Today's New Civil Engineer had a small item about Crossrail.  It said
the South West Regional Assembly is going to oppose Crossrail unless
someone does a study and proves the construction work will not affect
services from the SW to London.

A valid point in my opinon but would the construction work have that
much of an effect?

There's also a London Olympics supplement:  There's a chart showing
that Thameslink 2000 will begin in 2007 and completed in time for the
Olympics with Crossrail scheduled for 2008-2013.
The feature on transport investment for the games includes CTRL,
Stratford Station, East London Line, London Underground....but no
mention on Crossrail so I guess it's not part of the Olympics master
plan.

"naked_draughtsman"  wrote in message 
news:1121979569.841889.227580@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

> Today's New Civil Engineer had a small item about Crossrail.  It said
> the South West Regional Assembly is going to oppose Crossrail unless
> someone does a study and proves the construction work will not affect
> services from the SW to London.
>
> A valid point in my opinon but would the construction work have that
> much of an effect?
>
> There's also a London Olympics supplement:  There's a chart showing
> that Thameslink 2000 will begin in 2007 and completed in time for the
> Olympics with Crossrail scheduled for 2008-2013.
> The feature on transport investment for the games includes CTRL,
> Stratford Station, East London Line, London Underground....but no
> mention on Crossrail so I guess it's not part of the Olympics master
> plan.


You don't need to guess, B.liar said as much.  How I know
that no-one believes what he says, but unfortunately this time
I suspect he was telling the truth.

tim

naked_draughtsman wrote:

> Today's New Civil Engineer had a small item about Crossrail.  It
> said the South West Regional Assembly is going to oppose Crossrail
> unless someone does a study and proves the construction work will
> not affect services from the SW to London.
>
> A valid point in my opinon but would the construction work have that
> much of an effect?


Valid point?  Sounds like a selfish whinge to me.  I could understand it
if they said they supported Crossrail but wanted assurances, but to say
they'll oppose it if there is any temporary effect on services is
parochial and mean-minded.  I can't see that the construction will have
much effect on the SW anyway.


> There's also a London Olympics supplement:  There's a chart showing
> that Thameslink 2000 will begin in 2007 and completed in time for
> the Olympics with Crossrail scheduled for 2008-2013.
> The feature on transport investment for the games includes CTRL,
> Stratford Station, East London Line, London Underground....but no
> mention on Crossrail so I guess it's not part of the Olympics master
> plan.


It never has been.
-- 
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 21:59:00 GMT, "Richard J."
 wrote:


>naked_draughtsman wrote:
>> Today's New Civil Engineer had a small item about Crossrail.  It
>> said the South West Regional Assembly is going to oppose Crossrail
>> unless someone does a study and proves the construction work will
>> not affect services from the SW to London.
>>
>> A valid point in my opinon but would the construction work have that
>> much of an effect?
>
>Valid point?  Sounds like a selfish whinge to me.  I could understand it
>if they said they supported Crossrail but wanted assurances, but to say
>they'll oppose it if there is any temporary effect on services is
>parochial and mean-minded.  I can't see that the construction will have
>much effect on the SW anyway.


There has been talk that CrossRail will have extra privileges over the
relief lines on the GWML, possibility leading to a reduction in
capacity available to other users, including Great Western.

Duncan

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 23:33:38 +0100, Duncan  wrote:


>There has been talk that CrossRail will have extra privileges over the
>relief lines on the GWML, possibility leading to a reduction in
>capacity available to other users, including Great Western.


ICBW but I believe the proposal is for it to take over the relief
lines completely.

Duncan wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 21:59:00 GMT, "Richard J."
>  wrote:
>
>> naked_draughtsman wrote:
>>> Today's New Civil Engineer had a small item about Crossrail.  It
>>> said the South West Regional Assembly is going to oppose Crossrail
>>> unless someone does a study and proves the construction work will
>>> not affect services from the SW to London.
>>>
>>> A valid point in my opinon but would the construction work have
>>> that much of an effect?
>>
>> Valid point?  Sounds like a selfish whinge to me.  I could
>> understand it if they said they supported Crossrail but wanted
>> assurances, but to say they'll oppose it if there is any temporary
>> effect on services is parochial and mean-minded.  I can't see that
>> the construction will have much effect on the SW anyway.
>
> There has been talk that CrossRail will have extra privileges over
> the relief lines on the GWML, possibility leading to a reduction in
> capacity available to other users, including Great Western.


Good point. The OP was talking about the effect of "construction work",
but perhaps he meant the effect on other services of Crossrail when
completed.
-- 
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 22:58:07 GMT, "Richard J."
 wrote:


>Good point. The OP was talking about the effect of "construction work",
>but perhaps he meant the effect on other services of Crossrail when
>completed.


During the construction work I would expect services to the South West
to be disrupted in one way or another. The current track renewal has
led to line closures, either partial or full and with the GWML running
at full capacity between Reading and Paddington, leading to temporary
timetables and a reduction in service being required. I would imagine
for all the structural work to be completed even more line closures
would be required than this. 

Duncan

"Richard J."  wrote in message
news:3MVDe.74934$G8.39283@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

> Duncan wrote:
> >
> > There has been talk that CrossRail will have extra privileges over
> > the relief lines on the GWML, possibility leading to a reduction in
> > capacity available to other users, including Great Western.
>

AIUI the Crossrail proposals assume that there will be some capacity on the
Relief Lines for freight, and for services from Paddington to reading and
beyond now worked by FGWL. However, the Crossrail Bill would authorise the
complete takeover by Crossrail of the Relief Lines (also the Slow Lines from
Stratford to Shenfield, and Heathrow Express). There was quite a row in
Parliament on Tuesday as it seems that the Committee which will hear
petitions against the Bill may not be allowed to consider whether to
recommend that Crossrail should be extended from Maidenhead to Reading.

Peter

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 22:58:07 GMT, Richard J. wrote:


> Good point. The OP was talking about the effect of "construction work",
> but perhaps he meant the effect on other services of Crossrail when
> completed.


Once complete, it will enable some travellers from the SW to reach their
destinations much more quickly. Perhaps the burghers of the SW view that
as a bad thing. (Or perhaps they're still annoyed that the railways made
them use London Time.)

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632803.html
(31 125 on the Independent Lines at Crewe, 1986)

"tim (moved to sweden)"  wrote in message 
news:3kahp8Ft5ceaU1@individual.net...

>
> "naked_draughtsman"  wrote in message 
> news:1121979569.841889.227580@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> Today's New Civil Engineer had a small item about Crossrail.  It said
>> the South West Regional Assembly is going to oppose Crossrail unless
>> someone does a study and proves the construction work will not affect
>> services from the SW to London.
>>

Without additional track, Crossrail is an attempt to put a quart into a pint 
pot.
I cannot see how it will not be bound to affect many other services - and 
not only during construction.
The solution (more lines from Reading into Paddington) is out of the 
question in the present political climate at least.
So IMHO the SWRA have a valid point, however desirable a Crossrail that 
could put its quart into a quart pot would be.

Jim Hawkins

"Jim Hawkins"  wrote>
..

> I cannot see how it will not be bound to affect many other services - and
> not only during construction.
> The solution (more lines from Reading into Paddington) is out of the
> question in the present political climate at least.
> So IMHO the SWRA have a valid point, however desirable a Crossrail that
> could put its quart into a quart pot would be.
>

AIUI the Crossrail plans do include an additional running line most of the
way between Hayes and Langley (in part by upgrading a goods line).

Peter

In article <dbr8bt$t2c$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
   Peter Masson  wrote:


> "Jim Hawkins"  wrote>
> .
> > I cannot see how it will not be bound to affect many other services -
> > and not only during construction. The solution (more lines from
> > Reading into Paddington) is out of the question in the present
> > political climate at least. So IMHO the SWRA have a valid point,
> > however desirable a Crossrail that could put its quart into a quart
> > pot would be.
> >
> AIUI the Crossrail plans do include an additional running line most of
> the way between Hayes and Langley (in part by upgrading a goods line).


There are also additional lines from Old Oak Common to Hanwell via the
Greenford loop, but for some reason, Crossrail is not making proper use of
these.

David

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 16:49:11 +0100, "Jim Hawkins"
 wrote:


>Without additional track, Crossrail is an attempt to put a quart into a pint 
>pot.


IIRC at one point they did consider as part of the proposals
six-tracking the Great Western as far as Airport Junction or
Maidenhead or somewhere, but the idea was soon binned (presumably
because of the already huge cost which was/is threatening the
viability of the project).

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 04:48:02 GMT, Chris Tolley 
wrote:


>Once complete, it will enable some travellers from the SW to reach their
>destinations much more quickly. Perhaps the burghers of the SW view that
>as a bad thing. (Or perhaps they're still annoyed that the railways made
>them use London Time.)


I suspect that passengers from the South West would only change onto
CrossRail at Paddington. Since the bill includes provision to take
over the relief lines, therefore with the potential to reduce capacity
available to other users, including the Intercity services. I question
if this occurs how the well current users will be catered for,
especially as CrossRail ends at Maidenhead through local service to
Reading and beyond will still be required.

Duncan

In article , Duncan
 writes

>On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 04:48:02 GMT, Chris Tolley 
>wrote:
>
>>Once complete, it will enable some travellers from the SW to reach their
>>destinations much more quickly. Perhaps the burghers of the SW view that
>>as a bad thing. (Or perhaps they're still annoyed that the railways made
>>them use London Time.)
>
>I suspect that passengers from the South West would only change onto
>CrossRail at Paddington. Since the bill includes provision to take
>over the relief lines, therefore with the potential to reduce capacity
>available to other users, including the Intercity services. I question
>if this occurs how the well current users will be catered for,
>especially as CrossRail ends at Maidenhead through local service to
>Reading and beyond will still be required.
>
>Duncan

Thameslink was promoted because it allowed the MML corridor access to
the south coast and Gatwick - it has worked although there don't seem
huge numbers who go all the way through - what it actually has done is
join two commuter networks together.

Crossrail is only there to solve the problem that the north half of the
circle line is over capacity. The GE Metro services are already well
utilised and do a good job (regular and reliable). Instead of mucking up
two good services why not extend the ELL to join up with the
Metropolitan at Baker Street as a high speed tube calling at (say)
Liverpool Street, Kings Cross, Euston (new tunnels can go where they
like) and leave the existing H&C and Circle on the current metals?

-- 
John Alexander, <><

Remove NOSPAM if replying by e-mail

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 22:00:08 +0100, John  wrote:


>Thameslink was promoted because it allowed the MML corridor access to
>the south coast and Gatwick - it has worked although there don't seem
>huge numbers who go all the way through - what it actually has done is
>join two commuter networks together.


There seems to be a fair amount of interchange at Luton or Luton
Airport, between MML and Thameslink, by passengers travelling to or
from south of St Pancras/Kings Cross, despite the travel planners
preferring to suggest that they make long journeys on foot instead of
same-platform changes.

Trains heading south are not emptied when they arrive at Kings Cross
Thameslink, by any stretch of the imagination, nor at London Bridge
when heading north. If by "all the way through" you mean Brighton to
Bedford, you may well be correct, but at least for Gatwick to Luton
Airport there is observably considerable traffic.
-- 
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

John  wrote:


>Crossrail is only there to solve the problem that the north half of the
>circle line is over capacity.



That's a new one.  I thought it was there to relieve the chronic
overcrowding on the Central Line, and allow further growth.

Surely that is the reason why the Crossrail route closely parallels
the Central Line and not the northern half of the Circle Line.

--- Tony Polson said...


> John  wrote:
>
> >Crossrail is only there to solve the problem that the north half of the
> >circle line is over capacity.
>
>
> That's a new one.


It _was_ actually a very old one.  The Crossrail plans being put
forward fifteen or so years ago had a western branch taking over the
Marylebone-Ammersham-Aylesbury services, presumably to help reduce
overcrowding on the Met.  Of course, that idea was eventually
abandoned, but it was there at the time.


> I thought it was there to relieve the chronic
> overcrowding on the Central Line, and allow further growth.
>
> Surely that is the reason why the Crossrail route closely
> parallels the Central Line and not the northern half of the
> Circle Line.


Yes, but there's a big problem.  It's not going to do much good for
reducing overcrowding for passengers travelling into zone 1 from the
west on the Central line.  People who normally sith on the Central Line
all the way from Ealing Broadway to Bond Street and Tottenham Ct Rd
will have a faster alternative.  But that's about it.

And while overcrowding in this direction is not _yet_ an urgent
problem, it will become much worse in the future if the West London
Tram Scheme goes ahead, dumping its passengers at Shepherd's Bush where
they'll have to squeeze onto the Central line to finish their journey.
Have you heard of integrated transport policies, because TfL obviously
hasn't!

So, what will Crossrail do to solve this?  Well, it could have a second
western branch taking over the former Acton to Ruislip line, running a
semi-fast service parallel to the Central line with just a couple of
stations at Park Royal (for interchange with Piccadily line, with
Central line platforms there too) and Greenford before terminaing at
South Ruislip.

Maybe there'll have to be some modification work at South Ruislip to
avoid conflicts with the Chitern trains, and possibly a new flyover
giving better access to the main line at the Acton end.  And of course,
the line itself would need to be upgraded, doubled and electrifed.  But
it _would_ bring benefits by freeing up space on the Central line,
which can then later be used by connecting passengers from the trams.

Still, that's too much like common sense for the beancounters.  Can't
allow then to take a holistic view of the wider picture, or of any
other picture beyond their balance sheets...

John wrote:


> Thameslink was promoted because it allowed the MML corridor access to
> the south coast and Gatwick - it has worked although there don't seem
> huge numbers who go all the way through - what it actually has done is
> join two commuter networks together.


In particular, what it allows is journeys from TL lines to the south
to have a single-change journey onto GNER and MML, and from TL lines
to the north to have a single-change journey to most of the Southern
and South Eastern networks.

-- 
                          Stevie D
    \\\\\       /////     Bringing dating agencies to the
   \\\\\\\__X__///////    common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________