Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2009, 1506 wrote:

On Jun 3, 1:10 pm, Mizter T wrote:

Though I think platform space at Marylebone is a bit tight too
nowadays.

It certainly is which is good. If Chiltern continues to expand and
improve they will need more space for London bound trains.

Stick another deck on top of Marylebone, in a slightly St Pancras
style? You'd have to lift the roof a bit to fit them in, but not by
much. Or you could build them beyond the end of the shed, in a more
St Pancras style.

You'd have to sever Rossmore Road to make this work, but you know,
omelettes, eggs.

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

And sever the Regents Canal?

At one time I thought a new ariel curve above Neasden to carry
services to Saint Pancras by way of Cricklewood might be an answer.
But St P. is now full.

Paddington is hardly an option. It is also well utilized.

People keep telling me Euston has capacity. Difficult connection to
make, though.

No: you build a curve from Northwick Park to South Kenton and divert all
Chiltern Amersham trains through it to Euston, and sell off the Chiltern
tracks from Northwick Park to Neasden.

On Jun 3, 5:54*pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2009, 1506 wrote:

On Jun 3, 1:10 pm, Mizter T wrote:

Though I think platform space at Marylebone is a bit tight too
nowadays.

It certainly is which is good. *If Chiltern continues to expand and
improve they will need more space for London bound trains.

Stick another deck on top of Marylebone, in a slightly St Pancras
style? You'd have to lift the roof a bit to fit them in, but not by
much. Or you could build them beyond the end of the shed, in a more
St Pancras style.

You'd have to sever Rossmore Road to make this work, but you know,
omelettes, eggs.

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

And sever the Regents Canal?

At one time I thought a new ariel curve above Neasden to carry
services to Saint Pancras by way of Cricklewood might be an answer.
But St P. is now full.

Paddington is hardly an option. *It is also well utilized.

People keep telling me Euston has capacity. Difficult connection to
make, though.

No: you build a curve from Northwick Park to South Kenton and divert all
Chiltern Amersham trains through it to Euston, and sell off the Chiltern
tracks from Northwick Park to Neasden.

There would be some merit in a Euston to Aylesbury Parkway service,
leaving Chiltern to focus on their Birmingham route. However, your
Northwick Park to South Kenton curve, which is a great idea, needs
some clarification. Dropping the Aylesbury route onto the Watford DC
lines would be less than ideal. Better that it should join the AC
Semi-fast tracks utilizing a non-conflicting junction. That would
take some land, and need heavy civils. But one would have thought
that it is do-able.

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

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. :-)

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

On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, John Rowland wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2009, 1506 wrote:

On Jun 3, 1:10 pm, Mizter T wrote:

Though I think platform space at Marylebone is a bit tight too
nowadays.

It certainly is which is good. If Chiltern continues to expand and
improve they will need more space for London bound trains.

Stick another deck on top of Marylebone, in a slightly St Pancras
style? You'd have to lift the roof a bit to fit them in, but not by
much. Or you could build them beyond the end of the shed, in a more
St Pancras style.

You'd have to sever Rossmore Road to make this work, but you know,
omelettes, eggs.

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

And sever the Regents Canal?

Underground locks.

At one time I thought a new ariel curve above Neasden to carry
services to Saint Pancras by way of Cricklewood might be an answer.
But St P. is now full.

Paddington is hardly an option. It is also well utilized.

People keep telling me Euston has capacity. Difficult connection to
make, though.

No: you build a curve from Northwick Park to South Kenton and divert all
Chiltern Amersham trains through it to Euston, and sell off the Chiltern
tracks from Northwick Park to Neasden.

No, use them for an extension of the Brent Cross light rail.

tom

--
Women are monsters, men are clueless, everyone fights and no-one ever
wins. -- cleanskies

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, ..

"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

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

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)