wrote

The new order for the railways, i.e. DfT control is going to mean much
less cash and therefor tighter control. Lean times are coming. This
project had better be within budget.

Although some defects in the current Crossrail proposals have been
identified, it is probably better to support the scheme as it is than to
give the DfT and Parliament an excuse to kick the whole project into the
long grass.

In East London thr current routes appear to be what the 'City' wants and
might be prepared to help pay for, e.g. by a supplementary business rate in
the Crossrail corridor. Two main defects - no station for City Airport, and
no platform extension at Maryland, so a Shenfield to Liverpool Street
service will have to be retained - seem to have come about because no
business case could be made. AIUI at Maryland it would be impossible to
extend the platforms without rebuilding the road bridges at one or both ends
of the station, and that would involve acquisition of property. There was a
mention of GEML freight - I don't think this is a problem. Doesn't most of
it use the Fast Lines, as it has to join the Fast Lines at Stratford?
There's also freight which has to cross the whole layout to access the LTS
line via Forest Gate Junction, and there are advocates of improvements toi
the Barking - Gospel Oak line so that this freight can avoid the GEML
altogether.

At the west end there is a need for more destinations, though IMHO it would
be better to get Crossrail approved and built as is, then go for upgrades
later. My preference would be to extend from Maidenhead to Reading, and AIUI
Parliament today approved their Committee at least investigating this. I
would also advocate approval of Crossrail and Airtrack as separate projects,
then looking in to joining them. This could give Crossrail eventual western
termini of Reading via Maidenhead, Reading via Heathrow and Bracknell, and
Guildford via Heathrow and Woking (Heathrow Express could perhaps extend to
Waterloo via the Airtrack route). Problems that would have to be resolved
include capacity between Paddington and Airport Junction, freight on the
GWML, capacity at Reading, and the best way of serving Heathrow T4.

Peter

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 wrote:

Aidan Stanger wrote:
Adrian Auer-Hudson wrote:
Aidan Stanger wrote:
Adrian Auer-Hudson wrote:
Aidan Stanger wrote:

My website at http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk is now up and running. It
features a plan for getting Crossrail constructed at a fraction of the
cost of the CLRL plan (or of the Superlink plan) so that more Crossrail
lines can subsequently be constructed.

Aidan,

Your opening statement seems to imply that Crossrail is too expensive.
But, I see nothing in you proposals that reduce cost.

I am greatly concerned by this, as it means I will probably have to
reorganize the site. But I am surprised as I thought it was pretty
clear. What do other readers think? Should I do separate pages for
Line 1 and the rest of the Bettercrossrail plan?

My proposals save money by making Crossrail Line 1 more like the earlier
cheaper version of the scheme. The main ways it would save money are by
controlling costs more carefully (so that contractors are rewarded for
working more efficiently, but aren't liable for unforeseen geological
problems etc) and the really important saving of...

...less tunneling!

In the present business climate I think cost control WILL be a
priority,

Unfortunately costs are out of control on many large civil engineering
projects in Britain, particularly railway ones - and even where costs
are under control they're far higher than their continental equivalents.

The new order for the railways, i.e. DfT control is going to mean much
less cash and therefor tighter control. Lean times are coming. This
project had better be within budget.

By not including the Canary Wharf branch as part of Line 1, and not
diverting the line through Whitechapel, it saves a couple of
*billion* pounds. Journeys between zone 1 and Stratford get much
faster, and by diverting a small fraction of the saving to boat
subsidies, Canary Wharf gets more passenger capacity sooner.

But, Docklands is a very important destination. It is the new 'city'.
It is the London employment center of the future. Moreover,
interchange with the extended East London Line synergizes both
projects.

How much is synergy worth? How many minutes is it worth delaying every
train for the rather low proportion of passengers who would be
interchanging there?

Between Docklands and Croydon, a great deal. It is just a pitty that
the East London Line project has no worthwhile northern terminus.

For ELL - Docklands, you've already got the Jubilee at Canada Water, and
the DLR at Shadwell. For getting to Canary Wharf, the former would
actually be quicker than Crossrail from Whitechapel; for Custom House, the
only other Crossrail station in Docklands, the DLR would be a bit slower;
for any of the other stations in Docklands, the DLR wins hard over
Crossrail, since it actually serves them!

Incidentally, i note than on:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tube/company/l..._map_large.jpg

Whitechapel is shown as an Crossrail 2 interchange. I presume this is an
error, rather than a secret TfL plan!

tom

--
Only men's minds could have mapped into abstraction such a territory

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, Peter Masson wrote:

There was a mention of GEML freight - I don't think this is a problem.
Doesn't most of it use the Fast Lines, as it has to join the Fast Lines
at Stratford?

Yes, i believe so. It comes in on the fasts from beyond Shenfield, too
(those being the only lines beyond Shenfield, at least in the direction of
the Stour, IYSWIM), and since it's electric, fairly quick, and doesn't
stop anywhere, it would make no sense at all for it to move over to the
slows between Shenfield and Stratford.

There's also freight which has to cross the whole layout to access the
LTS line via Forest Gate Junction, and there are advocates of
improvements toi the Barking - Gospel Oak line so that this freight can
avoid the GEML altogether.

There are also advocates of improvements to the NLL who would put in a
flyover at Forest Gate to allow this movement to be made without conflict.

At the west end there is a need for more destinations, though IMHO it
would be better to get Crossrail approved and built as is, then go for
upgrades later.

Indeed - as long as the scheme is built to allow for those upgrades
without an prohibitive adaptation cost.

My preference would be to extend from Maidenhead to Reading, and AIUI
Parliament today approved their Committee at least investigating this. I
would also advocate approval of Crossrail and Airtrack as separate
projects, then looking in to joining them.

An excellent idea, but one that probably means building both schemes with
this aim in mind.

This could give Crossrail eventual western termini of Reading via
Maidenhead, Reading via Heathrow and Bracknell, and Guildford via
Heathrow and Woking (Heathrow Express could perhaps extend to Waterloo
via the Airtrack route).

How do you get from Heathrow to Guildford via Woking? Ah, Chertsey and
Addlestone - a line that for some reason isn't shown on my copy of ATOC's
'London and the South East'!

tom

--
Only men's minds could have mapped into abstraction such a territory

wrote:

Aidan Stanger wrote:
Adrian Auer-Hudson wrote:
Aidan Stanger wrote:
Adrian Auer-Hudson wrote:
Aidan Stanger wrote:

My website at http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk is now up and
running. It features a plan for getting Crossrail constructed at
a fraction of the cost of the CLRL plan (or of the Superlink
plan) so that more Crossrail lines can subsequently be constructed.

Aidan,

Your opening statement seems to imply that Crossrail is too expensive.
But, I see nothing in you proposals that reduce cost.

I am greatly concerned by this, as it means I will probably have to
reorganize the site. But I am surprised as I thought it was pretty
clear. What do other readers think? Should I do separate pages for
Line 1 and the rest of the Bettercrossrail plan?

My proposals save money by making Crossrail Line 1 more like the earlier
cheaper version of the scheme. The main ways it would save money are by
controlling costs more carefully (so that contractors are rewarded for
working more efficiently, but aren't liable for unforeseen geological
problems etc) and the really important saving of...

...less tunneling!

In the present business climate I think cost control WILL be a
priority,

Unfortunately costs are out of control on many large civil engineering
projects in Britain, particularly railway ones - and even where costs
are under control they're far higher than their continental equivalents.

The new order for the railways, i.e. DfT control is going to mean much
less cash and therefor tighter control. Lean times are coming. This
project had better be within budget.

If lean times are coming, they must reject this. When the budget is ten
billion pounds too high, being within budget is no triumph!

By not including the Canary Wharf branch as part of Line 1, and not
diverting the line through Whitechapel, it saves a couple of *billion*
pounds. Journeys between zone 1 and Stratford get much faster, and by
diverting a small fraction of the saving to boat subsidies, Canary Wharf
gets more passenger capacity sooner.

But, Docklands is a very important destination. It is the new 'city'.
It is the London employment center of the future.

