| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Crossrail link to Reading hangs in the balance
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...nce/article.do
A decision on whether to extend the £16billion Crossrail scheme to Reading will be made in the New Year, it emerged today. Transport minister Tom Harris is looking at whether the cross-London rail line can be linked to Reading without significantly increasing the cost of the project. The decision is understood to be "evenly balanced". Construction on the long-delayed project will start in 2010 with the first trains running in 2017. The 74-mile route stretches from Maidenhead in the east to Canary Wharf and beyond by way of Heathrow, the West End and the City. With the scheme expected to benefit the economy by as much as £68billion over the next few decades, Ministers have faced sustained lobbying from MPs anxious for their constituencies to be linked to the route. Extending the line to Reading could be done without having to amend the Crossrail Bill, which has just passed through the House of Commons. One possibility is to give the go ahead to the extension in principle but not guaranteeing it will be built until finances are clearer. D |
Crossrail link to Reading hangs in the balance
In message , at
20:34:52 on Tue, 25 Dec 2007, Dave remarked: One possibility is to give the go ahead to the extension in principle but not guaranteeing it will be built until finances are clearer. Isn't that the regime that all railway building projects operate under, anyway? The SPILL box and several remaining bits of Thameslink spring to mind, let alone any of the Crossrail scheme. -- Roland Perry |
Crossrail link to Reading hangs in the balance
On Dec 26, 1:27 am, Roland Perry wrote:
Isn't that the regime that all railway building projects operate under, anyway? The SPILL box The box was guaranteed. The station was the bit that was funded later. -- Nick |
Crossrail link to Reading hangs in the balance
In message
, at 04:58:25 on Wed, 26 Dec 2007, D7666 remarked: Isn't that the regime that all railway building projects operate under, anyway? The SPILL box The box was guaranteed. The station was the bit that was funded later. Exactly my point. They got the go-ahead to built the box on the assumption that they'd be able to get funding for the fitout later. Which in this case it did - but it's not always the case. -- Roland Perry |
Crossrail link to Reading hangs in the balance
"Dave" wrote:
A decision on whether to extend the £16billion Crossrail scheme to Reading will be made in the New Year, it emerged today... Good news that they're giving this question a second thought. I suspect, however, that even if they decided to stick with Maidenhead for the initial development, the case to extend to Reading subsequently would be so compelling that it'd happen one way or the other anyway. I think sometimes it's better to start off with a finite, achieveable project even if the case for bigger things seems powerful. Because one thing often does lead to the next. The example I always think of is Bed-Pan electrification - as soon as that was done a strong business case for the original Thameslink project emerged. The other extension to Crossrail that seems fairly obvious to me is to extend the trains currently planned to terminate at Paddington up the former GW&GC joint line. Bring the Old Oak - Northolt East line back into proper use, rebuild the main line platforms at Greenford, making this the first stop out of Padd, then run all-stations to Princes Risboro and Aylesbury (some trains probably terminating at High Wycombe). But this is clearly too extensive to be sensible to include in the initial project. Adie |
Crossrail link to Reading hangs in the balance
"Adrian the Rock" wrote in message
"Dave" wrote: The other extension to Crossrail that seems fairly obvious to me is to extend the trains currently planned to terminate at Paddington up the former GW&GC joint line. Bring the Old Oak - Northolt East line back into proper use, rebuild the main line platforms at Greenford, making this the first stop out of Padd, then run all-stations to Princes Risboro and Aylesbury (some trains probably terminating at High Wycombe). But this is clearly too extensive to be sensible to include in the initial project. Wasn't something like this in some of the earlier Crossrail iterations? At one stage it was going to take over all Aylesbury services, as well as Met services to Amersham. |
Crossrail link to Reading hangs in the balance
On Dec 26, 5:42 am, (Adrian the Rock) wrote:
one thing often does lead to the next. The example I always think of is Bed-Pan electrification - as soon as that was done a strong business case for the original Thameslink project emerged. Except that is not how it happened at all. The 1990s Snow Hill link was a GLC driven idea simply to link Blackfriars with Farringdon. It had very little to do with any BedPan or subsequent TL development. TL2000 formed its own business case once Snow Hill was in place - or at least under way. -- Nick |
Crossrail link to Reading hangs in the balance
