On Mar 30, 11:32*am, Chris Sanderson wrote:
Err, nothing will need to be 'widened' to any great extent, the
Central Line is paralleled at the southern end by the essentially
disused 'New North Mainline' whose formation HS2 will use. Your idea
would also miss out OOC - a vital interchange for Heathrow, services
from the West Country and the Thames Valley, and crucially Crossrail.
The current route is by far the most sensible, which is presumably why
its been chosen...

Indeed, the UK planners are very fortunate to have a virtually
unutilized four track formation out of London. This presents an
enormous cost saving.

OTOH, HS2 as proposed is overkill.

On Mar 31, 3:15*pm, Jamie Thompson wrote:
On Friday, 30 March 2012 11:47:49 UTC+1, 77002 *wrote:
On Mar 30, 11:32*am, Chris Sanderson wrote:
Err, nothing will need to be 'widened' to any great extent, the
Central Line is paralleled at the southern end by the essentially
disused 'New North Mainline' whose formation HS2 will use. Your idea
would also miss out OOC - a vital interchange for Heathrow, services
from the West Country and the Thames Valley, and crucially Crossrail.
The current route is by far the most sensible, which is presumably why
its been chosen...

Indeed, the UK planners are very fortunate to have a virtually
unutilized four track formation out of London. *This presents an
enormous cost saving.

OTOH, HS2 as proposed is overkill.

FWIW, I still feel said formation would be far better used for connecting Crossrail to the Chiltern mainline to relive Marylebone than a short surface section for HS2. For the sake of a few miles more of tunnel you retain the possibility of both increasing services on the Chiltern line as well as reliving Marylebone for more "mainline" services.

There is probably room for both. My preference would be to see
Crossrail serve the slow AC stations on the WCML. The Amersham and
Aylesbury route would work well as a branch of Thameslink. The
Metropolitan would run the "slow" service to Watford, leaving the
fasts for Thameslink. Chiltern could then focus on providing the
stopping service to Birmingham, while HS2 provides the fast service.

On Mar 31, 3:59*pm, 77002 wrote:
There is probably room for both. *My preference would be to see
Crossrail serve the slow AC stations on the WCML. *The Amersham and
Aylesbury route would work well as a branch of Thameslink. *The
Metropolitan would run the "slow" service to Watford, leaving the
fasts for Thameslink. *Chiltern could then focus on providing the
stopping service to Birmingham, while HS2 provides the fast service.

The problem with anything on the scale of Crossrail is that it's
tendrils reach out and touch so many other areas/idea/projects.

Considering my advocacy of the CR1-Chiltern option, I'm also a
proponent of the CR3 idea of Euston-Waterloo, with the southern
branches being the obvious ones from Clapham Junction, but the
northern ones being the WCML slows and via a short tunnel to Neasden,
the "fast" lines on the Chiltern/Met (inc. those between HotH and
Rickmansworth). Marylebone then only has to serve mainline services,
giving it all the capacity it'll need for some time, the removal of
Met fast services becomes viable as you'll end up with CR3 serving the
route, giving these under-supplied lines a much more suitable service.

On Mar 31, 6:13*pm, Jamie Thompson wrote:
On Mar 31, 3:59*pm, 77002 wrote:

There is probably room for both. *My preference would be to see
Crossrail serve the slow AC stations on the WCML. *The Amersham and
Aylesbury route would work well as a branch of Thameslink. *The
Metropolitan would run the "slow" service to Watford, leaving the
fasts for Thameslink. *Chiltern could then focus on providing the
stopping service to Birmingham, while HS2 provides the fast service.

The problem with anything on the scale of Crossrail is that it's
tendrils reach out and touch so many other areas/idea/projects.

Considering my advocacy of the CR1-Chiltern option, I'm also a
proponent of the CR3 idea of Euston-Waterloo, with the southern
branches being the obvious ones from Clapham Junction, but the
northern ones being the WCML slows and via a short tunnel to Neasden,
the "fast" lines on the Chiltern/Met (inc. those between HotH and
Rickmansworth). Marylebone then only has to serve mainline services,
giving it all the capacity it'll need for some time, the removal of
Met fast services becomes viable as you'll end up with CR3 serving the
route, giving these under-supplied lines a much more suitable service.

On Mar 31, 6:13*pm, Jamie Thompson wrote:
On Mar 31, 3:59*pm, 77002 wrote:

There is probably room for both. *My preference would be to see
Crossrail serve the slow AC stations on the WCML. *The Amersham and
Aylesbury route would work well as a branch of Thameslink. *The
Metropolitan would run the "slow" service to Watford, leaving the
fasts for Thameslink. *Chiltern could then focus on providing the
stopping service to Birmingham, while HS2 provides the fast service.

The problem with anything on the scale of Crossrail is that it's
tendrils reach out and touch so many other areas/idea/projects.

Considering my advocacy of the CR1-Chiltern option, I'm also a
proponent of the CR3 idea of Euston-Waterloo, with the southern
branches being the obvious ones from Clapham Junction, but the
northern ones being the WCML slows and via a short tunnel to Neasden,
the "fast" lines on the Chiltern/Met (inc. those between HotH and
Rickmansworth). Marylebone then only has to serve mainline services,
giving it all the capacity it'll need for some time, the removal of
Met fast services becomes viable as you'll end up with CR3 serving the
route, giving these under-supplied lines a much more suitable service.

Interesting options.

For Crossrail 3, I favor a much earlier option. There was a plan to
parallel the Northern Line with a limited stop main line gauge tube.
It was to follow the Charing Cross branch. Indeed some of the station
boxes were built and functioned as world war two bunkers.

At the southern, such a Crossrail could part from the Northern Line
at South Wimbledon and head over to Raynes Park. From there it could
supplement LSWR suburban services.

One of the big gaps in London's transportation system is the lack of a
direct rail link between Waterloo and Kings Cross Saint Pancras. I
believe CR3 could usefully continue beyond Euston to Kings Cross.
Although I am not sure where CR3 could proceed from there. :-)

"Jamie Thompson" wrote in message
...

Considering my advocacy of the CR1-Chiltern option, I'm also a
proponent of the CR3 idea of Euston-Waterloo, with the southern
branches being the obvious ones from Clapham Junction...

Assuming they haven't already been used for CR2/Chelney of course (as in the
L&SE RUS). CR3 might then have to connect to something else, such as SN
inner suburbans - but still via Clapham Jn.

Paul S

In message
,
77002 wrote:
For Crossrail 3, I favor a much earlier option. There was a plan to
parallel the Northern Line with a limited stop main line gauge tube.
It was to follow the Charing Cross branch. Indeed some of the station
boxes were built and functioned as world war two bunkers.

Those weren't station boxes, they were portions of plain track.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: