"Paul Scott" wrote in message
...

"DW downunder" noname wrote in message
...


You are correct, Paul - and elsewhere in the thread I cite quite a few
sources. There is one from TfL which very clearly wants Crossrail worked
through onto AirTrack. I comment on the issue of the HeX monopoly on
access to the H5 station box from the east as being basically a BAA
commercial decision, and 5+ years is a lot of water to pass under the
bridge yet .... By then, the commercial imperitives may point to a more
eclectic approach to train use on the HeX route from HC to H5.


I think previous discussions have noted that without major work the box
under T5 does not allow for through running to the east from the Airtrack
platforms, and only a single connection from one of the present HEx
platforms to Airtrack, with a junction west of the station.

It looks as though a certain degree of inflexibility has been designed in.
Intentionally?

Paul


Future generations will have things to say, no doubt!!

David

On 7 May, 15:10, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
04:29:07 on Thu, 7 May 2009, Chris
remarked:

I thought the residents in the vicinity of Maidenhead were opposed to
the ugly looking OHL? *Or have they come to terms with it now.

Do they have any choice? Permitted development on the railways means
that they don't need planning permissions....

Maybe, however Wikipedia claims the Crossrail Environmental Statement
includes:

"It is proposed that the OHLE over Maidenhead railway bridge will use
masts with wires suspended from cantilevers, since these will be
visually lighter structures than the gantries to be used along other
parts of the route. The masts will however, have a significant adverse
landscape impact: they will affect important views along the river and
the character of the river corridor; they will affect the setting of the
Riverside Conservation Area; and they will affect the setting of the
listed railway bridge and the setting of the adjacent Grade I listed
road bridge.
--
Roland Perry

This is a railway, not a national park - who cares what it looks like

"DW downunder" noname wrote

Perhaps a little more depth would help me understand - as I understand
you, with supercapacitors, emerging lithium technologies and our old
faithful lead-acid gel we haven't yet got a package of technologies that
can be tuned to the precise characteristics of suburban/interurban rail

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

Peter

In message , Peter Masson
writes

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

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.
--
Paul Terry

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.

B2003

wrote in message
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.

Yes, they still are. Occasionally they can be seen during the day as
well, and more often, late in the evening while service trains are still
running. They always top and tail the materials trains, and both locos
are manned, regardless of direction of travel.

In message
, at
07:52:16 on Thu, 7 May 2009,
remarked:
"It is proposed that the OHLE over Maidenhead railway bridge will use
masts with wires suspended from cantilevers, since these will be
visually lighter structures than the gantries to be used along other
parts of the route. The masts will however, have a significant adverse
landscape impact: they will affect important views along the river and
the character of the river corridor; they will affect the setting of the
Riverside Conservation Area; and they will affect the setting of the
listed railway bridge and the setting of the adjacent Grade I listed
road bridge.

This is a railway, not a national park - who cares what it looks like

Would you say the same about electricity pylons through a National Park?
--
Roland Perry

On 8 May, 14:31, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
07:52:16 on Thu, 7 May 2009,
remarked:

"It is proposed that the OHLE over Maidenhead railway bridge will use
masts with wires suspended from cantilevers, since these will be
visually lighter structures than the gantries to be used along other
parts of the route. The masts will however, have a significant adverse
landscape impact: they will affect important views along the river and
the character of the river corridor; they will affect the setting of the
Riverside Conservation Area; and they will affect the setting of the
listed railway bridge and the setting of the adjacent Grade I listed
road bridge.

This is a railway, not a national park - who cares what it looks like

Would you say the same about electricity pylons through a National Park?
--
Roland Perry

Maidenhead isn't in a National Park

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message
, at
04:29:07 on Thu, 7 May 2009, Chris remarked:
I thought the residents in the vicinity of Maidenhead were opposed to
the ugly looking OHL? Or have they come to terms with it now.

Do they have any choice? Permitted development on the railways means
that they don't need planning permissions....

Maybe, however Wikipedia claims the Crossrail Environmental Statement
includes:

"It is proposed that the OHLE over Maidenhead railway bridge will use
masts with wires suspended from cantilevers, since these will be visually
lighter structures than the gantries to be used along other parts of the
route. The masts will however, have a significant adverse landscape
impact: they will affect important views along the river and the character
of the river corridor; they will affect the setting of the Riverside
Conservation Area; and they will affect the setting of the listed railway
bridge and the setting of the adjacent Grade I listed road bridge.

They'll get over it, like they did in Durham, and in Berwick. I'm sure there
are other examples people can think of around the country...

Paul S

On May 8, 6:31*am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
07:52:16 on Thu, 7 May 2009,
remarked:

"It is proposed that the OHLE over Maidenhead railway bridge will use
masts with wires suspended from cantilevers, since these will be
visually lighter structures than the gantries to be used along other
parts of the route. The masts will however, have a significant adverse
landscape impact: they will affect important views along the river and
the character of the river corridor; they will affect the setting of the
Riverside Conservation Area; and they will affect the setting of the
listed railway bridge and the setting of the adjacent Grade I listed
road bridge.

This is a railway, not a national park - who cares what it looks like

Would you say the same about electricity pylons through a National Park?
--
Roland Perry

IMHO It is very likely that I Kingdom Brunel would welcome
electrification. He seemed very keen to find a better, cleaner form
of motive power.