And under my plan it will have better transport links immediately. It
won't get a Crossrail line so soon, but when it does get one it will
have twice as many trains per hour and thrice as many stations as CLRL's
planned branch. My plan also includes taking over the Tilbury line from
Dagenham, extending the "London employment center of the future" along
the entire Thames Gateway.

You have a point. But, don't expect Crossrail 2 to follow any time
soon. Hackney to Chelsey has been on the agenda for a VERY long time.
I think it needs to be built and soon.

If they spend £16bn on Crossrail 1, the time Hackney to Chelsea has been
on the agenda will be short compared to how much longer we will have to
wait before it is built.

Moreover it needs to be to be built to a 'mainline' loading guage.

I agree. There's allegedly a problem with putting in a Piccadilly Circus
station if the railway is built to mainline loading gauge, but I'm sure
it won't be too difficult to solve.

But, HMG is not going to sanction two new underground lines in London at
the same time. Crossrail 1 will have to 'bed in' first.

That's part of the reason why the plan on my website is for a series of
lines, not just Line 1. It can be seen as part of a much bigger project
with a price comparable to what they're considering spending on just the
first line! As they come to the end of the first line, keeping is likely
to seem preferable to stopping and starting again.

Do you regard Victoria, Piccadilly Circus and Kings Cross as the London
employment center of the past? AIUI more people are employed there than
in Docklands. Should the problems of the present be ignored so that the
future conforms to one particular (rather limited) vision?

Of course they are very important to the present and future.

So do you agree that the Docklands branch should not have priority over
Line 2?

Again, HMG is not going to finance improvement to all London's
transportation infrastructure at once.

It won't be all at once, it will be in sequence.

Moreover, interchange with the extended East London Line synergizes
both projects.

How much is synergy worth? How many minutes is it worth delaying every
train for the rather low proportion of passengers who would be
interchanging there?

Between Docklands and Croydon, a great deal. It is just a pitty that
the East London Line project has no worthwhile northern terminus.

As Tom Anderson has already pointed out, the DLR and Jubilee are both
better ways of getting between Croydon and Docklands.

My plan synergizes it far better, with some ELL trains initially running
to Stratford, and provision to later run some to Liverpool Street. There
is also scope for running trams from the City alongside the ELL
extension, as it only uses two tracks of a former four track railway.

Maybe, but I just don't see HMG authorizing/financing all this
construction activity at once. And then there is the purchase of new
trains....

It doesn't have to be done all at once, unlike this £16bn debacle.

My plan for Line 1 also involves taking over some longer distance
services so that it is more profitable.

But, this is a TfL project

Although TfL are involved, it is not just a TfL project.

geared to relieving the Underground system.
It is better to focus on financing, constructing and operating the
system with that goal in mind.

Why restrict yourself to such a ludicrously narrow goal? Why should the
problems of overcrowding on trains be ignored just because they're not
part of the Underground system? Why should options that make financing
it easier be overlooked because they also bring benefits to passengers
outside London?

By adding capacity to the London Underground Crossrail ! will improve
the lot of longer distance travellers.

That ignores the question I asked.

Your earlier answer seemed to imply that you think the benefits should
be CONFINED to London, and your saying that longer distance travellers
would benefit from Underground capacity improvements still doesn't
explain why you think they should be disqualified from benefitting more
directly. Please answer the questions if that is still what you think.


If I restricted myself to Line 1 then I would get a lot of opposition
from people who want better transport in the Docklands area, people
concerned about freight services being squeezed off by passenger
services, and people who think we should make the Crossrail Line 1 plan
try to solve all of London's transport problems because the money will
never be available again.

But I will make a separate page for Line 1.

Wise move. Your presentation is good. And, your debating skills are
excellent. You clearly believe in your cause.

Thanks, but I'm not sure whether to believe you about my debating skills
- if they're excellent, how come I haven't convinced you yet?

In my opinion the current Crossrail proposal is a good one East of
Paddington.

You think it's good to build a multibillion pound branch that only gets
half a service while the Victoria Line gets no congestion relief???
Do you also think it's worth diverting trains on the Stratford branch to
Whitechapel? Or running some of the Shenfield trains but not taking over
the entire service?

I doubt re-equipping the Hammersmith branch will run to billions.

It wouldn't, but the Docklands branch would.

And, I would like to see Crossrail take over ALL the Shenfield local
service.

Under the current Crossrail proposal it won't.

Then I'm with you on this one. The freed-up capacity at Liverpool
Street call improve service on the other lines beyond Stratford.

The Hackney lines could also do with more trains!

BTW, can anyone comment on the freight situation on the Shenfield line?

According to Modern Railways October 2005, the GEML had 31 freight train
paths per day (sum of both directions, including night freight) with
demand forecast to increase to 76 by 2014. There is no good reason why
so much of it has to go via London, and my website suggests construction
of an alternative route for freight that would also provide better
passenger services and integrated transport.

As for the Victoria Line, one new project cannot solve all of
London's transit problems.

But if Line 1 were cheaper, Line 2 could be built to solve a lot more of
them.

Would that our beloved politions, not to mention Dft accountants saw it
that way. :-)

Unless they have an ulterior motive for not building it, they can be
made to see it that way. If the media and the opposition point out
(towards the end of line 1 construction) how the existance of the TBMs
and skilled experienced crew soon to be unemployed would make following
on immediately with another tunnel so much cheaper than if they waited a
few years before constructing it, the government would find it difficult
to refuse, especially considering how much they'd already saved by
abandoning the £16bn CLRL plan!

Although I think there is a case for a station at Holborn.
It is West of Paddington that the current plans fall short of an
optimum solution. Turning 10 tph around at Paddington seems to be a
formula to inconvenience the maximum number of passengers.

In Modern Railways, October 2005, a Mr. Adam Edwards suggests
Crossrail should take over the Hammersmith branch. I endorse this
proposal. The cons a 1. The probable need for platform
lengthening on the branch. 2. The need to re-electrify the branch
at 25kV. 3. The loss of Hammersmith depot for Circle Line trains.
4. The Crossrail trains would run nearly empty.

No more so than the present H & C trains.

True in absolute terms, but false relatively - the much longer Crossrail
trains would have far more empty seats.

I still content that this is better than reversing trains at
Paddington. I wonder if reducing the Hammersmith service to four tph
rather than six could be an answer.

No it couldn't - in the Hammersmith and Shepherds Bush area it is not
the fastest way into London. People catch it for the convenience, and
anything that makes it less convenient is likely to be opposed.


District Line trains could
be reversed at Baker Street. This may require signaling changes. But
if your comment above is true, the H&C trains are running nearly empty.

No, my comment was relative to train capacity - I'm not accusing H&C
trains of running nearly empty at all. Reversing services where there is
no third track to reverse into can be quite disruptive for through
services.

Since Crossrail will be conveyng passengers eastwards towards Moorgate
I think it will give the Northern half of the Circle considerable
relief. And, the loss of the H&C service between between Edgeware Road
and Baker Street will not be missed. Indeed if reliability improves on
the Circle it wil be a gain.

Making the trains less crowded with passengers and making the lines less
crowded with trains are two very different things.

The pros a 1. The
Hammersmith Branch is self contained. There is NO risk of timetable
pollution. 2. Circle Line operation is greatly simplified. One
junction is eliminated. 3. 6tph are NOT turned around at Paddington.
4. This will allow more Met. trains to reach Moorgate or Aldgate, with
knock-on benefits to Metroland commuters.

As for platform lengthening, this could be counterbalanced by
rationalizing the number of stations on the branch. Do we really need
Royal Oak? for example.

What have you got against the people of Royal Oak? They've already lost
their main line station!

Nothing, but it is so close to Paddington,

All the more reason for a station! Paddington is a high growth area -
Docklands is not the only London employment center of the future!

and, a long walk from any residences or businesses.

Maps and aerial photographs show otherwise, unless all those big
buildings are empty!

My recollection is that it is an unpleasant walk under Westway to reach
anything north of Royal Oak Station. There are residences to the
south. However, I concede this point!

Why is that part of Westway so unpleasant to walk under? The Westbourne
Park and Ladbrooke Grove section is OK. Is it because of the traffic
lights like at Wood Lane?

(snip)

Not Birmingham, but have you any idea how many London Underground
workers live in Milton Keynes? Its future is certainly linked to that of
London.

At first site the Silverlink AC tracks look like 'low hanging fruit'.
But, I think they are 'service polution' waiting to happen. Don't
forget the trains have plenty of opportunity to be delayed on the GW
main line as they make their way to your new connection at Willesden.
Between the two mainlines and their freight users timetabling would be
aweful.

No, on that short section of GWML they would run on the slow lines,
which Crossrail would have total control of. There are no stations (as
Westbourne Park's closed on that line) so the fast trains would not be
slowed at all by the slow trains.

Freight on the WCML slow lines is the only real problem with taking them
over, but I admit it's a big one. It means that significant recovery
time will be needed, which eats into the benefits of having Crossrail
trains run on that line, and limits scheduling options. Short of
diverting the freight trains onto the Great Central, the best solution I
can think of is to have some slack in the schedule (both in the
GWML-WCML tunnel where the track would be aligned for 100+mph but the
trains scheduled for something like 30mph, and on the stopping sections)
and if a train runs too late to make its path even then, train control
should be able to detect it beforehand and request that the next GWML
stopping train run early so they can swap paths for the central tunnel
section. It's far from ideal, but even its imperfection has an upside:
it would strengthen the case for rebuilding Watkin's main line!

Moreover, Silverlink Metro services to Watford are soon to transfer to
the Bakerloo Line.

I thought that was just a proposal. When is it going to happen? And how
will the people who want to get to Euston get there?

You are right. My knowledge is based on an article in December's
Modern Railways. It does look like LUL will be taking over the Metro
franchise currently owned by Silverlink.

That's good, but December's MR hasn't reached me yet. What does it say
will happen to Silverlink's longer distance services?

What actually happens, remains to be seen. My guess is that we will
evenually see ELL trains terminating at Queens Park. Euston will be
accessed by changing at Primrose Hill/Chalk Farm.

That'd be rather inconvenient for some people, and it's certainly a
retrograde step for accessibility. And wouldn't the station at Primrose
Hill need rebuilding?

I think we should examine the results of that
change before we relieve Euston of any more services.

I don't think we should relieve Euston of any useful services like that!

Let us see what happens.

When is it likely to happen?

Adrian, http://www.losangelesmetro.net/author/

Interesting site... I'm impressed!

--
Aidan Stanger
http://www.bettercrossrai.co.uk

Peter Masson wrote:

wrote

The new order for the railways, i.e. DfT control is going to mean much
less cash and therefor tighter control. Lean times are coming. This
project had better be within budget.

Although some defects in the current Crossrail proposals have been
identified, it is probably better to support the scheme as it is than to
give the DfT and Parliament an excuse to kick the whole project into the
long grass.

Firstly, they already have an excuse to kick the whole project into the
long grass: the enormous cost.

Secondly, I'd rather see the whole project kicked into the long grass
than for so much taxpayers' money to be needlessly wasted! I opposed the
Tube PPP because while investigating to see if my technical objections
were valid I noticed how much the financial case for it had been fudged,
but this is several times worse - it's almost as bad as the plans for
another Heathrow runway (something else I'll be loudly attackinng in the
next few weeks).

Demand for Crossrail is so high that it's certain to survive being
kicked into the long grass, and will soon return.

In East London thr current routes appear to be what the 'City' wants and
might be prepared to help pay for, e.g. by a supplementary business rate in
the Crossrail corridor.

But it won't come close to the £16bn that this version of Crossrail
would cost.

The City wants Crossrail, but does not significantly favour the current
version above any other (and the Corporation of London prefer it not to
go to Canary Wharf or Whitechapel, even though IIRC they own a lot of
land in the Whitechapel area). Canary Wharf Group want Crossrail to come
to Canary Wharf, of course, but while they're prepared to make a
contribution to the cost, it would not be enough to make the branch
financially successful.

