Chiltern's plans for Oxford-Princes Risborough via Cowley
 

1506 wrote:
On Jun 3, 3:35 pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"1506" wrote



Paddington is hardly an option. It is also well utilized. Could
Kensington Olympia handle some Chiltern trains? Perhaps there is a
bigger role for TfL's Central Line in taking some of the load
carried by Chiltern.

It would I suppose be possible to evict the car park or whatever it
is from the space formerly occupied by the Motorail loading bays and
create some platforms there. But the West London Line is pretty
full, and it's not clear how trains would get there from the
Chiltern line - the direct route parallel to the LUL Central Line
between North Acton and Shepherds Bush has long gone.

It is a pity that the North Acton and Shepherds Bush has gone. I
guess the Central Line could be droppep into a sub surface trench and
a new link built above it.

Wouldn't building a flyover from the North Pole depot access to the Perivale
line be just a bit cheaper?

Chiltern's plans for Oxford-Princes Risborough via Cowley
 

On Jun 4, 5:56 pm, 1506 wrote:

There would be some merit in a Euston to Aylesbury Parkway service,
leaving Chiltern to focus on their Birmingham route.

I rather like the prospect of eventually having two Euston-Milton
Keynes services, via Aylesbury and via Watford. But the public might
prefer a choice of London termini.
Tim

Chiltern's plans for Oxford-Princes Risborough via Cowley
 

On Jun 5, 5:44*am, TimB wrote:
On Jun 4, 5:56 pm, 1506 wrote:



There would be some merit in a Euston to Aylesbury Parkway service,
leaving Chiltern to focus on their Birmingham route.

I rather like the prospect of eventually having two Euston-Milton
Keynes services, via Aylesbury and via Watford. But the public might
prefer a choice of London termini.
* Tim

There would plenty of interchanges with the Met. And, Baker St is
very close to Marylebone. :-)

Chiltern's plans for Oxford-Princes Risborough via Cowley
 

On Jun 5, 4:35 pm, 1506 wrote:
On Jun 5, 5:44 am, TimB wrote:

On Jun 4, 5:56 pm, 1506 wrote:

There would be some merit in a Euston to Aylesbury Parkway service,
leaving Chiltern to focus on their Birmingham route.

I rather like the prospect of eventually having two Euston-Milton
Keynes services, via Aylesbury and via Watford. But the public might
prefer a choice of London termini.
Tim

There would plenty of interchanges with the Met. And, Baker St is
very close to Marylebone. :-)

Point taken, although the Euston-MKC services don't actually stop at
many of those interchange points.
Tim

Chiltern's plans for Oxford-Princes Risborough via Cowley
 

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, John Rowland wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

Or, of course, you could dive, and build some platforms in tunnel.

And sever the Regents Canal?

Underground locks.

I had a bit of a look to see if there was such a thing as an underground
lock, and i couldn't quite find any, although i did find an underground
inclined plane:

http://www.d.lane.btinternet.co.uk/canal2.htm

Does anyone know of an actual underground lock?

tom

--
non, scarecrow, forensics, rituals, bacteria, scientific instruments, ..

Chiltern's plans for Oxford-Princes Risborough via Cowley
 

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
rth.li...
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, John Rowland wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

Or, of course, you could dive, and build some platforms in tunnel.

And sever the Regents Canal?

Underground locks.

I had a bit of a look to see if there was such a thing as an underground
lock, and i couldn't quite find any, although i did find an underground
inclined plane:

http://www.d.lane.btinternet.co.uk/canal2.htm

Does anyone know of an actual underground lock?


No, but this might help. Depending on the required gradient on the tracks,
you could conceivably cross the canal on the near level, traditionally this
would have involved a swing bridge. However a 'drop lock' (or sump lock) has
been provided for the Forth and Clyde restoration to allow the canal to
effectively burrow under a road, the same could be done under a railway:

http://www.gentles.info/link/Drop_Lock/Drop_Lock.htm

Paul S

Chiltern's plans for Oxford-Princes Risborough via Cowley
 

Tom Anderson wrote on 07 June 2009 18:23:07 ...
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, John Rowland wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

Or, of course, you could dive, and build some platforms in tunnel.
And sever the Regents Canal?
Underground locks.

I had a bit of a look to see if there was such a thing as an underground
lock, and i couldn't quite find any, although i did find an underground
inclined plane:

http://www.d.lane.btinternet.co.uk/canal2.htm

Does anyone know of an actual underground lock?

There's one in Manchester, near Piccadilly station.
Photo at http://www.flickr.com/photos/binaryape/92608490/
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

Chiltern's plans for Oxford-Princes Risborough via Cowley
 

On Sun, 7 Jun 2009, Paul Scott wrote:

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
rth.li...
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, John Rowland wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

Or, of course, you could dive, and build some platforms in tunnel.

And sever the Regents Canal?

Underground locks.

I had a bit of a look to see if there was such a thing as an underground
lock, and i couldn't quite find any, although i did find an underground
inclined plane:

http://www.d.lane.btinternet.co.uk/canal2.htm

Does anyone know of an actual underground lock?

No, but this might help. Depending on the required gradient on the
tracks, you could conceivably cross the canal on the near level,
traditionally this would have involved a swing bridge. However a 'drop
lock' (or sump lock) has been provided for the Forth and Clyde
restoration to allow the canal to effectively burrow under a road, the
same could be done under a railway:

http://www.gentles.info/link/Drop_Lock/Drop_Lock.htm

Ah yes, i'd forgotten about that. That's a fine bit of engineering!

Although now i come to look at it, i'm not sure the canal needs to be
interfered with at all. I make it 2200 feet from the buffer stops to the
canal; if we take 960 feet for platforms (enough to hold 12 cars of class
172 - not that you'd use diesels in a tunnel, but it's indicative), that
leaves 1240 feet, which at a gradient of 1:30 is enough to dive 40 feet.
That's not as deep as a normal tube line, but it's deep enough to fit in
under the existing platforms, although it might have to be built as
cut-and-cover.

If that gradient is too steep, you could shorten the platforms, make them
deeper, or push them further towards Marylebone Road under the station.

tom

--
In-jokes for out-casts