Crossrail NOT making connections
 

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.

Crossrail NOT making connections
 

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

Crossrail NOT making connections
 

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

Crossrail NOT making connections
 

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

Crossrail NOT making connections
 

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

Crossrail NOT making connections
 

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.

Crossrail NOT making connections
 

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.

Crossrail NOT making connections
 

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?

Crossrail NOT making connections
 

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".

Crossrail NOT making connections
 

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.

Crossrail NOT making connections
 

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

Crossrail NOT making connections
 

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

Crossrail NOT making connections
 

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

Crossrail NOT making connections
 

"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

Crossrail NOT making connections
 

"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

Crossrail NOT making connections
 

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.

Crossrail NOT making connections
 

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

Crossrail NOT making connections
 

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 NOT making connections
 

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

Crossrail NOT making connections
 

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!

Crossrail NOT making connections
 

On Tue, 2 Dec 2008, 1506 wrote:

On Dec 2, 11:38*am, MIG wrote:

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.

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.

tom

--
curry in a sack

Crossrail NOT making connections
 

"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.
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. Gravesend is a long shot,
but may be needed for (and financed by) development in the Thames Gateway.
Another destination west of Paddington would be nice, but no-one has come up
with any convincing case. 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.

Peter

Crossrail NOT making connections
 

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

Crossrail NOT making connections
 

On Dec 2, 10:51*pm, "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.
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. Gravesend is a long shot,
but may be needed for (and financed by) development in the Thames Gateway..
Another destination west of Paddington would be nice, but no-one has come up
with any convincing case. 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.

The problem to my disordered mind is that Crossrail will have to be
duplicated by local diesel trains all the way to Maidenhead in order
to cover the bit from Maidenhead to Reading (which is a huge hub).
The reason is presumably to save on some miles of electrification, but
it's not a logical place to terminate the services while making a
sensible use of paths.

Crossrail NOT making connections
 

In message
, at
23:49:51 on Tue, 2 Dec 2008, MIG remarked:
The problem to my disordered mind is that Crossrail will have to be
duplicated by local diesel trains all the way to Maidenhead in order
to cover the bit from Maidenhead to Reading (which is a huge hub).
The reason is presumably to save on some miles of electrification

No, the reason is because Cross =rail's funding was hard to get, and
doesn't pay to get all the way to Reading, and in particular won't pay
for the remodelling of Reading that would get lumped in if Crossrail
were to go that far. What many people expect is for Crossrail and
Reading to get their works done from their separate budgets, and then
benefit from a "fill-in" from new money.
--
Roland Perry

Crossrail NOT making connections
 

"Roland Perry" wrote

No, the reason is because Cross =rail's funding was hard to get, and
doesn't pay to get all the way to Reading, and in particular won't pay
for the remodelling of Reading that would get lumped in if Crossrail
were to go that far. What many people expect is for Crossrail and
Reading to get their works done from their separate budgets, and then
benefit from a "fill-in" from new money.

Paddington to Maidenhead is 24 miles, and on to Reading a further 12 - so
even without remodelling Reading it will cost quite a bit to wire on to
Reading. However, Reading to London passengers would be unlikely to use
Crossrail if it ran from Reading, as it will be much quicker to take a
non-stop HST to Paddington, and change to LUL or Crossrail there. So
terminating Croassrail at Maidenhead makes good business sense and
operational nonsense.

Peter

Crossrail NOT making connections
 

"Tom Anderson" wrote ...
Crossrail SHOULD reach Reading.
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 reach Reading, offering myriad onward opportunities (look at
a rail map - where else should it go?); Crossrail WILL reach Ebbsfleet (it
would be crazy not to, until HS1 is extended to Heathrow!); Crossrail will
not stop at Shenfield, looking slightly confused, perhaps a little
embarassed.

But don't expect such obvious common sense until just after it opens - the
'current package' is all about getting the bloody thing built without too
many people whining "We Can't Afford it - Cancel It".

Once it's built, people with brains will start to say Shenfield? Abbey Wood?
Other Stations Halfway To A Logical Junction? Get Real!
--

Andrew
"If A is success in life, then A = x + y + z.
Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut." ~ Albert Einstein

Crossrail NOT making connections
 

On 3 Dec, 09:40, "Andrew Heenan" wrote:
Once it's built, people with brains will start to say Shenfield? Abbey Wood?
Other Stations Halfway To A Logical Junction? Get Real!

Cockfosters? Epping? West Ruislip? Amersham? Get Real!

