| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
BetterCrossrail website launched
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 Stanger http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk |
BetterCrossrail website launched
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 Stanger http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk Aidan, Your opening statement seems to imply that Crossrail is too expensive. But, I see nothing in you proposals that reduce cost. Moreover, the present Crossrail plan has strength in its simplicity. You proposals are more complex. In my opinion the current Crossrail proposal is a good one East of Paddington. 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. 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. Re-electrification could be avoided by utilizing dual voltage trains. But, re-electrification is probably the simpler and more resilient option. If I recall correctly, Circle Line trains were once maintained at District Line facilities. I wonder how easy it would be to do so these days? As for the remaining 4tph, perhaps these could be reversed at Ealing Broadway, this is surely preferable to doing so at Paddington. Adrian. |
BetterCrossrail website launched
Colin Rosenstiel wrote: In article .com, (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. Your opening statement seems to imply that Crossrail is too expensive. But, I see nothing in you proposals that reduce cost. Moreover, the present Crossrail plan has strength in its simplicity. You proposals are more complex. In my opinion the current Crossrail proposal is a good one East of Paddington. 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. With you so far. 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. 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. Con 3 and Pro 1 are contradictory. The fact that the Circle (and also Wimbleware) stock is maintained at Hammersmith means the branch is not self contained. 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. Re-electrification could be avoided by utilizing dual voltage trains. But, re-electrification is probably the simpler and more resilient option. If I recall correctly, Circle Line trains were once maintained at District Line facilities. I wonder how easy it would be to do so these days? I don't think you do recall correctly. Circle stock has always been part of the Met's stock rather than the District's. What District depot do you think has been used (apart from the Wimbleware stock)? As for the remaining 4tph, perhaps these could be reversed at Ealing Broadway, this is surely preferable to doing so at Paddington. Is there room to turn trains at Ealing? -- Colin Rosenstiel My point is that a Hammersmith Crossrail branch would be 'self-contained'. Clearly I am wrong about the maintenance of Circle Line stock. My assumption was based on the fact that in the 1960s Circle Line trains had District and Circle maps in them. I assumed they were stabled and service at Lilley Bridge or Northfields. Again, clearly I am wrong and a new depot would be part of the cost of using the Hammersmith branch for Crossreail. And, I strongly suspect that reversing trains at Ealing is not possible without some sort of construction. But, I believe turning Crossrail trains at Paddington will also involve new construction, so this might be close to a zero sum change in the plan. In my view anywhere west of Paddington would be an improvement! :-) A. |
BetterCrossrail website launched
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article .com, (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. Your opening statement seems to imply that Crossrail is too expensive. But, I see nothing in you proposals that reduce cost. Moreover, the present Crossrail plan has strength in its simplicity. You proposals are more complex. In my opinion the current Crossrail proposal is a good one East of Paddington. 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. With you so far. 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. 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. Con 3 and Pro 1 are contradictory. The fact that the Circle (and also Wimbleware) stock is maintained at Hammersmith means the branch is not self contained. 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. Re-electrification could be avoided by utilizing dual voltage trains. But, re-electrification is probably the simpler and more resilient option. If I recall correctly, Circle Line trains were once maintained at District Line facilities. I wonder how easy it would be to do so these days? I don't think you do recall correctly. Circle stock has always been part of the Met's stock rather than the District's. What District depot do you think has been used (apart from the Wimbleware stock)? As for the remaining 4tph, perhaps these could be reversed at Ealing Broadway, this is surely preferable to doing so at Paddington. Is there room to turn trains at Ealing? -- Colin Rosenstiel My point is that a Hammersmith Crossrail branch would be 'self-contained'. Clearly I am wrong about the maintenance of Circle Line stock. My assumption was based on the fact that in the 1960s Circle Line trains had District and Circle maps in them. I assumed they were stabled and service at Lilley Bridge or Northfields. Again, clearly I am wrong and a new depot would be part of the cost of using the Hammersmith branch for Crossreail. And, I strongly suspect that reversing trains at Ealing is not possible without some sort of construction. But, I believe turning Crossrail trains at Paddington will also involve new construction, so this might be close to a zero sum change in the plan. In my view anywhere west of Paddington would be an improvement! :-) A. |
