Graeme Wall wrote on 10 Jan 2016 at 08:13 ...
On 09/01/2016 23:52, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2016\01\09 11:40, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 13:20:56 GMT, Anna Noyd-Dryver
wrote:

e27002 aurora wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 18:12:08 GMT, Anna Noyd-Dryver
wrote:

e27002 aurora wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 11:32:56 +0000, Robert
wrote:


Er, the Hammersmith & City Railway (H&CR) was financed jointly by
the
GWR and the Metropolitan Railway and opened in 1864. There is
nothing
artificial about it.

Point taken. When I lived in London 40 years back, the H&C was
simply
part of the Met. If TfL want to maintain the GWR connection how
about
helping the longsuffering passengers and restoring the cross-platform
interchange at Paddington. Before the issue of crossing the 3rd and
4th rail tracks comes up, that could be avoided with a long single
track from Royal Oak to platform 16.


Cross platform for who? The small number if trains which would use the
particular platform adjacent to the H&C platform - which would not
necessarily be to consistent destinations. Besides which with the new
entrance to the H&C platforms you'd actually further inconvenience
non-H&C
travellers who did want to use your platform 16 trains.

The Crossrail tunnel entrance, and lines from there to the
Crossrail depot
at OOC, have/will change the railway geography in that area -
access to
your 'long single line' ('cos they never cause operational problems or
limit terminal platform re-occupation times) isn't as easy as you
seem to
think.


More than happy to take the word of you, a professional.


I've had a good look over the last few days; as the H&C rises out of the
tunnel to Royal Oak station, the Crossrail tunnel ramp (3 tracks?)
takes up
all the space between LU and the railway boundary.

Thank you for that. When, in the late sixties, I commuted between
Maida Vale and Hammersmith, the sidings north of the Metropolitan
between Royal Oak and Paddington held numerous old style goods rolling
stock.

However, I would point out:
At one time commuters off the GM mainline could continue to stations
to Farringdon.


GW, not GM, presumably?

Indeed, Great Western, NOT, Genetically Modified.

Later, they could do the same by crossing a platform at Paddington.
Now this is lost. It will be somewhat replaced by Crossrail.


But it was only cross-platform for 1/14th of Paddington's platforms.
What
if your morning train came in cross-platform to the Hammersmith-bound
line,
and your evening train left cross-platform from the city-bound line?

Sort of, Anna, trains from Cornwall, or Bristol, would not be likely
to terminate at platform 16. For the commuters who could cross the
platform and continue towards Kings Cross and the City it was a help

Likewise someone wishing to travel between Ladbroke Grove to Southall
could change at Westbourne Park. Now the traveller has to go thru
Paddington.

Through Westbourne Park now the main lines are 'lines 1-6', rather
than up
main, down relief etc. Theoretically any train can use any line, though
generally 1-3 are used for main line trains and 3-6 for relief lines. So
you'd need at least one extra platform to have been built to maintain
the
service of what, 2tph I presume used to serve it, like Acton Main
Line gets
now? At the expense of holding up many other services while you stop
there,
remember that since Westbourne Park mainline platforms closed, the
number
of trains in and out of Paddington has increased significantly.

Again, thanks for the update. So, access to and from Paddington is
much improved for arriving and departing trains.

In any case, is Ladbroke Grove to Southall a particularly popular
journey?
(In any case, if it still existed WP would undoubtedly only be served by
Greenford trains, so your passenger to Southall would have to change at
Ealing Broadway, probably on to a train they could have caught if they'd
travelled via Padd, and with rather less risk of a random cancellation
leaving them stranded at WP for 30 minutes.

For Ladbroke Grove substitute stations south of Westbourne Park, for
Southall substi8tute stations out to Slough. However, your point is
well take. Again, the opinion of a professional is valued.

It is almost as if there is a conscious effort to isolate the
Hammersmith Branch. :-)

My preferred solution (though I'm sure someone will tell me why it's
wrong!) would have been a low-level junction between Crossrail and
H&C and
Hammersmith served by Crossrail rather than 10tph terminating at
Paddington. But
now it's built the tunnels are in the wrong place for that

That is something I considered a while back. Here are some of the
Pros:
The issue of the 10 terminating trains is solved.

Crossrail will have 14 tph terminating at Paddington. Only 10tph will
continue westward.

The Branch platforms are all too short. Some of the stations are so
close they would probably be better replace by new long platformed
ones between the existing stations. e.g. Ladbroke Grove & Wood Lane,

Latimer Road and Wood Lane.

and Shepherds Bush Market and Goldhawk Road.

You're creating curved stations, and I doubt that would be allowed.

That last one is straight.

No, it isn't. Look at
http://www.abandonedstations.org.uk/...herdsBush1.jpg
It's a view from the southern end of Shepherds Bush Market station
towards Goldhawk Road, the latter indicated by the green arrow.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)