On Dec 1, 10:36*am, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008, 1506 wrote:
On Nov 27, 6:24*am, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008, Boltar wrote:

And probably a question of loading gauge too I suspect.

I *think*, but am not sure, that the H&C trains are wider and taller than
Crossrails will be. However, i think Crossrail carriages will be longer,
which increases their effective size on curves, so you could be right. And
of course they'll be much longer, which would mean platform alterations,
and the moving of the crossover at Hammersmith.

All true, but in the bigger picture, these are minor engineering type
problems.

In the bigger picture, isn't pretty much everything we discuss on this
group? What it comes down to is how much cold, hard cash has to be stumped
up for it, and how much value it delivers in return. I'm not saying that
Crossrailing the H&C branch wouldn't be good value for money, but i don't
think you can just wave away the costs as minor engineering type problems..

Yes! In this instance the cost of conversion of the Hammersmith
branch would be a very small part of the overall cost of Crossrail.
It would be mitigated by saving the cost of the reversing sidings at
Paddington. The main issues would be platform widening and platform
geometry. There might also be a need for additional ingress and
egress at stations. Conversion to AC electrification would be
consideration. These costs pale beside the cost of electrifying to
Reading or even Oxford. And I do believe electrification to Reading
should proceed.