Charles Ellson wrote:

On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 04:37:38 -0700 (PDT), 77002
wrote:

On Mar 18, 4:01*pm, D7666 wrote:
On Mar 18, 12:44*pm, 77002 wrote:

Partially by planning to build trains that have few seats and no toilets.
This is the cost of involving TfL I suppose. *Why cannot Crossrail be
run in a similar manner to Thameslink?

I suggest if through route Thameslink did not already exist and/or the
present trains on the route did not already exist, then it would be
more Crossrail like; indeed, I suggest it would also be a more metro
less main line operation, with slow all stations trains to SR ML and
GN suburban destinations, without *old NSE *type network express
workings.

Indeed, if I planned TL from scratch, I'd never have linked it in with
GN, but with the Met (and electrified GC suburban) at West Hampstead.
Instead we have a supermarket where we should have junctions
infrastructure, and three disjointed stations instead of one.

West Hampstead is one of London's biggest, wasted, transportation
opportunities.

It's not conveniently near a seaport to get the people to Oz, is it ?


Oh, very funny Charles. ;-)

West Hampstead is one of those places where trainspotters pore over
lines on maps and think "we must build an interchange station here, so
people can change trains between all these converging lines".

Given that the lines have all been in situ for more than a century, if
there was any real demand for this interchange, don't you think
someone would have done it by now? The only evidence of any demand
seems to come from trainspotters clutching their rail atlases.