BetterCrossrail website launched
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 Stanger http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk 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 unforseen geological problems etc) and the really important saving of... ....less tunnelling! 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. My plan for Line 1 also involves taking over some longer distance services so that it is more profitable. My plan for Line 2 also involves less tunnelling than the official Line 2 plan, while Line 3 will serve the Docklands and Thames Gateway - but with the advantage of experience constructing the first two lines (making cost control easier), the advantage of serving a more developed area (with regeneration spurred by the DLR and boats). Central London gets the advantage of not having to compete so much for scarce funding, and everybody gets the advantage of not being restricted by CLRL's flawed plans and false assumptions. Moreover, the present Crossrail plan has strength in its simplicity. You proposals are more complex. My proposals for line 1 are actually far simpler. It is only because my proposals go much further that they are more comples. In my opinion the current Crossrail proposal is a good one East of Paddington. You think its 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 enitre service? 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. 5. Fewer trains between Edgware Road (Circle) and Baker Street 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! Re-electrification could be avoided by utilizing dual voltage trains. ....which are significantly more expensive if you require high performance UIVMM. But, re-electrification is probably the simpler and more resilient option. If I recall correctly, Circle Line trains were once maintained at District Line facilities. I wonder how easy it would be to do so these days? As for the remaining 4tph, perhaps these could be reversed at Ealing Broadway, this is surely preferable to doing so at Paddington. What do you have against the (far more profitable) longer distance distinations such as Milton Keynes? |
BetterCrossrail website launched
"Aidan Stanger" wrote What have you got against the people of Royal Oak? They've already lost their main line station! Did they ever have one - or has it always been only Hammersmith line trains which have called there? AIUI it's only ever had the one island platform. It was opened in 1871, and in 1878 the subway was opened to allow Hammersmith trains to cross between Royal Oak and Westbourne Park without crossing the Main Lines on the level. Until 1967 WR trains bound to and from Paddington Suburban ran through the Royal Oak platforms, but didn't call. You may be thinking of Westbourne Park, which at one time had platforms on the Main and Relief Lines, and was used as a ticket stop for trains approaching Paddington. It finally lost its Relief Line platforms when the Paddington approaches were being remodelled and electrified for Heathrow Express. Peter |
BetterCrossrail website launched
Aidan Stanger wrote: My plan for Line 1 also involves taking over some longer distance services so that it is more profitable. (snip) What do you have against the (far more profitable) longer distance distinations such as Milton Keynes? Two words: performance pollution. Crossrail as currently envisioned would essentially be a tube line on a larger scale - the distance beyond the conurbation it runs would be comparable with that of the Metropolitan line. 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? Personally, I suspect RER-style services work best on a segregated suburban basis. The current Crossrail proposal does have its problems - the waste of trains not going west of Paddington, missing out City Airport, and the rather halfhearted nature of the attempt to serve North Kent and South East London - but being restricted to fairly local destinations is not one of them. Neither is serving Whitchapel, which is likely to become a much more important interchange once the ELL is completed. Jonn |
BetterCrossrail website launched
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 Stanger http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk 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, 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. 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 geared to relieving the Underground system. It is better to focus on financing, constructing and operating the system with that goal in mind. My plan for Line 2 also involves less tunneling than the official Line 2 plan, while Line 3 will serve the Docklands and Thames Gateway - but with the advantage of experience constructing the first two lines (making cost control easier), the advantage of serving a more developed area (with regeneration spurred by the DLR and boats). Central London gets the advantage of not having to compete so much for scarce funding, and everybody gets the advantage of not being restricted by CLRL's flawed plans and false assumptions. Moreover, the present Crossrail plan has strength in its simplicity. You proposals are more complex. My proposals for line 1 are actually far simpler. It is only because my proposals go much further that they are more complete. Your campaign would be more effective in you focused on just the 'Crossrail one' line. The other material clouds the issue. But, I do respect, and like, the way you are presenting your views. 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. And, I would like to see Crossrail take over ALL the Shenfield local service. As for the Victoria Line, one new project cannot solve all of London's transit problems. 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. I suspect a better service would attract more passengers. This MUST be better than turning trains at Paddington. 5. Fewer trains between Edgware Road (Circle) and Baker Street If this is a critical issue, which I doubt, 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. 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, and, a long walk from any residences or businesses. Royal Oak never had a Mainline Station. Re-electrification could be avoided by utilizing dual voltage trains. ...which are significantly more expensive if you require high performance UIVMM. But, re-electrification is probably the simpler and more resilient option. If I recall correctly, Circle Line trains were once maintained at District Line facilities. I wonder how easy it would be to do so these days? As for the remaining 4tph, perhaps these could be reversed at Ealing Broadway, this is surely preferable to doing so at Paddington. What do you have against the (far more profitable) longer distance destinations such as Milton Keynes? This is a London plan. It is designed to relieve the Underground. The logical termination point for Milton Keynes and Northampton trains is Birmingham New Street. This is hardly in Mr. Livingston's bailiwick. Moreover, Silverlink Metro services to Watford are soon to transfer to the Bakerloo Line. I think we should examine the results of that change before we relieve Euston of any more services. A. |
BetterCrossrail website launched
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. 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. 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? 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? 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. 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? My plan for Line 2 also involves less tunneling than the official Line 2 plan, while Line 3 will serve the Docklands and Thames Gateway - but with the advantage of experience constructing the first two lines (making cost control easier), the advantage of serving a more developed area (with regeneration spurred by the DLR and boats). Central London gets the advantage of not having to compete so much for scarce funding, and everybody gets the advantage of not being restricted by CLRL's flawed plans and false assumptions. Moreover, the present Crossrail plan has strength in its simplicity. You proposals are more complex. My proposals for line 1 are actually far simpler. It is only because my proposals go much further that they are more complete. [I meant to write "It is only because my proposals go much further that they are more complex"] Your campaign would be more effective in you focused on just the 'Crossrail one' line. The other material clouds the issue. But, I do respect, and like, the way you are presenting your views. 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. 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. 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. 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 suspect a better service would attract more passengers. Some new passengers, yes, but the number would probably be quite low. This MUST be better than turning trains at Paddington. I admit it is slightly better, but it still not a good option. 5. Fewer trains between Edgware Road (Circle) and Baker Street If this is a critical issue, which I doubt, Not critical, but significant enough to include on the list. 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. 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! Royal Oak never had a Mainline Station. I stand corrected. As other readers correctly guessed, I had confused it with Westbourne Park. Re-electrification could be avoided by utilizing dual voltage trains. ...which are significantly more expensive if you require high performance UIVMM. But, re-electrification is probably the simpler and more resilient option. If I recall correctly, Circle Line trains were once maintained at District Line facilities. I wonder how easy it would be to do so these days? As for the remaining 4tph, perhaps these could be reversed at Ealing Broadway, this is surely preferable to doing so at Paddington. What do you have against the (far more profitable) longer distance destinations such as Milton Keynes? This is a London plan. Which is the better kind of London plan: The one that benefits London the most? Or the one that benefits only Londoners? One reason London is so successful is because it's easy to get to. Many corporations locate their headquarters in London because its large catchment area makes it easier to recruit a skilled workforce. It is designed to relieve the Underground. Indeed it is, and that is an objective I support. My plan is also designed to relieve the Underground, and does so as much as CLRL's plan. But because my plan for Line 1 is cheaper, more of the Underground could subsequently be relieved. CLRL's plan is worse than doing nothing, because if the government does spend that much, their successors will come to the conclusion that public transport is a waste of money. That is likely to lead to decades of underinvestment. The logical termination point for Milton Keynes and Northampton trains is Birmingham New Street. Although there is an obvious advantage in having major destinations at both termini, I disagree. Firstly you don't need anywhere near as much capacity into Birmingham as you do into London? Secondly, how many people commute into Birmingham from S of Milton Keynes? The Virgin trains are better for long distance commuting into London, serving all the major towns N of Milton Keynes except Northampton. Therefore it appears that the best thing to do would be to make Northampton the boundary station. But if you look at a timetable or a geographical map, you'll see that Milton Keynes Central and Wolverton are quite close, while it's a long way from Wolverton to Northampton. Therefore ISTM a better solution would be to terminate the high capacity Crossrail trains at Wolverton, divert a few of the high speed Virgin trains to serve Northampton, and extend the (much cheaper to run) Central Trains service to Milton Keynes Central via Northampton. This is hardly in Mr. Livingston's bailiwick. 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. 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? 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! My plan would give passengers from Watford and beyond (and also from Willesden) much better access to more of London. For many people it would be much more convenient than the Virgin service between Watford and Euston, so they would change trains there instead. This means that passengers who actually did want to get to Euston could change *onto* the Virgin trains at Watford. As they are faster, nobody would be disadvantaged by journey time[*] and the most inconvenience anyone would have would be having to change trains at Watford Junction! [*] except a few people in Bushey and North London where the semi fast trains currently stop, but I expect most of them would prefer Crossrail anyway. -- Aidan Stanger http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk "Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end" -- Spock |
BetterCrossrail website launched
wrote:
Aidan Stanger wrote: My plan for Line 1 also involves taking over some longer distance services so that it is more profitable. (snip) What do you have against the (far more profitable) longer distance distinations such as Milton Keynes? Two words: performance pollution. Crossrail as currently envisioned would essentially be a tube line on a larger scale - the distance beyond the conurbation it runs would be comparable with that of the Metropolitan line. 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. 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? Under my plan, Crossrail would almost have the WCML slow lines to itself. And there would be recovery time built into the schedule so that delays would be minimized. But totally eliminating delays is extremely difficult, even on a line that's operationally isolated, as I'm sure regular users of the Jubilee Line would tell you... 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? 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. and the rather halfhearted nature of the attempt to serve North Kent and South East London - but being restricted to fairly local destinations is not one of them. Neither is serving Whitchapel, which is likely to become a much more important interchange once the ELL is completed. 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). |
BetterCrossrail website launched
"Aidan Stanger" wrote Under my plan, Crossrail would almost have the WCML slow lines to itself. Stand on the Slow Line platform at, say, Watford Junction and watch how much freight uses the slow lines. Peter |
BetterCrossrail website launched
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. 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. 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. 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. 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 - it's about passengers that are going to Croydon, 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. Jonn |
BetterCrossrail website launched
Aidan Stanger wrote:
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. Only if you have a lot of slack time. Also, trains can get even later once they've lost their path. |
BetterCrossrail website launched
On 5 Jan 2006 03:01:34 -0800, wrote:
Aidan Stanger wrote: wrote: 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. 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. There is also a market for people travelling from south of Gatwick, who wish to go to Luton Airport or to a station at which they can connect with MML same platform or over the bridge. You should also reflect on the fact that Farringdon can be a better connecting station for travel to Liverpool Street and points from there, and Euston or Marylebone and points from there. City Thameslink is also good for buses along the Strand or High Holborn. -- Terry Harper Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society http://www.omnibussoc.org |
BetterCrossrail website launched
On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 23:09:10 +0000, Terry Harper
wrote: I've never quite been convinced that there's a market for people to go from Bedford to Brighton Plenty of poofters in Bedford, last time I looked :-_) |
BetterCrossrail website launched
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. 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. |