Two main defects - no station for City Airport, and
no platform extension at Maryland, so a Shenfield to Liverpool Street
service will have to be retained - seem to have come about because no
business case could be made.

....Which proves they're no good at making business cases. As Superlink
pointed out, CLRL didn't bother to do a business case for Whitechapel.

AIUI at Maryland it would be impossible to
extend the platforms without rebuilding the road bridges at one or both ends
of the station, and that would involve acquisition of property. There was a
mention of GEML freight - I don't think this is a problem. Doesn't most of
it use the Fast Lines, as it has to join the Fast Lines at Stratford?

I think so. As my plan also uses the fast lines, I have included a plan
for an alternative route so that the freight doesn't have to go through
London.

There's also freight which has to cross the whole layout to access the LTS
line via Forest Gate Junction, and there are advocates of improvements toi
the Barking - Gospel Oak line so that this freight can avoid the GEML
altogether.

My website suggests construction of a Wanstead Park to Stratford tunnel
to let this freight avoid the GEML while making the GOBLIN (as the
Gospel Oak - Barking Line is generally known) available for light rail.

At the west end there is a need for more destinations, though IMHO it would
be better to get Crossrail approved and built as is, then go for upgrades
later. My preference would be to extend from Maidenhead to Reading, and AIUI
Parliament today approved their Committee at least investigating this.

How frequent a Crossrail service do you think Reading should get? And
which tracks should they use through London?

I would also advocate approval of Crossrail and Airtrack as separate projects,
then looking in to joining them. This could give Crossrail eventual western
termini of Reading via Maidenhead, Reading via Heathrow and Bracknell, and
Guildford via Heathrow and Woking (Heathrow Express could perhaps extend to
Waterloo via the Airtrack route). Problems that would have to be resolved
include capacity between Paddington and Airport Junction, freight on the
GWML, capacity at Reading, and the best way of serving Heathrow T4.

I had thought or running trains to Reading via Heathrow, but I think the
long journey times would deter passengers - there would be enough for
normal trains, but I doubt there'd be enough for Crossrail trains.

--
Aidan Stanger
http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk

asdf wrote:

On 5 Jan 2006 16:14:53 -0800, wrote:

Oh, I'm sure there's a market for all sorts of journey's that
Thameslink allows. I've just always been surprised that there aren't
more allowed by focusing on serving the densly populated M25 area than
by running to towns that lie further off - I'm assuming that either

a) they've done studies and I am entirely wrong; or

b) the cost-benefit ratio for longer distance journeys is superior
because of the higher fares you can charge outside the travelcard
zones.

Option b) is the correct one. It's not just the higher fares though,
it's also the modal shift - the longer distance routes are better at
attracting people who would otherwise drive.

Nonetheless, I've always been surprised that Thameslink 2000 focused on
bringing in places like Littlehampton and King's Lynn, rather than
providing a better service to south east London suburbs that don't have
the tube.

ISTR reading an SRA report on Crossrail, which discussed whether it
should be a "regional metro" (LU-style - all trains stopping at all
stations) or a "regional express" (a bit like Thameslink
Bedford-Brighton).

It concluded that the former was the more beneficial.

Yes, I think I read that too but it was a long time ago, and IIRC the
report was flawed because it didn't consider doing both.

--
Aidan Stanger
http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk

wrote:

Aidan Stanger wrote:
wrote:


Won't passengers get a bit hacked off if what is essentially a suburban
commuter service was to be disrupted because of delays on a regional
train eighty miles away?

Why would the distance away that the delays occur at cause any problems?
If anything, I'd expect a delay further away to be less of a problem
because there would be more opportunity to recover.


If Crossrail was to go to Milton Keynes, then it'd be very difficult to
segregate its tracks. A delay on a regional train between London and
the West Midlands could have a knock on effect on a tube-like service
in east London (after all, with trains every two minutes through the
central tunnel there'd be no time to recover if a train missed its
slot). If my tube train was delayed because of a problem eighty miles
away I'd be a mite hacked off.