On 25 Dec, 20:34, "Dave" wrote:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...-details/Cross... A decision on whether to extend the £16billion Crossrail scheme to Reading will be made in the New Year, it emerged today. If it is, then presumably the current semifast services from Reading will be relegated to all-stops, and there won't be much choice for passangers from the Slough-Reading corridor -- a slow service, or none at all. When I lived in Twyford there were fast services that stopped maidenhead/burnham/taplow/slough/hayes/ealing/paddington, they then added in west drayton, iver and langley when they stopped the slough all-stops for Heathrow Connect, severly worsening service for the Slough-Reading corridor. An all stops service will be painful, especially as frequency won't increase. If it isn't extended, then I can see the slow Oxford-Reading services will call additionally at Twyford, Maidenhead, Slough, then move to the main lines to Paddington, allowing cross/same platform changes to crossrail at Slough. An extra stop at Hayes on an new platform (if there were room) could allow better connections without holding up the main line GWML services. |
Crossrail link to Reading hangs in the balance
In message
, at 08:46:24 on Thu, 27 Dec 2007, Paul Weaver remarked: A decision on whether to extend the £16billion Crossrail scheme to Reading will be made in the New Year, it emerged today. If it is, then presumably the current semifast services from Reading will be relegated to all-stops, and there won't be much choice for passangers from the Slough-Reading corridor Is that what another poster referred to in a different thread as "St Alban-isation"? (I took this to be a reference to BedPan electrification meaning mainline services no longer stopped there). -- Roland Perry |
Crossrail link to Reading hangs in the balance
Adrian the Rock wrote:
"Dave" wrote: A decision on whether to extend the £16billion Crossrail scheme to Reading will be made in the New Year, it emerged today... Good news that they're giving this question a second thought. I suspect, however, that even if they decided to stick with Maidenhead for the initial development, the case to extend to Reading subsequently would be so compelling that it'd happen one way or the other anyway. Big benefit of Crossrail is not having to change at current termini. If you're far enough out, it's better to get a fast train to the terminus and change anyway. I hope the principle that Crossrail should be all-stations has been established. For journeys to/from London, this means Maidenhead is probably about right. Reading is a big traffic-generator, and if it wants to fund the extension, no problem. If any trains are extended to Reading, though, I'd say it should be the Heathrow ones, not the Maidenhead ones. The other extension to Crossrail that seems fairly obvious to me is to extend the trains currently planned to terminate at Paddington up the former GW&GC joint line. Bring the Old Oak - Northolt East line back into proper use, rebuild the main line platforms at Greenford, making this the first stop out of Padd, then run all-stations to Princes Risboro and Aylesbury There should certainly be an extension along this line one day. But possibly only as far as High Wycombe - Princes Risborough at most. Aylesbury is on the wrong branch. The principle of an all-stations service stands, so you'd need to give serious thought to reallocating the Central Line tracks beyond about Greenford. First stop out of Paddington should be North Acton, then the new Park Royal interchange. Capacity between Paddington and Old Oak Junction is a problem. But this is clearly too extensive to be sensible to include in the initial project. Agreed. Let's get the central tunnel built first. Colin McKenzie -- No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking. Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org. |
Crossrail link to Reading hangs in the balance
|
Crossrail link to Reading hangs in the balance
Colin McKenzie wrote:
Adrian the Rock wrote: "Dave" wrote: A decision on whether to extend the £16billion Crossrail scheme to Reading will be made in the New Year, it emerged today... Good news that they're giving this question a second thought. I suspect, however, that even if they decided to stick with Maidenhead for the initial development, the case to extend to Reading subsequently would be so compelling that it'd happen one way or the other anyway. Big benefit of Crossrail is not having to change at current termini. If you're far enough out, it's better to get a fast train to the terminus and change anyway. I hope the principle that Crossrail should be all-stations has been established. Then you'll be disappointed. The planned Crossrail timetable involves some trains non-stopping certain stations west of Paddington in order to leave paths for some west-of-Maidenhead FGW trains on the relief lines. I don't see anything wrong with that. Why do you think that, say, Acton Main Line or Hanwell must have the same frequency of service as Ealing Broadway? -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Crossrail link to Reading hangs in the balance
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007, Adrian the Rock wrote:
I think sometimes it's better to start off with a finite, achieveable project even if the case for bigger things seems powerful. Because one thing often does lead to the next. Quite true: better to have something small but certain you can build on than castles in the air. The other extension to Crossrail that seems fairly obvious to me is to extend the trains currently planned to terminate at Paddington up the former GW&GC joint line. The less obvious but (IMNERHO) even better idea is to assimilate the Hammersmith & City line west of Paddington. It improves the service there, and also simplifies the sub-surface lines, allowing them to run a more reliable service too. Gauge issues etc, though. tom -- Is this the only way to get through to you? |
Crossrail link to Reading hangs in the balance
On 28 Dec, 01:25, Tom Anderson wrote:
The less obvious but (IMNERHO) even better idea is to assimilate the Hammersmith & City line west of Paddington. It improves the service there, and also simplifies the sub-surface lines, allowing them to run a more reliable service too. Gauge issues etc, though. I think the portal's too far west for this. By the time Crossrail trains surface on the north side of the GWML, the H&C is about to turn south away from the line, and I wouldn't think it's practical to build a flyover in the space available. I like the idea of heading to Uxbridge via a sharp turn to North Ealing, so that all Piccadilly Line trains can go to Heathrow, but I doubt there's a business case for it. U -- http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/ A blog about transport projects in London |
Crossrail link to Reading hangs in the balance
In article ,
Colin Rosenstiel writes In article , (Colin McKenzie) wrote: Big benefit of Crossrail is not having to change at current termini. Unless you're a cyclist currently using Paddington or Liverpool St! Then you're totally stuffed! Or you don't want to go across London! -- John Alexander, Remove NOSPAM if replying by e-mail |
Crossrail link to Reading hangs in the balance
"Mr Thant" wrote in message ... On 28 Dec, 01:25, Tom Anderson wrote: The less obvious but (IMNERHO) even better idea is to assimilate the Hammersmith & City line west of Paddington. It improves the service there, and also simplifies the sub-surface lines, allowing them to run a more reliable service too. Gauge issues etc, though. I think the portal's too far west for this. By the time Crossrail trains surface on the north side of the GWML, the H&C is about to turn south away from the line, and I wouldn't think it's practical to build a flyover in the space available. I like the idea of heading to Uxbridge via a sharp turn to North Ealing, so that all Piccadilly Line trains can go to Heathrow, but I doubt there's a business case for it. Could they not just transfer that bit back to the District line using a few more of the new S stock to provide the traction, and up the Picc frequency to Heathrow? Paul S |
Crossrail link to Reading hangs in the balance
On 28 Dec, 09:57, "Paul Scott" wrote:
Could they not just transfer that bit back to the District line using a few more of the new S stock to provide the traction, and up the Picc frequency to Heathrow? But then you'd have to take trains away from the other District branches, or find more capacity further east. Rumour is that the District Ealing Broadway and Piccadilly Uxbridge branches will swap over at some point, but I don't think this plan has any official status. U -- http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/ A blog about transport projects in London |
Crossrail link to Reading hangs in the balance
In message
, Mr Thant writes Could they not just transfer that bit back to the District line using a few more of the new S stock to provide the traction, and up the Picc frequency to Heathrow? But then you'd have to take trains away from the other District branches, or find more capacity further east. Rumour is that the District Ealing Broadway and Piccadilly Uxbridge branches will swap over at some point, but I don't think this plan has any official status. Having asked this question at work I've been advised that there is no substance to it at all - just somebody's theory that has grown legs on t'internet it seems. -- Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building. You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK (please use the reply to address for email) |
Crossrail link to Reading hangs in the balance
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Mr Thant wrote:
On 28 Dec, 09:57, "Paul Scott" wrote: Could they not just transfer that bit back to the District line using a few more of the new S stock to provide the traction, and up the Picc frequency to Heathrow? But then you'd have to take trains away from the other District branches, or find more capacity further east. Rumour is that the District Ealing Broadway and Piccadilly Uxbridge branches will swap over at some point, but I don't think this plan has any official status. New to me. There's been a plan hanging around for decades now for a couple of miles of tunnel from Shepherd's Bush to Turnham Green, by means of which the Central line could take over the Richmond branch of the District. There was a matching plan for another 2.5 mile tunnel from Queen's Park to North Acton, by which the Bakerloo could take over the Ealing Broadway branch of the Central. You reduce the District by one branch, increase the Bakerloo by one, and keep the Central at two, although they're different. The clever bit about the Bakerloo tunnel is that it allows trains that would otherwise have to reverse at Queen's Park to go somewhere; if