|
Crossrail NOT making connections
On 4 Dec, 08:58, Roland Perry wrote:
Doesn't have the required capacity to turn trains. The track beyond Shenfield is also already quite busy with longer distance trains. I think reversing capacity is less of an issue than segregation and possibly track capacity. There's four tracking to Shenfield and Crossrail will largely have two of the tracks to itself, but both routes beyond are only two tracks. Also, much like Reading, no one from Colchester is going to use an all stops train to get to London. U |
Crossrail NOT making connections
"Roland Perry" wrote ...
If I was still living in Mid-Essex a through train would help me quite often, as my destination is more likely to be somewhere between Bank and Paddington than near Liverpool St. I wonder if that also applies to a few others in Chelsford, Southend and Colchester, to name but a few of rich variety of Eastern destinations. No longer, alas, including Saffron Walden - but there's definitely Cambridge, as I recall. What is so great about Shenfield? -- Andrew "When 'Do no Evil' has been understood, then learn the harder, braver rule, Do Good." ~ Arthur Guiterman |
Crossrail NOT making connections
"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. -- Andrew |
Crossrail NOT making connections
I am not all that convinced that many people want to travel through
London at all, although east - west might be more significant than north - south. I'll bet £15 that Mr Perry said that about Thameslink. The number of through passengers is significant, but even though they don't dominate (and never will), the service really scores by taking people beyond the fringes of the central area. Crossrail is the same - as the number of passengers from the west fade away, so the numbers heading east build up. And, I suspect, vice versa, though few bound for Shenfield, as we know. -- Andrew "When 'Do no Evil' has been understood, then learn the harder, braver rule, Do Good." ~ Arthur Guiterman |
Crossrail NOT making connections
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] 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. That's what I've done, and only Colchester makes much sense. But that's a long way out of London. 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] (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.) 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. -- Roland Perry |
Crossrail NOT making connections
|
Crossrail NOT making connections
In message , at 10:07:37 on Thu, 4
Dec 2008, Andrew Heenan remarked: What is so great about Shenfield? In what sense? As a commuter town it has a lot of high-class housing close to a station with a relatively regular service. And it's also the very well defined "edge" of the London metropolitan area. Brentwood is a strange place - people who live in (administrative) Essex regard it as part of London, whereas Londoners see it as the first distinct town "in the countryside". -- Roland Perry |
Crossrail NOT making connections
In message , at 09:48:12 on Thu, 4
Dec 2008, Graeme Wall remarked: Don't know if it still exists in the current economic situation, but there used to be a lot of traffic between high tech firms in the Thames Valley and places like Marconi at Chelmsford. I think the main demise is that "places like Marconi" have almost ceased to exist in Chelmsford! -- Roland Perry |
Crossrail NOT making connections
In message , at 09:55:27 on Thu, 4
Dec 2008, Andrew Heenan remarked: And where is the obvious place "past Shenfield"? Colchester is the nearest that makes sense. Southend Victoria? It is as close to Central London as Reading is. Southend sounds an interesting possibility; Southend is a waste. What's the objection to Cochester, assuming that was a serious suggestion? The Crossrail trains risk getting in the way of the existing longer distance trains. And it's a long way to upgrade (although it's not clear to me what that upgrade would entail - all I know is the only 1/3 of the current Crossrail cost is the part tunnelled under London, so the majority of the money must be going to upgrades of existing infrastructure). -- Roland Perry |
Crossrail NOT making connections
In message
, at 02:06:01 on Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Mr Thant remarked: Doesn't have the required capacity to turn trains. The track beyond Shenfield is also already quite busy with longer distance trains. I think reversing capacity is less of an issue It does become an issue when (as is the case) there's almost no reversing capacity at all. And you can't easily build any because the station is on a viaduct in a congested town centre location. than segregation and possibly track capacity. There's four tracking to Shenfield and Crossrail will largely have two of the tracks to itself, but both routes beyond are only two tracks. Yes, this emphasis the choice of Shenfield. Also, much like Reading, no one from Colchester is going to use an all stops train to get to London. Or even from Chelmsford. Also Shenfield to London on an all stations stopper is going to be a bit of a bore. -- Roland Perry |
Crossrail NOT making connections
In message , at 10:09:41 on Thu, 4
Dec 2008, Andrew Heenan remarked: 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. Only by removing capacity from stations beyond Chelmsford (or wherever you put the mk2 terminus). -- Roland Perry |
Crossrail NOT making connections
On 4 Dec, 10:07, "Andrew Heenan" wrote:
What is so great about Shenfield? The point of the northeast branch is to provide new capacity to Stratford to relieve the Central Line. East of there the destination really doesn't matter from a capacity point of view, but the local services are the obvious choice given their existing high frequency, high degree of segregation and the platform layout at Stratford. U |
Crossrail NOT making connections
In message
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 09:48:12 on Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Graeme Wall remarked: Don't know if it still exists in the current economic situation, but there used to be a lot of traffic between high tech firms in the Thames Valley and places like Marconi at Chelmsford. I think the main demise is that "places like Marconi" have almost ceased to exist in Chelmsford! So what does it do now to justify it's existance? -- Graeme Wall This address is not read, substitute trains for rail. Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html |
Crossrail NOT making connections
In message , at 10:57:34 on Thu, 4
Dec 2008, Graeme Wall remarked: Don't know if it still exists in the current economic situation, but there used to be a lot of traffic between high tech firms in the Thames Valley and places like Marconi at Chelmsford. I think the main demise is that "places like Marconi" have almost ceased to exist in Chelmsford! So what does it do now to justify it's existance? Mainly a dormitory, but plenty of financial industry offices that have moved out of London. -- Roland Perry |
Crossrail NOT making connections
In message
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 10:57:34 on Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Graeme Wall remarked: Don't know if it still exists in the current economic situation, but there used to be a lot of traffic between high tech firms in the Thames Valley and places like Marconi at Chelmsford. I think the main demise is that "places like Marconi" have almost ceased to exist in Chelmsford! So what does it do now to justify it's existance? Mainly a dormitory, but plenty of financial industry offices that have moved out of London. So not a lot going for it :-) -- Graeme Wall This address is not read, substitute trains for rail. Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html |
Crossrail NOT making connections
In message , at 11:37:22 on Thu, 4
Dec 2008, Graeme Wall remarked: Chelmsford! So what does it do now to justify it's existance? Mainly a dormitory, but plenty of financial industry offices that have moved out of London. So not a lot going for it :-) I grew up there, and to my eyes it has been vastly "over-developed" with fill-in housing, medium sized office blocks, and bits of shopping mall tacked onto what was once quite a traditional High Street. They've even built flats on the old bus station (next to the train^H^H railway station). -- Roland Perry |
Crossrail NOT making connections
On 2008-12-03 23:54:11 +0000, Tom Anderson said:
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. Subsequent add-ons are possible - Reading is the obvious one, so that diesel trains out of Paddington can be eliminated from the Relief Lines, while the Main Lines can become a totally 125 mph railway. By which everyone at Reading travels to London. Nobody at Reading is going to get on a Crossrail stopper to London when they could get a fast train. The only market is for local commuting into Reading, and that market isn't big enough to justify the expense. The market may not be big enough to justify electrification, but based on /numbers/ of passengers, I understand that more people travel /to/ Reading (from all the different directions) in the mornings these days as travel /from/ Reading to Paddington. So there are already quite large flows from the Ascot and Guildford via Wokingham and Paddington - Slough - Maidenhead directions at least to counterbalance the 'towards London' flows. Of course this effect makes the eastbound flows from points west and south of Reading even fuller! Gravesend is a long shot, but may be needed for (and financed by) development in the Thames Gateway. Ditto. Another destination west of Paddington would be nice, but no-one has come up with any convincing case. Hampton Court! The SWML is crying out for Crossrail - a single-seat ride along it into the City would relieve Waterloo, the W&C, and the southern Circle. The trouble is that you'd need to bore quite a bit more tunnel in central London - probably on a route something like the 1938 Northern line plan: http://www.flickr.com/photos/twic/1591807010/sizes/o/ Perhaps diving into tunnel at Battersea, and running Victoria, perhaps Green Park and then Oxford Street. Not at all cheap. Richmond - Kingston did not attract universal support. Amersham - Aylesbury would be nice, so that the Met line can concentrate on Uxbridge and Watford, while the fast lines beyond Harrow-on-the-Hill would become single use by Crossrail, and electrified at 25 kV OHLE. But traffic density is insufficient to generate a business case. More trains can't be pushed down the GWML - there's not teh demand, and capacity is needed for freight west of Acton Yard. So I think we're stuck with the Westbourne Park reversing sidings. Realistically, yes. tom -- Robert |
Crossrail NOT making connections
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. |
Crossrail NOT making connections
In article ,
Graeme Wall wrote: 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. Sorry - I'd lost track of the thread a bit. |
Crossrail NOT making connections
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. 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. 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. 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. tom -- I'm angry, but not Milk and Cheese angry. -- Mike Froggatt |
Crossrail NOT making connections
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 |
Crossrail NOT making connections
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 |
Crossrail NOT making connections
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 |
Crossrail NOT making connections
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 |
Crossrail NOT making connections
"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." |
Crossrail NOT making connections
"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." |
Crossrail NOT making connections
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 |
Crossrail NOT making connections
"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 |
Crossrail NOT making connections
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 |
Crossrail NOT making connections
"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 |
Crossrail NOT making connections
In message
