asdf wrote:

On 1 Aug 2006 03:06:21 -0700, Mizter T wrote:

The committee's comments on ensuring "the Crossrail station is fully
integrated into the local transport infrastructure" would initially
appear to suggest some kind of full interchange with south eastern NR
lines and DLR - as you point out Dave this isn't realilistically
achievable.

Or worthwhile, really. The only useful interchange it would create
would be eastbound SET to westbound Crossrail, and even that's not a
very useful one.

It would serve the area though. From the little I've read thus far I
feel very favourable to the idea. As I said in my first post, it
doesn't have to be a super-interchange to be worthwhile.

Indeed - I was trying to say that there's not much point making it an
interchange with SET/DLR if it would mean a large increase in cost.


OK I misunderstood you. Yes I agree with that - from the little
knowledge I have of Crossrail I understand the route of the tunnel in
Woolwich has been decided. I'm sure an argument along the lines of
"well the tunnel hasn't been built yet so the route can obviously be
changed" will come up, which is of course true, but I presume it'd make
it much more expensive, as a central Woolwich interchange isn't on the
right alignment.

Anyway interchange with the SET lines could be made at Abbey Wood, and
interchange with the DLR would be possible at Custom House - or if
people wanted the City Airport branch they could walk between the
Crossrail and Woolwich Arsenal stations. I don't know exactly where the
Crossrail station would be but it seems it wouldn't be far away - a
mile at the very most, probably more like half a mile.

asdf wrote:
On 31 Jul 2006 15:38:23 -0700, Mizter T wrote:

The committee's comments on ensuring "the Crossrail station is fully
integrated into the local transport infrastructure" would initially
appear to suggest some kind of full interchange with south eastern NR
lines and DLR - as you point out Dave this isn't realilistically
achievable.

Or worthwhile, really. The only useful interchange it would create
would be eastbound SET to westbound Crossrail, and even that's not a
very useful one.

If it were feasible, a DLR interchange could be useful for people
travelling from the west to London City Airport - but not necessary, as
there will be direct (albeit slower) alternatives via either Stratford
or Isle of Dogs - Poplar.

A Greenwich Waterfront stop will be the most useful interchange, as it
will feed in passengers well from both east and west. A bus station
would be better, but I don't know whether that would fit into the
surrounding development.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Bob wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote:
Something which had escaped my attention and which not much fuss seems
to have been made of - the Crossrail Select Committee made a statement
on its preliminary findings having considered petitions related to the
Crossrail Bill, and the main issue is that they are requiring CLRL to
add a station at Woolwich to the Bill.

Overall common sense appears to be breaking out about Crossrail with
the decision to use Old Oak Common as opposed to Romford , the
redeployment of North Pole, the avoidance of the Hanbury Street shafts
and now the Woolwich decision. Chunky bits still be sorted out include
freight traffic both to the west and east of London, decisions to stop
short at both Abbeywood and Maidenhead as opposed to Ebbsfleet and
Reading. The Commons committee appear realise that integrating into the
wider network is an issue that the promoters preoccupied with getting
the "big dig" built have tended to ignore.There is still the proposal
to turn round of half the trains at Paddington which seems a wasted
opportunity - taking over the Hammersmith end of the H&C removes a busy
junction on the Circle Line with knock on effects for that lines
reliability would seem a low cost no brainer.

I agree, but I think ensuring the central tunnel gets built is most
important - adding on too many extra bits here and there could kill the
whole project. Hammersmith could come later...

Oh, and add crowding relief for the Piccadilly (and potentially
District) to the benefits for taking over the H&C.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Dave Arquati wrote:

asdf wrote:
On 31 Jul 2006 15:38:23 -0700, Mizter T wrote:

The committee's comments on ensuring "the Crossrail station is fully
integrated into the local transport infrastructure" would initially
appear to suggest some kind of full interchange with south eastern NR
lines and DLR - as you point out Dave this isn't realilistically
achievable.

