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 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.

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

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.

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.

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?

"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

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

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.

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