wrote

The proposal was a short spur from the Staines line allowing trains to
travel through Woking and Guildford with infill electrification
allowing access to Gatwick. Timings wouldn't be fast in modern terms,
but would be faster than the M25/M23 alternative.

http://airtrack.org/what_is_airtrack.htm

33 minutes Heathrow - Guildford would be attractive, especially with the
connections available at Woking and Guildford. But I can't see it being
extended to Gatwick. Around 70 minutes Heathrow - Gatwick, twice an hour,
wouldn't deal a knock-out blow to the coaches, and finding paths at Redhill
for reversing these plus FGWL's aspirations for 2 tph Reading - Gatwick plus
a train from Tonbridge, whoever's going to run it, would be well nigh
impossible.

Peter

In article , (Richard J.) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(Roland Perry) wrote:

In message
,
at 20:51:00 on Wed, 28 Dec 2005, Colin Rosenstiel
remarked:
Vine Road is a good example of what I mean. Close the crossings.
The traffic can perfectly well use Rocks Lane which is a
perfectly good bridge across the railway. If the highway
authority don't like that /they/ can build the bridge at their
expense.

Isn't the problem that the highway was there first? The railway
will have been constructed on the basis that the highway remained
open as much as possible. If the railway want to renege on that
bargain, /they/ can pay.

That's a ludicrous claim. There were no motor vehicles when the
railway was built. Nowadays it's not even a significant detour.
I'm surprised the residents of Vine Road haven't got it closed as
a rat run years ago.

Perhaps it's because they find it convenient to be able to go
either north or south from their home without needing to battle
through the jams at the A205/A306 junction. Also, my map says
there is a sports ground and bowling green between the two level
crossings, with road access possible only from Vine Road.

As I said, a road problem.

No, you implied there wasn't a problem ("The traffic can perfectly
well use Rocks Lane ...").

You forgot to read on. For the traffic that existed on Vine Road when the railway came, Rocks Lane *is* perfectly adequate. Any more is the problem of today's highway authorities.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

John Rowland wrote:
snip
You could close the crossings for all vehicles except emergency vehicles,
which would have priority over trains.

For what it's worth, emergency vehicle drivers here in the Wild, Wild
West always defer to three things: School buses with lights flashing,
school zones with lights, and trains. Kids can't be expected to know
what the lights and siren are all about, and trains can't be expected to
stop in time, so we don't mess with them.

See the "stuff happens" analysis of one accident:

http://www.co.washington.or.us/sheri...a/max_cart.htm

Louis
Boulder, Colorado

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(Roland Perry) wrote:

In message
,
at 20:51:00 on Wed, 28 Dec 2005, Colin Rosenstiel
remarked:
Vine Road is a good example of what I mean. Close the crossings.
The traffic can perfectly well use Rocks Lane which is a
perfectly good bridge across the railway. If the highway
authority don't like that /they/ can build the bridge at their
expense.

Isn't the problem that the highway was there first? The railway
will have been constructed on the basis that the highway
remained open as much as possible. If the railway want to renege
on that bargain, /they/ can pay.

That's a ludicrous claim. There were no motor vehicles when the
railway was built. Nowadays it's not even a significant detour.
I'm surprised the residents of Vine Road haven't got it closed
as a rat run years ago.

Perhaps it's because they find it convenient to be able to go
either north or south from their home without needing to battle
through the jams at the A205/A306 junction. Also, my map says
there is a sports ground and bowling green between the two level
crossings, with road access possible only from Vine Road.

As I said, a road problem.

No, you implied there wasn't a problem ("The traffic can perfectly
well use Rocks Lane ...").

You forgot to read on.

No, I didn't, but the point is that the current problem of trains and
road traffic in conflict is a problem affecting the railway, the roads,
and the local residents. The simplistic idea of closing the crossings
and expecting the "highway authorities" to sort out the mess because
it's their problem is unhelpful.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

In message , at
11:57:38 on Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Richard J.
remarked:
The simplistic idea of closing the crossings and expecting the "highway
authorities" to sort out the mess because it's their problem is
unhelpful.

And is no more realistic than closing the crossings to trains and airily
saying that "the railways" should sort out the ensuing mess.
--
Roland Perry

In article , (Richard J.) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(Roland Perry) wrote:

In message
,
at 20:51:00 on Wed, 28 Dec 2005, Colin Rosenstiel
remarked:
Vine Road is a good example of what I mean. Close the
crossings. The traffic can perfectly well use Rocks Lane which
is a perfectly good bridge across the railway. If the highway
authority don't like that /they/ can build the bridge at their
expense.

Isn't the problem that the highway was there first? The railway
will have been constructed on the basis that the highway
remained open as much as possible. If the railway want to
renege on that bargain, /they/ can pay.

That's a ludicrous claim. There were no motor vehicles when the
railway was built. Nowadays it's not even a significant detour.
I'm surprised the residents of Vine Road haven't got it closed
as a rat run years ago.

Perhaps it's because they find it convenient to be able to go
either north or south from their home without needing to battle
through the jams at the A205/A306 junction. Also, my map says
there is a sports ground and bowling green between the two level
crossings, with road access possible only from Vine Road.

As I said, a road problem.

No, you implied there wasn't a problem ("The traffic can perfectly
well use Rocks Lane ...").

You forgot to read on.

No, I didn't, but the point is that the current problem of trains and
road traffic in conflict is a problem affecting the railway, the
roads, and the local residents. The simplistic idea of closing the
crossings and expecting the "highway authorities" to sort out the mess
because it's their problem is unhelpful.

It would be a more sensible approach to fixing such problems than making the railways pay to sort out their competitors' problems.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

"Louis Krupp" wrote in message
...
John Rowland wrote:
snip
You could close the crossings for all vehicles except
emergency vehicles, which would have priority over trains.

trains can't be expected to
stop in time, so we don't mess with them.

I was suggesting that the emergency control room would control the red
signal for the trains so that the road would be open by the time the vehicle
reached it, but that the crossing would remain open to trains at all other
times.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

In message , at
13:36:00 on Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Colin Rosenstiel
remarked:

The simplistic idea of closing the
crossings and expecting the "highway authorities" to sort out the mess
because it's their problem is unhelpful.

It would be a more sensible approach to fixing such problems than
making the railways pay to sort out their competitors' problems.

Whoever these "competitors" are, why should *they* pay to sort out the
railway's problems?
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 13:37:48 on Thu,
29 Dec 2005, John Rowland
remarked:
You could close the crossings for all vehicles except
emergency vehicles, which would have priority over trains.

trains can't be expected to
stop in time, so we don't mess with them.

I was suggesting that the emergency control room would control the red
signal for the trains so that the road would be open by the time the vehicle
reached it, but that the crossing would remain open to trains at all other
times.

That's a very sensible idea, and should be applied to all level
crossings.
--
Roland Perry

In article , (Roland Perry) wrote:

In message ,
at 13:36:00 on Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Colin Rosenstiel
remarked:

The simplistic idea of closing the
crossings and expecting the "highway authorities" to sort out the
mess because it's their problem is unhelpful.

It would be a more sensible approach to fixing such problems than
making the railways pay to sort out their competitors' problems.

Whoever these "competitors" are, why should *they* pay to sort out
the railway's problems?

The railway doesn't have a problem (apart from the footbridge at North Sheen station).


--
Colin Rosenstiel