On Nov 26, 4:51 pm, 1506 wrote:
Crossrail should take over the Hammersmith branch. But there is the

What would be the point of that? It wouldn't make the service any
quicker and would reduce the number of trains on the northern part of
the circle line.

question of a maintenance depot for the Circle Line. If the depot at

And probably a question of loading gauge too I suspect.

B2003

On Nov 27, 9:33*am, Boltar wrote:
Crossrail should take over the Hammersmith branch. *But there is the

What would be the point of that? It wouldn't make the service any
quicker and would reduce the number of trains on the northern part of
the circle line.

Cutting out the flat junction at Praed Street, which creates a clear
run from High Street Kensington to east of Baker Street and reduces
the performance pollution that makes the Circle a misery. You'd
compensate by extending the Wimblewares to Barking (or to Aldgate and
Met to Barking, or whatever).

question of a maintenance depot for the Circle Line. *If the depot at

And probably a question of loading gauge too I suspect.

Unlikely - C-stock are a reasonable size. Platform length would be a
problem though.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On Nov 27, 2:27*am, John B wrote:
On Nov 27, 9:33*am, Boltar wrote:

Crossrail should take over the Hammersmith branch. *But there is the

What would be the point of that? It wouldn't make the service any
quicker and would reduce the number of trains on the northern part of
the circle line.

Cutting out the flat junction at Praed Street, which creates a clear
run from High Street Kensington to east of Baker Street and reduces
the performance pollution that makes the Circle a misery. You'd
compensate by extending the Wimblewares to Barking (or to Aldgate and
Met to Barking, or whatever).

Precisely, Circle line operation would be much simplified. Also, the
Hammersmith Branch would have an improved service. And, the Mishigas
caused by reversing so many Crossrail trains at Paddington would be
resolved.
question of a maintenance depot for the Circle Line. *If the depot at

And probably a question of loading gauge too I suspect.

Unlikely - C-stock are a reasonable size. Platform length would be a
problem though.

This could be the opportunity to rationalize the number of stations
along the Hammersmith branch. I suspect that if all the existing ones
remained that after platform lengthening they would become very close
together.

On Thu, 27 Nov 2008, Boltar wrote:

On Nov 26, 4:51 pm, 1506 wrote:
Crossrail should take over the Hammersmith branch. But there is the

What would be the point of that?

To eliminate the flat junction at Praed Street.

It wouldn't make the service any quicker

But it would improve throughput and reliability, on both the Hammersmith
branch and the Circle.

and would reduce the number of trains on the northern part of the circle
line.

No, you'd extend the Wimblewares and run more Mets beyond Baker Street to
make up the difference.

question of a maintenance depot for the Circle Line. If the depot at

And probably a question of loading gauge too I suspect.

I *think*, but am not sure, that the H&C trains are wider and taller than
Crossrails will be. However, i think Crossrail carriages will be longer,
which increases their effective size on curves, so you could be right. And
of course they'll be much longer, which would mean platform alterations,
and the moving of the crossover at Hammersmith.

tom

--
I now have a problem with tomorrow. -- Graham

On Nov 27, 6:24*am, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008, Boltar wrote:
On Nov 26, 4:51 pm, 1506 wrote:
Crossrail should take over the Hammersmith branch. *But there is the

What would be the point of that?

To eliminate the flat junction at Praed Street.

It wouldn't make the service any quicker

But it would improve throughput and reliability, on both the Hammersmith
branch and the Circle.

and would reduce the number of trains on the northern part of the circle
line.

No, you'd extend the Wimblewares and run more Mets beyond Baker Street to
make up the difference.

question of a maintenance depot for the Circle Line. *If the depot at

And probably a question of loading gauge too I suspect.

I *think*, but am not sure, that the H&C trains are wider and taller than
Crossrails will be. However, i think Crossrail carriages will be longer,
which increases their effective size on curves, so you could be right. And
of course they'll be much longer, which would mean platform alterations,
and the moving of the crossover at Hammersmith.

All true, but in the bigger picture, these are minor engineering type
problems.

On Mon, 1 Dec 2008, 1506 wrote:

On Nov 27, 6:24*am, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008, Boltar wrote:

And probably a question of loading gauge too I suspect.

I *think*, but am not sure, that the H&C trains are wider and taller than
Crossrails will be. However, i think Crossrail carriages will be longer,
which increases their effective size on curves, so you could be right. And
of course they'll be much longer, which would mean platform alterations,
and the moving of the crossover at Hammersmith.

All true, but in the bigger picture, these are minor engineering type
problems.

In the bigger picture, isn't pretty much everything we discuss on this
group? What it comes down to is how much cold, hard cash has to be stumped
up for it, and how much value it delivers in return. I'm not saying that
Crossrailing the H&C branch wouldn't be good value for money, but i don't
think you can just wave away the costs as minor engineering type problems.

tom

--
All roads lead unto death row; who knows what's after?

On Dec 1, 10:36*am, Tom Anderson wrote:

In the bigger picture, isn't pretty much everything we discuss on this
group? What it comes down to is how much cold, hard cash has to be stumped
up for it, and how much value it delivers in return. I'm not saying that
Crossrailing the H&C branch wouldn't be good value for money, but i don't
think you can just wave away the costs as minor engineering type problems..


When you live in a faraway dream world, as "1506" does, anything that
gets in the way of the daftest of daft ideas is just a "minor
engineering type problem".

On Dec 1, 10:36*am, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008, 1506 wrote:
On Nov 27, 6:24*am, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008, Boltar wrote:

And probably a question of loading gauge too I suspect.

I *think*, but am not sure, that the H&C trains are wider and taller than
Crossrails will be. However, i think Crossrail carriages will be longer,
which increases their effective size on curves, so you could be right. And
of course they'll be much longer, which would mean platform alterations,
and the moving of the crossover at Hammersmith.

All true, but in the bigger picture, these are minor engineering type
problems.

In the bigger picture, isn't pretty much everything we discuss on this
group? What it comes down to is how much cold, hard cash has to be stumped
up for it, and how much value it delivers in return. I'm not saying that
Crossrailing the H&C branch wouldn't be good value for money, but i don't
think you can just wave away the costs as minor engineering type problems..

Yes! In this instance the cost of conversion of the Hammersmith
branch would be a very small part of the overall cost of Crossrail.
It would be mitigated by saving the cost of the reversing sidings at
Paddington. The main issues would be platform widening and platform
geometry. There might also be a need for additional ingress and
egress at stations. Conversion to AC electrification would be
consideration. These costs pale beside the cost of electrifying to
Reading or even Oxford. And I do believe electrification to Reading
should proceed.

On 2 Dec, 16:30, 1506 wrote:
Yes! *In this instance the cost of conversion of the Hammersmith
branch would be a very small part of the overall cost of Crossrail.

As would giving me a million pounds. That's no reason to tack it onto
the scheme unless it has benefits that justify the cost.

It would be mitigated by saving the cost of the reversing sidings at
Paddington. *The main issues would be platform widening and platform
geometry. *There might also be a need for additional ingress and
egress at stations. *Conversion to AC electrification would be
consideration.

Lots of expensive infrastructure changes to save one measly reversing
platform and probably offer a worse service than the H&C will have by
the time this could happen (trains every 5 minutes), plus whatever the
benefits to Circle Line operation you'd get. I don't see the sums
adding up.

U

On Tue, 2 Dec 2008, Mr Thant wrote:

On 2 Dec, 16:30, 1506 wrote:
Yes! *In this instance the cost of conversion of the Hammersmith
branch would be a very small part of the overall cost of Crossrail.

As would giving me a million pounds. That's no reason to tack it onto
the scheme unless it has benefits that justify the cost.

Indeed. For instance, you could get exactly the same benefits for
significantly less by giving me half a million pounds. I will be writing
to the minister to urge him to take forward this vital cost-saving
measure.

It would be mitigated by saving the cost of the reversing sidings at
Paddington. *The main issues would be platform widening and platform
geometry. *There might also be a need for additional ingress and
egress at stations. *Conversion to AC electrification would be
consideration.

Lots of expensive infrastructure changes to save one measly reversing
platform and probably offer a worse service than the H&C will have by
the time this could happen (trains every 5 minutes),

Is that definite? What allows the H&C to run this currently impossible
frequency? Is this a T-cup thing?

plus whatever the benefits to Circle Line operation you'd get. I don't
see the sums adding up.

If the works needed were just what 1506 suggested - a bit of platform
lengthening and shaving - it might not be too expensive. Although it would
need all-new signalling, which is not so cheap.

Are Crossrail trains going to support third rail anyway for the Abbey Wood
bit? If so, you wouldn't even need to OHLEfy Hammersmith.

But the point is that that isn't a politically viable programme. This is
Crossrail, which means the stations have to be revamped and upgraded and
made all singing and at least 60% dancing. Lifts, bigger passageways,
shiny metal everywhere. And that means bags of cash. The benefit to the
rest of the SSL might be significant, particularly for people in the
southwest who could gain single-seat rides into the northern edge of the
City, but i'm doubtful that demand on the Hammersmith branch itself is
enough to make it worthwhile. It's no GEML. Although neither is the GWML,
of course - but that's another story.

tom

--
I could tell you a great many more particulars but suppose that you are
tired of it by this time. -- John Backhouse, Trainspotter Zero