In article , (Roland Perry) wrote:

In message ,
at 21:07:00 on Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Colin Rosenstiel
remarked:
The railway doesn't have a problem. Road users who find the
crossings almost always closed have a problem.

Sometimes open is better than closed entirely. If this is the only
issue, I do wonder why some people (yourself included) are
advocating closure.

Because money is being leeched away from the railway in the road
interest.

I wouldn't describe "keeping level crossings open" as leeching money
away from the railway. In any event, there is no longer any pretence
that the railway is a public service. It is a set of private
companies operating for profit. No-one forced any of the ToCs to bid.
They understand the nature of the business, and must take the rough
with the smooth.

Er, level crossings is infrastructure, responsibility of Network Rail. That's a not for profit company that struggles to avoid being defined as the public sector, using increasingly implausible smoke and mirrors. You wait till they can't pay back their debts.

Anyway the problem isn't keeping level crossings open. It's keeping them closed long enough to allow modern traffic levels to pass without long delays. That's a highway problem.

Even to the extent that railway problems cannot be resolved, like
restoring the full footbridge at North Sheen.

What's happening at North Sheen?

They only have half a footbridge. It's an island platform with a level crossing adjacent but passengers from one side have to cross the line by the level crossing to reach the footbridge to access the platforms. The MP has been complaining there is no money to restore the other half of the footbridge.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article , (Peter Masson) wrote:

The report also highlights the weakness of the Airtrack proposals as
far as access to Heathrow is concerned - fine to T5, but passengers
will have to change to get to T123, and change twice, or get a bus, to
T4. But through running from HEx, Heathrow Connect or Crossrail would
involve dual voltage, not a big problem with stock, but the T5
platform lines would have to be dual voltage, instead of keeping 3rd
rail DC and OHLE AC tracks separate.

Why? Dual voltage and system platforms don't seem to be a big problem at Drayton Park and Farringdon.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Mark Brader wrote:
Louis Krupp writes:

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


Bad choice of example. Although the report uses the word "train",
in British parlance Portland's MAX would be a tram system. Big
trams, like in Nottingham, and they do go fast when off the public
streets, but they're not like real trains. The "stop signal" that
the "train" passed in that report would be an ordinary traffic light.

MAX sounds like what we call "light rail" south of the border. An
ambulance hit one of those in Denver a while ago; for an account of
that (and a diatribe about light rail in general), see:

http://i2i.org/article.aspx?ID=1106

For a "better" example of fire engine vs. train:

http://www.nbc5i.com/news/5659555/detail.html

(I haven't been in Nottingham since long before the Tram.)

Louis

John Rowland wrote:
"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.

OK. I understand now. The one caveat I see is that the folks in the
control room would have to know what route the emergency vehicle would
be taking; routes can vary according to traffic, driver preference, and
sometimes (speaking from experience) driver error. Stopping a train (or
a tram) short of one intersection might block another.

I'm afraid mixing emergency vehicles with level crossings is a problem
without a cheap or easy solution.

Louis

In message .com, Bob
writes

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ts/page/dft_ra
ilways_610690.pdf

Well spotted!

any views?

I agree with Peter that the T5-only terminal could be a weakness - given
the Airtrack journey time from Waterloo, it wouldn't compete effectively
with even the Piccadilly for the other terminals. But I suspect that T5
will eventually take a big slice of Heathrow's traffic once open.

There seems to be no money allocated for any sort of infrastructure
improvement on the Windsor lines - level crossings are specifically
listed as "zero"!

The proposals at Waterloo continue to look very vague - "significant
re-timetabling" of the Reading service, and platform sharing would be
needed. It would be "preferable" to use Waterloo International (I wonder
if SWT would be tempted by the Airtrack franchise as a means of gaining
a lever on the use of Waterloo International for a wider range of
services?).

As far as operations are concerned, "train plans have never been joined
up and tested" sounds a bit ominous.

I also note that this report expects the withdrawal of 10 peak-time
Reading services, not the three claimed on the Airtrack site, and it
mentions nothing of the 3-4 services an hour in peak time that Airtrack
thinks might somehow be possible - it sticks rigidly to twice an hour at
all times.
--
Paul Terry

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 09:09:52 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Masson"
wrote:

An interesting idea, that I hadn't seen before, for dealing with capacity
issues at Reading platforms 4A and 4B - reinstate the subway under the GWML
and divert the North Downs (Gatwick and Guildford) trains into platform 10.
But how would this sit with the aspiration to extend Crossrail from
Maidenhead to Reading? And would it give an opportunity for VXC to extend
regularly to Gatwick/Brighton (or Portsmouth) via Guildford - apparently the
main constraint is obtaining paths from the GWML on to the spur to the North
Downs Line?

Why do that? The current use of 4a/b allows tight connections into
trains of platform 4. Very useful from the Gatwick trains when wanting
one going west, as most people will do.

I can see the argument for southbound VXC trains using the underpass.
--
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

"Terry Harper" wrote in message
...

Why do that? The current use of 4a/b allows tight connections into
trains of platform 4. Very useful from the Gatwick trains when wanting
one going west, as most people will do.

Terry Harper

Veering OT, but does anyone know why these platforms are numbered 4a and 4b?
This type of designation is usually used where a single platform face is
arranged for use by more than one train, isn't it?

Paul

"Terry Harper" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 09:09:52 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Masson"
wrote:

An interesting idea, that I hadn't seen before, for dealing with capacity
issues at Reading platforms 4A and 4B - reinstate the subway under the
GWML
and divert the North Downs (Gatwick and Guildford) trains into platform
10.

Why do that? The current use of 4a/b allows tight connections into
trains of platform 4. Very useful from the Gatwick trains when wanting
one going west, as most people will do.

I can see the argument for southbound VXC trains using the underpass.

For Airtrack to work reliably there is a need for extra platform capacity at
Reading for trains via Wokingham. Three options are discussed in the
report - platform 4C, lengthening platforms 4A and 4B and using them with
two trains in a platform, and the underpass/use of platform 10 solution. It
prefers use of platform 10, as it would be cheaper than building platform
4C, and is not convinced that two trains in a platform could be made to work
reliably.

Peter

Paul Scott wrote:
"Terry Harper" wrote in message
...

Why do that? The current use of 4a/b allows tight connections into
trains of platform 4. Very useful from the Gatwick trains when
wanting one going west, as most people will do.

Terry Harper

Veering OT, but does anyone know why these platforms are numbered
4a and 4b? This type of designation is usually used where a single
platform face is arranged for use by more than one train, isn't it?

The island platform with faces numbered 4a and 4b was added in 1965 when
the adjacent Reading Southern station closed. Platform numbers 1-3 were
already in use at the western end of the station, hence the need to use
4a and 4b to keep a reasonably logical numbering sequence.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"Richard J."

The island platform with faces numbered 4a and 4b was added in 1965 when
the adjacent Reading Southern station closed. Platform numbers 1-3 were
already in use at the western end of the station, hence the need to use
4a and 4b to keep a reasonably logical numbering sequence.

To be pedantic, only platform 4A was added in 1965, and used for Waterloo
trains. 'North Downs' trains (then Tadpoles, with some 33+3 loco hauled) ran
into the main part of Reading General, often using platform 6. Platform 4B
was added some years later, converting what had been 4A into an island.

Peter