BetterCrossrail website launched
|
BetterCrossrail website launched
Laurence Payne wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 23:09:10 +0000, Terry Harper wrote: I've never quite been convinced that there's a market for people to go from Bedford to Brighton Plenty of poofters in Bedford, last time I looked :-_) Midnight Ploughboy. -- You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955 |
BetterCrossrail website launched
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. 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. Moreover it needs to be to be built to a 'mainline' loading guage. 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. 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. Again, HMG is not going to finance improvement to all London's transportation infrastructure at once. 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. 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.... 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. My plan for Line 2 also involves less tunneling than the official Line 2 plan, while Line 3 will serve the Docklands and Thames Gateway - but with the advantage of experience constructing the first two lines (making cost control easier), the advantage of serving a more developed area (with regeneration spurred by the DLR and boats). Central London gets the advantage of not having to compete so much for scarce funding, and everybody gets the advantage of not being restricted by CLRL's flawed plans and false assumptions. Moreover, the present Crossrail plan has strength in its simplicity. You proposals are more complex. My proposals for line 1 are actually far simpler. It is only because my proposals go much further that they are more complete. [I meant to write "It is only because my proposals go much further that they are more complex"] Your campaign would be more effective in you focused on just the 'Crossrail one' line. The other material clouds the issue. But, I do respect, and like, the way you are presenting your views. 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. 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. BTW, can anyone comment on the freight situation on the Shenfield line? 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. :-) 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. I suspect a better service would attract more passengers. Some new passengers, yes, but the number would probably be quite low. This MUST be better than turning trains at Paddington. I admit it is slightly better, but it still not a good option. 5. Fewer trains between Edgware Road (Circle) and Baker Street If this is a critical issue, which I doubt, Not critical, but significant enough to include on the list. 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. 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! Royal Oak never had a Mainline Station. I stand corrected. As other readers correctly guessed, I had confused it with Westbourne Park. At my computer, I sit! :-) Re-electrification could be avoided by utilizing dual voltage trains. ...which are significantly more expensive if you require high performance UIVMM. But, re-electrification is probably the simpler and more resilient option. If I recall correctly, Circle Line trains were once maintained at District Line facilities. I wonder how easy it would be to do so these days? As for the remaining 4tph, perhaps these could be reversed at Ealing Broadway, this is surely preferable to doing so at Paddington. What do you have against the (far more profitable) longer distance destinations such as Milton Keynes? This is a London plan. Which is the better kind of London plan: The one that benefits London the most? Or the one that benefits only Londoners? One reason London is so successful is because it's easy to get to. Many corporations locate their headquarters in London because its large catchment area makes it easier to recruit a skilled workforce. It is designed to relieve the Underground. Indeed it is, and that is an objective I support. My plan is also designed to relieve the Underground, and does so as much as CLRL's plan. But because my plan for Line 1 is cheaper, more of the Underground could subsequently be relieved. CLRL's plan is worse than doing nothing, because if the government does spend that much, their successors will come to the conclusion that public transport is a waste of money. That is likely to lead to decades of underinvestment. The logical termination point for Milton Keynes and Northampton trains is Birmingham New Street. Although there is an obvious advantage in having major destinations at both termini, I disagree. Firstly you don't need anywhere near as much capacity into Birmingham as you do into London? Secondly, how many people commute into Birmingham from S of Milton Keynes? The Virgin trains are better for long distance commuting into London, serving all the major towns N of Milton Keynes except Northampton. Therefore it appears that the best thing to do would be to make Northampton the boundary station. But if you look at a timetable or a geographical map, you'll see that Milton Keynes Central and Wolverton are quite close, while it's a long way from Wolverton to Northampton. Therefore ISTM a better solution would be to terminate the high capacity Crossrail trains at Wolverton, divert a few of the high speed Virgin trains to serve Northampton, and extend the (much cheaper to run) Central Trains service to Milton Keynes Central via Northampton. This is hardly in Mr. Livingston's bailiwick. 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. 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. 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. 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. My plan would give passengers from Watford and beyond (and also from Willesden) much better access to more of London. For many people it would be much more convenient than the Virgin service between Watford and Euston, so they would change trains there instead. This means that passengers who actually did want to get to Euston could change *onto* the Virgin trains at Watford. As they are faster, nobody would be disadvantaged by journey time[*] and the most inconvenience anyone would have would be having to change trains at Watford Junction! [*] except a few people in Bushey and North London where the semi fast trains currently stop, but I expect most of them would prefer Crossrail anyway. Adrian, http://www.losangelesmetro.net/author/ |
BetterCrossrail website launched
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 |
BetterCrossrail website launched
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 |
BetterCrossrail website launched
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 |
BetterCrossrail website launched
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 |
BetterCrossrail website launched
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 |
BetterCrossrail website launched
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 |
BetterCrossrail website launched
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 |
BetterCrossrail website launched
"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 |
BetterCrossrail website launched
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 |
BetterCrossrail website launched
|
BetterCrossrail website launched
"Terry Harper" wrote 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). Crossrail, as currently proposed, would have two western termini, Maidenhead and Heathrow, with a high proportion of trains terminating at Paddington (using turnback sidings at Westbourne Park). There is no infrastructure currently in mind which would allow the Heathrow trains to loop back to the GWML and continue to Maidenhead or Reading. In fact, it seems likely that Crossrail would run to T123 then T4, with passengers for T5 having to change on to HEx at T123. Existing links between Heathrow and Reading include the RailAir coach, nominally 40 minutes from T1 (soon to move to Central Bus Station), though allowed more in the morning peak, while by train it's around 47 minutes, changing at Hayes & Harlington. Airtrack are proposing around 38 minutes from T5, calling at Staines High Street, Bracknell and Wokingham. Peter |
BetterCrossrail website launched
Peter Masson wrote:
Crossrail, as currently proposed, would have two western termini, Maidenhead and Heathrow, with a high proportion of trains terminating at Paddington (using turnback sidings at Westbourne Park). There is no infrastructure currently in mind which would allow the Heathrow trains to loop back to the GWML and continue to Maidenhead or Reading. In fact, it seems likely that Crossrail would run to T123 then T4, with passengers for T5 having to change on to HEx at T123. I would be very surprised if that was the case. With BA flights concentrated on T5, I would expect the Crossrail service to be split between T4 and T5, or all of them to go to T5. Why would you expect them all to go to the station with the least demand of all the three Heathrow stations? -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
BetterCrossrail website launched
"Richard J." wrote in message . .. Peter Masson wrote: Crossrail, as currently proposed, would have two western termini, Maidenhead and Heathrow, with a high proportion of trains terminating at Paddington (using turnback sidings at Westbourne Park). There is no infrastructure currently in mind which would allow the Heathrow trains to loop back to the GWML and continue to Maidenhead or Reading. In fact, it seems likely that Crossrail would run to T123 then T4, with passengers for T5 having to change on to HEx at T123. I would be very surprised if that was the case. With BA flights concentrated on T5, I would expect the Crossrail service to be split between T4 and T5, or all of them to go to T5. Why would you expect them all to go to the station with the least demand of all the three Heathrow stations? When T5 opens, HEx, as the prime/premium serviuce from Paddington, will divert to T5 and no longer serve T4. Heathrow Connect will be extended to T4, to maintain a service to T4. Connect trains will then do a T4-T123-T4 shuttle before returning to Paddington, to maintain a 15 minute service at T4. HEx passengers for T4, and Heathrow Connect passengers for T5 will have to change at T123. On the Piccadilly Line 2 in 3 or 3 in 4 trains will run to T123 then T5, not serving T4, while the remainder will use the T4 - T123 route, not serving T5. It is likely, if Crossrail is built, that Crossrail will take over Heathrow Connect, at a 4tph frequency, but continue to serve T123 and T4, with HEx continuing toi serve T123 and T5. Peter |
BetterCrossrail website launched
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 20:46:30 +0000, Terry Harper
wrote: Crossrail is not going to be used by London-Reading passengers, who would take the non-stop options. Right. It does not make sense to terminate the stopping service at Maidenhead, which then requires a second stopping service between Reading and Maidenhead. Err... so? Surely it would be easier to just run the stopping Reading services with DMUs (Reading-Slough or Reading-Paddington), than to electrify all the way from Maidenhead to Reading? |
BetterCrossrail website launched
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 13:34:46 +0000, asdf
wrote: On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 20:46:30 +0000, Terry Harper wrote: It does not make sense to terminate the stopping service at Maidenhead, which then requires a second stopping service between Reading and Maidenhead. Surely it would be easier to just run the stopping Reading services with DMUs (Reading-Slough or Reading-Paddington), than to electrify all the way from Maidenhead to Reading? Even easier not to electrify beyond Heathrow. Why have two services doing the same thing? -- Terry Harper Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society http://www.omnibussoc.org |
BetterCrossrail website launched
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 22:52:50 +0000, Terry Harper
wrote: It does not make sense to terminate the stopping service at Maidenhead, which then requires a second stopping service between Reading and Maidenhead. Surely it would be easier to just run the stopping Reading services with DMUs (Reading-Slough or Reading-Paddington), than to electrify all the way from Maidenhead to Reading? Even easier not to electrify beyond Heathrow. Why have two services doing the same thing? Heathrow is a terminus - ITIYM Hayes & Harlington. It's beneficial to electrify as far as Maidenhead (or Twyford, really) as this allows a through service through the Crossrail tunnel, rather than having to change at Paddington. But such a service from Reading would be little-used, as it would be much slower than the frequent non-stop service to London. |
BetterCrossrail website launched
"asdf" wrote Heathrow is a terminus - ITIYM Hayes & Harlington. It's beneficial to electrify as far as Maidenhead (or Twyford, really) as this allows a through service through the Crossrail tunnel, rather than having to change at Paddington. But such a service from Reading would be little-used, as it would be much slower than the frequent non-stop service to London. It would be used by commuters to Reading from stations between Ealing and Twyford, by passengers from those stations changing into an Intercity train at Reading, and possibly by passengers from Heathrow to Reading, changing at Hayes & Harlington. AIUI what wrecked the business case for extending Crossrail through to Reading was the suggestion that Crossrail would have to pick up the tab for capacity enhancement and resignalling at Reading, which will be needed over the next few years whether Crossrail goes there or not. It therefore seems very opportune for the Parliamentary Committee examining petitions against the Crossrail Bill to consider petitions that relate to making Reading the western terminus. Peter Peter |
BetterCrossrail website launched
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:06:36 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Masson"
wrote: Heathrow is a terminus - ITIYM Hayes & Harlington. It's beneficial to electrify as far as Maidenhead (or Twyford, really) as this allows a through service through the Crossrail tunnel, rather than having to change at Paddington. But such a service from Reading would be little-used, as it would be much slower than the frequent non-stop service to London. It would be used by commuters to Reading from stations between Ealing and Twyford, by passengers from those stations changing into an Intercity train at Reading, and possibly by passengers from Heathrow to Reading, changing at Hayes & Harlington. These could all be accommodated by a Paddington-Reading DMU... |
BetterCrossrail website launched
"asdf" wrote in message ... On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:06:36 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Masson" wrote: Heathrow is a terminus - ITIYM Hayes & Harlington. It's beneficial to electrify as far as Maidenhead (or Twyford, really) as this allows a through service through the Crossrail tunnel, rather than having to change at Paddington. But such a service from Reading would be little-used, as it would be much slower than the frequent non-stop service to London. It would be used by commuters to Reading from stations between Ealing and Twyford, by passengers from those stations changing into an Intercity train at Reading, and possibly by passengers from Heathrow to Reading, changing at Hayes & Harlington. These could all be accommodated by a Paddington-Reading DMU... which would duplicate Crossrail between Paddington and Maidenhead, taking up track capacity on the Relief Lines (or running fast between Paddington and Maidenhead on the Mains, and taking up track capacity there - particularly as no 125 mph stockj would appear to be avaialable, and in crossing at Maidenhead East, and in this case many of the passengers I've mentioned would have to make an extra change at Maidenhead). Peter |
BetterCrossrail website launched
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:08:11 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Masson"
wrote: These could all be accommodated by a Paddington-Reading DMU... which would duplicate Crossrail between Paddington and Maidenhead, taking up track capacity on the Relief Lines Only as much track capacity as they'd take up if they were Crossrail trains instead... |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:23 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk