"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

In article ,
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.


When I asked about this, I was told that the Western destination of the
missing 6tph was still under consideration, but that it probably wouldn't
be Paddington. My betting is still on Slough (replacing existing local
services). Electrification from Airport Junction to Slough would be pretty
straightforward to implement and there is room for turnback sidings at
Slough (if they are needed).

David

gwr4090 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.

When I asked about this, I was told that the Western destination of the
missing 6tph was still under consideration, but that it probably wouldn't
be Paddington. My betting is still on Slough (replacing existing local
services). Electrification from Airport Junction to Slough would be pretty
straightforward to implement and there is room for turnback sidings at
Slough (if they are needed).

Is Crossrail going to include provision for 6-tracking of the GWML? I
seem to remember that this was suggested as far as either Airport
Junction or Reading.

Also has anyone thought of the performance pollution issues from the
south-western (Kingston) and south-eastern (Ebbsfleet) branches? If
everything goes tits up between Twickenham and Richmond this may affect
the whole of Crossrail.

Angus

"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.

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!


The service shown in 1992 as terminating at Hayes would have been the
Heathrow trains but could not be described as such then.
M Brady


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release Date: 06/10/03

The whole of the Western options need examining again, the options for
the western lines are very limited and from what I have seen will not
provide much relief to Paddington. With the cost of the Western branch
to Richmond, will this really provide value for money when you
remember that Richmond has a quick link's at the moment into Waterloo
and has the District Line. The Western branch should go to Slough or
even Reading and longer distances at the eastern end, the cost of
electrification would more then offset the cost of the tunnel to the
Richmond branch and be a great deal less.

Martin




"Richard J." wrote in message ...
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.

Angus Bryant wrote:
gwr4090 wrote:
When I asked about this, I was told that the Western destination of the
missing 6tph was still under consideration, but that it probably wouldn't
be Paddington. My betting is still on Slough (replacing existing local
services). Electrification from Airport Junction to Slough would be pretty
straightforward to implement and there is room for turnback sidings at
Slough (if they are needed).

Is Crossrail going to include provision for 6-tracking of the GWML? I
seem to remember that this was suggested as far as either Airport
Junction or Reading.

I get the feeling they're doing everything possible to avoid 6-tracking
the GWML. They're probably frightened of Ealing Broadway and a third
Wharncliffe Viaduct - I think the rest is relatively easy. I wouldn't
have thought a tunnel from Acton Wells to Turnham Green would be much
cheaper, though.

Slough has to be the most logical destination. A poor second (also
requiring extra electrification) would be Greenford (either route) and
on to South Ruislip.

Colin McKenzie

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

"Ben Nunn" wrote in message
...

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.

[snip details of interesting idea]


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?


Choice of language aside, I think there are probably three reasons:

1) the relative lack of long distance destinations to the East making it
comparatively unprofitable
2) the greater risk of performance pollution (although, as has been pointed
out, that's not been fully excluded from the existing plan on the Kent and
Surrey branches)
3) the greater passenger catchment of a London-centric plan - two of the
busiest destinations in London (Docklands and the airport) are linked to
City and West End, together with close links to City airport and one of the
busiest overland lines in the area. I'd guess the potential passenger
numbers of the existing service far out number the numbers that want to
travel on the routes you list above. Plus it would be difficult to
incorporate your idea into the existing plan, given that an extra five
minutes wait at STratford or Ealing would cut the benefits for the suburban
passengers.

It's a shame, but I get the impression that because of things like
performance pollution, Crossrail could only have been either a regional
express, or a giant tube line; and the company has chosen the latter as the
more profitable option. Given that London needs more tube lines, I don't
think that's a bad choice.

Jonn