On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 13:20:56 GMT, Anna Noyd-Dryver
wrote:

e27002 aurora wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 18:12:08 GMT, Anna Noyd-Dryver
wrote:

e27002 aurora wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 11:32:56 +0000, Robert
wrote:


Er, the Hammersmith & City Railway (H&CR) was financed jointly by the
GWR and the Metropolitan Railway and opened in 1864. There is nothing
artificial about it.

Point taken. When I lived in London 40 years back, the H&C was simply
part of the Met. If TfL want to maintain the GWR connection how about
helping the longsuffering passengers and restoring the cross-platform
interchange at Paddington. Before the issue of crossing the 3rd and
4th rail tracks comes up, that could be avoided with a long single
track from Royal Oak to platform 16.


Cross platform for who? The small number if trains which would use the
particular platform adjacent to the H&C platform - which would not
necessarily be to consistent destinations. Besides which with the new
entrance to the H&C platforms you'd actually further inconvenience non-H&C
travellers who did want to use your platform 16 trains.

The Crossrail tunnel entrance, and lines from there to the Crossrail depot
at OOC, have/will change the railway geography in that area - access to
your 'long single line' ('cos they never cause operational problems or
limit terminal platform re-occupation times) isn't as easy as you seem to
think.


More than happy to take the word of you, a professional.


I've had a good look over the last few days; as the H&C rises out of the
tunnel to Royal Oak station, the Crossrail tunnel ramp (3 tracks?) takes up
all the space between LU and the railway boundary.

Thank you for that. When, in the late sixties, I commuted between
Maida Vale and Hammersmith, the sidings north of the Metropolitan
between Royal Oak and Paddington held numerous old style goods rolling
stock.

However, I would point out:
At one time commuters off the GM mainline could continue to stations
to Farringdon.


GW, not GM, presumably?

Indeed, Great Western, NOT, Genetically Modified.

Later, they could do the same by crossing a platform at Paddington.
Now this is lost. It will be somewhat replaced by Crossrail.


But it was only cross-platform for 1/14th of Paddington's platforms. What
if your morning train came in cross-platform to the Hammersmith-bound line,
and your evening train left cross-platform from the city-bound line?

Sort of, Anna, trains from Cornwall, or Bristol, would not be likely
to terminate at platform 16. For the commuters who could cross the
platform and continue towards Kings Cross and the City it was a help

Likewise someone wishing to travel between Ladbroke Grove to Southall
could change at Westbourne Park. Now the traveller has to go thru
Paddington.

Through Westbourne Park now the main lines are 'lines 1-6', rather than up
main, down relief etc. Theoretically any train can use any line, though
generally 1-3 are used for main line trains and 3-6 for relief lines. So
you'd need at least one extra platform to have been built to maintain the
service of what, 2tph I presume used to serve it, like Acton Main Line gets
now? At the expense of holding up many other services while you stop there,
remember that since Westbourne Park mainline platforms closed, the number
of trains in and out of Paddington has increased significantly.

Again, thanks for the update. So, access to and from Paddington is
much improved for arriving and departing trains.

In any case, is Ladbroke Grove to Southall a particularly popular journey?
(In any case, if it still existed WP would undoubtedly only be served by
Greenford trains, so your passenger to Southall would have to change at
Ealing Broadway, probably on to a train they could have caught if they'd
travelled via Padd, and with rather less risk of a random cancellation
leaving them stranded at WP for 30 minutes.

For Ladbroke Grove substitute stations south of Westbourne Park, for
Southall substi8tute stations out to Slough. However, your point is
well take. Again, the opinion of a professional is valued.