"Andrew Heenan" wrote: "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. It's very simple, Crossrail trains will take over the slow line services which currently run to Shenfield. By an amazing coincidence Shenfield has the facilities to allow the trains to terminate and return to London. -- Graeme Wall This address is not read, substitute trains for rail. Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html |
Crossrail NOT making connections
In message , at
16:29:53 on Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Tom Anderson remarked: 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). 2/3 of the current crossrail budget would appear to be tarting up existing lines. and inconveniently distant if the Crossrail trains are all-station-stoppers. Aren't Shenfield trains stoppers already? Maybe - but when I lived there a significant number of long distance trains had their penultimate stop at Shenfield. And then there were a whole bunch more that stopped every station to Harold Wood then fast to Stratford. -- Roland Perry |
Crossrail NOT making connections
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Andrew Heenan wrote:
"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, So how were you able to determine that Shenfield was such a bad terminus? That's the bit i can't work out. 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. Splendid! I think we're all happy, then. If i might humbly suggest, though, perhaps it might have been better to phrase your post in terms of "why will Crossrail go no further than Shenfield?" rather than "there's no reason for Crossrail to go no further than Shenfield!". 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 You say that as if that wasn't an adequate reason. Convenience not just something which lets the planners have their tea break sooner: it's money. Doing something less convenient means spending more. Since we don't have an infinite amount of money to spend on Crossrail, that's quite important. 2. It should go there because I live there. Has anyone said that? tom -- I'm angry, but not Milk and Cheese angry. -- Mike Froggatt |
Crossrail NOT making connections
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Robert wrote:
On 2008-12-04 16:24:15 +0000, Tom Anderson said: On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Andrew Heenan wrote: (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.) 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. 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. The only point to this that i can see is to guarantee that passengers on the inner section have a chance to get seats; if all trains ran the whole way, passengers from the outer section would all get a seat, and get all of the seats, leaving none for the poor inner sectioners. The flip side of this is that some people coming from the outer section will have to stand, despite having further to travel than anyone from the inner section. Specifically, the arrangement can't make the long-distance trains much faster. Since trains can't overtake on a two-track railway (without passing loops, anyway - do they have those?), then assuming that stopping trains are all evenly spaced, the most time that a skipper can save is equal to the interval between stoppers - if it sets out from the central section just ahead of one stopper, it can reach the turnback point just behind another one. If the trains all come out of the core evenly spaced, skippers and stoppers, then the maximum gain is the time between a skipper and a stopper - half the interval between stoppers, if they're half and half. Crossrail is going to run at 12 tph along the GEML, along with another 6 tph of Liverpool Street trains. That's 18 tph, or a train every 3 minutes 20 seconds, that also being the maximum saving a skipper could make. That doesn't seem like much of a saving over the 36 minutes it currently takes to run from Stratford to Shenfield, particularly when compared to the 17 minutes it takes non-stop on the fasts. Bear in mind that this would represent a cut in stopping train service on that line from 16 tph to 9 tph. If you introduced more Liverpool Street stoppers to make up the difference, you'd cut the time saving for the skippers even further. Another alternative along these lines is a skip-stop service, where half the trains skip half the stops, and half skip the other half. This does actually let you get trains from one end of the line to the other faster, although not a lot faster in practice, i believe. There isn't a capacity issue, as although the frequency at each station is halved, the trains which call are each serving half the number of stations. It does double the average waiting time for a train, but at 18 tph, that's from 3:20 to 6:40, which is still a reasonable turn-up-and-go frequency. It doesn't really help you run trains beyond Shenfield, though. tom -- I'm angry, but not Milk and Cheese angry. -- Mike Froggatt |
Crossrail NOT making connections
"Graeme Wall" wrote ...
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. It's very simple, Crossrail trains will take over the slow line services which currently run to Shenfield. By an amazing coincidence Shenfield has the facilities to allow the trains to terminate and return to London. So have Margate, Uckfield and Blackpool, I think. -- Andrew Interviewer: Tonight I'm interviewing that famous nurse, Florence Nightingale Tommy Cooper (dressed as a nurse): Sir Florence Nightingale Interviewer: *Sir* Florence Nightingale? Tommy Cooper: I'm a Night Nurse Campaign For The Real Tommy Cooper |
Crossrail NOT making connections
In message
"Andrew Heenan" wrote: "Graeme Wall" wrote ... 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. It's very simple, Crossrail trains will take over the slow line services which currently run to Shenfield. By an amazing coincidence Shenfield has the facilities to allow the trains to terminate and return to London. So have Margate, Uckfield and Blackpool, I think. But, again by a bizzare coincidence, none of them are served fron Liverpool Street. Do you see a trend forming? -- Graeme Wall This address is not read, substitute trains for rail. Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html |
Crossrail NOT making connections
"Graeme Wall" wrote ...
