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!

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...
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.

It's hardly miles to the East - Shenfield is only two stops (and I'd guess
about four miles) beyond Greater London, and Ebbsfleet is five stops, and
about as many miles. It's really not massively further out than, say, Epping
or Watford.

Having said all that, I'd have liked to have seen an all-stops service to
Slough in the West.

Jonn

On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 12:16:09 +0000 (UTC), "Jonn Elledge"
wrote:

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 23:19:02 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote:
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.

It's hardly miles to the East - Shenfield is only two stops (and I'd guess
about four miles) beyond Greater London, and Ebbsfleet is five stops, and
about as many miles. It's really not massively further out than, say, Epping
or Watford.

Having said all that, I'd have liked to have seen an all-stops service to
Slough in the West.

We won't argue about distances but this version of Crossrail feels very
biased to Greater London and in particular mayoral ambitions about East
London regeneration than appropriate transport need.

I think some form of agreement to avoid the need to consult with / get
involved with the neighbouring shire counties bordering Greater London
has been cooked up between Ken and the SRA / Govt. This will allow a
"London" solution to be presented as opposed to a proper regional
transport solution which should be the case for something like Crossrail
IMO.

As usual we are going for the minimalist option for a transport solution
rather than one that meets identified transport needs. The SRA
presumably don't want more electrification on the GW because it might
start people campaigning for wires going further west when they would
seemingly prefer a diesel option for the next 30 years or so.

All so very shortsighted.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...

We won't argue about distances but this version of Crossrail feels very
biased to Greater London and in particular mayoral ambitions about East
London regeneration than appropriate transport need.


I agree the whole thing looks politically motivated, but in this case I
don't think that's really a bad thing. The eastern end of the Thames really
does need regenerating, and Canary Wharf could do with another line to the
centre of town as I believe the existing ones are already pushing capacity.
What's more, the Shenfield line is one of the busiest stretches of national
rail in the London area (there are 12 trains per hour as far as Gidea Park
in the peaks). I always felt that Crossrail should effectively be a slightly
larger-scale tube line, rather than a way for long distance trains to cross
London. After all, does anyone really want to go from Southend to Reading?

I do think that an all stops Slough service should be included (and also
that they'd resurrect Maryland); but I disagree that Crossrail should push
too far out of London.

Jonn Elledge

Unless I'm very much mistaken, it was Jonn Elledge
), in message
who said:
"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...

We won't argue about distances but this version of Crossrail feels
very biased to Greater London and in particular mayoral ambitions
about East London regeneration than appropriate transport need.


I agree the whole thing looks politically motivated, but in this case
I don't think that's really a bad thing. The eastern end of the
Thames really does need regenerating, and Canary Wharf could do with
another line to the centre of town as I believe the existing ones are
already pushing capacity. What's more, the Shenfield line is one of
the busiest stretches of national rail in the London area (there are
12 trains per hour as far as Gidea Park in the peaks). I always felt
that Crossrail should effectively be a slightly larger-scale tube
line, rather than a way for long distance trains to cross London.
After all, does anyone really want to go from Southend to Reading?

I do think that an all stops Slough service should be included (and
also that they'd resurrect Maryland); but I disagree that Crossrail
should push too far out of London.


They should keep the central part of it as planned with all existing stops,
but use the services to form part of a much bigger plan.

Crossrail services should couple to existing trains either side of the
central area, allowing for fast intercity routes.

E.g.

Norwich-Ipswich-Colchester-Stratford

Five minute wait, train divides into regular Liverpool street intercity, and
our sections hooks up to crossrail shuttle.

Call at all stations to Ealing Broadway.

Five minute wait, train divides, crossrail shuttle goes back, and our
section joins with an intercity out of Paddington.

Slough-Reading-Oxford-Swindon-Bristol-Cardiff


NOw what the **** is wrong with that? Basically express intercity services,
but running /through/ London and stopping within.

Southend to Birmingham.
Cambridge to Plymouth.
Ashford to Windsor.

Why the **** not?

BTN