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.

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

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

"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

In article , Peter Masson
writes
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.

Nevertheless, a source tells me the trains will be dual-voltage because
it's cheap to add and it provides for a common design with other uses.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

On Dec 10, 3:44*am, "Clive D. W. Feather" cl...@on-the-
train.demon.co.uk wrote:
In article , Peter Masson
writes

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.

Nevertheless, a source tells me the trains will be dual-voltage because
it's cheap to add and it provides for a common design with other uses.

Thanks for posting Clive. That is very interesting information. Do
we know what the "fixed" formations will be?

Adrian

On 10 Dec, 15:39, 1506 wrote:
Thanks for posting Clive. *That is very interesting information. *Do
we know what the "fixed" formations will be?

10 car peak, 5 car off-peak. When they rebuild the stations on the
GWML the fast line platforms (for use during engineering work) have
been designed for 5 car trains only (and there are a few other
examples like this), so I don't think they can have fixed formation 10
car units.

U

On 2 Dec, 17:50, Tom Anderson wrote:
Is that definite? What allows the H&C to run this currently impossible
frequency? Is this a T-cup thing?

The plan is to run the current Hammersmith-Whitechapel/Backing service
plus the Hammersmith-Circle service, which doubles the number of
trains on the Hammersmith-Paddington stretch.

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

The bit to Abbey Wood is entirely segregated and thus uses OHLE.

U

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

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