On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 19:26:05 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

Where things are a bit woolier are what happens west of Oxford Circus.
If relieving congestion was the priority, the route would echo the
Victoria line going southwest, as that's the most congested corridor on
the other side of Oxford Circus, and then take over some of the SWML
services into Waterloo, which are again highly congested. It's easy
enough to look at a map and see sensible stops along the way - Victoria,
Clapham Junction, perhaps Hyde Park Corner, perhaps somewhere along
Queenstown Road.

However, that route was rejected in favour of Paddington and points
west. I've never been able to find a really good justification for this;
the studies consistently indicate a higher benefit to the southwest
route. I suspect that it's been driven by a regeneration agenda, which
has induced a certain amount of fudging in the studies (eg IIRC, one
study costed the southwest route as going in tunnel all the way to
Wimbledon, when i don't think it needs to go much further than Clapham
Junction, making it look rather more expensive than it needed to).

At one stage in the Crossrail plans there was going to be a Richmond
branch. This was bitterly opposed by the locals, hence the large number of
trains planned to go no further west than Paddington.

Colin McKenzie


--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

On Apr 3, 11:26*am, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011, 1506 wrote:
On Mar 28, 10:57 am, Robin9 wrote:

In my opinion a properly extended Chelsea/Hackney line would be far more
beneficial to London than Crossrail.

Maybe, but the perceived need, and it is a real one, is relief of the
Central Line.

Yes. I read the various east-west studies a few years ago, and the common
theme was congestion relief in the Essix [1] - City - Oxford Circus
corridor. The current plan won't do much for congestion east of Liverpool
Street, because it adds neither track nor trains (alright, it adds track
between Liverpool Street and Stratford - but is there any plan to use the
capacity released on the surface line?), but it should help enormously
between Stratford and Oxford Street.

But, if not Southwest, the route has to go somewhere.

Where things are a bit woolier are what happens west of Oxford Circus. If
relieving congestion was the priority, the route would echo the Victoria
line going southwest, as that's the most congested corridor on the other
side of Oxford Circus, and then take over some of the SWML services into
Waterloo, which are again highly congested. It's easy enough to look at a
map and see sensible stops along the way - Victoria, Clapham Junction,
perhaps Hyde Park Corner, perhaps somewhere along Queenstown Road.

However, that route was rejected in favour of Paddington and points west.
I've never been able to find a really good justification for this; the
studies consistently indicate a higher benefit to the southwest route. I
suspect that it's been driven by a regeneration agenda, which has induced
a certain amount of fudging in the studies (eg IIRC, one study costed the
southwest route as going in tunnel all the way to Wimbledon, when i don't
think it needs to go much further than Clapham Junction, making it look
rather more expensive than it needed to).

There is a case for a link from Old Oak Common to the WCML slow AC
pair. Taking over the Western branches of the Central Line would be
another option. But, if it were cut back to White Cite, what would
replace Ruislip Depot?

Still, if we do eventually get Crossrail 2 / Chelsea-Hackney, then that
will presumably go in that general direction.

Chelney is a line that is always going to be built sometime in the
future.

On Sun, 3 Apr 2011, 1506 wrote:

On Apr 3, 11:26*am, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011, 1506 wrote:
On Mar 28, 10:57 am, Robin9 wrote:

In my opinion a properly extended Chelsea/Hackney line would be far more
beneficial to London than Crossrail.

Maybe, but the perceived need, and it is a real one, is relief of the
Central Line.

Yes. I read the various east-west studies a few years ago, and the common
theme was congestion relief in the Essix [1] - City - Oxford Circus
corridor. The current plan won't do much for congestion east of Liverpool
Street, because it adds neither track nor trains (alright, it adds track
between Liverpool Street and Stratford - but is there any plan to use the
capacity released on the surface line?), but it should help enormously
between Stratford and Oxford Street.

But, if not Southwest, the route has to go somewhere.

Well, it *could* stop at a terminus under Oxford Circus. But that would be
a bit daft.

Where things are a bit woolier are what happens west of Oxford Circus.

There is a case for a link from Old Oak Common to the WCML slow AC pair.
Taking over the Western branches of the Central Line would be another
option.

Taking over the Chiltern suburban services was also suggested at one time.
Sadly, none of these plans were judged to be cost-effective.

Still, if we do eventually get Crossrail 2 / Chelsea-Hackney, then that
will presumably go in that general direction.

Chelney is a line that is always going to be built sometime in the
future.

True! Although if they build it in the future, but tunnel through to the
present, that could be quite useful.

tom

--
FRUIT ****ER has joined the party!

On Apr 3, 7:26*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011, 1506 wrote:
On Mar 28, 10:57 am, Robin9 wrote:

In my opinion a properly extended Chelsea/Hackney line would be far more
beneficial to London than Crossrail.

Maybe, but the perceived need, and it is a real one, is relief of the
Central Line.

Yes. I read the various east-west studies a few years ago, and the common
theme was congestion relief in the Essix [1] - City - Oxford Circus
corridor. The current plan won't do much for congestion east of Liverpool
Street, because it adds neither track nor trains (alright, it adds track
between Liverpool Street and Stratford - but is there any plan to use the
capacity released on the surface line?), but it should help enormously
between Stratford and Oxford Street.

I gave up trusting anything Network Rail were saying when I read they
wanted to send 12 car trains [3x4-car emus] along the Hertford East
branch.

Ware is likely to present them with a problem there. The station is
hemmed in by a road bridge at one end [Viaduct Road] and a level
crossing at the other [Amwell End]. The current platform can only just
accommodate 8 car trains [2x4-car emus] and the scope for extension
simply doesn't exist.

On Apr 4, 3:16*pm, Mitdish wrote:
Ware is likely to present them with a problem there. The station is
hemmed in by a road bridge at one end [Viaduct Road] and a level
crossing at the other [Amwell End]. The current platform can only just
accommodate 8 car trains [2x4-car emus] and the scope for extension
simply doesn't exist.

Doesn't seem to bad to me. You have two options: 1) You close the
level crossing, as you have a perfectly good road bridge about 8
carriage lengths to the east ...or 2) you lengthen the bridge so
you can put platforms under it, exactly as was done at Dalston
Kingsland for the LO 4-car project.

"1506" wrote

OTOH much 1950s planning for London was on the mark. By the mid
sixries we had the Victoria Line. It should have been followed by
the
Chelsea to Hackney line.

Both were recommended in the 1946 Abercrombie Report, as as the River Line,
which, in a heavily amended form, has become the Jubilee Line.

Peter