By an amazing coincidence Shenfield has the facilities to allow the trains to terminate and return to London. So have Margate, Uckfield and Blackpool, I think. But, again by a bizzare coincidence, none of them are served fron Liverpool Street. Do you see a trend forming? Yup: a trend of proposing services based on capacity and convenience, not need or future benefit. It's a sad trend, when a bit of imagination could be so rewarding. On that basis, they should have built the motorways in a straight line out into the North Sea. Now there's a thought! -- Andrew "When 'Do no Evil' has been understood, then learn the harder, braver rule, Do Good." ~ Arthur Guiterman |
Crossrail NOT making connections
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 08:18:19 +0000, Martin Edwards
wrote: Christopher A. Lee wrote: On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 20:33:58 +0000, Steve Fitzgerald ] wrote: In message , Paul Corfield writes Curse you Mr Anderson - that Google Street View is just too good. That looks the most amazing structure and I'm sure there are other amazing subway junctions to sit and peruse. I fear I may go square eyed while undertaking more research. Now if only the Americans would stop treating visitors like potential terrorists I'd be persuaded to go back NYC to take a closer look. New York generally is a fascinating place transport wise and I would highly recommend it; despite having to get through immigration (which, last time I entered the US, in SFO wasn't too onerous at all). Not just New York City. I live near Poughkeepsie, half way to the state capital Albany on the old New York Central main line. It's one of the world's scenic railway routes at water level along the Hudson Valley. Why do NY cop shows always joke about Poughkeepsie? Going by the Wikipaedia article, it had become something of a dump by the 1990s so (like Rhyl, Liverpool, Glasgow, the East End of London etc. at other times) it qualified to be the butt of malicious humour. |
Crossrail NOT making connections
"Tom Anderson" wrote...
So how were you able to determine that Shenfield was such a bad terminus? That's the bit i can't work out. Well, I've explained about 15 times, including in the post you replied to, but I'm happy to try again. I happen to believe that planning multi-billion pound investments of taxpayers money (plus about 0.005% added by 'business') should be based on positive reasons, rather than convenience. I have no 'negative thoughts' about Shenfield. I have no reasons - none - for Crossrail not to go there. But there's gaping hole in the list of reasons for Crossrail *to* go there. Other than convenience. Whereas, for comparison, extending the western end to Reading offers a plethora of connections, as well as a major business centre and population centre, and more. And even the convenience arguments are flawed. Crossrail does not *have* to be an all-stopper; that was a preference of Ken's, who wanted Crossrail to be a 'supa tube' for London; Thank God he did, because his support was key in getting the thing accepted, and that's why he got his way. But he's not the only political opportunist, and I can see poweful arguments for some trains that stop at all central stations, but go fast (or faster, at least) at the ends; Heathrow is one obvious example, Cambridge would be another. Oxford another. Crossrail will (hopefully) be built on the current plans, and I am not (and never have) suggested different. I merely believe that once the bloody thing is built, it could be, er, improved. And with a general election or two before the first wheel turns, there are several opportunities to review the current proposals. Maybe I'm in the wrong forum? I'd like to say I'll happily rephrase my argument ad finitum ... but realistically, I suspect 16 is sufficient (with not one reason offered), so I'll leave you to cogitate and hope that the penny drops. -- Andrew "My Karma ran over your dogma." ~ Author Unknown |
Crossrail NOT making connections
"Roland Perry" wrote Maybe - but when I lived there a significant number of long distance trains had their penultimate stop at Shenfield. And then there were a whole bunch more that stopped every station to Harold Wood then fast to Stratford. With the increase in longer distance commuting there's no longer room on the Fast Lines for Harold Wood and Brentwood commuters, so peak trains on the Fast Lines are non-stop from Liverpool Street or Stratford to Shenfield or beyond. This means that Brentwood and Harold Wood commuters have to take a stopping train on the Slow Lines (some run fast Ilford to Stratford), but it also eliminates peak trains crossing between Fast and Slow Lines west of Shenfield. In operational terms running Crossrail exclusively on the Slow Lines as far as Shenfield makes sense. Some should probably turn back at Gidea Park, and there's a case for running more trains on this branch in the high peak, at the expense of Abbey Wood trains, so that non-Crossrail stopping trains between Shenfield and Liverpool Street (Main) can be eliminated. Peter |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:52 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk