On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 10:08:49 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

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.

I used to work in the area. Those whose navigational abilities were
limited to the map in the back of their diary (and there are IME still
lots of them) might have agreed but that is not entirely their fault.
In past times useful interchange would have been practically limited
to those aware of the more exotic routings available with season
tickets but that should no longer apply with current zoned ticketing.

It is not the idea of interchange between the three stations which is
wrong as much as the typically over-enthusiastic plans for achieving
it. At a most basic level all that is needed is a properly-operating
"out of station" interchange arrangement but that would be greatly
helped if all the people capable of using the interchange were aware
of it; the walking distances involved are less than many same-station
interchanges in Central London. Rather than building one dirty great
station, what is needed is improved pedestrian links between them
where possible; if/when the NLL and LU/NR bridges at the two southern
stations are replaced then there should be no excuse for not
incorporating pedestrian routes at that time if not already done as
e.g. a partial or complete footbridge/tunnel route from West Hampstead
LU via West End Lane station to West Hampstead Midland. The abolition
of the long-established failure by assorted parties to admit that LU
are not the only railway operators in Greater London would also be a
lot of help.

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 10:08:49 +0100, Bruce
wrote:
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.

I used to work in the area. Those whose navigational abilities were
limited to the map in the back of their diary (and there are IME still
lots of them) might have agreed but that is not entirely their fault.
In past times useful interchange would have been practically limited
to those aware of the more exotic routings available with season
tickets but that should no longer apply with current zoned ticketing.

It is not the idea of interchange between the three stations which is
wrong as much as the typically over-enthusiastic plans for achieving
it. At a most basic level all that is needed is a properly-operating
"out of station" interchange arrangement but that would be greatly
helped if all the people capable of using the interchange were aware
of it; the walking distances involved are less than many same-station
interchanges in Central London. Rather than building one dirty great
station, what is needed is improved pedestrian links between them
where possible; if/when the NLL and LU/NR bridges at the two southern
stations are replaced then there should be no excuse for not
incorporating pedestrian routes at that time if not already done as
e.g. a partial or complete footbridge/tunnel route from West Hampstead
LU via West End Lane station to West Hampstead Midland.


I agree that the grandiose solutions being proposed to solve this
non-problem were ludicrous. But there is one major obstacle to a full
interchange, and that is the lack of Chiltern Line platforms.

Not that Chiltern Railways would be interested. The last thing
Chiltern needs is another stop further extending journey times just to
benefit a very small number of passengers.


The abolition
of the long-established failure by assorted parties to admit that LU
are not the only railway operators in Greater London would also be a
lot of help.


I think a recognition that Chiltern's primary role does not include
operating suburban services within London would help a lot more.

"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
...

... At a most basic level all that is needed is a properly-operating
"out of station" interchange arrangement but that would be greatly
helped if all the people capable of using the interchange were aware
of it...

It will have that already - I believe TfL just need to explain OSIs much
more clearly than they do at the moment.

Paul S

On Wed, 4 Apr 2012 18:21:42 +0100, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
.. .

... At a most basic level all that is needed is a properly-operating
"out of station" interchange arrangement but that would be greatly
helped if all the people capable of using the interchange were aware
of it...

It will have that already - I believe TfL just need to explain OSIs much
more clearly than they do at the moment.

That would not be enough for the many passengers who would be
unfamiliar with the locality or who would not wish to leave the
perceived safety/comfort of a contained interchange.

In article ,
(Charles Ellson) wrote:

Never mind all the diversions. Did the tunnelling actually start on 21st
March?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Apr 5, 8:47*am, wrote:
In article ,

(Charles Ellson) wrote:

Never mind all the diversions. Did the tunnelling actually start on 21st
March?

I cannot give you a definite answer. I have read that the TBMs have
been "launched"!. Perhaps some of our commuting contributors have
report back on their visuals.