call."

In message
Tom Anderson wrote:

On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Graeme Wall wrote:

In message
Tom Anderson wrote:

On Tue, 2 Dec 2008, Peter Masson wrote:

"Tom Anderson" wrote

No, Crossrail should stop at Slough, and concentrate on being an
affordable and effective suburban railway, and not a pie-in-the-sky all
things to all people scheme.

Crossrail will go to Maidenhead, Heathrow, Shenfield, and Abbey Wood.
Any strong pressure to change any of these destinations is more likely
to mean that Crossrail doesn't happen at all than that changes will be
made.

Yes. I'm not quite mad enough to argue for changes at this stage -
rather, i point out that the scheme is not optimal. It shouldn't really
be going to the GWML at all - the Waterloo lines would be a much better
destination, but for obscure reasons, they were dropped from
consideration a very long time ago.

How do you come up with that conclusion?

By reading the cross-London rail studies, going back to the 70s. There's a
report from the late 70s that considers various branches in the west,
including the GWML and SWML, and the SWML comes out as the winner. The
next report, from some point in the 80s, starts off by saying "we're
considering a cross-London route from the GWML to somewhere in the east".
The SWML option is simply not considered. All very odd.

Nothing odd about it at all, the Jubilee line was built. In the original
London Rail Study (1974) it was still projected to follow the Fleet/River
Line alignment.

If you look at LRS Part 2 P82 para 14.5.7, it makes no mention of the SWML.
Crossrail South was projected to connect Victoria to London Bridge to avoid
trains having to reverse at the terminals. The map at 15.7 shows the
proposed routes.

So, in fact, Waterloo was never in consideration in the first place.


With the city business centre moving eastward it leaves Paddington even
further from many commuters ultimate destination. Waterloo has good
links to both the City and Docklands (the Drain and the Northern and
Jubilee Lines) already.

All of which are creaking under the strain. The worst overcrowding in
London is on the eastern corridor into the City, and some way into the
west end, which is why Crossrail is going to run from Stratford to Oxford
Street. The second worst congestion is on the lines from the southwest
(Clapham Junction-ish) into the City. If the goal of Crossrail is to help
people make journeys, then the right place for it is connecting those two
corridors.

But as I've pointed out above, Crossrail was never designed to address that
particular problem.


The fact that the majority of Crossrail trains aren't going to go any
further west than Paddington shows just how little demand there is on that
route. The GWML was selected for two reasons: connecting Heathrow, and
supporting regeneration in the western wedge. These aren't transport
reasons, they're political reasons, designed to secure support from the
government. That doesn't make them bad reasons, but it does mean that the
scheme is suboptimal.

The Heathrow connection is more than just a political idea, it is a very
necessary extension of the Heathrow Express.


Also one of the principal objectives of Crossrail is to relieve the
pressure on the Central line, going to Waterloo won't help that.

Nor will going to Paddington, Maidenhead or Reading.


I suggest you re-read your rail studies.

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

"Tom Anderson" wrote
If Roland, or anyone else, wants to claim that no terminus is more
appropriate than Shenfield, and backs that up with reasoned arguments,
then the correct response is to consider those arguments. Dismissing them
out of hand is the act of someone driven by overwhelming affection for
their own opinions, not any interest in the truth.

As it happens, up till today, no one has offered one single argument FOR
Shenfield, other than operational convenience. I've suggested more than once
that that is simply not an adequate way to do it; it's that kind of approach
that gets rail enthusiasts a bad name.

I am quite serious when I say that I don't have the knowledge, because it is
simply NOT good enough to look at a map and 'hey, that's handy" - it needs a
knowldge of the commercial and population issues to even come up with a
shortlist. I don't have that local knowledge, and delighted that since I
wrote the note that you 've responded to, Mr Perry has come up with several
very interesting, constructive an useful comments, based on his local
knowledge, as well as his knowledge of public transport.

While "I hear what you're saying" - and yes, I have been happy to play
devil's advocate - this thread could actually be a useful part of the debate
rather than

1. It should go there because it's operationaly convenient
2. It should go there because I live there.


--
Andrew

"When 'Do no Evil' has been understood, then learn the harder, braver rule,
Do Good." ~ Arthur Guiterman

On 2008-12-04 16:24:15 +0000, Tom Anderson said:

On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Andrew Heenan wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote ...
Andrew Heenan remarked:
Not my area, and I wouldn't presume to guess.
But I am sure of one thing:
"Not Shenfield"

Bluff. Called.
[There's nowhere "slightly" further out than Shenfield that has the
capacity to turn the requisite number of trains]

Sneaky Pedant called:

1. I was not bluffing - I was expressing a view. Sorry about that.
2. When you quoted me, you chose to miss a key point:
"There are, of course, many options east of Liverpool Street, and a lot may
depend on who's in power come 2018."

I repeat, "Not my area, and I wouldn't presume to guess" - instead of trying
to be smart (and merely being smug) why not *use* your local knowledge to
see what other possibilities there are.

Warning: this may require an open mind and tad of imagination - do your
best.

Just imagine *you* are planning an East-West high capacity, high frequency
rail service, and you have a free choice of terminus, and go for it!

[tip: it is theoretically possible for More Than One to be used]

So please do enlighten us. And none of this "not my area" nonsense,
please - if you know enough to be certain that there are better options
than Shenfield, then you know enough to suggest some.

(And please don't tell me there's not one station on the Eastern that
is more appropiate than Shenfield - or I, and many others, will cease
to believe a word you say.)

Really? Who are these many others, and how do you know about them?

If Roland, or anyone else, wants to claim that no terminus is more
appropriate than Shenfield, and backs that up with reasoned arguments,
then the correct response is to consider those arguments. Dismissing
them out of hand is the act of someone driven by overwhelming affection
for their own opinions, not any interest in the truth.

As it happens, i also think there's no better option than Shenfield.
The GEML is four-track to Shenfield, and has two two-track branches
beyond that. That means you can run Crossrail as a stopping service to
Shenfield with one pair of tracks entirely to itself, and leave the
other pair for non-stop long-distance services, with no possibility of
performance pollution between the two. Running those Crossrail trains
beyond Shenfield supplies residents of those towns with a stopping
service into London which they simply won't use. Making some of the
Crossrails non-stop on the fasts to points beyond Shenfield, and
filling in the deficit on the slow lines with Liverpool
Street-terminating trains, throws away the advantages of segregation.
Turning some of the Crossrails off short of Shenfield - say up the West
Anglia, to suburban destinations or Stansted, means taking trains away
from the stations towards Shenfield, which means a net reduction in
service on an already overcrowded line. So, we have one useless option,
one impractical one, and one actively harmful one.

I look forward to hearing your suggestion.

tom

To balance peak hour loadings between trains running on the same Line
on the RER in Paris, the stopping patterns are varied. For example on
the western arm of the Line A, most trains ran through to the terminus
at St. Germain-en-Laye, but some turned back before the end of the line
at Le Vesinet-Le Pecq. The longer distance trains tended to skip some
of the stations nearer Paris which were covered by the trains which
turned back early. All of the trains stopped at all of the stations in
the central section. This was all done on a 2 track railway and it
seemed to work very well. Outside the central section I would suggest
that not all the Crossrail trains should be all-stations.
--
Robert

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
In message
Sarah Brown wrote:

Similarly, London Bridge to Canon Street & Blackfriars - ish.

I'd included the latter in my original comment about south London, most of
the ex-SR terminals are fed by an elevated system.

London Bridge to Greenwich was the first elevated railway in the world.
Colonel Landmann designed it - a ground level railway would have involved a
lot of level crossings, and a sub-surface line could probably not have been
built in the 1830s because of the high water table. Landmann intended for
the arches to be used as houses, but in the event most went to commercial
undertakings.

Peter