Or worthwhile, really. The only useful interchange it would create
would be eastbound SET to westbound Crossrail, and even that's not a
very useful one.

If it were feasible, a DLR interchange could be useful for people
travelling from the west to London City Airport - but not necessary, as
there will be direct (albeit slower) alternatives via either Stratford
or Isle of Dogs - Poplar.

Or a bus route could be altered or created to include a section from
Custom House over the Connaught Bridge to City Airport.

Dave Arquati wrote:

Something which had escaped my attention and which not much fuss seems
to have been made of - the Crossrail Select Committee made a statement
on its preliminary findings having considered petitions related to the
Crossrail Bill, and the main issue is that they are requiring CLRL to
add a station at Woolwich to the Bill.


LB Greenwich seems to be at the forefront of this campaign.

See...
http://www.greenwich.gov.uk/Greenwic...el/TravelNews/
This appears to be a portal page and it currently displays some
interesting and informed supportive comments regarding the proposal
from local MPs.

"Woolwich Crossrail campaign pulls in to Parliament"
(2 May briefing on preparations for Crossrail Select Committee hearings
- useful as it concisely sets out the case for a Woolwich Crossrail
station)
http://www.greenwich.gov.uk/Greenwic...Parliament.htm

"Massive boost for Woolwich Crossrail campaign"
(25 July briefing on the Crossrail Select Committee interim decision)
http://www.greenwich.gov.uk/Greenwic...ilCampaign.htm

Royal Arsenal developers website - page concerning future transport
links (see the bottom of the page)
http://www.royal-arsenal.co.uk/index.cfm?articleID=29

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Dave Arquati wrote:

Bob wrote:

to turn round of half the trains at Paddington which seems a wasted
opportunity - taking over the Hammersmith end of the H&C removes a busy
junction on the Circle Line with knock on effects for that lines
reliability would seem a low cost no brainer.

I agree, but I think ensuring the central tunnel gets built is most
important - adding on too many extra bits here and there could kill the
whole project. Hammersmith could come later...

Except Hammersmith involves noodling about quite near the Paddington
portal (if you want to have a station at Royal Oak, or if you want to use
the existing H&C fly-under, at any rate), so if you don't at least build
in the possibility at the start, you might not be able to do it later.

tom

--
Understanding the universe is the final purpose, as far as I'm
concerned. -- Ian York

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Dave Arquati wrote:

Bob wrote:

to turn round of half the trains at Paddington which seems a wasted
opportunity - taking over the Hammersmith end of the H&C removes a
busy junction on the Circle Line with knock on effects for that lines
reliability would seem a low cost no brainer.

I agree, but I think ensuring the central tunnel gets built is most
important - adding on too many extra bits here and there could kill
the whole project. Hammersmith could come later...

Except Hammersmith involves noodling about quite near the Paddington
portal (if you want to have a station at Royal Oak, or if you want to
use the existing H&C fly-under, at any rate), so if you don't at least
build in the possibility at the start, you might not be able to do it
later.

I'm not sure it would be worth keeping Royal Oak in this scenario
(gasp). Its catchment area overlaps a lot with Bayswater, Warwick Avenue
and Paddington H&C; a western entrance for Paddington Crossrail would
also be close by.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Dave Arquati wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Dave Arquati wrote:

Bob wrote:

to turn round of half the trains at Paddington which seems a wasted
opportunity - taking over the Hammersmith end of the H&C removes a
busy junction on the Circle Line with knock on effects for that lines
reliability would seem a low cost no brainer.

I agree, but I think ensuring the central tunnel gets built is most
important - adding on too many extra bits here and there could kill
the whole project. Hammersmith could come later...

Except Hammersmith involves noodling about quite near the Paddington
portal (if you want to have a station at Royal Oak, or if you want to
use the existing H&C fly-under, at any rate), so if you don't at least
build in the possibility at the start, you might not be able to do it
later.

I'm not sure it would be worth keeping Royal Oak in this scenario
(gasp). Its catchment area overlaps a lot with Bayswater, Warwick Avenue
and Paddington H&C; a western entrance for Paddington Crossrail would
also be close by.