the plan to reorganise the DC lines comes to pass, so that all Bakerloo trains can go beyond Queen's Park, with NR trains (from the Overground) terminating there, this becomes a less good plan. The not so clever bit is that the reasonably direct Central line route into town from Ealing Broadway gets replaced by a rather round-the-houses Bakerloo one. Although post-DC-reshuffle, that tunnel, arranged slightly differently, might actually be a rather clever way of extending the Overground from Queen's Park to Ealing Broadway, bringing an orbital route to a major interchange (which by then will have Crossrail, and so less need for a Central line branch). A variant of that i dreamed up is to ditch the tunnels, and just build a couple of flying junctions to transfer the Richmond branch to the Piccadilly at Chiswick Park, and the Uxbridge branch to the Central at Park Royal, with the Ealing Broadway branch just closing post-Crossrail. Doesn't really help Heathrow, though. tom -- Everyone in the world is doing something without me. |
Crossrail link to Reading hangs in the balance
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Mr Thant wrote: On 28 Dec, 09:57, "Paul Scott" wrote: Could they not just transfer that bit back to the District line using a few more of the new S stock to provide the traction, and up the Picc frequency to Heathrow? But then you'd have to take trains away from the other District branches, or find more capacity further east. Rumour is that the District Ealing Broadway and Piccadilly Uxbridge branches will swap over at some point, but I don't think this plan has any official status. New to me. There's been a plan hanging around for decades now for a couple of miles of tunnel from Shepherd's Bush to Turnham Green, by means of which the Central line could take over the Richmond branch of the District. It even made the Tube Map in (I think) 1920, with a branch of the Central London Railway from Shepherd's Bush to Gunnersbury shown as "under construction", though it never was AFAIK. According to this map poster, which is on show at the Museum Depot during open weekends, stations were planned at Goldhawk Road, Stamford Brook Common, Turnham Green (next to the existing station), Turnham Green (near the green) and Gunnersbury. The Central extension from Wood Lane to Ealing Broadway is also shown as "under construction", and it was opened later in 1920. There's a photo of the map at http://rjnews.fotopic.net/p47472218.html Click 'Next' for a close-up of the Gunnersbury branch. According to Barker & Robbins (A History of London Transport), the Gunnersbury branch was authorised in 1913. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Crossrail link to Reading hangs in the balance
On Dec 26, 5:42*am, (Adrian the Rock) wrote:
The other extension to Crossrail that seems fairly obvious to me is to extend the trains currently planned to terminate at Paddington up the former GW&GC joint line. *Bring the Old Oak - Northolt East line back into proper use, rebuild the main line platforms at Greenford, making this the first stop out of Padd, then run all-stations to Princes Risboro and Aylesbury (some trains probably terminating at High Wycombe). *But this is clearly too extensive to be sensible to include in the initial project. Adie There are two issues with this idea. Firstly it would mean an expensive electrification of the route to Aylesbury by way of Prices Risborough. Secondly, there is the Birmingham service to consider. It would either have to remain a DMU operation with many miles under the wire, or would have to terminate at Risborough or High Wycombe. Adrian |
Crossrail link to Reading hangs in the balance
"Adrian Auer-Hudson, MIMIS" wrote in message ... On Dec 26, 5:42 am, (Adrian the Rock) wrote: The other extension to Crossrail that seems fairly obvious to me is to extend the trains currently planned to terminate at Paddington up the former GW&GC joint line. Bring the Old Oak - Northolt East line back into proper use, rebuild the main line platforms at Greenford, making this the first stop out of Padd, then run all-stations to Princes Risboro and Aylesbury (some trains probably terminating at High Wycombe). But this is clearly too extensive to be sensible to include in the initial project. Adie There are two issues with this idea. Firstly it would mean an expensive electrification of the route to Aylesbury by way of Prices Risborough. Provided it is done at the time that life expire stock is to be replaced, electrification is usually a lower cost option over the total life of the new stock, however expensive the actual conversion. Secondly, there is the Birmingham service to consider. It would either have to remain a DMU operation with many miles under the wire, Well this wouldn't be the first time. Cross country runs "under the wire" all the way from Birmingham to Manchester and York to Edinburgh, which is much further than this piddly little bit of track to PR. tim |
Crossrail link to Reading hangs in the balance
|
Crossrail link to Reading hangs in the balance
|
Crossrail link to Reading hangs in the balance
"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message ... In article , (tim.....) wrote: "Adrian Auer-Hudson, MIMIS" wrote in message ... On Dec 26, 5:42 am, (Adrian the Rock) wrote: The other extension to Crossrail that seems fairly obvious to me is to extend the trains currently planned to terminate at Paddington up the former GW&GC joint line. Bring the Old Oak - Northolt East line back into proper use, rebuild the main line platforms at Greenford, making this the first stop out of Padd, then run all-stations to Princes Risboro and Aylesbury (some trains probably terminating at High Wycombe). But this is clearly too extensive to be sensible to include in the initial project. There are two issues with this idea. Firstly it would mean an expensive electrification of the route to Aylesbury by way of Prices Risborough. Provided it is done at the time that life expire stock is to be replaced, electrification is usually a lower cost option over the total life of the new stock, however expensive the actual conversion. Secondly, there is the Birmingham service to consider. It would either have to remain a DMU operation with many miles under the wire, Well this wouldn't be the first time. Cross country runs "under the wire" all the way from Birmingham to Manchester and York to Edinburgh, which is much further than this piddly little bit of track to PR. How much longer though? Do you mean in time? Surely that's irrelevent. The principle has been established for the past 10 (ish) years. Aren't some of those routes being handed over to VWC? -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Crossrail link to Reading hangs in the balance
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article , (Richard J.) wrote: According to Barker & Robbins (A History of London Transport), the Gunnersbury branch was authorised in 1913. So before it was decided to take over the route from Hammersmith, on which regular services ceased in 1916, instead. Yes, Barker & Robbins say that a short tunnel to link Shepherd's Bush (Central Railway) to the old LSWR route via Hammersmith Grove Road was authorised in 1920, but that never came to anything either. The LSWR tracks were later incorporated into the 1932 scheme which extended the Piccadilly west of Hammersmith. Actually, the 1920 map already shows an extension of the Piccadilly to Ravenscourt Park. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Crossrail link to Reading hangs in the balance
"tim....." writes:
Well this wouldn't be the first time. Cross country runs "under the wire" all the way from Birmingham to Manchester and York to Edinburgh, which is much further than this piddly little bit of track to PR. Which they did not used to do. I remember just after the Leamington Spa to Coventry line was re-opened to passenger traffic that trains between the South Coast and Liverpool/Manchester used to swap between Diesel and Electric traction at Coventry (as well as often changing locos at Reading rather than the pre-voyager practice of the same loco having to run round) |
Crossrail link to Reading hangs in the balance
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Richard J. wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote: On Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Mr Thant wrote: On 28 Dec, 09:57, "Paul Scott" wrote: Could they not just transfer that bit back to the District line using a few more of the new S stock to provide the traction, and up the Picc frequency to Heathrow? But then you'd have to take trains away from the other District branches, or find more capacity further east. Rumour is that the District Ealing Broadway and Piccadilly Uxbridge branches will swap over at some point, but I don't think this plan has any official status. New to me. There's been a plan hanging around for decades now for a couple of miles of tunnel from Shepherd's Bush to Turnham Green, by means of which the Central line could take over the Richmond branch of the District. It even made the Tube Map in (I think) 1920, with a branch of the Central London Railway from Shepherd's Bush to Gunnersbury shown as "under construction", though it never was AFAIK. According to this map poster, which is on show at the Museum Depot during open weekends, stations were planned at Goldhawk Road, Stamford Brook Common, Is that (the common) he http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=51.4...&t=h&z=17&om=1 ? I can't actually find anything marked with that name on any maps! If it is, i'm a little surprised it was quite that far west - i would have thought Seven Stars Corner (Addenswick Rd x Goldhawk Rd) would have been a better location. Seems not! Turnham Green (next to the existing station), Turnham Green (near the green) and Gunnersbury. The Central extension from Wood Lane to Ealing Broadway is also shown as "under construction", and it was opened later in 1920. It seems strange that they wanted to keep the route in tunnel all the way to Gunnersbury; the current track layout means you can surface at Turnham Green and go from there (via Chiswick Park, ish) without getting in anyone's way. Maybe it wasn't always like that, or they thought a stop at the Green itself was more useful. There's a photo of the map at http://rjnews.fotopic.net/p47472218.html Splendid! Although that map's geography is a bit suspect with respect to the exact positions of roads and stations and things. tom -- unconstrained by any considerations of humanity or decency |
Crossrail link to Reading hangs in the balance
"Tom Anderson" wrote It seems strange that they wanted to keep the route in tunnel all the way to Gunnersbury; the current track layout means you can surface at Turnham Green and go from there (via Chiswick Park, ish) without getting in anyone's way. Maybe it wasn't always like that, or they thought a stop at the Green itself was more useful. The situation in 1920 was that the District had been electrified by 1905 to Wimbledon, Richmond, Hounslow Barracks (later renamed West), Ealing Broadway, and South Harrow. This used the LSWR between Hammersmith (Studland Road Junction) and Turnham Green, though this section had been quadrupled in 1905, with the District having sole use of the southern electrified pair. The LSWR service, which used the northern pair, ran from Addison Road (now Olympia) via Hammersmith Grove Road to Richmond, and was withdrawn in 1916, leaving this pair of lines derelict (but still in the ownership of the LSWR). This meant that the District was congested west of Earls Court, so the proposal to extend the Central Line to Richmond would have provided relief. In the event, the LSWR service was never reinstated. In 1932 tracks between Hammersmith and Turnham Green were rearranged, quadrupling was extended to Northfields, and the Piccadilly was extended to take over the Hounslow and South Harrow (extended to Rayners Lane and over the Met to Uxbridge) lines. Even then, Studland Road Junction to Turnham Green remained in SR ownership, leased to the District (as part of the Underground group, soon to be absorbed into the London Passenger Transport Board). Peter |
Crossrail link to Reading hangs in the balance
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Richard J. wrote: Tom Anderson wrote: There's been a plan hanging around for decades now for a couple of miles of tunnel from Shepherd's Bush to Turnham Green, by means of which the Central line could take over the Richmond branch of the District. It even made the Tube Map in (I think) 1920, with a branch of the Central London Railway from Shepherd's Bush to Gunnersbury shown as "under construction", though it never was AFAIK. According to this map poster, which is on show at the Museum Depot during open weekends, stations were planned at Goldhawk Road, Stamford Brook Common, Is that (the common) he http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=51.4...&t=h&z=17&om=1 Yes. The station is not named on the map, but it's shown as just west of the bend in Goldhawk Road ? I can't actually find anything marked with that name on any maps! If it is, i'm a little surprised it was quite that far west - i would have thought Seven Stars Corner (Addenswick Rd x Goldhawk Rd) would have been a better location. Seems not! You mean Paddenswick Road, not Addenswick. The extension is very crudely drawn, and it may be that the planned positions of the stations were different. Turnham Green (next to the existing station), Turnham Green (near the green) and Gunnersbury. The Central extension from Wood Lane to Ealing Broadway is also shown as "under construction", and it was opened later in 1920. It seems strange that they wanted to keep the route in tunnel all the way to Gunnersbury; the current track layout means you can surface at Turnham Green and go from there (via Chiswick Park, ish) without getting in anyone's way. As indeed Crossrail planned to do at one stage with their Corridor 6 proposal to Richmond and beyond. Maybe it wasn't always like that, or they thought a stop at the Green itself was more useful. The latter I should think. The actual Green at Turnham Green ("Turnham Green Church" in bus parlance) is a more central location than TG station for Chiswick's shopping centre along the High Road, plus the Town Hall and Chiswick Empire theatre (in those days). It's served by 8 bus routes today. There's a photo of the map at http://rjnews.fotopic.net/p47472218.html Splendid! Although that map's geography is a bit suspect with respect to the exact positions of roads and stations and things. Agreed. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Crossrail link to Reading hangs in the balance
"Graham Murray" wrote in message ... "tim....." writes: Well this wouldn't be the first time. Cross country runs "under the wire" all the way from Birmingham to Manchester and York to Edinburgh, which is much further than this piddly little bit of track to PR. Which they did not used to do. I know. All the more reason to suggest that diesels under the wires is now acceptable. tim |
Crossrail link to Reading hangs in the balance
In uk.transport.london Tom Anderson wrote:
The clever bit about the Bakerloo tunnel is that it allows trains that would otherwise have to reverse at Queen's Park to go somewhere; if the plan to reorganise the DC lines comes to pass, so that all Bakerloo trains can go beyond Queen's Park, with NR trains (from the Overground) terminating there, this becomes a less good plan. Possibly-ignorant question: why can't some Bakerloo trains go beyond Queen's Park? I looked on the interweb but couldn't find anything about some trains being different to others. Kake |
Crossrail link to Reading hangs in the balance
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007, Kake Pugh wrote:
In uk.transport.london Tom Anderson wrote: The clever bit about the Bakerloo tunnel is that it allows trains that would otherwise have to reverse at Queen's Park to go somewhere; if the plan to reorganise the DC lines comes to pass, so that all Bakerloo trains can go beyond Queen's Park, with NR trains (from the Overground) terminating there, this becomes a less good plan. Possibly-ignorant question: why can't some Bakerloo trains go beyond Queen's Park? I looked on the interweb but couldn't find anything about some trains being different to others. Sorry, i phrased that badly. All Bakerloo trains are, as far as i'm aware, capable of going beyond Queen's Park - it's just that some don't currently have the opportunity to do it, because north of there, the track is also used by suburban trains from Euston (QP being where the Bakerloo tunnels and Euston surface tracks join up), so there isn't enough capacity (AIUI). Continuing the tunnel from QP would have meant trains which currently terminate at QP to let Euston trains go through could carry on somewhere else instead. However, the current plan is for the suburban service to Euston to be extinguished (or sort of replaced by surface trains that run from the NLL via a link at Camden Town, but terminate at QP), with only the Bakerloo using the track north of QP, so the tunnel would be pointless in that respect. tom -- If you tolerate this, your children will be next. |
Crossrail link to Reading hangs in the balance
On 29 Dec, 13:35, Kake Pugh wrote:
Possibly-ignorant question: why can't some Bakerloo trains go beyond Queen's Park? *I looked on the interweb but couldn't find anything about some trains being different to others. They physically can, but the track after Queen's Park is shared with the Watford DC Line, and passenger demand isn't all that great, so there's not much point in running all trains any further. U -- http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/ A blog about transport projects in London |
Crossrail link to Reading hangs in the balance
"Richard J." wrote:
Colin McKenzie wrote: I hope the principle that Crossrail should be all-stations has been established. Then you'll be disappointed. The planned Crossrail timetable involves some trains non-stopping certain stations west of Paddington in order to leave paths for some west-of-Maidenhead FGW trains on the relief lines... Glad to hear this - the suggestion of every train stopping at every station to Maidenhead seemed utter madness to me too. Firstly, it's been standard and established practice for many years now to have separate outer and inner suburban services on major London suburban/commuter lines. For example the Brighton lines have their Metro and Sussex Coast services, out of KX the inners run to Welwyn GC/Hertford N, and so on. In many cases the underground itself provides a third group of "ultra-inner" services. Most of these don't run alongside NR routes, but obvious examples are the District/Central lines to Ealing/Richmond/W Ruislip and the Jubilee to Stanmore. So in effect the inner suburban services over NR are usually the second tier, not the first. I am also thinking by analogy to why Thameslink has been so successful. Clearly one major factor is the Brighton-Bedford trains, which clearly fall in the outer category. It does worry me that the Mayor of London's crowd seem sometimes to overlook the importance of these links, as they run largely outside their 'patch' (witness the forthcoming truncation of the Southern WLL service, though I acknowledge the constraints of the track layout between Falcon Jct and Balham do provide some rationale for those plans.) On the GWML, the inner suburban service traditionally terminated at Slough, with outers running to Reading/Oxford/Newbury etc. This was changed when the planet-scorchers' parlour branch opened, so the inner suburbans are now Padd - Hayes & H. The extended journey times of all-stations trains would probably be a significant disincentive for travellers from stations west of Slough. Colin McKenzie wrote: (Adrian the Rock) wrote: The other extension to Crossrail that seems fairly obvious to me is to extend the trains currently planned to terminate at Paddington up the former GW&GC joint line. =A0Bring the Old Oak - Northolt East line back into proper use, rebuild the main line platforms at Greenford, making this the first stop out of Padd, then run all-stations to Princes Risboro and Aylesbury (some trains probably terminating at High Wycombe). =A0But this is clearly too extensive to be sensible to include in the initial project. The principle of an all-stations service stands, so you'd need to give serious thought to reallocating the Central Line tracks beyond about Greenford... No, because this is mixing underground and inner suburban stopping patterns. ... First stop out of Paddington should be North Acton, then the new Park Royal interchange. I agree Park Royal interchange would make sense. Capacity between Paddington and Old Oak Junction is a problem. Maybe, but given there are 6 tracks for most if not all of the stretch, I'd have thought that would probably not be insuperable. "Adrian Auer-Hudson, MIMIS" wrote: There are two issues with this idea. Firstly it would mean an expensive electrification of the route to Aylesbury by way of Prices Risborough. Agreed, but if done properly it could even provide Aylesbury commuters with a faster service than via Amersham. Secondly, there is the Birmingham service to consider. It would either have to remain a DMU operation with many miles under the wire, or would have to terminate at Risborough or High Wycombe. I would envisage it continuing with DMUs. A pity it can't also run to Padd, which has far better connections and facilities for longer-distance travellers than Marylebone, but I'd be surprised if there were a capacity problem between Northolt East Jct and Risboro that couldn't be addressed by the reinstatement of a few platform loops eg Gerrards Cross. However in the longer term I can see a lot of merit in electrifying the GW&GC line to Birmingham. As the shortest London-Bham route, I don't feel it's currently being fully exploited, and I'd have thought it could be used better to relieve the current congestion on the Bham - Coventry stretch. Adie |
Crossrail link to Reading hangs in the balance
Tom Anderson wrote:
Sorry, i phrased that badly. All Bakerloo trains are, as far as i'm aware, capable of going beyond Queen's Park - it's just that some don't currently have the opportunity to do it [...] Ah, I see - thank you! (And also Mr Thant.) Kake |
Crossrail link to Reading hangs in the balance
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 18:00:13 +0000, Tom Anderson wrote:
The clever bit about the Bakerloo tunnel is that it allows trains that would otherwise have to reverse at Queen's Park to go somewhere; if the plan to reorganise the DC lines comes to pass, so that all Bakerloo trains can go beyond Queen's Park, with NR trains (from the Overground) terminating there, this becomes a less good plan. Possibly-ignorant question: why can't some Bakerloo trains go beyond Queen's Park? I looked on the interweb but couldn't find anything about some trains being different to others. Sorry, i phrased that badly. All Bakerloo trains are, as far as i'm aware, capable of going beyond Queen's Park - it's just that some don't currently have the opportunity to do it, because north of there, the track is also used by suburban trains from Euston (QP being where the Bakerloo tunnels and Euston surface tracks join up), so there isn't enough capacity (AIUI). There's only 3tph from Euston north of Queens Park, but many more Bakerloo trains than that terminate at QP. I think the main reason is simply that the outer part of the line doesn't require as high-frequency a service as the central part. It's interesting that the arrangement here is the reverse of the normal situation - instead of one central route with two outer branches, there are two routes from the centre combining to form one outer branch. I'd say the clever bit about the Bakerloo tunnel is that it would re-balance the situation (especially with the District currently having too many western branches). |
Crossrail link to Reading hangs in the balance
"Adrian the Rock" wrote in message ... "Richard J." wrote: Colin McKenzie wrote: I hope the principle that Crossrail should be all-stations has been established. Then you'll be disappointed. The planned Crossrail timetable involves some trains non-stopping certain stations west of Paddington in order to leave paths for some west-of-Maidenhead FGW trains on the relief lines... Glad to hear this - the suggestion of every train stopping at every station to Maidenhead seemed utter madness to me too. I can't see why. Most people would say that the fixed interval, all stations service, is what makes the German S-Bahns so sucessful. London to Maidenhead is a very similar distance to Munich to Freising (or some other end of line station). tim |
Crossrail link to Reading hangs in the balance
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 14:45:59 GMT, (Adrian the
Rock) wrote: "Richard J." wrote: Colin McKenzie wrote: I hope the principle that Crossrail should be all-stations has been established. Then you'll be disappointed. The planned Crossrail timetable involves some trains non-stopping certain stations west of Paddington in order to leave paths for some west-of-Maidenhead FGW trains on the relief lines... Glad to hear this - the suggestion of every train stopping at every station to Maidenhead seemed utter madness to me too. Firstly, it's been standard and established practice for many years now to have separate outer and inner suburban services on major London suburban/commuter lines. For example the Brighton lines have their Metro and Sussex Coast services, out of KX the inners run to Welwyn GC/Hertford N, and so on. Isn't there a precedent here from the Japanese high-speed lines? They run flights of trains which go non-stop to a major station, and then every station to the next major station, where they terminate. The timing is such that connections in each direction provide a quicker service than the alternative of all-stations plus limited stop services. For Crossrail you could use Hayes and Harlington, Slough and Maidenhead as the major intermediate stations. Time the trains so that the non-stop arrives at the major station just after the stopper has arrived. This would require extra platform faces for cross-platform connections, of course, and reversing facilities. Hayes and Harlington trains continue to Heathrow. -- Terry Harper Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society http://www.omnibussoc.org |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:48 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk