On 2 Dec, 16:30, 1506 wrote:
Yes! *In this instance the cost of conversion of the Hammersmith
branch would be a very small part of the overall cost of Crossrail.

As would giving me a million pounds. That's no reason to tack it onto
the scheme unless it has benefits that justify the cost.

It would be mitigated by saving the cost of the reversing sidings at
Paddington. *The main issues would be platform widening and platform
geometry. *There might also be a need for additional ingress and
egress at stations. *Conversion to AC electrification would be
consideration.

Lots of expensive infrastructure changes to save one measly reversing
platform and probably offer a worse service than the H&C will have by
the time this could happen (trains every 5 minutes), plus whatever the
benefits to Circle Line operation you'd get. I don't see the sums
adding up.

U

In message

1506 wrote:

On Dec 1, 10:36*am, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008, 1506 wrote:
On Nov 27, 6:24*am, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008, Boltar wrote:

And probably a question of loading gauge too I suspect.

I *think*, but am not sure, that the H&C trains are wider and taller
than Crossrails will be. However, i think Crossrail carriages will be
longer, which increases their effective size on curves, so you could
be right. And of course they'll be much longer, which would mean
platform alterations, and the moving of the crossover at Hammersmith.

All true, but in the bigger picture, these are minor engineering type
problems.

In the bigger picture, isn't pretty much everything we discuss on this
group? What it comes down to is how much cold, hard cash has to be
stumped up for it, and how much value it delivers in return. I'm not
saying that Crossrailing the H&C branch wouldn't be good value for money,
but i don't think you can just wave away the costs as minor engineering
type problems.

Yes! In this instance the cost of conversion of the Hammersmith branch
would be a very small part of the overall cost of Crossrail. It would be
mitigated by saving the cost of the reversing sidings at Paddington. The
main issues would be platform widening and platform geometry.

Hammersmith to Shepherds Bush inclusive are straight platforms, I don't
recall any of the ones from there up to Royal Oak being curved but it's been
a long time since I used that section.


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

On Tue, 2 Dec 2008, Mr Thant wrote:

On 2 Dec, 16:30, 1506 wrote:
Yes! *In this instance the cost of conversion of the Hammersmith
branch would be a very small part of the overall cost of Crossrail.

As would giving me a million pounds. That's no reason to tack it onto
the scheme unless it has benefits that justify the cost.

Indeed. For instance, you could get exactly the same benefits for
significantly less by giving me half a million pounds. I will be writing
to the minister to urge him to take forward this vital cost-saving
measure.

It would be mitigated by saving the cost of the reversing sidings at
Paddington. *The main issues would be platform widening and platform
geometry. *There might also be a need for additional ingress and
egress at stations. *Conversion to AC electrification would be
consideration.

Lots of expensive infrastructure changes to save one measly reversing
platform and probably offer a worse service than the H&C will have by
the time this could happen (trains every 5 minutes),

Is that definite? What allows the H&C to run this currently impossible
frequency? Is this a T-cup thing?

plus whatever the benefits to Circle Line operation you'd get. I don't
see the sums adding up.

If the works needed were just what 1506 suggested - a bit of platform
lengthening and shaving - it might not be too expensive. Although it would
need all-new signalling, which is not so cheap.

Are Crossrail trains going to support third rail anyway for the Abbey Wood
bit? If so, you wouldn't even need to OHLEfy Hammersmith.

But the point is that that isn't a politically viable programme. This is
Crossrail, which means the stations have to be revamped and upgraded and
made all singing and at least 60% dancing. Lifts, bigger passageways,
shiny metal everywhere. And that means bags of cash. The benefit to the
rest of the SSL might be significant, particularly for people in the
southwest who could gain single-seat rides into the northern edge of the
City, but i'm doubtful that demand on the Hammersmith branch itself is
enough to make it worthwhile. It's no GEML. Although neither is the GWML,
of course - but that's another story.

tom

--
I could tell you a great many more particulars but suppose that you are
tired of it by this time. -- John Backhouse, Trainspotter Zero

"Graeme Wall" wrote

Hammersmith to Shepherds Bush inclusive are straight platforms, I don't
recall any of the ones from there up to Royal Oak being curved but it's
been
a long time since I used that section.

IIRC Westbourne Park is curved. Platform lengths would have to be just about
doubled to take Crossrail trains.

Peter

"Tom Anderson" wrote

Are Crossrail trains going to support third rail anyway for the Abbey Wood
bit?

The earlier plan was for dual voltage trains, to extend on the third rail
beyond Abbey Wood to Ebbsfleet. But since that was dropped Crossrail will be
25 kV OHLE only.

Peter

On Dec 2, 8:51*am, Mr Thant
wrote:
On 2 Dec, 16:30, 1506 wrote:

Yes! *In this instance the cost of conversion of the Hammersmith
branch would be a very small part of the overall cost of Crossrail.

As would giving me a million pounds. That's no reason to tack it onto
the scheme unless it has benefits that justify the cost.

