Paul Terry wrote:

In message , Nick Cooper
writes

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 11:31:44 +0000, Paul Terry
wrote:

I've never understood how more trains could be projected down the line
between Barnes and Twickenham, given the frequency of the existing
services and the constraints of three level crossings on the way.

Radical thought: Three bridges?!

It would be very nice (from my point of view!) but the cost would eat up
most of the Airtrack budget, given property prices in the area!

Even more radical thought - Six Cul-de-sacs?!

(or should that be Culs-de-sac... blessed French plurals...)

"ab" wrote in message
...
Paul Terry wrote:

In message , Nick Cooper
writes

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 11:31:44 +0000, Paul Terry
wrote:

I've never understood how more trains could be projected down the line
between Barnes and Twickenham, given the frequency of the existing
services and the constraints of three level crossings on the way.

Radical thought: Three bridges?!

It would be very nice (from my point of view!) but the cost would eat up
most of the Airtrack budget, given property prices in the area!

Even more radical thought - Six Cul-de-sacs?!

(or should that be Culs-de-sac... blessed French plurals...)
IIRC, the French is 'voies sans issue'- 'cul-de-sac' is a little
vulgar.......
Brian

B.H. Williams:
IIRC, the French is 'voies sans issue'- 'cul-de-sac' is a little
vulgar.......

I've definitely seen "cul-de-sac" on a sign in Montreal. It was
a few decades ago, though. (Today I'd expect a pictogram, just
as I would in France.)
--
Mark Brader | "This is a moral that runs at large;
Toronto | Take it. -- You're welcome. -- No extra charge."
| -- Oliver Wendell Holmes

In message , ab
writes

Even more radical thought - Six Cul-de-sacs?!

No. As I have already said, the level crossings provide the only
alternative to the already near-gridlocked South Circular for large
parts of the borough - which already has some of the poorest emergency
response times in London because of this problem.

Create six cul-de-sacs and you might as well not bother to respond to
many 999 calls! Cul-de-sacs would not help at all.

Bridges (or sinking the line) would help matters considerably - but the
cost is phenomenal, given that even the tiniest lineside properties are
worth half a million, and some considerably more.

And as for the environmental impact - well Richmond residents are famed
for being to get-up a powerful lobby against a single misplaced piece of
street furniture (let alone the potential incursion of Crossrail into
their borough) - so don't hope for any crossing closures!

--
Paul Terry

"Paul Terry" wrote in message
...
In message , ab
writes

Even more radical thought - Six Cul-de-sacs?!

Create six cul-de-sacs and you might as well not bother to
respond to many 999 calls! Cul-de-sacs would not help at all.

You could close the crossings for all vehicles except emergency vehicles,
which would have priority over trains.

--
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 article , (John Rowland) wrote:

"Paul Terry" wrote in message
...
In message , ab
writes

Even more radical thought - Six Cul-de-sacs?!

Create six cul-de-sacs and you might as well not bother to
respond to many 999 calls! Cul-de-sacs would not help at all.

You could close the crossings for all vehicles except emergency
vehicles, which would have priority over trains.

Whatever. The question is, why is this a problem the railway should be expected to pay to sort out?

--
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

"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 13:37:48 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

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