In message
"Andrew Heenan" wrote:

"Tom Anderson" wrote
If Roland, or anyone else, wants to claim that no terminus is more
appropriate than Shenfield, and backs that up with reasoned arguments,
then the correct response is to consider those arguments. Dismissing them
out of hand is the act of someone driven by overwhelming affection for
their own opinions, not any interest in the truth.

As it happens, up till today, no one has offered one single argument FOR
Shenfield, other than operational convenience. I've suggested more than
once that that is simply not an adequate way to do it; it's that kind of
approach that gets rail enthusiasts a bad name.

It's very simple, Crossrail trains will take over the slow line services
which currently run to Shenfield. By an amazing coincidence Shenfield has
the facilities to allow the trains to terminate and return to London.

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

In message , at
16:29:53 on Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Tom Anderson
remarked:
Shenfield is OK, but a bit of a luxury in terms of build cost,

What build cost? The line's already there and working perfectly. It has
OHLE. I have a feeling the platforms are even the right length
(mostly).

2/3 of the current crossrail budget would appear to be tarting up
existing lines.

and inconveniently distant if the Crossrail trains are
all-station-stoppers.

Aren't Shenfield trains stoppers already?

Maybe - but when I lived there a significant number of long distance
trains had their penultimate stop at Shenfield. And then there were a
whole bunch more that stopped every station to Harold Wood then fast to
Stratford.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Andrew Heenan wrote:

"Tom Anderson" wrote

If Roland, or anyone else, wants to claim that no terminus is more
appropriate than Shenfield, and backs that up with reasoned arguments,
then the correct response is to consider those arguments. Dismissing them
out of hand is the act of someone driven by overwhelming affection for
their own opinions, not any interest in the truth.

As it happens, up till today, no one has offered one single argument FOR
Shenfield, other than operational convenience. I've suggested more than
once that that is simply not an adequate way to do it; it's that kind of
approach that gets rail enthusiasts a bad name.

I am quite serious when I say that I don't have the knowledge, because
it is simply NOT good enough to look at a map and 'hey, that's handy" -
it needs a knowldge of the commercial and population issues to even come
up with a shortlist. I don't have that local knowledge,

So how were you able to determine that Shenfield was such a bad terminus?
That's the bit i can't work out.

and delighted that since I wrote the note that you 've responded to, Mr
Perry has come up with several very interesting, constructive an useful
comments, based on his local knowledge, as well as his knowledge of
public transport.

Splendid! I think we're all happy, then.

If i might humbly suggest, though, perhaps it might have been better to
phrase your post in terms of "why will Crossrail go no further than
Shenfield?" rather than "there's no reason for Crossrail to go no further
than Shenfield!".

While "I hear what you're saying" - and yes, I have been happy to play
devil's advocate - this thread could actually be a useful part of the debate
rather than

1. It should go there because it's operationaly convenient

You say that as if that wasn't an adequate reason. Convenience not just
something which lets the planners have their tea break sooner: it's money.
Doing something less convenient means spending more. Since we don't have
an infinite amount of money to spend on Crossrail, that's quite important.

2. It should go there because I live there.

Has anyone said that?

tom

--
I'm angry, but not Milk and Cheese angry. -- Mike Froggatt

On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Robert wrote:

On 2008-12-04 16:24:15 +0000, Tom Anderson said:

On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Andrew Heenan wrote:

(And please don't tell me there's not one station on the Eastern that is
more appropiate than Shenfield - or I, and many others, will cease to
believe a word you say.)

As it happens, i also think there's no better option than Shenfield. The
GEML is four-track to Shenfield, and has two two-track branches beyond
that. That means you can run Crossrail as a stopping service to Shenfield
with one pair of tracks entirely to itself, and leave the other pair for
non-stop long-distance services, with no possibility of performance
pollution between the two. Running those Crossrail trains beyond Shenfield
supplies residents of those towns with a stopping service into London which
they simply won't use. Making some of the Crossrails non-stop on the fasts
to points beyond Shenfield, and filling in the deficit on the slow lines
with Liverpool Street-terminating trains, throws away the advantages of
segregation. Turning some of the Crossrails off short of Shenfield - say up
the West Anglia, to suburban destinations or Stansted, means taking trains
away from the stations towards Shenfield, which means a net reduction in
service on an already overcrowded line. So, we have one useless option, one
impractical one, and one actively harmful one.

