Crossrail link to Reading hangs in the balance

"tim....." <tims_new_home.uk> 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)

"Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> 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Olympia) via Hammersmith Grove Road to Richmond, and was withdrawn in 1916,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

In uk.transport.london Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> 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

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007, Kake Pugh wrote:

> In uk.transport.london Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> 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.

Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> 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

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007, asdf wrote:

> 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.

There's also the fact that the Euston trains are running to a stricter
timetable than the Bakerloos, as they're only 4tph, and that combination
seems to be very hard to make work at high density. Effectively, you need
to leave big enough gaps in the Bakerloo service that if it drifts a few
minutes ahead of or behind itself, it doesn't clobber the Euston service.

No doubt the lack of demand is the main reason, though.

> 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).

Also true. It does mean that whatever branch gets taken over has to take
an indirect route into town, though; it's a shame there isn't another
existing radial route in that area that could receive the blessing of the
little brown trains!

tom

--
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets
of high powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, and a
whole galaxy of multi colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers... and
also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw
ether and two dozen amyls. Not that we needed all this for the trip,
but once you get locked in a serious drug collection, the tendency is
to push it as far as you can. -- Hunter S. Thompson, 'Fear and loathing
in Las Vegas'

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007, tim..... wrote:

> "Adrian the Rock" <adrian@roscalen.com> wrote in message
> news:4777a514.5115312@news....
>> "Richard J." <rjnews0811@blueukder.co.yon> 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).

Distances for driving, using google maps routes adjusted to be as direct
as possible:

From To Distance (miles)
Fenchurch St Upminster 16.6
Liverpool St Shenfield 21.1
Paddington Maidenhead 29.2
Paddington Slough 21.1
Munich Freising 19.1

For Munch - Freising, i measured from the start of the A9, which
approximatelyish the same distance out of town as a London railway
terminus.

Anyway, Maidenhead is over 50% further than Freising. Some would say this
means Crossrail shouldn't be all-stops; i say it means Crossrail should
terminate at Slough!

tom

--
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets
of high powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, and a
whole galaxy of multi colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers... and
also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw
ether and two dozen amyls. Not that we needed all this for the trip,
but once you get locked in a serious drug collection, the tendency is
to push it as far as you can. -- Hunter S. Thompson, 'Fear and loathing
in Las Vegas'

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007, Peter Masson wrote:

> "Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> 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).

Aha, i see. But hang on, the way things are now is that as soon as you're
past Turnham Green, there's a pair of tracks that go to Gunnersbury and
nowhere else (and also the two pairs that go to Chiswick Park). The
Central line could surface around there (possibly still being underground
at Turnham Green itself) and use those to get to Richmond, rather than
staying in tunnel to Gunnersbury. That's what i was getting at. Was that
not the situation in 1920?

tom

--
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets
of high powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, and a
whole galaxy of multi colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers... and
also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw
ether and two dozen amyls. Not that we needed all this for the trip,
but once you get locked in a serious drug collection, the tendency is
to push it as far as you can. -- Hunter S. Thompson, 'Fear and loathing
in Las Vegas'

On Dec 27 2007, 6:26 pm, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message
> <f281ac1c-53e9-49b7-a728-08ab6673a...@q77g2000hsh..com>, at
> 08:46:24 on Thu, 27 Dec 2007, Paul Weaver <use...@isorox.co.uk>
> 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).
> --

Yes, you took right <g>

But St Albanisation (I coined it!) in this context would mean
eliminating inter-city stops at Slough. (Then you would have what
might be called Sloughification :) )

I think what is being referred to here is a downgrade, ie more stops
inserted, of the current semi-fasts Reading - PDN.

Kester

In message
<a1ebeb44-f4b9-4779-ae8b-2318fc1c37d0@21g2000hsj..com>, at
00:18:07 on Tue, 1 Jan 2008, Kester.Eddy@ 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).
>
>Yes, you took right <g>
>
>But St Albanisation (I coined it!) in this context would mean
>eliminating inter-city stops at Slough. (Then you would have what
>might be called Sloughification :) )
>
>I think what is being referred to here is a downgrade, ie more stops
>inserted, of the current semi-fasts Reading - PDN.

I don't think the suggestion is that all trains that stop at Reading
then stop everywhere to Paddington. So the long distance trains would
probably miss Slough on the grounds that Slough had been St Albanised by
Crossrail's all-station-stoppers.
--
Roland Perry