http://www.wandsworthguardian.co.uk/..._rail_link.php

Quote
AirTrack, a direct line between Terminal Five and South West Trains'
suburban rail network to the south and west of the airport, is outlined
in a document about the South Western train network franchise.The
inclusion of AirTrack in the Department for Transport (DfT)
consultation paper means rail companies need to make proposals to
operate the service in their bids for the franchise.A DfT spokeswoman
said it was looking carefully at AirTrack in the future development of
Heathrow.She said: "We expect to reach some conclusions in the course
of the coming year. Key issues will include identifying a promoter and
sources of funding."
Both the DfT and the Airtrack forum believe the scheme could be
operating in 2011, in time for the London Olympics in 2012.
Unquote

One source of funding could be the West of London Congestion Charge
centred on Heathrow. The BAA Chief Executive suggested that this would
be necessary last year and Airtrack could be the trigger to make it
happen. Spellthorne Council has in addition to environmental issues
concerning the route worries that people will go to Staines and park
their cars there and commute into the airport - including Staines in
the congestion zone (with appropriate residents rebate) could address
that problem.

As has been previously discussed in these groups I have always felt
that Airtrack and Crossrail should be integrated to provide
comprehensive access to one of Britains key transport nodes not only
from the centre of London but from the M4 and M3 corridors. I do hope
that in crossing the t's and dotting the i's in the SWT refranchising
that this possibility is not ruled out.

In message .com, Bob
writes

Both the DfT and the Airtrack forum believe the scheme could be
operating in 2011, in time for the London Olympics in 2012.

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.

Would it mean diverting the Windsor service round the Hounslow loop -
and would that in any case free up enough slots?

--
Paul Terry

In article , (Paul Terry) wrote:

In message .com,
Bob

Both the DfT and the Airtrack forum believe the scheme could be
operating in 2011, in time for the London Olympics in 2012.

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.

Would it mean diverting the Windsor service round the Hounslow loop -
and would that in any case free up enough slots?

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

--
Colin Rosenstiel

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

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
.uk...
In message , at 13:34:18 on Wed, 28 Dec
2005, Paul Terry remarked:

Possibly Rocks Lane (actually a pair of crossings)

I think you mean Vine Road?

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?

I still think that the best solution would be a Crossrail branch from
Wormwood Scrubs to Richmond, taking over most of the Windsor Lines services
out from there. There is room for four tracks on the ground for most if not
all of this part of the NLL. The Richmond to Clapham Junction line could
then easily handle the remaining local services.

--
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

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
...

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

Does anyone know if Network Rail have any legal obligations to keep level
crossings open for a certain number of minutes per hour or can they just say
stuff the cars, it's not our problem.

Peter Smyth

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

In message .com, Bob
writes

Both the DfT and the Airtrack forum believe the scheme could be
operating in 2011, in time for the London Olympics in 2012.

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?!

Would it mean diverting the Windsor service round the Hounslow loop -
and would that in any case free up enough slots?

--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

The London Underground at War, and in Films & TV:
http://www.nickcooper.org.uk/

In message
(Nick Cooper) wrote:

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

In message .com, Bob
writes

Both the DfT and the Airtrack forum believe the scheme could be
operating in 2011, in time for the London Olympics in 2012.

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?!

That's one hell of a detour to go via Three Bridges surely?



--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html