Andrew Heenan wrote:
"Tom Anderson" wrote ...
Crossrail SHOULD reach Reading.
No, Crossrail should stop at Slough, and concentrate on being an
affordable and effective suburban railway, and not a pie-in-the-sky all
things to all people scheme.

Crossrail WILL reach Reading, offering myriad onward opportunities (look at
a rail map - where else should it go?); Crossrail WILL reach Ebbsfleet (it
would be crazy not to, until HS1 is extended to Heathrow!); Crossrail will
not stop at Shenfield, looking slightly confused, perhaps a little
embarassed.

But don't expect such obvious common sense until just after it opens - the
'current package' is all about getting the bloody thing built without too
many people whining "We Can't Afford it - Cancel It".

Once it's built, people with brains will start to say Shenfield? Abbey Wood?
Other Stations Halfway To A Logical Junction? Get Real!

well the BBC website seems to be casting doubt on the financial
backing for the whole scheme and delays look rather ominous at the
moment as the city seem not to have the ackers in place- suprise suprise.

"Roland Perry" wrote ...
And where is the obvious place "past Shenfield"? Colchester is the nearest
that makes sense.

Not my area, and I wouldn't presume to guess.
But I am sure of one thing:
"Not Shenfield"

There are, of course, many options east of Liverpool Street, and a lot may
depend on who's in power come 2018.
--

Andrew

On Dec 3, 2:39*am, "David A Stocks" wrote:
"1506" wrote in message

...

Yes! *In this instance the cost of conversion of the Hammersmith
branch would be a very small part of the overall cost of Crossrail.

The 'cost' needs to include the disruption to current users of services on
the branch while the conversion is being done. This could be substantial.

IIRC, earlier in the thread I conceded that converting the Hammersmith
Branch to a Crossrail extension is perhaps not a good idea.

On the positive side this means that the branch will remain something
of a preserved example of early urban transit. Between Westbourne
park and Goldhawk Road, the route is in essence an "Elevated". There
are not too many examples of "Els" left anywhere in the world. Only
Chicago has signifficant sections remaining.

On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 09:21:05 -0800 (PST), 1506
wrote:

On Dec 3, 2:39*am, "David A Stocks" wrote:
"1506" wrote in message

...

Yes! *In this instance the cost of conversion of the Hammersmith
branch would be a very small part of the overall cost of Crossrail.

The 'cost' needs to include the disruption to current users of services on
the branch while the conversion is being done. This could be substantial.

IIRC, earlier in the thread I conceded that converting the Hammersmith
Branch to a Crossrail extension is perhaps not a good idea.

On the positive side this means that the branch will remain something
of a preserved example of early urban transit. Between Westbourne
park and Goldhawk Road, the route is in essence an "Elevated". There
are not too many examples of "Els" left anywhere in the world. Only
Chicago has signifficant sections remaining.

Not to mention New York.

On Dec 3, 9:27*am, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 09:21:05 -0800 (PST), 1506





wrote:
On Dec 3, 2:39*am, "David A Stocks" wrote:
"1506" wrote in message

....

Yes! *In this instance the cost of conversion of the Hammersmith
branch would be a very small part of the overall cost of Crossrail.

The 'cost' needs to include the disruption to current users of services on
the branch while the conversion is being done. This could be substantial.

IIRC, earlier in the thread I conceded that converting the Hammersmith
Branch to a Crossrail extension is perhaps not a good idea.

On the positive side this means that the branch will remain something
of a preserved example of early urban transit. *Between Westbourne
park and Goldhawk Road, the route is in essence an "Elevated". *There
are not too many examples of "Els" left anywhere in the world. *Only
Chicago has signifficant sections remaining.

Not to mention New York.

I didn't think there were too many left in NYC. I can only recall one
short section in Manhattan. Do the other Boroughs have many Els left?

In message
1506 wrote:

[snip]

IIRC, earlier in the thread I conceded that converting the Hammersmith
Branch to a Crossrail extension is perhaps not a good idea.

On the positive side this means that the branch will remain something
of a preserved example of early urban transit. Between Westbourne
park and Goldhawk Road, the route is in essence an "Elevated". There
are not too many examples of "Els" left anywhere in the world. Only
Chicago has signifficant sections remaining.

You've not looked at south London lately then...

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

On 3 Dec, 17:46, 1506 wrote:
I didn't think there were too many left in NYC. *I can only recall one
short section in Manhattan. *Do the other Boroughs have many Els left?

Brooklyn is chockablock with them, and I think most of the Subway
network in Queen's is elevated.

(also, I'd question whether you can build a true El with brick
viaducts, given the lack of space underneath them)

U

MIG wrote:
On Dec 2, 10:51 pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"Tom Anderson" wrote

No, Crossrail should stop at Slough, and concentrate on being an
affordable and effective suburban railway, and not a pie-in-the-sky all
things to all people scheme.
Crossrail will go to Maidenhead, Heathrow, Shenfield, and Abbey Wood. Any
strong pressure to change any of these destinations is more likely to mean
that Crossrail doesn't happen at all than that changes will be made.
Subsequent add-ons are possible - Reading is the obvious one, so that diesel
trains out of Paddington can be eliminated from the Relief Lines, while the
Main Lines can become a totally 125 mph railway. Gravesend is a long shot,
but may be needed for (and financed by) development in the Thames Gateway..
Another destination west of Paddington would be nice, but no-one has come up
with any convincing case. Richmond - Kingston did not attract universal
support. Amersham - Aylesbury would be nice, so that the Met line can
concentrate on Uxbridge and Watford, while the fast lines beyond
Harrow-on-the-Hill would become single use by Crossrail, and electrified at
25 kV OHLE. But traffic density is insufficient to generate a business case.
More trains can't be pushed down the GWML - there's not teh demand, and
capacity is needed for freight west of Acton Yard. So I think we're stuck
with the Westbourne Park reversing sidings.

The problem to my disordered mind is that Crossrail will have to be
duplicated by local diesel trains all the way to Maidenhead in order
to cover the bit from Maidenhead to Reading (which is a huge hub).
The reason is presumably to save on some miles of electrification, but
it's not a logical place to terminate the services while making a
sensible use of paths.

Budgets. Reading needs remodelling anyway. But if Crossrail goes to
Reading, the cost of remodelling it could get added to the cost of
Crossrail, which is already going to cost squillions.

But if Crossrail doesn't go to Reading, it will need rebuilding anyway.
But this will be from a different budget, and while they are doing the
remodelling they may as well make provision for any future extension of
Crossrail...

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 09:46:20 -0800 (PST), 1506
wrote:

On Dec 3, 9:27*am, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 09:21:05 -0800 (PST), 1506





wrote:
On Dec 3, 2:39*am, "David A Stocks" wrote:
"1506" wrote in message

...

Yes! *In this instance the cost of conversion of the Hammersmith
branch would be a very small part of the overall cost of Crossrail.

The 'cost' needs to include the disruption to current users of services on
the branch while the conversion is being done. This could be substantial.

IIRC, earlier in the thread I conceded that converting the Hammersmith
Branch to a Crossrail extension is perhaps not a good idea.

On the positive side this means that the branch will remain something
of a preserved example of early urban transit. *Between Westbourne
park and Goldhawk Road, the route is in essence an "Elevated". *There
are not too many examples of "Els" left anywhere in the world. *Only
Chicago has signifficant sections remaining.

Not to mention New York.

I didn't think there were too many left in NYC. I can only recall one
short section in Manhattan. Do the other Boroughs have many Els left?

Yes. The outer ends of most of the longer subways. The last one I used
was in the Bronx. But you just have to drive off the freeways to see
how many there are. New York has major problems with electrolytic
corrosion on these that the London Underground's 4-rail system avoids.

And of course the extension to JFK is elevated.

If you want another modern example, how about BART? Outside the city
centres it is elevated apart from sections in the central median of
freeways.

On Wed, 3 Dec 2008, 1506 wrote:

On Dec 3, 9:27*am, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 09:21:05 -0800 (PST), 1506

On the positive side this means that the branch will remain something
of a preserved example of early urban transit. *Between Westbourne
park and Goldhawk Road, the route is in essence an "Elevated". *There
are not too many examples of "Els" left anywhere in the world. *Only
Chicago has signifficant sections remaining.

Not to mention New York.

I didn't think there were too many left in NYC. I can only recall one
short section in Manhattan. Do the other Boroughs have many Els left?

Outside Manhattan, the subway is substantially, perhaps even mostly,
elevated. It includes sections running on top of roads, and the marvellous
and entirely aerial Broadway Junction:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=40.677957%2C-73.902283
http://www.hopetunnel.org/subway/nyct/010219/117.jpg
http://flickr.com/photos/hielkeoud/2613825920/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/coverwi...on/3014806927/
http://flickr.com/photos/jpchan/2368185126/

The Street View mode on the google map is a pretty good way to take a look
round the structure.

tom

--
In other news, has anyone here read Blindness? Does it get better after
the 30 page mark, is does the whole thing read like a sentimental fairy
tale for particularly slow children? -- Abigail