It would be mitigated by saving the cost of the reversing sidings at
Paddington. *The main issues would be platform widening and platform
geometry. *There might also be a need for additional ingress and
egress at stations. *Conversion to AC electrification would be
consideration.

Lots of expensive infrastructure changes to save one measly reversing
platform and probably offer a worse service than the H&C will have by
the time this could happen (trains every 5 minutes), plus whatever the
benefits to Circle Line operation you'd get. I don't see the sums
adding up.

One hopes that you are right. I just have my doubts about whether the
Circle Line can ever be improved unless the number of branches feeding
into it are rationalized.

And, to me, reversing Crossrail trains at Paddington is a waste.

However, I acknowledge your greater wisdom in these matters. You know
far more about London's transportation infrastructure than I.

In message
"Peter Masson" wrote:


"Graeme Wall" wrote

Hammersmith to Shepherds Bush inclusive are straight platforms, I don't
recall any of the ones from there up to Royal Oak being curved but it's
been a long time since I used that section.

IIRC Westbourne Park is curved. Platform lengths would have to be just
about doubled to take Crossrail trains.


That would involve a curve at Shepherds Bush. As Mr Thant has pointed out, it
is not really a viable proposition.

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

On Dec 2, 6:14*pm, Graeme Wall wrote:
In message
* * * * * "Peter Masson" wrote:



"Graeme Wall" wrote

Hammersmith to Shepherds Bush inclusive are straight platforms, I don't
recall any of the ones from there up to Royal Oak being curved but it's
been a long time since I used that section.

IIRC Westbourne Park is curved. Platform lengths would have to be just
about doubled to take Crossrail trains.

That would involve a curve at Shepherds Bush. As Mr Thant has pointed out, it
is not really a viable proposition.

One thing about it is that it would remove what is totally unviable in
the current teacup proposal, which is the number of terminating trains
at Edgware Road, particularly with people having to run over a bridge
at one end of the platforms as they find out which train is going
first.

But it's hard to see that the solution is to shunt Crossrail down to
Hammersmith, when it should concentrate on striking out for Reading
and beyond.

I would rather lose the excessive proposed frequency on the
Hammersmith Line and extend trains from Wimbledon round the teacup,
leaving the Hammersmith to Barking as it is.

On Dec 2, 11:38*am, MIG wrote:
On Dec 2, 6:14*pm, Graeme Wall wrote:





In message
* * * * * "Peter Masson" wrote:

"Graeme Wall" wrote

Hammersmith to Shepherds Bush inclusive are straight platforms, I don't
recall any of the ones from there up to Royal Oak being curved but it's
been a long time since I used that section.

IIRC Westbourne Park is curved. Platform lengths would have to be just
about doubled to take Crossrail trains.

That would involve a curve at Shepherds Bush. As Mr Thant has pointed out, it
is not really a viable proposition.

One thing about it is that it would remove what is totally unviable in
the current teacup proposal, which is the number of terminating trains
at Edgware Road, particularly with people having to run over a bridge
at one end of the platforms as they find out which train is going
first.

But it's hard to see that the solution is to shunt Crossrail down to
Hammersmith, when it should concentrate on striking out for Reading
and beyond.

Crossrail SHOULD reach Reading. But, even then there are, as I
understand plans, to reverse CR trains at Paddington. Given the vast
polulation west of Paddington that would like a direct connection to
the City of London, I believe these terminating trains should go
somewhere!

I would rather lose the excessive proposed frequency on the
Hammersmith Line and extend trains from Wimbledon round the teacup,
leaving the Hammersmith to Barking as it is

On Dec 2, 11:38*am, MIG wrote:
On Dec 2, 6:14*pm, Graeme Wall wrote:





In message
* * * * * "Peter Masson" wrote:

"Graeme Wall" wrote

Hammersmith to Shepherds Bush inclusive are straight platforms, I don't
recall any of the ones from there up to Royal Oak being curved but it's
been a long time since I used that section.

IIRC Westbourne Park is curved. Platform lengths would have to be just
about doubled to take Crossrail trains.

That would involve a curve at Shepherds Bush. As Mr Thant has pointed out, it
is not really a viable proposition.

One thing about it is that it would remove what is totally unviable in
the current teacup proposal, which is the number of terminating trains
at Edgware Road, particularly with people having to run over a bridge
at one end of the platforms as they find out which train is going
first.

But it's hard to see that the solution is to shunt Crossrail down to
Hammersmith, when it should concentrate on striking out for Reading
and beyond.

I would rather lose the excessive proposed frequency on the
Hammersmith Line and extend trains from Wimbledon round the teacup,
leaving the Hammersmith to Barking as it is.

Crossrail SHOULD reach Reading. But, even then there are, as I
understand plans, to reverse CR trains at Paddington. Given the vast
population west of Paddington that would like a direct connection to
the City of London, I believe these terminating trains should go
somewhere!