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

On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 13:50:18 +0100, "Ben Nunn"
wrote:

Unless I'm very much mistaken, it was Jonn Elledge
), in message
who said:

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.

Well the Jubilee Line is just a tad busy in the peaks!

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.

Well it is a hybrid service isn't it like the RER in Paris or S Bahn in
Germany. It combines longer distance trips with high frequency and
central area / cross conurbation access.

After all, does anyone really want to go from Southend to Reading?

Who knows? I strongly suspect that people in Southend would not object
to a direct service to Heathrow. I am also pretty sure that business in
the Thames Valley would have no objection whatsoever to being directly
linked to the Thames Gateway, Eurostar stations or Canary Wharf.

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]
Basically express intercity services,
but running /through/ London and stopping within.

I understand your proposition and in some ways support it. However there
are a few issues.

1. Intercity services are not the same as suburban or even regional
ones. Completely different timings, rolling stock performance and
design. Far more people with luggage who all want a seat. Not exactly
compatible with people cramming on at Tottenham Court Rd to get to
Ilford or the modern day equivalent - people from Coventry or
Wolverhampton cramming into Virgin West Coast or Cross Country services
to commute to Birmingham - absolute hell.

2. There is the issue of demand for such services. I could see merit in
services to Ipswich to Reading but possibly no further.

3. The capacity restrictions from having trains couple and decouple at
both ends of the tunnel would cause considerable issues about getting
24tph through the central tunnel section.

4. On a previous piece of work I had to explain in words of one
syllable to a consultant that it was not practical to run a Virgin
Trains diesel train through the north side of the Circle Line and then
impose ticketing and boarding restrictions at say Baker St and expect
London commuters wanting to get home to comply with them! I could see
similar issues in your proposal.

I think what could be better would be a properly structured set of Inter
City services running from terminal stations (which by rights should
have more capacity post Crossrail) but with strategic stops at Crossrail
interchanges. This provides the option for interchange to a whole range
of destinations and modes and could me made to work properly with some
signalling and platform investment at key locations.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Unless I'm very much mistaken, it was Paul Corfield
), in message
who said:

I understand your proposition and in some ways support it. However
there are a few issues.

1. Intercity services are not the same as suburban or even regional
ones. Completely different timings, rolling stock performance and
design. Far more people with luggage who all want a seat. Not exactly
compatible with people cramming on at Tottenham Court Rd to get to
Ilford or the modern day equivalent - people from Coventry or
Wolverhampton cramming into Virgin West Coast or Cross Country
services
to commute to Birmingham - absolute hell.


I guess I'm coming at this from a different perspective - trying to get
through London (e.g. from a place on one side to a place on the other side)
is a nightmare.

Paying for two seperate intercity journeys and a tube is expensive, and the
most frustrating bit is the wait in London.

The other day I made an Ipswich to Preston journey.

Time between my approach into Liverpool Street, and my departure out of
Euston? 65 minutes.

I don't think a 'lost hour' in London is atypical for such a journey. When I
first saw the crossrail proposals, I thought that this was intended to
remove such a ridiculous anomaly, in the same way that Thameslink has with
routes such as Brighton to Bedford.


I think what could be better would be a properly structured set of
Inter City services running from terminal stations (which by rights
should
have more capacity post Crossrail) but with strategic stops at
Crossrail interchanges. This provides the option for interchange to a
whole range
of destinations and modes and could me made to work properly with some
signalling and platform investment at key locations.


I think this would work better with Orbirail, if that ever gets off the
ground, thereby avoiding the need to waste time in Central London.

BTN

Ben Nunn wrote:

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?

'Cos it won't work for all sorts of reasons. For a start, you can't run a
12-trains-per-hour Crossrail service (Ealing and Stratford frequencies as
currently published) if you stop for 5 minutes to uncouple/reverse/couple or
whatever crazy manoeuvre you are planning at Ealing Broadway and Stratford.
An operational disaster if ever I saw one.

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)