In message
, at
08:40:23 on Fri, 8 May 2009, remarked:
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?

Maidenhead isn't in a National Park

But it's a Conservation Area.
--
Roland Perry

In message
, at
09:22:57 on Fri, 8 May 2009, 1506
remarked:
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.

And you might expect the residents of Maidenhead would welcome the
opportunity to export the pollution [1] to wherever the electricity is
generated. But they don't seem to like the visual impact of the
knitting.

[1] Which can also be visual, as well as chemical.
--
Roland Perry

In message
Roland Perry wrote:

In message
, at
08:40:23 on Fri, 8 May 2009, remarked:
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?

Maidenhead isn't in a National Park

But it's a Conservation Area.

Or even a Conservative area :-)

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On Thu, 07 May 2009 10:56:46 +0100, rail wrote:


Not mentioned for a very simple reason, battery technology is just not
up to the job, nor is it likely to be in the forseeable future. While
it is a feasable option for low density occasional traffic, eg the
battery luggage vans that used to be used at Dover docks, it just can't
cope with the sort of service that Crossrail will be operating.

Why add the extra weight and expense of a battery pack that can run the
train at speed, with full auxiliaries running ( many kw of air-
conditioning), so a large heavy battery pack, when you can put up a wire
and feed it 'mains' power ?

Batteries will develop and get cheaper , driven by the world desire to
have personal motor cars, but road transport doesn't have the ability to
use this rather simple and (relatively) cheap means of getting mains
power in via overhead lines.

(I converted a small boat to electric, most people think I'm insane for
not replacing the dead petrol engine with a small diesel).

Given a train can be easily powered by a power rail or overhead lines, I
can't see the advantage of adding the extra weight of a battery pack. If
you are going to add that sort of weight, chuck in a diesel engine.

In message
Matthew Geier wrote:

On Thu, 07 May 2009 10:56:46 +0100, rail wrote:


Not mentioned for a very simple reason, battery technology is just not
up to the job, nor is it likely to be in the forseeable future. While
it is a feasable option for low density occasional traffic, eg the
battery luggage vans that used to be used at Dover docks, it just can't
cope with the sort of service that Crossrail will be operating.

Why add the extra weight and expense of a battery pack that can run the
train at speed, with full auxiliaries running ( many kw of air-
conditioning), so a large heavy battery pack, when you can put up a wire
and feed it 'mains' power ?

Batteries will develop and get cheaper ,

That's not a given, there has been one major change in battery technology in
the last 50 years and despite the amount of R&D being thrown at it, there's
no sign of another one happening anytime soon, regardless of how desirable it
may be perceived to be.


Given a train can be easily powered by a power rail or overhead lines, I
can't see the advantage of adding the extra weight of a battery pack. If
you are going to add that sort of weight, chuck in a diesel engine.

Which won't need replacing in 18 months.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

"Matthew Geier" wrote

road transport doesn't have the ability to
use this rather simple and (relatively) cheap means of getting mains
power in via overhead lines.

I used to enjoy travelling by trolleybus.

Peter

On 7 May, 13:43, "DW downunder" noname wrote:

C.http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/60

5) "TfL would like Airtrack "to be developed in a way that is consistent
with the possible extension of some Crossrail trains to Staines via
Heathrow." [TfL response to South Western franchise specification] "

http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/1#Stations This is about Crossrail
...

This means that Crossrail would only run to Heathrow Central and Terminal
4 - not to Terminal 5. Passengers would be able to transfer at Heathrow
Central to the Heathrow Express for free connections to T5.

Hmmm - TfL have their work cut out getting BAA / NR / DfT to take that
on board, then!!! :-)

www.alwaystouchout.com appears to be a personal blogspot, and
therefore about as reliable as this forum, which at least has some
informed people on here.

"Chris" wrote...
Plenty of *uninformed* comment too, to boot - why doesn't everyone
READ the CrossRail website contents, and if you're that interested,
ensure that you attend one of Network Rail / CrossRail exhibitions???
And if you're NOT that interested (fair enough), refrain from posting
in CrossRail threads? - because we could do with cutting down on the
spread of inaccurate info.

I wouldn't worry unduly; much of the content of every thread in every
'news'group is speculation, and few would expect much solid 'fact'.

And reliance on official handouts is not really a viable solution; I've been
to Crossrail exhibitions where they were unable to answer a single question
with any authority - and until recently, the web site was denying even the
possibility of reaching Reading.