It is almost as if there is a conscious effort to isolate the
Hammersmith Branch. :-)

My preferred solution (though I'm sure someone will tell me why it's
wrong!) would have been a low-level junction between Crossrail and H&C and
Hammersmith served by Crossrail rather than 10tph terminating at Paddington. But
now it's built the tunnels are in the wrong place for that

That is something I considered a while back. Here are some of the
Pros:
The issue of the 10 terminating trains is solved.
Passengers from the Hammersmith Branch would have much better access
to the West End, the City, and Docklands.
One junction onto the Circle Line is eliminated, simplifying operation
of the same.

OTOH, there are serious Cons:
The Hammersmith Branch would have to be re-electrified and probably
re-signalled. At the very least track circuit immunization would have
to change.
One the S7 Stock Depots is at Hammersmith, that depot capacity would
have to be provided elsewhere.
The Branch platforms are all too short. Some of the stations are so
close they would probably be better replace by new long platformed
ones between the existing stations. e.g. Ladbroke Grove & Wood Lane,
and Shepherds Bush Market and Goldhawk Road.
So, it's a value judgement as to how worthwhile the change would be.

On 2016\01\09 11:40, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 13:20:56 GMT, Anna Noyd-Dryver
wrote:

e27002 aurora wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 18:12:08 GMT, Anna Noyd-Dryver
wrote:

e27002 aurora wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 11:32:56 +0000, Robert
wrote:


Er, the Hammersmith & City Railway (H&CR) was financed jointly by the
GWR and the Metropolitan Railway and opened in 1864. There is nothing
artificial about it.

Point taken. When I lived in London 40 years back, the H&C was simply
part of the Met. If TfL want to maintain the GWR connection how about
helping the longsuffering passengers and restoring the cross-platform
interchange at Paddington. Before the issue of crossing the 3rd and
4th rail tracks comes up, that could be avoided with a long single
track from Royal Oak to platform 16.


Cross platform for who? The small number if trains which would use the
particular platform adjacent to the H&C platform - which would not
necessarily be to consistent destinations. Besides which with the new
entrance to the H&C platforms you'd actually further inconvenience non-H&C
travellers who did want to use your platform 16 trains.

The Crossrail tunnel entrance, and lines from there to the Crossrail depot
at OOC, have/will change the railway geography in that area - access to
your 'long single line' ('cos they never cause operational problems or
limit terminal platform re-occupation times) isn't as easy as you seem to
think.


More than happy to take the word of you, a professional.


I've had a good look over the last few days; as the H&C rises out of the
tunnel to Royal Oak station, the Crossrail tunnel ramp (3 tracks?) takes up
all the space between LU and the railway boundary.

Thank you for that. When, in the late sixties, I commuted between
Maida Vale and Hammersmith, the sidings north of the Metropolitan
between Royal Oak and Paddington held numerous old style goods rolling
stock.

However, I would point out:
At one time commuters off the GM mainline could continue to stations
to Farringdon.


GW, not GM, presumably?

Indeed, Great Western, NOT, Genetically Modified.

Later, they could do the same by crossing a platform at Paddington.
Now this is lost. It will be somewhat replaced by Crossrail.


But it was only cross-platform for 1/14th of Paddington's platforms. What
if your morning train came in cross-platform to the Hammersmith-bound line,
and your evening train left cross-platform from the city-bound line?

Sort of, Anna, trains from Cornwall, or Bristol, would not be likely
to terminate at platform 16. For the commuters who could cross the
platform and continue towards Kings Cross and the City it was a help

Likewise someone wishing to travel between Ladbroke Grove to Southall
could change at Westbourne Park. Now the traveller has to go thru
Paddington.

Through Westbourne Park now the main lines are 'lines 1-6', rather than up
main, down relief etc. Theoretically any train can use any line, though
generally 1-3 are used for main line trains and 3-6 for relief lines. So
you'd need at least one extra platform to have been built to maintain the
service of what, 2tph I presume used to serve it, like Acton Main Line gets
now? At the expense of holding up many other services while you stop there,
remember that since Westbourne Park mainline platforms closed, the number
of trains in and out of Paddington has increased significantly.