Or: Welwyn Garden City? St Albans? Hertford North? Shenfield? High
Wycombe? West Croydon? etc etc

I'd reckon the number of London inner-suburban services terminating
nowhere in particular outweighs the number terminating at a "logical
junction", to apparently no harm.

U

Crossrail NOT making connections
 

In message , at 09:40:48 on Wed, 3
Dec 2008, Andrew Heenan remarked:
Crossrail WILL reach Reading, offering myriad onward opportunities (look at
a rail map - where else should it go?); Crossrail WILL reach Ebbsfleet (it
would be crazy not to, until HS1 is extended to Heathrow!); Crossrail will
not stop at Shenfield, looking slightly confused, perhaps a little
embarassed.

But don't expect such obvious common sense until just after it opens - the
'current package' is all about getting the bloody thing built without too
many people whining "We Can't Afford it - Cancel It".

Once it's built, people with brains will start to say Shenfield? Abbey Wood?
Other Stations Halfway To A Logical Junction? Get Real!

And where is the obvious place "past Shenfield"? Colchester is the
nearest that makes sense.
--
Roland Perry

Crossrail NOT making connections
 

"1506" wrote in message
...

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

The 'cost' needs to include the disruption to current users of services on
the branch while the conversion is being done. This could be substantial.

D A Stocks

Crossrail NOT making connections
 

Andrew Heenan wrote:
"Tom Anderson" wrote ...
Crossrail SHOULD reach Reading.
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 reach Reading, offering myriad onward opportunities (look at
a rail map - where else should it go?); Crossrail WILL reach Ebbsfleet (it
would be crazy not to, until HS1 is extended to Heathrow!); Crossrail will
not stop at Shenfield, looking slightly confused, perhaps a little
embarassed.

But don't expect such obvious common sense until just after it opens - the
'current package' is all about getting the bloody thing built without too
many people whining "We Can't Afford it - Cancel It".

Once it's built, people with brains will start to say Shenfield? Abbey Wood?
Other Stations Halfway To A Logical Junction? Get Real!

well the BBC website seems to be casting doubt on the financial
backing for the whole scheme and delays look rather ominous at the
moment as the city seem not to have the ackers in place- suprise suprise.

Crossrail NOT making connections
 

"Roland Perry" wrote ...
And where is the obvious place "past Shenfield"? Colchester is the nearest
that makes sense.

Not my area, and I wouldn't presume to guess.
But I am sure of one thing:
"Not Shenfield"

There are, of course, many options east of Liverpool Street, and a lot may
depend on who's in power come 2018.
--

Andrew

Crossrail NOT making connections
 

On Dec 3, 2:39*am, "David A Stocks" wrote:
"1506" wrote in message

...

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

The 'cost' needs to include the disruption to current users of services on
the branch while the conversion is being done. This could be substantial.

IIRC, earlier in the thread I conceded that converting the Hammersmith
Branch to a Crossrail extension is perhaps not a good idea.

On the positive side this means that the branch will remain something
of a preserved example of early urban transit. Between Westbourne
park and Goldhawk Road, the route is in essence an "Elevated". There
are not too many examples of "Els" left anywhere in the world. Only
Chicago has signifficant sections remaining.

Crossrail NOT making connections
 

On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 09:21:05 -0800 (PST), 1506
wrote:

On Dec 3, 2:39*am, "David A Stocks" wrote:
"1506" wrote in message

...

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

The 'cost' needs to include the disruption to current users of services on
the branch while the conversion is being done. This could be substantial.

IIRC, earlier in the thread I conceded that converting the Hammersmith
Branch to a Crossrail extension is perhaps not a good idea.

On the positive side this means that the branch will remain something
of a preserved example of early urban transit. Between Westbourne
park and Goldhawk Road, the route is in essence an "Elevated". There
are not too many examples of "Els" left anywhere in the world. Only
Chicago has signifficant sections remaining.

Not to mention New York.

Crossrail NOT making connections
 

On Dec 3, 9:27*am, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 09:21:05 -0800 (PST), 1506





wrote:
On Dec 3, 2:39*am, "David A Stocks" wrote:
"1506" wrote in message

....

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

The 'cost' needs to include the disruption to current users of services on
the branch while the conversion is being done. This could be substantial.

IIRC, earlier in the thread I conceded that converting the Hammersmith
Branch to a Crossrail extension is perhaps not a good idea.

On the positive side this means that the branch will remain something
of a preserved example of early urban transit. *Between Westbourne
park and Goldhawk Road, the route is in essence an "Elevated". *There
are not too many examples of "Els" left anywhere in the world. *Only
Chicago has signifficant sections remaining.

Not to mention New York.

I didn't think there were too many left in NYC. I can only recall one
short section in Manhattan. Do the other Boroughs have many Els left?

Crossrail NOT making connections
 

In message
1506 wrote:

[snip]

IIRC, earlier in the thread I conceded that converting the Hammersmith
Branch to a Crossrail extension is perhaps not a good idea.

On the positive side this means that the branch will remain something
of a preserved example of early urban transit. Between Westbourne
park and Goldhawk Road, the route is in essence an "Elevated". There
are not too many examples of "Els" left anywhere in the world. Only
Chicago has signifficant sections remaining.

You've not looked at south London lately then...

--
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 3 Dec, 17:46, 1506 wrote:
I didn't think there were too many left in NYC. *I can only recall one
short section in Manhattan. *Do the other Boroughs have many Els left?

Brooklyn is chockablock with them, and I think most of the Subway
network in Queen's is elevated.

(also, I'd question whether you can build a true El with brick
viaducts, given the lack of space underneath them)

U

Crossrail NOT making connections
 

MIG wrote:
On Dec 2, 10:51 pm, "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.
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. Gravesend is a long shot,
but may be needed for (and financed by) development in the Thames Gateway..
Another destination west of Paddington would be nice, but no-one has come up
with any convincing case. 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.

The problem to my disordered mind is that Crossrail will have to be
duplicated by local diesel trains all the way to Maidenhead in order
to cover the bit from Maidenhead to Reading (which is a huge hub).
The reason is presumably to save on some miles of electrification, but
it's not a logical place to terminate the services while making a
sensible use of paths.

Budgets. Reading needs remodelling anyway. But if Crossrail goes to
Reading, the cost of remodelling it could get added to the cost of
Crossrail, which is already going to cost squillions.

But if Crossrail doesn't go to Reading, it will need rebuilding anyway.
But this will be from a different budget, and while they are doing the
remodelling they may as well make provision for any future extension of
Crossrail...

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Crossrail NOT making connections
 

On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 09:46:20 -0800 (PST), 1506
wrote:

On Dec 3, 9:27*am, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 09:21:05 -0800 (PST), 1506





wrote:
On Dec 3, 2:39*am, "David A Stocks" wrote:
"1506" wrote in message

...

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

The 'cost' needs to include the disruption to current users of services on
the branch while the conversion is being done. This could be substantial.

IIRC, earlier in the thread I conceded that converting the Hammersmith
Branch to a Crossrail extension is perhaps not a good idea.

On the positive side this means that the branch will remain something
of a preserved example of early urban transit. *Between Westbourne
park and Goldhawk Road, the route is in essence an "Elevated". *There
are not too many examples of "Els" left anywhere in the world. *Only
Chicago has signifficant sections remaining.

Not to mention New York.

I didn't think there were too many left in NYC. I can only recall one
short section in Manhattan. Do the other Boroughs have many Els left?

Yes. The outer ends of most of the longer subways. The last one I used
was in the Bronx. But you just have to drive off the freeways to see
how many there are. New York has major problems with electrolytic
corrosion on these that the London Underground's 4-rail system avoids.

And of course the extension to JFK is elevated.

If you want another modern example, how about BART? Outside the city
centres it is elevated apart from sections in the central median of
freeways.

Crossrail NOT making connections
 

On Wed, 3 Dec 2008, 1506 wrote:

On Dec 3, 9:27*am, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 09:21:05 -0800 (PST), 1506

On the positive side this means that the branch will remain something
of a preserved example of early urban transit. *Between Westbourne
park and Goldhawk Road, the route is in essence an "Elevated". *There
are not too many examples of "Els" left anywhere in the world. *Only
Chicago has signifficant sections remaining.

Not to mention New York.

I didn't think there were too many left in NYC. I can only recall one
short section in Manhattan. Do the other Boroughs have many Els left?

Outside Manhattan, the subway is substantially, perhaps even mostly,
elevated. It includes sections running on top of roads, and the marvellous
and entirely aerial Broadway Junction:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=40.677957%2C-73.902283
http://www.hopetunnel.org/subway/nyct/010219/117.jpg
http://flickr.com/photos/hielkeoud/2613825920/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/coverwi...on/3014806927/
http://flickr.com/photos/jpchan/2368185126/

The Street View mode on the google map is a pretty good way to take a look
round the structure.

tom

--
In other news, has anyone here read Blindness? Does it get better after
the 30 page mark, is does the whole thing read like a sentimental fairy
tale for particularly slow children? -- Abigail