As one of the few in this group who has always argued that Reading was not
only logical, but inevitable, I'm equally confident that more wise decisions
will erupt over the ten years before the line opens (8? don't make me
laugh!).

Reading is logical because of the interchange facilities, as well as the
ability to fill up the train with Reading-bound travellers as the London
leavers thin out (and vice versa); something Maidenhead simply couldn't
offer.

But the main attraction of Reading is (and always was) the interchange
opportunities. And to take full advantage of them, I'm happy to speculate
that stopping patterns won't be the simple 'all stations' that has been
claimed and rarely questioned.

The Metropolitan line has demonstrated for decades that LU have no
difficulty understanding mixing stoppers with semi-fasts, and the Crossrail
tunnels will (easily) accomodate some fasts or semifasts from Reading, even
a few non-stoppers in the peaks, relieving FGW's problem of the
trains-formerly-known-as-Intercity being assimilated by Reading-London
commuters.

I'm sure others with imagination can foresee many other possibilities; wires
to Oxford becoming viable is just one dream for the decade after Crossrail
opens.

There's an interesting side debate on the future of all the DMUs being no
longer required, especially when DaFT is still planning to order more new
ones, just as electrification is being taken seriously all round.

Just don't get sidetracked by the 'Heathro Hub'; more of a successor to
Jethro Tull than a policy, at this stage.
--

Andrew

"She plays the tuba.
It is the only instrument capable
of imitating a distress call."

On 9 May, 15:13, "Andrew Heenan" wrote:

But the main attraction of Reading is (and always was) the interchange
opportunities. And to take full advantage of them, I'm happy to speculate
that stopping patterns won't be the simple 'all stations' that has been
claimed and rarely questioned.

The Metropolitan line has demonstrated for decades that LU have no
difficulty understanding mixing stoppers with semi-fasts, and the Crossrail
tunnels will (easily) accomodate some fasts or semifasts from Reading, even
a few non-stoppers in the peaks, relieving FGW's problem of the
trains-formerly-known-as-Intercity being assimilated by Reading-London
commuters.

But the Met has access to a fast line south of Harrow-o-t-Hill for
fast trains to overtake the all-station stoppers, something that
Crossrail certainly won't get is access to the fast lines twixt
Reading & Padd. And terminating platforms at Padd on the up lines,
like there are at Baker Street - every train coming from LHR or
Maidenhead / Reading has to go through the portal, interlinking with
the starters coming from the yard just outside the portal.....skip
stopping is just about the only way you might get a slightly faster
trip - if you were to accept that stations wouldn't get a regular xx
mins past each hour 'Metro' service.

The latter might just work, but I think they'll go for a regular
clockface timetable at all but the very small stations.

I'm sure others with imagination can foresee many other possibilities; wires
to Oxford becoming viable is just one dream for the decade after Crossrail
opens.

I'm certainly with you on that one, assuming the money can be found.

There's an interesting side debate on the future of all the DMUs being no
longer required, especially when DaFT is still planning to order more new
ones, just as electrification is being taken seriously all round.

There's always a demand for DMUs in parts of the country where usage
doesn't demand electrification. At the moment, they could always be
cascaded to the SW, where they are desparate for more stock.

Just don't get sidetracked by the 'Heathro Hub'; more of a successor to
Jethro Tull than a policy, at this stage.

Yup.

"Chris" wrote ...
But the Met has access to a fast line south of Harrow-o-t-Hill for
fast trains to overtake the all-station stoppers, something that
Crossrail certainly won't get is access to the fast lines twixt
Reading & Padd. And terminating platforms at Padd on the up lines,
like there are at Baker Street - every train coming from LHR or
Maidenhead / Reading has to go through the portal, interlinking with
the starters coming from the yard just outside the portal.....skip
stopping is just about the only way you might get a slightly faster
trip - if you were to accept that stations wouldn't get a regular xx
mins past each hour 'Metro' service.

I agree it won't be easy - and the initial service will probaly be closer to
your vision than mine; but with the faster acceleration available, the
reallignment at Reading, the vague possibility of some intelligent design in
signalling and points, Crossrail could be so much more than the 'official'
version.

All it really needs is for DaFT / Network Rail / TfL to realise that a
little extra design and build expense will actually make the line much more
useful (and therefore more likely to repay the investment).

But there, I'm dreaming again ;o)
--

Andrew

"If A is success in life, then A = x + y + z.
Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut." ~ Albert Einstein