I look forward to hearing your suggestion.

To balance peak hour loadings between trains running on the same Line on
the RER in Paris, the stopping patterns are varied. For example on the
western arm of the Line A, most trains ran through to the terminus at
St. Germain-en-Laye, but some turned back before the end of the line at
Le Vesinet-Le Pecq. The longer distance trains tended to skip some of
the stations nearer Paris which were covered by the trains which turned
back early. All of the trains stopped at all of the stations in the
central section. This was all done on a 2 track railway and it seemed to
work very well. Outside the central section I would suggest that not all
the Crossrail trains should be all-stations.

The only point to this that i can see is to guarantee that passengers on
the inner section have a chance to get seats; if all trains ran the whole
way, passengers from the outer section would all get a seat, and get all
of the seats, leaving none for the poor inner sectioners. The flip side of
this is that some people coming from the outer section will have to stand,
despite having further to travel than anyone from the inner section.

Specifically, the arrangement can't make the long-distance trains much
faster. Since trains can't overtake on a two-track railway (without
passing loops, anyway - do they have those?), then assuming that stopping
trains are all evenly spaced, the most time that a skipper can save is
equal to the interval between stoppers - if it sets out from the central
section just ahead of one stopper, it can reach the turnback point just
behind another one. If the trains all come out of the core evenly spaced,
skippers and stoppers, then the maximum gain is the time between a skipper
and a stopper - half the interval between stoppers, if they're half and
half.

Crossrail is going to run at 12 tph along the GEML, along with another 6
tph of Liverpool Street trains. That's 18 tph, or a train every 3 minutes
20 seconds, that also being the maximum saving a skipper could make. That
doesn't seem like much of a saving over the 36 minutes it currently takes
to run from Stratford to Shenfield, particularly when compared to the 17
minutes it takes non-stop on the fasts.

Bear in mind that this would represent a cut in stopping train service on
that line from 16 tph to 9 tph. If you introduced more Liverpool Street
stoppers to make up the difference, you'd cut the time saving for the
skippers even further.

Another alternative along these lines is a skip-stop service, where half
the trains skip half the stops, and half skip the other half. This does
actually let you get trains from one end of the line to the other faster,
although not a lot faster in practice, i believe. There isn't a capacity
issue, as although the frequency at each station is halved, the trains
which call are each serving half the number of stations. It does double
the average waiting time for a train, but at 18 tph, that's from 3:20 to
6:40, which is still a reasonable turn-up-and-go frequency. It doesn't
really help you run trains beyond Shenfield, though.

tom

--
I'm angry, but not Milk and Cheese angry. -- Mike Froggatt

"Graeme Wall" wrote ...
As it happens, up till today, no one has offered one single argument FOR
Shenfield, other than operational convenience. I've suggested more than
once that that is simply not an adequate way to do it; it's that kind of
approach that gets rail enthusiasts a bad name.
It's very simple, Crossrail trains will take over the slow line services
which currently run to Shenfield. By an amazing coincidence Shenfield has
the facilities to allow the trains to terminate and return to London.

So have Margate, Uckfield and Blackpool, I think.
--

Andrew

Interviewer: Tonight I'm interviewing that famous nurse, Florence
Nightingale
Tommy Cooper (dressed as a nurse): Sir Florence Nightingale
Interviewer: *Sir* Florence Nightingale?
Tommy Cooper: I'm a Night Nurse

Campaign For The Real Tommy Cooper

In message
"Andrew Heenan" wrote:

"Graeme Wall" wrote ...
As it happens, up till today, no one has offered one single argument
FOR Shenfield, other than operational convenience. I've suggested more
than once that that is simply not an adequate way to do it; it's that
kind of approach that gets rail enthusiasts a bad name.
It's very simple, Crossrail trains will take over the slow line services
which currently run to Shenfield. By an amazing coincidence Shenfield
has the facilities to allow the trains to terminate and return to London.

So have Margate, Uckfield and Blackpool, I think.

But, again by a bizzare coincidence, none of them are served fron Liverpool
Street. Do you see a trend forming?

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

"Graeme Wall" wrote ...
By an amazing coincidence Shenfield
has the facilities to allow the trains to terminate and return to
London.
So have Margate, Uckfield and Blackpool, I think.
But, again by a bizzare coincidence, none of them are served fron
Liverpool
Street. Do you see a trend forming?

Yup: a trend of proposing services based on capacity and convenience, not
need or future benefit.
It's a sad trend, when a bit of imagination could be so rewarding.

On that basis, they should have built the motorways in a straight line out
into the North Sea.

Now there's a thought!
--
Andrew

"When 'Do no Evil' has been understood, then learn the harder, braver rule,
Do Good." ~ Arthur Guiterman

On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 08:18:19 +0000, Martin Edwards
wrote:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 20:33:58 +0000, Steve Fitzgerald ]
wrote:

In message , Paul Corfield
writes
Curse you Mr Anderson - that Google Street View is just too good. That
looks the most amazing structure and I'm sure there are other amazing
subway junctions to sit and peruse. I fear I may go square eyed while
undertaking more research. Now if only the Americans would stop
treating visitors like potential terrorists I'd be persuaded to go back
NYC to take a closer look.
New York generally is a fascinating place transport wise and I would
highly recommend it; despite having to get through immigration (which,
last time I entered the US, in SFO wasn't too onerous at all).

Not just New York City. I live near Poughkeepsie, half way to the
state capital Albany on the old New York Central main line. It's one
of the world's scenic railway routes at water level along the Hudson
Valley.

Why do NY cop shows always joke about Poughkeepsie?

Going by the Wikipaedia article, it had become something of a dump by
the 1990s so (like Rhyl, Liverpool, Glasgow, the East End of London
etc. at other times) it qualified to be the butt of malicious humour.

"Tom Anderson" wrote...
So how were you able to determine that Shenfield was such a bad terminus?
That's the bit i can't work out.

Well, I've explained about 15 times, including in the post you replied to,
but I'm happy to try again.

I happen to believe that planning multi-billion pound investments of
taxpayers money (plus about 0.005% added by 'business') should be based on
positive reasons, rather than convenience.

I have no 'negative thoughts' about Shenfield. I have no reasons - none -
for Crossrail not to go there.

But there's gaping hole in the list of reasons for Crossrail *to* go there.
Other than convenience.

Whereas, for comparison, extending the western end to Reading offers a
plethora of connections, as well as a major business centre and population
centre, and more.

And even the convenience arguments are flawed. Crossrail does not *have* to
be an all-stopper; that was a preference of Ken's, who wanted Crossrail to
be a 'supa tube' for London; Thank God he did, because his support was key
in getting the thing accepted, and that's why he got his way. But he's not
the only political opportunist, and I can see poweful arguments for some
trains that stop at all central stations, but go fast (or faster, at least)
at the ends; Heathrow is one obvious example, Cambridge would be another.
Oxford another.

Crossrail will (hopefully) be built on the current plans, and I am not (and
never have) suggested different.

I merely believe that once the bloody thing is built, it could be, er,
improved. And with a general election or two before the first wheel turns,
there are several opportunities to review the current proposals. Maybe I'm
in the wrong forum?

I'd like to say I'll happily rephrase my argument ad finitum ... but
realistically, I suspect 16 is sufficient (with not one reason offered), so
I'll leave you to cogitate and hope that the penny drops.
--

Andrew
"My Karma ran over your dogma." ~ Author Unknown

"Roland Perry" wrote

Maybe - but when I lived there a significant number of long distance
trains had their penultimate stop at Shenfield. And then there were a
whole bunch more that stopped every station to Harold Wood then fast to
Stratford.

With the increase in longer distance commuting there's no longer room on the
Fast Lines for Harold Wood and Brentwood commuters, so peak trains on the
Fast Lines are non-stop from Liverpool Street or Stratford to Shenfield or
beyond. This means that Brentwood and Harold Wood commuters have to take a
stopping train on the Slow Lines (some run fast Ilford to Stratford), but it
also eliminates peak trains crossing between Fast and Slow Lines west of
Shenfield. In operational terms running Crossrail exclusively on the Slow
Lines as far as Shenfield makes sense. Some should probably turn back at
Gidea Park, and there's a case for running more trains on this branch in the
high peak, at the expense of Abbey Wood trains, so that non-Crossrail
stopping trains between Shenfield and Liverpool Street (Main) can be
eliminated.

Peter