Afternoon all

It seems that Crossrail has now (as of Friday 3rd Oct) confirmed an
underground station at Turnham Green as part of its Kingston branch.
Also the Custom House route is the preferred option for the North Kent
branch.

See pdfs on this page:

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/pages/res...lcampaign.html

Cheers
Angus

Angus Bryant wrote:
Afternoon all

It seems that Crossrail has now (as of Friday 3rd Oct) confirmed an
underground station at Turnham Green as part of its Kingston branch.
Also the Custom House route is the preferred option for the North Kent
branch.

See pdfs on this page:

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/pages/res...lcampaign.html

Also, the Kingston branch now stops there instead of continuing to Norbiton.
I think Norbiton was included only because there was more land there for
terminating a 12 tph service. The plan now seems to be 8 tph terminating at
Richmond (using the District line platforms, I suppose, since that service
would no longer operate) and only 4 tph going through to Kingston, which can
presumably be handled there instead of needing to go on to Norbiton.

The business case document issued last month assumes 24 tph through the
centre. To the east, that's 12 tph to Shenfield and 12 tph to Abbey
Wood/Ebbsfleet; to the west it's 12 tph to Richmond/Kingston and 6 tph to
Heathrow. Er, what happens to the other 6 tph going west?
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Angus Bryant wrote:

Afternoon all

It seems that Crossrail has now (as of Friday 3rd Oct) confirmed an
underground station at Turnham Green as part of its Kingston branch.
Also the Custom House route is the preferred option for the North Kent
branch.

See pdfs on this page:

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/pages/res...lcampaign.html

Cheers
Angus

No connection with the Victoria or Piccadilly (except at Heathrow).

Dr. Sunil wrote:
Angus Bryant wrote:

Afternoon all

It seems that Crossrail has now (as of Friday 3rd Oct) confirmed an
underground station at Turnham Green as part of its Kingston branch.
Also the Custom House route is the preferred option for the North
Kent branch.

See pdfs on this page:

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/pages/res...lcampaign.html

Cheers
Angus

No connection with the Victoria or Piccadilly (except at Heathrow).

.... unless LU stop all Piccadilly trains at Turnham Green, which I think the
latest plans make more likely.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Richard J. wrote:

Er, what happens to the other 6 tph going west?

Reading? (he asks, knowingly in vain)

"david stevenson" wrote in message
...
Richard J. wrote:

Er, what happens to the other 6 tph going west?

Reading? (he asks, knowingly in vain)

A few months ago, they were planned to terminate at Paddington! I guess that
this is still the case.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

John Rowland wrote:
"david stevenson" wrote in message
...
Richard J. wrote:

Er, what happens to the other 6 tph going west?

Reading? (he asks, knowingly in vain)

A few months ago, they were planned to terminate at Paddington! I
guess that this is still the case.

Extraordinary. Do you know if they intend to provide extra Crossrail
platforms for this at Paddington (very expensive), or will they run the
trains empty to Old Oak Common (say) to reverse?

I'm surprised that Slough or Reading is not proposed, as it would be
relatively cheap to organise, and would put less pressure on Paddington
(above and below ground).
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"Richard J." wrote in message
...
John Rowland wrote:
...
Richard J. wrote:

Er, what happens to the other 6 tph going west?

A few months ago, they were planned to terminate
at Paddington! I guess that this is still the case.

Extraordinary. Do you know if they intend to provide
extra Crossrail platforms for this at Paddington
(very expensive), or will they run the
trains empty to Old Oak Common (say) to reverse?

I don't know.

I'm surprised that Slough or Reading is not proposed,
as it would be relatively cheap to organise,

Not that cheap: Hayes to Slough is not electrified.

I don't have any details on the planned tunnel alignment route, but a quick
look at the A-Z suggests that it might zoom under the place where the H&C,
Central and West London Lines (and West London Transit?) come close to each
other on the north side of the planned White City development. To fail to
create an interchange there would be a great shame. Fortunately, this
location is right on the boundary between Hammersmith and Kensington
boroughs, both of which will suffer the disruption of tunnelling but neither
of which has a station under the current plan. It shouldn't be too hard to
get both boroughs to demand an interchange here. Does anyone reading this
have a track record for influencing boroughs?

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

John Rowland wrote:
"Richard J." wrote in message
...
John Rowland wrote:

I don't have any details on the planned tunnel alignment route, but a
quick look at the A-Z suggests that it might zoom under the place
where the H&C, Central and West London Lines (and West London
Transit?) come close to each other on the north side of the planned
White City development. To fail to create an interchange there would
be a great shame. Fortunately, this location is right on the boundary
between Hammersmith and Kensington boroughs, both of which will
suffer the disruption of tunnelling but neither of which has a
station under the current plan. It shouldn't be too hard to get both
boroughs to demand an interchange here. Does anyone reading this have
a track record for influencing boroughs?

I don't think the tunnel will come anywhere near the White City development.
The consultation document on the "Corridor 6" (Richmond/Kingston) options
said that the tunnel would run under Wormwood Scrubs to Chiswick Park. In
other words, Crossrail comes to the surface west of Paddington and follows
the GW main line to the Scrubs, then one branch drives SSW in tunnel. It
will now run to Turnham Green of course, but that doesn't really change it's
alignment, as the western portal of the tunnel was always planned to be on
or beside the westbound District line Richmond branch west of Turnham Green
station.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 23:19:02 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote:

"david stevenson" wrote in message
...
Richard J. wrote:

Er, what happens to the other 6 tph going west?

Reading? (he asks, knowingly in vain)

A few months ago, they were planned to terminate at Paddington! I guess that
this is still the case.

How very odd. I'll admit I've not followed Crossrail very closely of
late but looking at the latest maps it does seem a bit unbalanced
between east and west. In the East it goes roaring out into Essex and
Kent for miles and miles and yet hardly dares step over the Greater
London boundary going west. Most odd.

Consulting an old proposed timetable for Crossrail (1992!) I can see an
off peak service pattern of

Reading - Southend x15
Slough - Gidea Park x30
Hayes - Gidea Park x30
Aylesbury - Shoeburyness x30
Amersham - Shoeburyness x30
Harrow - Stratford x15

It does go up to 24 trains an hour during the peaks with a more
restrictive journey pattern. I appreciate the Docklands / East London
regeneration aspect has shifted things somewhat but I still think a
service down the Great Western Main Line beyond Hayes should be offered.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!