The regional trains between London and the West Midlands would run on
the fast lines, and the Crossrail trains would run on the slow lines, so
they would not cause that problem.

The stations on Crossrail's WCML branch would be far enough apart that
the trains would not unexpectedly run late. Were a train running too
late to catch its path, the train controllers could reduce the adverse
effects by requesting that the next train on the other branch run early
so that they can swap paths through the tunnel, minimizing knock on
effects and delays to passengers in Central London. Only those
travelling beyond the central zone would be delayed at all, and th

Personally, I suspect RER-style services work best on a segregated
suburban basis.

Anything is bound to be more reliable if it's entirely self contained,
but the benefits of using the WCML outweigh the risk. Consider
Thameslink - do you think it would be better value if they tried to keep
it self contained?

I do believe it would be better focused on Greater London, actually.
Providing a link between Gatwick and Luton is a good think because of
the airports, but I've never quite been convinced that there's a market
for people to go from Bedford to Brighton.

Nor were British Rail until they introduced the Thameslink service for
other reasons. They were quite surprised just how big the Bedford to
Brighton market was.

There will be a market for
people to go from Bedford to Blackfriars, yes; but I think there's
probably a bigger market of people in the south London and Surrey/Kent
suburbs who want to go to King's Cross or Farringdon.

Though I'm not absolutely sure, I think there are more people from the
Brighton line going to Kings Cross or Farringdon than there are going
there from the stations served by the Thameslink Metro services.

This does raise on interesting question though: should fast services be
paired with fast services and slow with slow? Or should the trains that
run fast on one side of London stop at all stations on the other?

The current Crossrail proposal does have its problems -
the waste of trains not going west of Paddington,

Do you at least concede that running them to Milton Keynes is more
sensible than turning them back at Paddington?


Yes, but I think turning them back at Watford or somewhere comparable
would be more sensible still.

There is unlikely to be the demand for an express service to Watford,
and it would not be able to completely replace the current stopping
service to Watford because of the stations between Euston and Willesden.
Therefore going to Milton Keynes is more sensible than Watford.

missing out City Airport,

That's only because CLRL didn't think it was worth the money to put a
station in the vicinity! It's strange, but they try to save a few
million pounds on a line that wastes billions.


That one I agree with you on.


But again, how much do you think a Whitechapel stop is worth? If the
line were going there anyway then putting in a station would be a
sensible move. But under the current plans, the delays to the 95+% of
Crossrail passengers not going to Whitechapel outweigh the time savings
to the few who are (who could easily get there by Tube anyway).

It's not about passengers that are going to Whitechapel

But it is about building a more expensive route that will give over 95%
of the passengers a longer journey time.

- it's about passengers that are going to Croydon,

They've got Thameslink and can easily change at Farringdon.

Peckham or Hoxton. The idea of
having two major new railway projects in London, that will between them
bring tube-like services to new swathes of the city, crossing and not
providing a connection in this day and age is just... odd, frankly.
Plus, stopping Crossrail at Whitechapel makes up somewhat for not
having a Central Line-ELL interchange.

Do you think there should be a Crossrail station where it crosses the
NLL in Acton? How about diverting it to Canning Town to give it better
interchange with the Jubilee????

My plan features provision for a station at Holborn - something that was
dropped from the original Crossrail plan to save money! It aslo features
an interchange with the ELL at Stratford until Crossrail Line 2 is
built, and also makes it easier to restore the ELL connection to
Liverpool Street.

The case for adding a Central Line interchange is stronger than that for
diverting Crossrail, but even so I don't think it's worth it. The
alternative of light rail using the other two Broad Street tracks and
then running on street down Bishopsgate to Liverpool Street and across
London Bridge to somewhere like Peckham is more sensible IMO.

--
Aidan Stanger
http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk

"Aidan Stanger" wrote

How frequent a Crossrail service do you think Reading should get? And
which tracks should they use through London?

I had thought or running trains to Reading via Heathrow, but I think the
long journey times would deter passengers - there would be enough for
normal trains, but I doubt there'd be enough for Crossrail trains.

I would envisage initially something like
Reading 4tph (limited stop)
Slough 4tph (Ealing, Hayes, then stopping)
Heathrow 4tph (stops as for Heathrow Connect now)
all on the Relief Lines
Heathrow Express 4tph (Main Lines, as now)

If at a later stage Crossrail is combined with Airtrack, something like
Reading via Maidenhead 4tph
Slough 4tph
Reading via Heathrow and Bracknell 4tph
Guildford via Heathrow and Chertsey 2tph
Weybridge via Heathrow and Chertsey 2tph
If these all run on the GW Relief Lines the problem of freight paths would
need to be sorted out - at one time there was talk of 6 tracking
Paddington - Airport Junction. Beyond Heathrow stops would be selective, so
that, for example, 2tph between Heathrow and Reading would only call at say
Staines High Street, Bracknell and Wokingham, but the other 2tph would be
stopping trains.
Heathrow Express would continue, but be extended to Waterloo (as the
Airtrack proposals between Heathrow and Waterloo).
Depending how Heathrow Airport is used, T4 might be served by some form of
people mover, rather than by through trains from Crossrail or Paddington.

If Crossrail is to be built at all, I think that people who want it, but
think the proposals could be improved, should bite their lips and then seek
sensible add-ons at a later date, so I wouldn't advocate combining Crossrail
and Airtrack at this stage. That is how the roads lobby works - the M1
started as a London - Rugby motorway, and the M6 as the Preston by-pass,
then extensions were approved piecemeal (but according to a cunning plan).
Trying to argue that there is a better Crossrail is more likely to scupper
any Crossrail at all than to succeed in improving Darling's current
proposals. I would however, go along with pushing for Maidenhead - Reading
to be included - 12 route miles of plain track, even if it is 4-track, won't
cost a fortune to electrify (in comparison with the whole cost of
Crossrail), and Reading station needs rebuilding, additional platform
capacity and resignalling anyway.

Peter

Peter

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:01:11 +1030, (Aidan Stanger)
wrote:

Peter Masson wrote:

At the west end there is a need for more destinations, though IMHO it would
be better to get Crossrail approved and built as is, then go for upgrades
later. My preference would be to extend from Maidenhead to Reading, and AIUI
Parliament today approved their Committee at least investigating this.

How frequent a Crossrail service do you think Reading should get? And
which tracks should they use through London?

I would also advocate approval of Crossrail and Airtrack as separate projects,
then looking in to joining them. This could give Crossrail eventual western
termini of Reading via Maidenhead, Reading via Heathrow and Bracknell, and
Guildford via Heathrow and Woking (Heathrow Express could perhaps extend to
Waterloo via the Airtrack route). Problems that would have to be resolved
include capacity between Paddington and Airport Junction, freight on the
GWML, capacity at Reading, and the best way of serving Heathrow T4.

I had thought or running trains to Reading via Heathrow, but I think the
long journey times would deter passengers - there would be enough for
normal trains, but I doubt there'd be enough for Crossrail trains.

Crossrail is not going to be used by London-Reading passengers, who
would take the non-stop options. It would replace the stopping trains
between Reading and Paddington, hopefully taking in Heathrow on the
way. It does not make sense to terminate the stopping service at
Maidenhead, which then requires a second stopping service between
Reading and Maidenhead. That would either terminate at Maidenhead or
run fast to Paddington. Another option would be to extend Heathrow
Express to Reading, if a fast Reading-Heathrow link is needed (which
it probably is).
--
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

In message
(Aidan Stanger) wrote:

[snip]

Unless they have an ulterior motive for not building it, they can be
made to see it that way. If the media and the opposition point out
(towards the end of line 1 construction) how the existance of the TBMs
and skilled experienced crew soon to be unemployed would make following
on immediately with another tunnel so much cheaper than if they waited a
few years before constructing it, the government would find it difficult
to refuse, especially considering how much they'd already saved by
abandoning the £16bn CLRL plan!

London Transport used that arguement to try and get the River Line built when
the Victoria Line was completed. The Government of the day was unconvinced.

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