In message ,
Colin Rosenstiel writes

Close the level crossings. Let the Highway authorities sort out alternative access.

Its not a simple question of resident access - at the moment the
crossings are the only alternative to the South Circular for emergency
services (hence some of the worst response times in London) and for
emergency diversions off the South Circular. The fire station, in
particular, is to the north of the railway and would therefore be cut
off from most of the borough. One of the crossings is also on a bus
route.

Possibly Rocks Lane (actually a pair of crossings) could be closed - but
ironically that is the only one with adjacent land that might make a
bridge possible. Bridges are the only (expensive) alternative to the
other two.

--
Paul Terry

In message , at 13:34:18 on Wed, 28 Dec
2005, Paul Terry remarked:
Possibly Rocks Lane (actually a pair of crossings) could be closed -
but ironically that is the only one with adjacent land that might make
a bridge possible. Bridges are the only (expensive) alternative to the
other two.

Why can't the railway be put in a shallow concrete sided cutting?
--
Roland Perry

In message , Roland
Perry writes

Why can't the railway be put in a shallow concrete sided cutting?

Possible, but there are two stations next to level crossings which would
have to be rebuilt with low-level platforms. And there wouldn't be room
to sink the line between Barnes junction and the first crossing at Rocks
Lane - in fact it would be difficult to get low enough before the second
crossing at White Hart Lane.

Which reminds me - there are actually four level crossings, not three,
between Barnes and Richmond.

However, there's room for a passing loop between North Sheen and
Mortlake - it looks like enough land was taken for a possible future
extension of the four-track line from Clapham Junction to Barnes onwards
to Richmond, or may be there was once a long siding there. Perhaps it
might be possible to utilise that so that the fast services could
overtake the stoppers.

--
Paul Terry

In message , at 14:26:02 on Wed, 28 Dec
2005, Paul Terry remarked:
In message , Roland
Perry writes

Why can't the railway be put in a shallow concrete sided cutting?

Possible, but there are two stations next to level crossings which
would have to be rebuilt with low-level platforms.

Yes, just sink them like the rest of the line.

And there wouldn't be room to sink the line between Barnes junction and
the first crossing at Rocks Lane

Too steep a grade? What's the problem with a road bridge at Rock's Lane?
It doesn't look like a built up area from the map I have here.

- in fact it would be difficult to get low enough before the second
crossing at White Hart Lane.

A bit over 0.6 mile. The ramp down from Blackfriars to City Thameslink
is about a third of that distance.
--
Roland Perry

In message , Roland
Perry writes

In message , at 14:26:02 on Wed, 28 Dec
2005, Paul Terry remarked:

Possible, but there are two stations next to level crossings which
would have to be rebuilt with low-level platforms.

Yes, just sink them like the rest of the line.

It could certainly help the need to provide longer platforms on the line
- but the main problem with sinking the line is the cost, which could
easily eat-up most of the Airtrack budget before the line gets anywhere
near Heathrow.

And there wouldn't be room to sink the line between Barnes junction
and the first crossing at Rocks Lane

Too steep a grade? What's the problem with a road bridge at Rock's
Lane? It doesn't look like a built up area from the map I have here.

Sorry - my mistake. The first pair of level crossings are in Vine Road,
just west of Barnes junction. Its then 500 yards to the next crossing in
White Hart Lane - there would probably be enough room to sink the line
in that distance, although up trains would frequently have to stop on
the incline to allow Hounslow loop trains to cross.

But I don't think any of it is likely, given the cost and disruption of
sinking several miles of very busy commuter railway - re-routeing the
Reading and/or Windsor services looks a much more attractive option.

--
Paul Terry

In article , (Paul Terry) wrote:

In message , Roland
Perry writes

In message , at 14:26:02 on Wed, 28
Dec 2005, Paul Terry :

Possible, but there are two stations next to level crossings which
would have to be rebuilt with low-level platforms.

Yes, just sink them like the rest of the line.

It could certainly help the need to provide longer platforms on the
line - but the main problem with sinking the line is the cost, which
could easily eat-up most of the Airtrack budget before the line gets
anywhere near Heathrow.

And there wouldn't be room to sink the line between Barnes junction
and the first crossing at Rocks Lane

Too steep a grade? What's the problem with a road bridge at Rock's
Lane? It doesn't look like a built up area from the map I have here.

Sorry - my mistake. The first pair of level crossings are in Vine
Road, just west of Barnes junction. Its then 500 yards to the next
crossing in White Hart Lane - there would probably be enough room to
sink the line in that distance, although up trains would frequently
have to stop on the incline to allow Hounslow loop trains to cross.

But I don't think any of it is likely, given the cost and disruption
of sinking several miles of very busy commuter railway - re-routeing
the Reading and/or Windsor services looks a much more attractive
option.

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. Dyers Lane was closed this way some years ago.

White Hart Lane and Sheen Lane are more of a problem, I accept.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

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.
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 14:26:02 on Wed, 28 Dec 2005,
Paul Terry remarked:
In message , Roland Perry
writes

Why can't the railway be put in a shallow concrete sided cutting?

And there wouldn't be room to sink the line between Barnes junction and
the first crossing at Rocks Lane - in fact it would be difficult to get
low enough before the second crossing at White Hart Lane.

A bit over 0.6 mile. The ramp down from Blackfriars to City Thameslink is
about a third of that distance.

0.6 miles = 960 m; at a grade of 1:30, which i think is the steepest you
can sensibly have, that's enough to drop 32 metres. That seems more than
enough! IANAEngineer, but if we want a W8 gauge route, we need 3.6 m
clearance above the rail; allowing 1.4 m from the top of the 'railspace'
to the deck of the road, that's 5 metres that needs to be dropped, for a
slope of 1:192, which really doesn't seem a lot.


tom

--
Judge Dredd. Found dead. Face down in Snoopy's bed.

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
.uk...
In message , at 14:26:02 on Wed, 28 Dec
2005, Paul Terry remarked:
In message , Roland
Perry writes

Why can't the railway be put in
a shallow concrete sided cutting?

- in fact it would be difficult to get low enough
before the second crossing at White Hart Lane.

A bit over 0.6 mile. The ramp down from Blackfriars
to City Thameslink is about a third of that distance.

That part of the TL line probably has a very low PSR (20 or 30 mph, I would
guess).

--
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 20:01:40 on Wed,
28 Dec 2005, John Rowland
remarked:
Why can't the railway be put in
a shallow concrete sided cutting?

- in fact it would be difficult to get low enough
before the second crossing at White Hart Lane.

A bit over 0.6 mile. The ramp down from Blackfriars
to City Thameslink is about a third of that distance.

That part of the TL line probably has a very low PSR (20 or 30 mph, I would
guess).

It also runs N/S rather than E/W, which is just as (ir)relevant :-)
--
Roland Perry