|
Crossrail preferred route
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 |
Crossrail preferred route
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) |
Crossrail preferred route
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). |
Crossrail preferred route
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) |
Crossrail preferred route
Richard J. wrote:
Er, what happens to the other 6 tph going west? Reading? (he asks, knowingly in vain) |
Crossrail preferred route
"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 |
Crossrail preferred route
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) |
Crossrail preferred route
"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 |
Crossrail preferred route
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) |
Crossrail preferred route
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! |
Crossrail preferred route
"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 |
Crossrail preferred route
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 |
Crossrail preferred route
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 |
Crossrail preferred route
"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 |
Crossrail preferred route
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. |
Crossrail preferred route
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 |
Crossrail preferred route
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! |
Crossrail preferred route
"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 |
Crossrail preferred route
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 |
Crossrail preferred route
"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 |
Crossrail preferred route
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! |
Crossrail preferred route
Aylesbury - Shoeburyness x30
That route could be handy! -- To reply direct, remove NOSPAM and replace with railwaysonline For Train Information, The Latest News & Best photos around check out http://www.railwaysonline.co.uk |
Crossrail preferred route
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) |
Crossrail preferred route
Jonn Elledge wrote:
After all, does anyone really want to go from Southend to Reading? Not many. But Reading direct to the City would be useful for a lot of people |
Crossrail preferred route
"
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. There is quite a large area of South-East London that seems to be missing out on transport improvements - from Bromley in the south therough Sidcup and Eltham (where I live) up to Bexleyheath in the north. Some maps add insult to injury by placing the "key to symbols" box over this area. Grenwich Council's transport policy involves campaigning for improvements in the northern, Thamesside part of the Borough while ignoring the needs of the south. The political map of the Borough might suggest why this is the case. Does anyone have any suggestions for improving transport in the Cinderella parts of SE London? Would it be a realistic long-term project to lobby for a new tube line starting say at Sidcup and running through Eltham, Kidbrooke and Charlton to link with the Jubilee at North Greenwich or Canary Wharf and then continue through Hackney to finish at Finsbury Park or Tottenham Hale? This would greatly improve transport links to Docklands and really help shift Lonson's centre of gravity to the East. |
Crossrail preferred route
|
Crossrail preferred route
|
Crossrail preferred route
"Gary Jenkins" wrote in message
om... Would it be a realistic long-term project to lobby for a new tube line starting say at Sidcup and running through Eltham, Kidbrooke and Charlton to link with the Jubilee at North Greenwich or Canary Wharf and then continue through Hackney to finish at Finsbury Park or Tottenham Hale? That depends on who you are, but I doubt it. IMO the best chance for improved transport in Eltham lies in getting a branch or diversion of Greenwich Waterfront Transit. The current GWT alignment was cooked up a long time before anyone was talking about sending Crossrail to the Southeast. I wonder if the business case for the route west of Woolwich still stacks up? If not, perhaps GWT should run Thamesmead - Woolwich - Eltham - Bromley ( - Beckenham?) instead. -- 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 |
Crossrail preferred route
|
Crossrail preferred route
|
Crossrail preferred route
CJC wrote:
As for Crossrail, I believe Kingston is a good idea, personally I would have the service divide into three in the West, assuming a 12tph service in the central area, 4tph go to Aylesbury, 4tph to Reading, and 4tph to Kingston. It's supposed to be 24tph in the peak through the central area. Current plans are 12tph to Richmond of which 4tph continue to Kingston, 6tph to Heathrow, 6tph unspecified. The Aylesbury branch was dropped from Crossrail plans some time ago. Heahrow is already accommodated well enough in my view. I disagree. The Piccadilly is slow, cramped and often overcrowded. HEx only goes to Paddington. If Heathrow is not to be utterly swamped by road traffic when T5 opens (and, God forbid, if a third main runway is built), then you must improve rail access. Note that Crossrail will *replace* HEx. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Crossrail preferred route
(Darryl Chamberlain) wrote in message . com...
(Gary Jenkins) wrote in message . com... Does anyone have any suggestions for improving transport in the Cinderella parts of SE London? Some random thoughts... Making sure everyone from Eltham/Kidbrooke *didn't* to crawl up to North Greenwich would be a start, although this seems to be the way Greenwich Council wants it. The bus network up to North Greenwich cannot cope with the number of people who use it already, without bringing in more buses from more areas. Greenwich Council seems to be content with the current situation whereby people have to crawl from Eltham to North Greenwich (only direct route is the 161 bus which takes about 35 minutes). A fast route using the A 102(M) would reduce this significantly. I don't think it's unreasonable for Eltham commuters to expect this so that the Jubilee Line to North Greenwich is a feasible alternative if the overground services are buggered up or if their journey starts in the Baker St area, or just to get to the Greenwich Peninsula when that area is developed. There's plenty of space around North Greenwich, I'm sure that with a little imagination space could be found for more buses. . Or how about simply improving the current rail services? You're right. However the latest development seems to be the Overground Network http://www.tfl.gov.uk/rail/press-746.shtml It would be interesting to know why the Greenwich/Charlton line has been chosen as a "key route" ahead of the Bexleyheath and Sidcup lines, especially when Greenwich/Charlton already get more benefit from the DLR and Jubilee Line than do Eltham/New Eltham. If I understand the Overground Network correctly, there are going to be extra evening trains on the London Bridge-Greenwich-Woolwich line which will mean that the people who probably need it less are getting the improvements. Are there any figures anywhere on relative overcrowding levels between the various London Bridge-Dartford lines or on the number of people who use each station? |
Crossrail preferred route
"Richard J." wrote in message ...
CJC wrote: As for Crossrail, I believe Kingston is a good idea, personally I would have the service divide into three in the West, assuming a 12tph service in the central area, 4tph go to Aylesbury, 4tph to Reading, and 4tph to Kingston. It's supposed to be 24tph in the peak through the central area. Current plans are 12tph to Richmond of which 4tph continue to Kingston, 6tph to Heathrow, 6tph unspecified. The Aylesbury branch was dropped from Crossrail plans some time ago. Heahrow is already accommodated well enough in my view. I disagree. The Piccadilly is slow, cramped and often overcrowded. HEx only goes to Paddington. If Heathrow is not to be utterly swamped by road traffic when T5 opens (and, God forbid, if a third main runway is built), then you must improve rail access. Note that Crossrail will *replace* HEx. I didn't realise that Crossrail was going to replace HEx. The Piccadilly Line should have been four-tracked from Northfields to Heathrow when the extension to the airport was being built, the District could have taken over the Uxbridge branch and fast and slow services could have run from the airport on the piccadilly, fast stopping at Acton and Hammersmith only. A third runway is being built isn't it? On the news it said between the M4 and A4. Having 12tph to Richmond in my view is ridiculous, considering that there are express services to London from there already. Having every train through to Kingston would have made sense, or even coming off the NLL at Kew Bridge and going via Brentford and Hounslow to Kingston. |
Crossrail preferred route
"CJC" wrote in message om... "Richard J." wrote in message ... CJC wrote: Heahrow is already accommodated well enough in my view. I disagree. The Piccadilly is slow, cramped and often overcrowded. HEx only goes to Paddington. If Heathrow is not to be utterly swamped by road traffic when T5 opens (and, God forbid, if a third main runway is built), then you must improve rail access. Note that Crossrail will *replace* HEx. I didn't realise that Crossrail was going to replace HEx. The Piccadilly Line should have been four-tracked from Northfields to Heathrow when the extension to the airport was being built, the District could have taken over the Uxbridge branch and fast and slow services could have run from the airport on the piccadilly, fast stopping at Acton and Hammersmith only. A third runway is being built isn't it? On the news it said between the M4 and A4. NO!!! One of the government's options is indeed to build a third main runway, but those of us who live under its flight path are hoping that they decide not to. It is NOT being built at present. Having 12tph to Richmond in my view is ridiculous, considering that there are express services to London from there already. Having every train through to Kingston would have made sense, or even coming off the NLL at Kew Bridge and going via Brentford and Hounslow to Kingston. Why is it ridiculous? There are no express services to central London from Kew Gardens, Gunnersbury and Turnham Green. For those stations, Richmond is a convenient terminal operationally, and Crossrail will provide new fast links from there to various parts of central London north of the Thames, hence reducing pressure on Waterloo and the tube links from there. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Crossrail preferred route
|
Crossrail preferred route
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
Heathrow needs a through station with intercity services. Anything else will fail to distribute its passengers adequately. Instead of, as I understand it, no mainline (as opposed to tube) trains that even manage to stop at all 5 terminals without reversing - we might even get 3tph each to T4 and T5. I would say there's a case for 8tph to KHR, half continuing to Staines and half to Uxbridge. And they should bite the bullet and divert all GW mainline expresses through Heathrow. How would the length and cost of this diversion compare with the Selby diversion? Colin McKenzie |
Crossrail preferred route
"Colin McKenzie" wrote in message
... Colin Rosenstiel wrote: Heathrow needs a through station with intercity services. Anything else will fail to distribute its passengers adequately. And they should bite the bullet and divert all GW mainline expresses through Heathrow. How would the length and cost of this diversion compare with the Selby diversion? A big problem is the three terminal areas within Heathrow. I can't see every train from Cardiff calling at Terminal 5, Terminal 123 and Terminal 4. If the expresses only call at one station and loads of passengers need to change, then the expresses might as well call at Hayes or Reading and all the passengers change for trains to Heathrow there. -- 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 |
Crossrail preferred route
Colin McKenzie wrote in message ...
Colin Rosenstiel wrote: Heathrow needs a through station with intercity services. Anything else will fail to distribute its passengers adequately. Instead of, as I understand it, no mainline (as opposed to tube) trains that even manage to stop at all 5 terminals without reversing - we might even get 3tph each to T4 and T5. I would say there's a case for 8tph to KHR, half continuing to Staines and half to Uxbridge. And they should bite the bullet and divert all GW mainline expresses through Heathrow. How would the length and cost of this diversion compare with the Selby diversion? Colin McKenzie I live under the flightpath and I think airport expansion is a good idea, it will boost the local economy. Also I think that the government and BAA are pretty determined, look at Terminal 5. I really am not bothered by the planes, I hardly notice them. I can understand people who live really close having an issue, but anyone who has moved in in the last forty odd years should have realised the place was going to expand. The anti-airport view is perfectly valid, but everyone is selfish and I would like a nice managerial position at an airline based in Heathrow at some time in the future. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:15 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk