1506 wrote:

IMHO extending the East London Line to Queens Park makes sense. And,
moreover extending them on to Watford makes better sense.

That depends. Is it replacing the Euston-Watford service, or as well as
it?

It would be
easier then extending the Bakerloo to Watford. The route could be
third rail throughout, except for the short joint Bakerloo stretch.

Watford to west Croydon by way of Whitechapel trains could open up a
world of travel and interchange possibilities.

Such as...?

--
_
___ ___ | | __ _ _ _
(_-/ _ \| |/ _` || '_|
/__/\___/|_|\__,_||_| _
_ __ ___ _ _ __ _ _ _ (_) _ _
| '_ \/ -_)| ' \ / _` || || || || ' \
| .__/\___||_||_|\__, | \_,_||_||_||_|
|_| |___/

On 18 May, 19:19, 1506 wrote:
On May 12, 3:13*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:

"Paul Scott" wrote

So exactly what is the extra work DfT are paying for at Camden - as Peter
suggested NR and TfL are happy with the descope, does that mean 'happy for
the time being' or 'four tracking completely abandoned for ever'?

AIUI the only feature that's been lost in the descope which might be of
benefit for the planned train service is the turnback platform at Camden
Road. Instead, trains from Stratford which terminate there will have to go
on to the Primrose Hill line to reverse, where they would block freight..
However, at one time TfL were at least toying with he idea of eventually
extending someELLXtrains down the DC line, at least as far asQueensPark
(perhaps in conjunction with extending the Bakerloo to Watford Junction and
withdrawing the Euston - Watford Junction DC service). This would presumably
need 4-tracking through Camden Road, and a different track layout between HI
and Camden Road.

Peter

IMHO extending the East London Line to Queens Park makes sense. *And,
moreover extending them on to Watford makes better sense. *It would be
easier then extending the Bakerloo to Watford. *The route could be
third rail throughout, except for the short joint Bakerloo stretch.

Watford to west Croydon by way of Whitechapel trains could open up a
world of travel and interchange possibilities.

Hmm, like Watford to Croydon journeys which you could already do on
the existing Southern Service via Kensington Olympia. The existing
plans for the extension from Dalston Junction to Highbury and
Islington quite sufficient - the number of people travelling via
Dalston between Watford and Croydon will not be very high.

On May 18, 9:06*pm, D DB 90001
wrote:
On 18 May, 19:19, 1506 wrote:





On May 12, 3:13*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:

"Paul Scott" wrote

So exactly what is the extra work DfT are paying for at Camden - as Peter
suggested NR and TfL are happy with the descope, does that mean 'happy for
the time being' or 'four tracking completely abandoned for ever'?

AIUI the only feature that's been lost in the descope which might be of
benefit for the planned train service is the turnback platform at Camden
Road. Instead, trains from Stratford which terminate there will have to go
on to the Primrose Hill line to reverse, where they would block freight.
However, at one time TfL were at least toying with he idea of eventually
extending someELLXtrains down the DC line, at least as far asQueensPark
(perhaps in conjunction with extending the Bakerloo to Watford Junction and
withdrawing the Euston - Watford Junction DC service). This would presumably
need 4-tracking through Camden Road, and a different track layout between HI
and Camden Road.

Peter

IMHO extending the East London Line to Queens Park makes sense. *And,
moreover extending them on to Watford makes better sense. *It would be
easier then extending the Bakerloo to Watford. *The route could be
third rail throughout, except for the short joint Bakerloo stretch.

Watford to west Croydon by way of Whitechapel trains could open up a
world of travel and interchange possibilities.

Hmm, like Watford to Croydon journeys which you could already do on
the existing Southern Service via Kensington Olympia. The existing
plans for the extension from Dalston Junction to Highbury and
Islington quite sufficient - the number of people travelling via
Dalston between Watford and Croydon will not be very high.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

How are folks intending that Crossrail services and all the various
extensions to the route suggested above be pathed into the FGW
mainline between Maidenhead and Paddington? Right now the mainline is
full. HEX comes off the Airport Branch into the paths of FGW HST
services. Connect is even more conflicting in that it has to cross the
main lines to obtain access to the local lines. Connect has taken over
the local stopping services from FGW Link/ex-Thames Trains. But even
now - as they did this afternoon - if there are any problems and
Connect loses its path then they simply cancel the service or
terminate it at Hayes & Harlington - great service NOT for Airport
passengers. The BAA (and FGW) who 'own' Connnect cannot even run a
simple out and back service. The FGW main line is FULL. So how are
they going to fit in extra services for Crossrail? If Crossrail takes
over the local service functions then there may be paths - but
remember part of Crossrail will come out of the Airport. It is Airport
Junction that's a major problem. Also the fact that there will not be
a local service out of Reading towards Paddington 'cos Crossrail will
not serve Reading. The whole of the FGW line is a mess. FGW has more
complaints than any other trainco. And BAA can't run a decent train
service - HEX or Connect - period. CJB.

"CJB" wrote

How are folks intending that Crossrail services and all the various
extensions to the route suggested above be pathed into the FGW
mainline between Maidenhead and Paddington? Right now the mainline is
full. HEX comes off the Airport Branch into the paths of FGW HST
services. Connect is even more conflicting in that it has to cross the
main lines to obtain access to the local lines. Connect has taken over
the local stopping services from FGW Link/ex-Thames Trains. But even
now - as they did this afternoon - if there are any problems and
Connect loses its path then they simply cancel the service or
terminate it at Hayes & Harlington - great service NOT for Airport
passengers. The BAA (and FGW) who 'own' Connnect cannot even run a
simple out and back service. The FGW main line is FULL. So how are
they going to fit in extra services for Crossrail? If Crossrail takes
over the local service functions then there may be paths - but
remember part of Crossrail will come out of the Airport. It is Airport
Junction that's a major problem. Also the fact that there will not be
a local service out of Reading towards Paddington 'cos Crossrail will
not serve Reading. The whole of the FGW line is a mess. FGW has more
complaints than any other trainco. And BAA can't run a decent train
service - HEX or Connect - period. CJB.

This sub-thread had drifted on to the NLL - I don't think anyone suggested
any through running between the NLL and Crossrail (though I could make a
case for Barking to Gospel Oak trains being extended to Willesden Junction,
Ealing Broadway (via Acton Wells) and Greenford). However, to answer the
points you make, Crossrail would provide a grade-separated junction west of
Acton Main Line for freight to join the Relief Lines. Greenford being served
by a shuttle service from its own platform at West Ealing, extra tracks and
flyovers at Hayes/Airport Junction, and an extra reversible track much of
the way between Hayes and Langley. The current plans do include a 2tph local
service between Paddington and Reading, and additional local trains between
Slough and Reading, though it is somewhere between possible and likely that
Crossrail will be extended to Reading, with the investment approved as part
of Reading rebuilding and/or GWML electrification, rather than as part of
the Crossrail project.

Peter

On 18 May, 20:11, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2009, 1506 wrote:
On May 12, 3:13*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"Paul Scott" wrote

So exactly what is the extra work DfT are paying for at Camden - as Peter
suggested NR and TfL are happy with the descope, does that mean 'happy for
the time being' or 'four tracking completely abandoned for ever'?

AIUI the only feature that's been lost in the descope which might be of
benefit for the planned train service is the turnback platform at Camden
Road. Instead, trains from Stratford which terminate there will have to go
on to the Primrose Hill line to reverse, where they would block freight.

CJB wrote on 18 May 2009 21:26:08 ...

How are folks intending that Crossrail services and all the various
extensions to the route suggested above be pathed into the FGW
mainline between Maidenhead and Paddington? Right now the mainline is
full. HEX comes off the Airport Branch into the paths of FGW HST
services.

Not exactly. It is allocated paths *between* the HST services.

Connect is even more conflicting in that it has to cross the
main lines to obtain access to the local lines.

Not true. There is currently a link between the HEx Up ramp and the GWR
Down Relief which is used by Connect in both directions. This involves
down Connect trains using a crossover on BAA territory to move on to the
down line into the airport, and up Connect trains using a down-to-up
crossover between the relief lines west of Hayes. So there are various
conflicts, but they don't affect the main (fast) lines.

Crossrail will replace Connect (currently 2tph) by a 4 tph service to
the airport. Airport Junction will be reconstructed to enable trains to
run in either direction between the airport and the main or relief lines
without any conflict with other lines. Crossrail trains to Maidenhead
will replace some of the existing relief line services.

Remember that out of the 24 tph westbound in the peaks through the
Crossrail tunnels to Paddington, 14 tph will terminate at
Paddington/Westbourne Park sidings, leaving only 10 tph to run down the
relief lines. So about 50% capacity if they get the signalling up to
scratch.

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On May 18, 11:22*pm, MIG wrote:

On 18 May, 20:11, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Mon, 18 May 2009, 1506 wrote:

[snip]

IMHO extending the East London Line to Queens Park makes sense. *And,
moreover extending them on to Watford makes better sense.

How so? How would it help the good people of the Boroughs of Brent and
Harrow get to work? Presumably, most of them who currently commute to work
along that line work in central London, somewhere the N/ELL conspicuously
does not go. So what would they do? Get off at Camden Road and traipse
down to Camden Town? That'll be fun! Or maybe hang on to Highbury &
Islington and change, onto the Vic for the west end (because that's got
*loads* of spare capacity, and getting into town by taking two sides of a
triangle makes perfect sense) or the Northern City for the city (at least
that's only overcrowded, and not going in the wrong direction too). Or
just go to Shoreditch and walk - as long as they work on the north side of
the city.

No, sorry, extending the ELL to Watford makes no sense at all.

It would be easier then extending the Bakerloo to Watford.

Being easy isn't a good enough reason to do something - where's Andrew
Heenan when you (finally) need him?!

The route could be third rail throughout, except for the short joint
Bakerloo stretch.

Watford to west Croydon by way of Whitechapel trains could open up a
world of travel and interchange possibilities.

Not a single one of which would be quicker than a London-crossing
alternative.

I am wondering if all new projects should be opposed at the moment, on
the grounds that the most important services are already there, but
risk being cut to pay for the new.

If the price of the nice-to-haves, like orbital routes, is to withdraw
the crucial radial routes, then they aren't worth it.

Er, extending the ELL to Watford via Queen's Park isn't being proposed
- not even remotely - so trying to use random comments in a usenet
discussion as a peg to hang dissatisfaction on what's happening
elsewhere does seem to be stretching it a bit.

On 19 May, 00:04, Mizter T wrote:
On May 18, 11:22*pm, MIG wrote:





On 18 May, 20:11, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Mon, 18 May 2009, 1506 wrote:

[snip]

IMHO extending the East London Line to Queens Park makes sense. *And,
moreover extending them on to Watford makes better sense.

How so? How would it help the good people of the Boroughs of Brent and
Harrow get to work? Presumably, most of them who currently commute to work
along that line work in central London, somewhere the N/ELL conspicuously
does not go. So what would they do? Get off at Camden Road and traipse
down to Camden Town? That'll be fun! Or maybe hang on to Highbury &
Islington and change, onto the Vic for the west end (because that's got
*loads* of spare capacity, and getting into town by taking two sides of a
triangle makes perfect sense) or the Northern City for the city (at least
that's only overcrowded, and not going in the wrong direction too). Or
just go to Shoreditch and walk - as long as they work on the north side of
the city.

No, sorry, extending the ELL to Watford makes no sense at all.

It would be easier then extending the Bakerloo to Watford.

Being easy isn't a good enough reason to do something - where's Andrew
Heenan when you (finally) need him?!

The route could be third rail throughout, except for the short joint
Bakerloo stretch.

Watford to west Croydon by way of Whitechapel trains could open up a
world of travel and interchange possibilities.

Not a single one of which would be quicker than a London-crossing
alternative.

I am wondering if all new projects should be opposed at the moment, on
the grounds that the most important services are already there, but
risk being cut to pay for the new.

If the price of the nice-to-haves, like orbital routes, is to withdraw
the crucial radial routes, then they aren't worth it.

Er, extending the ELL to Watford via Queen's Park isn't being proposed
- not even remotely - so trying to use random comments in a usenet
discussion as a peg to hang dissatisfaction on what's happening
elsewhere does seem to be stretching it a bit.-

Diversion of trains away from Euston has previously been proposed
though, but I'm generally commenting on the lines of "be careful of
what extras you ask for, because you may get them as replacements for
what you already had and needed".

On 9 May, 21:47, disgoftunwells wrote:
On 8 May, 10:07, wrote:

On Thu, 7 May 2009 19:19:48 +0100

Paul Terry wrote:
It would be daft to develop Crossrail in the hope that adequate battery
technology would be available by the time the trains have to be
ordered. However, battery trains have been used for suburban rail -
Dublin to Bray between 1932 and 1950. In .uk a battery MU operated
between Aberdeen and Ballater in the early 1960s, while battery locos

Probably lines with very light traffic and low top speeds.

have been used to haul engineering trains on LU in the dead of night
when the power's een switched off.

They still are AFAIK.

Although I agree with the basic premise, battery technology is becoming
increasingly impressive - parts of the new Rome trolleybus system
currently run on battery power for some miles, and Alstom's trams for
Nice also run on batteries in the city centre. These are vehicles
capable of carrying a large number of passengers in heavy traffic,
although probably not on the scale required for the far reaches of
Crossrail.

Theres a big difference between accelerating a 20 ton tram to 20mph and
a 200 ton train to 60mph quickly enough so it keeps to the timetable.
Moreover when the batteries are not being used you're hauling around
god knows how many tons of dead weight - hardly enviromentally friendly.
Plus most EMUs these days seem to be pretty lardy anyway. I suspect if
batteries were thrown into the mix axle loads could become a serious issue.

hmm - some numbers.

E = 1/2 200,000kg x 30^2 = 100MJ = 30KWhrs.

That's about 200kg of Li-ion battery, for the energy load. But the
power requirement is much tougher - you would need some of these fast
charge batteries, which actually have less energy storage. Without
looking up the W/kg figures, I'd guess a few tons.

Hybrid technology is certainly useful for trains, but you'd probably
want to use ultra caps to capture the braking energy.

and here it is, in the Bombardier magazine (I think a freebie with the
DT - I saw it on the train).

MITRAC Energy Saver - some stuff here
http://www.bombardier.com/en/transpo...01260d80048697

The article says applied to DMUs, it allows energy savings or
performance boosting. For light rail it helps reduce energy
consumption and "enables catenary free operation for short distances."