tim..... wrote:
"Terry Harper" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 14:45:59 GMT, (Adrian the
Rock) wrote:
"Richard J." wrote:
Colin McKenzie wrote:
I hope the principle that Crossrail should be all-stations has
been established.
Then you'll be disappointed. The planned Crossrail timetable
involves some trains non-stopping certain stations west of
Paddington in order to leave paths for some west-of-Maidenhead
FGW trains on the relief lines...
Glad to hear this - the suggestion of every train stopping at
every station to Maidenhead seemed utter madness to me too.
Firstly, it's been standard and established practice for many
years now to have separate outer and inner suburban services on
major London suburban/commuter lines. For example the Brighton
lines have their Metro and Sussex Coast services, out of KX the
inners run to Welwyn GC/Hertford N, and so on.
Isn't there a precedent here from the Japanese high-speed lines?
They run flights of trains which go non-stop to a major station,
and then every station to the next major station, where they
terminate. The timing is such that connections in each direction
provide a quicker service than the alternative of all-stations plus
limited stop services.
This is already a well established principle on some national rail
routes. But the problem with operating it on Crossrail is that it
requires all the trains to leave Padd on time. This is achievable
if they start there, but likely to end in chaos if they are delayed
en-route from Shenfield/whereeverelse.
Aren't the Crossrail tracks from Shenfield and Abbey Wood dedicated to
Crossrail? If so, the reliability of the service is under Crossrail's
control. "Chaos" might be a good description of LU's attempt to run the
evening peak to timetable on some lines, but a new railway with new
rolling stock would have no excuses.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)