--
If CrossRail takes over the Hammersmith Branch, and I think there is a
case for it, then there should be considerable rationalization of
stations.

Adrian.

Solario wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Dave Arquati wrote:

Bob wrote:

to turn round of half the trains at Paddington which seems a wasted
opportunity - taking over the Hammersmith end of the H&C removes a
busy junction on the Circle Line with knock on effects for that lines
reliability would seem a low cost no brainer.
I agree, but I think ensuring the central tunnel gets built is most
important - adding on too many extra bits here and there could kill
the whole project. Hammersmith could come later...
Except Hammersmith involves noodling about quite near the Paddington
portal (if you want to have a station at Royal Oak, or if you want to
use the existing H&C fly-under, at any rate), so if you don't at least
build in the possibility at the start, you might not be able to do it
later.
I'm not sure it would be worth keeping Royal Oak in this scenario
(gasp). Its catchment area overlaps a lot with Bayswater, Warwick Avenue
and Paddington H&C; a western entrance for Paddington Crossrail would
also be close by.

If CrossRail takes over the Hammersmith Branch, and I think there is a
case for it, then there should be considerable rationalization of
stations.

It might be necessary, given the length of the trains (up to 245m).
Westbourne Park should stay if Royal Oak were to go; Ladbroke Grove is
an important station, and could be moved so that there were two
entrances; one on Ladbroke Grove itself and the other on Portobello Road.

A similar arrangement could see a long White City station replace both
White City and Latimer Road; it could have a western entrance on Freston
Road and an eastern one on Wood Lane (the platform would not be quite as
long; it would not need to straddle the WLL & West Cross Route, but a
pedestrian bridge could do so).

Finally, a Shepherd's Bush station would be just the right length to run
the length of the market between Uxbridge Road and Goldhawk Road with
entrances at each. However, I'm not sure what impact this would have on
the market itself. If it were too bad, then instead the arrangement
might have to be to get rid of Goldhawk Road station altogether, extend
Shepherd's Bush up towards Wood Lane for White City, ditch Latimer Road
and have Ladbroke Grove run westwards with an entrance north of the
sports centre.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote:
It might be necessary, given the length of the trains (up to 245m).
Westbourne Park should stay if Royal Oak were to go; Ladbroke Grove is
an important station, and could be moved so that there were two
entrances; one on Ladbroke Grove itself and the other on Portobello Road.

A similar arrangement could see a long White City station replace both
White City and Latimer Road; it could have a western entrance on Freston
Road and an eastern one on Wood Lane (the platform would not be quite as
long; it would not need to straddle the WLL & West Cross Route, but a
pedestrian bridge could do so).

Finally, a Shepherd's Bush station would be just the right length to run
the length of the market between Uxbridge Road and Goldhawk Road with
entrances at each. However, I'm not sure what impact this would have on
the market itself. If it were too bad, then instead the arrangement
might have to be to get rid of Goldhawk Road station altogether, extend
Shepherd's Bush up towards Wood Lane for White City, ditch Latimer Road
and have Ladbroke Grove run westwards with an entrance north of the
sports centre.

--
This is precisely the sort of thing I had in mind. If an interchange
can be provided with the Central Line at White City, I think that would
be an added advantage.

Don't forget that an interchange (well, an H&C station on Wood Lane) is
already being built at White City, and will have been in operation for a
number of years before Crossrail ever appears in the area.

The other issues would be what to do with Hammersmith Depot and where
Circle Line trains should be stabled.

The stock requirement of the Circle (or whatever succeeded it)
operations would go down somewhat. The remaining stabling arrangements
could be to retain a stub towards Royal Oak along which trains could be
stabled; similarly, perhaps use could be made of the defunct Moorgate
Thameslink branch for expansion of the Farringdon sidings.

The new common S-stock should allow greater flexibility in where to
stable trains, so any more sidings needed could be distributed around
some other depots wherever a small expansion could occur.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London