Again, thanks for the update. So, access to and from Paddington is
much improved for arriving and departing trains.

In any case, is Ladbroke Grove to Southall a particularly popular journey?
(In any case, if it still existed WP would undoubtedly only be served by
Greenford trains, so your passenger to Southall would have to change at
Ealing Broadway, probably on to a train they could have caught if they'd
travelled via Padd, and with rather less risk of a random cancellation
leaving them stranded at WP for 30 minutes.

For Ladbroke Grove substitute stations south of Westbourne Park, for
Southall substi8tute stations out to Slough. However, your point is
well take. Again, the opinion of a professional is valued.

It is almost as if there is a conscious effort to isolate the
Hammersmith Branch. :-)

My preferred solution (though I'm sure someone will tell me why it's
wrong!) would have been a low-level junction between Crossrail and H&C and
Hammersmith served by Crossrail rather than 10tph terminating at Paddington. But
now it's built the tunnels are in the wrong place for that

That is something I considered a while back. Here are some of the
Pros:
The issue of the 10 terminating trains is solved.

Crossrail will have 14 tph terminating at Paddington. Only 10tph will
continue westward.

The Branch platforms are all too short. Some of the stations are so
close they would probably be better replace by new long platformed
ones between the existing stations. e.g. Ladbroke Grove & Wood Lane,

Latimer Road and Wood Lane.

and Shepherds Bush Market and Goldhawk Road.

You're creating curved stations, and I doubt that would be allowed.

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 23:52:44 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2016\01\09 11:40, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 13:20:56 GMT, Anna Noyd-Dryver
wrote:

e27002 aurora wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 18:12:08 GMT, Anna Noyd-Dryver
wrote:

My preferred solution (though I'm sure someone will tell me why it's
wrong!) would have been a low-level junction between Crossrail and H&C and
Hammersmith served by Crossrail rather than 10tph terminating at Paddington. But
now it's built the tunnels are in the wrong place for that

That is something I considered a while back. Here are some of the
Pros:
The issue of the 10 terminating trains is solved.

Crossrail will have 14 tph terminating at Paddington. Only 10tph will
continue westward.

An altogether tragic waste.

The Branch platforms are all too short. Some of the stations are so
close they would probably be better replace by new long platformed
ones between the existing stations. e.g. Ladbroke Grove & Wood Lane,

Latimer Road and Wood Lane.

Of course. :-)

and Shepherds Bush Market and Goldhawk Road.

You're creating curved stations, and I doubt that would be allowed.

On the surface using the Hammersmith Branch looks like a great
solution to the 14 terminating trains. Unfortunately it is fraught
with difficulties.

On 09/01/2016 23:52, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2016\01\09 11:40, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 13:20:56 GMT, Anna Noyd-Dryver
wrote:

e27002 aurora wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 18:12:08 GMT, Anna Noyd-Dryver
wrote:

e27002 aurora wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 11:32:56 +0000, Robert
wrote:


Er, the Hammersmith & City Railway (H&CR) was financed jointly by
the
GWR and the Metropolitan Railway and opened in 1864. There is
nothing
artificial about it.

Point taken. When I lived in London 40 years back, the H&C was
simply
part of the Met. If TfL want to maintain the GWR connection how
about
helping the longsuffering passengers and restoring the cross-platform
interchange at Paddington. Before the issue of crossing the 3rd and
4th rail tracks comes up, that could be avoided with a long single
track from Royal Oak to platform 16.


Cross platform for who? The small number if trains which would use the
particular platform adjacent to the H&C platform - which would not
necessarily be to consistent destinations. Besides which with the new
entrance to the H&C platforms you'd actually further inconvenience
non-H&C
travellers who did want to use your platform 16 trains.

The Crossrail tunnel entrance, and lines from there to the
Crossrail depot
at OOC, have/will change the railway geography in that area -
access to
your 'long single line' ('cos they never cause operational problems or
limit terminal platform re-occupation times) isn't as easy as you
seem to
think.


More than happy to take the word of you, a professional.


I've had a good look over the last few days; as the H&C rises out of the
tunnel to Royal Oak station, the Crossrail tunnel ramp (3 tracks?)
takes up
all the space between LU and the railway boundary.

Thank you for that. When, in the late sixties, I commuted between
Maida Vale and Hammersmith, the sidings north of the Metropolitan
between Royal Oak and Paddington held numerous old style goods rolling
stock.

However, I would point out:
At one time commuters off the GM mainline could continue to stations
to Farringdon.


GW, not GM, presumably?

Indeed, Great Western, NOT, Genetically Modified.

Later, they could do the same by crossing a platform at Paddington.
Now this is lost. It will be somewhat replaced by Crossrail.


But it was only cross-platform for 1/14th of Paddington's platforms.
What
if your morning train came in cross-platform to the Hammersmith-bound
line,
and your evening train left cross-platform from the city-bound line?

Sort of, Anna, trains from Cornwall, or Bristol, would not be likely
to terminate at platform 16. For the commuters who could cross the
platform and continue towards Kings Cross and the City it was a help

Likewise someone wishing to travel between Ladbroke Grove to Southall
could change at Westbourne Park. Now the traveller has to go thru
Paddington.

Through Westbourne Park now the main lines are 'lines 1-6', rather
than up
main, down relief etc. Theoretically any train can use any line, though
generally 1-3 are used for main line trains and 3-6 for relief lines. So
you'd need at least one extra platform to have been built to maintain
the
service of what, 2tph I presume used to serve it, like Acton Main
Line gets
now? At the expense of holding up many other services while you stop
there,
remember that since Westbourne Park mainline platforms closed, the
number
of trains in and out of Paddington has increased significantly.

Again, thanks for the update. So, access to and from Paddington is
much improved for arriving and departing trains.

In any case, is Ladbroke Grove to Southall a particularly popular
journey?
(In any case, if it still existed WP would undoubtedly only be served by
Greenford trains, so your passenger to Southall would have to change at
Ealing Broadway, probably on to a train they could have caught if they'd
travelled via Padd, and with rather less risk of a random cancellation
leaving them stranded at WP for 30 minutes.

For Ladbroke Grove substitute stations south of Westbourne Park, for
Southall substi8tute stations out to Slough. However, your point is
well take. Again, the opinion of a professional is valued.

It is almost as if there is a conscious effort to isolate the
Hammersmith Branch. :-)

My preferred solution (though I'm sure someone will tell me why it's
wrong!) would have been a low-level junction between Crossrail and
H&C and
Hammersmith served by Crossrail rather than 10tph terminating at
Paddington. But
now it's built the tunnels are in the wrong place for that

That is something I considered a while back. Here are some of the
Pros:
The issue of the 10 terminating trains is solved.

Crossrail will have 14 tph terminating at Paddington. Only 10tph will
continue westward.

The Branch platforms are all too short. Some of the stations are so
close they would probably be better replace by new long platformed
ones between the existing stations. e.g. Ladbroke Grove & Wood Lane,

Latimer Road and Wood Lane.

and Shepherds Bush Market and Goldhawk Road.

You're creating curved stations, and I doubt that would be allowed.


That last one is straight.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

e27002 aurora wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 23:52:44 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2016\01\09 11:40, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 13:20:56 GMT, Anna Noyd-Dryver
wrote:

e27002 aurora wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 18:12:08 GMT, Anna Noyd-Dryver
wrote:

My preferred solution (though I'm sure someone will tell me why it's
wrong!) would have been a low-level junction between Crossrail and H&C and
Hammersmith served by Crossrail rather than 10tph terminating at Paddington. But
now it's built the tunnels are in the wrong place for that

That is something I considered a while back. Here are some of the
Pros:
The issue of the 10 terminating trains is solved.

Crossrail will have 14 tph terminating at Paddington. Only 10tph will
continue westward.

An altogether tragic waste.

I thought the new idea was for them to terminate and reverse at OOC, which
makes more sense?

On 2016\01\10 09:02, Recliner wrote:
e27002 aurora wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 23:52:44 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

Crossrail will have 14 tph terminating at Paddington. Only 10tph will
continue westward.

An altogether tragic waste.

I thought the new idea was for them to terminate and reverse at OOC, which
makes more sense?

Crossrail opens 2018/9. Old Oak Common station opens 2026.

Basil Jet wrote:
On 2016\01\10 09:02, Recliner wrote:
e27002 aurora wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 23:52:44 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

Crossrail will have 14 tph terminating at Paddington. Only 10tph will
continue westward.

An altogether tragic waste.

I thought the new idea was for them to terminate and reverse at OOC, which
makes more sense?

Crossrail opens 2018/9. Old Oak Common station opens 2026.

And?

Graeme Wall wrote on 10 Jan 2016 at 08:13 ...
On 09/01/2016 23:52, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2016\01\09 11:40, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 13:20:56 GMT, Anna Noyd-Dryver
wrote:

e27002 aurora wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 18:12:08 GMT, Anna Noyd-Dryver
wrote:

e27002 aurora wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 11:32:56 +0000, Robert
wrote:


Er, the Hammersmith & City Railway (H&CR) was financed jointly by
the
GWR and the Metropolitan Railway and opened in 1864. There is
nothing
artificial about it.

Point taken. When I lived in London 40 years back, the H&C was
simply
part of the Met. If TfL want to maintain the GWR connection how
about
helping the longsuffering passengers and restoring the cross-platform
interchange at Paddington. Before the issue of crossing the 3rd and
4th rail tracks comes up, that could be avoided with a long single
track from Royal Oak to platform 16.


Cross platform for who? The small number if trains which would use the
particular platform adjacent to the H&C platform - which would not
necessarily be to consistent destinations. Besides which with the new
entrance to the H&C platforms you'd actually further inconvenience
non-H&C
travellers who did want to use your platform 16 trains.

The Crossrail tunnel entrance, and lines from there to the
Crossrail depot
at OOC, have/will change the railway geography in that area -
access to
your 'long single line' ('cos they never cause operational problems or
limit terminal platform re-occupation times) isn't as easy as you
seem to
think.


More than happy to take the word of you, a professional.


I've had a good look over the last few days; as the H&C rises out of the
tunnel to Royal Oak station, the Crossrail tunnel ramp (3 tracks?)
takes up
all the space between LU and the railway boundary.

Thank you for that. When, in the late sixties, I commuted between
Maida Vale and Hammersmith, the sidings north of the Metropolitan
between Royal Oak and Paddington held numerous old style goods rolling
stock.

However, I would point out:
At one time commuters off the GM mainline could continue to stations
to Farringdon.


GW, not GM, presumably?

Indeed, Great Western, NOT, Genetically Modified.

Later, they could do the same by crossing a platform at Paddington.
Now this is lost. It will be somewhat replaced by Crossrail.


But it was only cross-platform for 1/14th of Paddington's platforms.
What
if your morning train came in cross-platform to the Hammersmith-bound
line,
and your evening train left cross-platform from the city-bound line?

Sort of, Anna, trains from Cornwall, or Bristol, would not be likely
to terminate at platform 16. For the commuters who could cross the
platform and continue towards Kings Cross and the City it was a help

Likewise someone wishing to travel between Ladbroke Grove to Southall
could change at Westbourne Park. Now the traveller has to go thru
Paddington.

Through Westbourne Park now the main lines are 'lines 1-6', rather
than up
main, down relief etc. Theoretically any train can use any line, though
generally 1-3 are used for main line trains and 3-6 for relief lines. So
you'd need at least one extra platform to have been built to maintain
the
service of what, 2tph I presume used to serve it, like Acton Main
Line gets
now? At the expense of holding up many other services while you stop
there,
remember that since Westbourne Park mainline platforms closed, the
number
of trains in and out of Paddington has increased significantly.

Again, thanks for the update. So, access to and from Paddington is
much improved for arriving and departing trains.

In any case, is Ladbroke Grove to Southall a particularly popular
journey?
(In any case, if it still existed WP would undoubtedly only be served by
Greenford trains, so your passenger to Southall would have to change at
Ealing Broadway, probably on to a train they could have caught if they'd
travelled via Padd, and with rather less risk of a random cancellation
leaving them stranded at WP for 30 minutes.

For Ladbroke Grove substitute stations south of Westbourne Park, for
Southall substi8tute stations out to Slough. However, your point is
well take. Again, the opinion of a professional is valued.

It is almost as if there is a conscious effort to isolate the
Hammersmith Branch. :-)

My preferred solution (though I'm sure someone will tell me why it's
wrong!) would have been a low-level junction between Crossrail and
H&C and
Hammersmith served by Crossrail rather than 10tph terminating at
Paddington. But
now it's built the tunnels are in the wrong place for that

That is something I considered a while back. Here are some of the
Pros:
The issue of the 10 terminating trains is solved.

Crossrail will have 14 tph terminating at Paddington. Only 10tph will
continue westward.

The Branch platforms are all too short. Some of the stations are so
close they would probably be better replace by new long platformed
ones between the existing stations. e.g. Ladbroke Grove & Wood Lane,

Latimer Road and Wood Lane.

and Shepherds Bush Market and Goldhawk Road.

You're creating curved stations, and I doubt that would be allowed.

That last one is straight.

No, it isn't. Look at
http://www.abandonedstations.org.uk/...herdsBush1.jpg
It's a view from the southern end of Shepherds Bush Market station
towards Goldhawk Road, the latter indicated by the green arrow.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On 10/01/2016 21:48, Richard J. wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote on 10 Jan 2016 at 08:13 ...
On 09/01/2016 23:52, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2016\01\09 11:40, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 13:20:56 GMT, Anna Noyd-Dryver
wrote:

e27002 aurora wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 18:12:08 GMT, Anna Noyd-Dryver
wrote:

e27002 aurora wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 11:32:56 +0000, Robert
wrote:


Er, the Hammersmith & City Railway (H&CR) was financed jointly by
the
GWR and the Metropolitan Railway and opened in 1864. There is
nothing
artificial about it.

Point taken. When I lived in London 40 years back, the H&C was
simply
part of the Met. If TfL want to maintain the GWR connection how
about
helping the longsuffering passengers and restoring the
cross-platform
interchange at Paddington. Before the issue of crossing the 3rd
and
4th rail tracks comes up, that could be avoided with a long single
track from Royal Oak to platform 16.


Cross platform for who? The small number if trains which would
use the
particular platform adjacent to the H&C platform - which would not
necessarily be to consistent destinations. Besides which with the
new
entrance to the H&C platforms you'd actually further inconvenience
non-H&C
travellers who did want to use your platform 16 trains.

The Crossrail tunnel entrance, and lines from there to the
Crossrail depot
at OOC, have/will change the railway geography in that area -
access to
your 'long single line' ('cos they never cause operational
problems or
limit terminal platform re-occupation times) isn't as easy as you
seem to
think.


More than happy to take the word of you, a professional.


I've had a good look over the last few days; as the H&C rises out
of the
tunnel to Royal Oak station, the Crossrail tunnel ramp (3 tracks?)
takes up
all the space between LU and the railway boundary.

Thank you for that. When, in the late sixties, I commuted between
Maida Vale and Hammersmith, the sidings north of the Metropolitan
between Royal Oak and Paddington held numerous old style goods rolling
stock.

However, I would point out:
At one time commuters off the GM mainline could continue to stations
to Farringdon.


GW, not GM, presumably?

Indeed, Great Western, NOT, Genetically Modified.

Later, they could do the same by crossing a platform at Paddington.
Now this is lost. It will be somewhat replaced by Crossrail.


But it was only cross-platform for 1/14th of Paddington's platforms.
What
if your morning train came in cross-platform to the Hammersmith-bound
line,
and your evening train left cross-platform from the city-bound line?

Sort of, Anna, trains from Cornwall, or Bristol, would not be likely
to terminate at platform 16. For the commuters who could cross the
platform and continue towards Kings Cross and the City it was a help

Likewise someone wishing to travel between Ladbroke Grove to Southall
could change at Westbourne Park. Now the traveller has to go thru
Paddington.

Through Westbourne Park now the main lines are 'lines 1-6', rather
than up
main, down relief etc. Theoretically any train can use any line,
though
generally 1-3 are used for main line trains and 3-6 for relief
lines. So
you'd need at least one extra platform to have been built to maintain
the
service of what, 2tph I presume used to serve it, like Acton Main
Line gets
now? At the expense of holding up many other services while you stop
there,
remember that since Westbourne Park mainline platforms closed, the
number
of trains in and out of Paddington has increased significantly.

Again, thanks for the update. So, access to and from Paddington is
much improved for arriving and departing trains.

In any case, is Ladbroke Grove to Southall a particularly popular
journey?
(In any case, if it still existed WP would undoubtedly only be
served by
Greenford trains, so your passenger to Southall would have to
change at
Ealing Broadway, probably on to a train they could have caught if
they'd
travelled via Padd, and with rather less risk of a random cancellation
leaving them stranded at WP for 30 minutes.

For Ladbroke Grove substitute stations south of Westbourne Park, for
Southall substi8tute stations out to Slough. However, your point is
well take. Again, the opinion of a professional is valued.

It is almost as if there is a conscious effort to isolate the
Hammersmith Branch. :-)

My preferred solution (though I'm sure someone will tell me why it's
wrong!) would have been a low-level junction between Crossrail and
H&C and
Hammersmith served by Crossrail rather than 10tph terminating at
Paddington. But
now it's built the tunnels are in the wrong place for that

That is something I considered a while back. Here are some of the
Pros:
The issue of the 10 terminating trains is solved.

Crossrail will have 14 tph terminating at Paddington. Only 10tph will
continue westward.

The Branch platforms are all too short. Some of the stations are so
close they would probably be better replace by new long platformed
ones between the existing stations. e.g. Ladbroke Grove & Wood Lane,

Latimer Road and Wood Lane.

and Shepherds Bush Market and Goldhawk Road.

You're creating curved stations, and I doubt that would be allowed.

That last one is straight.

No, it isn't. Look at
http://www.abandonedstations.org.uk/...herdsBush1.jpg
It's a view from the southern end of Shepherds Bush Market station
towards Goldhawk Road, the latter indicated by the green arrow.

It's a much more gentle curve than it appears in that photo. I
remembered it as being parallel to Lime Grove. I used to watch the O/P
stock trains heading south from Shepherds Bush (now Shepherds Bush
Market) from the fire escape at the back of Lime Grove studios.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 01/01/2016 14:48, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 14:11:06 on
Fri, 1 Jan 2016, e27002 aurora remarked:

Not a councillor since 2014. I'm just a pensioner these days.

So, under the UK tradition you do not retain the title after your term
in office?

US tradition is slightly more familiar to me. Certain titles,
President, Congressman, Judge, remain with the holder after his term

It seems to happen in the ex-military, but not the sort of roles you
mention. I don't think people can even keep a title like "Professor"
unless elected to one of the few Emeritus Professorships.

Those pompous ex-Army bods who continue to give themselves the Captain
or Major title in civilian life are subject to widespread derision from
most military types!

I know a few medical doctors who remain Mr or Mrs/Ms in their non-work
lives too.