On Nov 26, 5:52*am, John B wrote:
On Nov 26, 12:49*pm, Robert wrote:

In view of the number of trains planned to pass westwards through the
central tunnel which will terminate at Paddington

Hmm. That's 14tph reversing in the 'official' plans - however, it'll
actually be at most 8tph.

There is no way the 4tph HEx won't go over to Crossrail, because
there'll be absolutely nobody willing to pay double the Crossrail fare
for a slightly faster journey to suburban nowhere where they have to
change, compared to a direct journey to the West End, City and Canary
Wharf.

Correct. Standalone Heathrow Express will become a nonesense post
Crossrail.

There is also no way that the 2tph Oxford stoppers won't go over to
Crossrail, since they're the only other trains using the GWML slow
lines, and by the time Crossrail opens electrification will almost
certainly exist to Oxford (and absolutely certainly to Reading, where
the slow Oxfords might temporarily become shuttles if the GWML
programme is massively behind expectations).

Electrification to Oxford sounds like a stretch to me. Reading is a
realistic target.

It's just a case of agreeing with BAA how fares and revenues will work
in the first case, and of ensuring that Reading/Oxford electrification
doesn't go on the Crossrail costs in the second.

In this economic climate do we believe the politicians/treasury will
agree to funding Electrification to Oxford. I wish, but I doubt it.

The remaining 8tph might seem like a bit of a pity at first. On the
other hand, it'll be good to open a new link with that kind of
flexibility, allowing further extensions to whichever line appears
most to need the capacity in 8-10 years' time (at the moment, the W/NW
London commuter lines don't have the same desperate need for capacity
as those in E and SE London. This may change). Taking over the H&C
west of Paddington wouldn't surprise me all that much, at least if S-
stock, ATO and the T-cup fail to solve SSL reliability/capacity
issues.

Crossrail should take over the Hammersmith branch. But there is the
question of a maintenance depot for the Circle Line. If the depot at
Hammersmith was sold off for redevelopment perhaps the funds could be
utilized for "beefing up" Neasden.

On Nov 26, 4:51*pm, 1506 wrote:
It's just a case of agreeing with BAA how fares and revenues will work
in the first case, and of ensuring that Reading/Oxford electrification
doesn't go on the Crossrail costs in the second.

In this economic climate do we believe the politicians/treasury will
agree to funding Electrification to Oxford. *I wish, but I doubt it.

Yes, definitely. Or at least, the economic climate neither means that
the government won't be able to pay, nor that it'd be a bad idea - I
suppose it's possible that they might decide it's not politically
expedient.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On Nov 26, 4:51 pm, 1506 wrote:
Crossrail should take over the Hammersmith branch. But there is the

What would be the point of that? It wouldn't make the service any
quicker and would reduce the number of trains on the northern part of
the circle line.

question of a maintenance depot for the Circle Line. If the depot at

And probably a question of loading gauge too I suspect.

B2003

On Nov 27, 9:33*am, Boltar wrote:
Crossrail should take over the Hammersmith branch. *But there is the

What would be the point of that? It wouldn't make the service any
quicker and would reduce the number of trains on the northern part of
the circle line.

Cutting out the flat junction at Praed Street, which creates a clear
run from High Street Kensington to east of Baker Street and reduces
the performance pollution that makes the Circle a misery. You'd
compensate by extending the Wimblewares to Barking (or to Aldgate and
Met to Barking, or whatever).

question of a maintenance depot for the Circle Line. *If the depot at

And probably a question of loading gauge too I suspect.

Unlikely - C-stock are a reasonable size. Platform length would be a
problem though.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On Thu, 27 Nov 2008, Boltar wrote:

On Nov 26, 4:51 pm, 1506 wrote:
Crossrail should take over the Hammersmith branch. But there is the

What would be the point of that?

To eliminate the flat junction at Praed Street.

It wouldn't make the service any quicker

But it would improve throughput and reliability, on both the Hammersmith
branch and the Circle.

and would reduce the number of trains on the northern part of the circle
line.

No, you'd extend the Wimblewares and run more Mets beyond Baker Street to
make up the difference.

question of a maintenance depot for the Circle Line. If the depot at

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.

tom

--
I now have a problem with tomorrow. -- Graham

On Nov 27, 2:27*am, John B wrote:
On Nov 27, 9:33*am, Boltar wrote:

Crossrail should take over the Hammersmith branch. *But there is the

What would be the point of that? It wouldn't make the service any
quicker and would reduce the number of trains on the northern part of
the circle line.

Cutting out the flat junction at Praed Street, which creates a clear
run from High Street Kensington to east of Baker Street and reduces
the performance pollution that makes the Circle a misery. You'd
compensate by extending the Wimblewares to Barking (or to Aldgate and
Met to Barking, or whatever).

Precisely, Circle line operation would be much simplified. Also, the
Hammersmith Branch would have an improved service. And, the Mishigas
caused by reversing so many Crossrail trains at Paddington would be
resolved.
question of a maintenance depot for the Circle Line. *If the depot at

And probably a question of loading gauge too I suspect.

Unlikely - C-stock are a reasonable size. Platform length would be a
problem though.

This could be the opportunity to rationalize the number of stations
along the Hammersmith branch. I suspect that if all the existing ones
remained that after platform lengthening they would become very close
together.

On Nov 27, 6:24*am, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008, Boltar wrote:
On Nov 26, 4:51 pm, 1506 wrote:
Crossrail should take over the Hammersmith branch. *But there is the

What would be the point of that?

To eliminate the flat junction at Praed Street.

It wouldn't make the service any quicker

But it would improve throughput and reliability, on both the Hammersmith
branch and the Circle.

and would reduce the number of trains on the northern part of the circle
line.

No, you'd extend the Wimblewares and run more Mets beyond Baker Street to
make up the difference.

question of a maintenance depot for the Circle Line. *If the depot at

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.

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.

tom

--
All roads lead unto death row; who knows what's after?

On Dec 1, 10:36*am, Tom Anderson wrote:

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..


When you live in a faraway dream world, as "1506" does, anything that
gets in the way of the daftest of daft ideas is just a "minor
engineering type problem".

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. There might also be a need for additional ingress and
egress at stations. Conversion to AC electrification would be
consideration. These costs pale beside the cost of electrifying to
Reading or even Oxford. And I do believe electrification to Reading
should proceed.