Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 11:55 28 Mar 2024
* Manhunt after stabbing in front of train passengers
- How do I renew my UK passport and what is the 10-year rule?
- Easter travel warning as millions set to hit roads
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 02/06/24 - Summer Timetable starts
17/08/24 - Bus to Imber
27/09/25 - 200 years of passenger trains

On this day
28th Mar (1917)
Bideford, Westward Ho! and Appledore closed (link)

Train RunningCancelled
10:15 London Paddington to Cardiff Central
10:30 London Paddington to Weston-Super-Mare
10:41 Cardiff Central to London Paddington
11:00 Bristol Temple Meads to London Paddington
11:16 London Paddington to Cardiff Central
11:23 Weston-Super-Mare to London Paddington
11:30 London Paddington to Bristol Temple Meads
11:50 Cardiff Central to London Paddington
Additional 12:07 Bristol Temple Meads to Gloucester
12:15 London Paddington to Cardiff Central
12:17 Westbury to Swindon
12:30 London Paddington to Weston-Super-Mare
13:00 Bristol Temple Meads to London Paddington
13:15 Swindon to Westbury
14:19 Westbury to Swindon
15:14 Swindon to Westbury
Short Run
06:00 London Paddington to Penzance
07:10 Penzance to London Paddington
08:03 London Paddington to Penzance
09:30 Weymouth to Gloucester
10:35 London Paddington to Exeter St Davids
10:45 Bristol Temple Meads to Salisbury
10:55 Paignton to London Paddington
11:12 Salisbury to Bristol Temple Meads
11:23 Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central
12:03 London Paddington to Penzance
12:12 Salisbury to Bristol Temple Meads
13:03 London Paddington to Plymouth
Delayed
08:23 Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central
08:35 Plymouth to London Paddington
09:04 London Paddington to Plymouth
09:37 London Paddington to Paignton
09:51 Warminster to Gloucester
10:04 London Paddington to Penzance
PollsOpen and recent polls
Closed 2024-03-25 Easter Escape - to where?
Abbreviation pageAcronymns and abbreviations
Stn ComparatorStation Comparator
Rail newsNews Now - live rail news feed
Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
March 28, 2024, 12:14:33 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most recently liked subjects
[161] West Wiltshire Bus Changes April 2024
[91] would you like your own LIVE train station departure board?
[62] Return of the BRUTE?
[53] If not HS2 to Manchester, how will traffic be carried?
[49] Infrastructure problems in Thames Valley causing disruption el...
[38] Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the...
 
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 114
  Print  
Author Topic: Crossrail/Elizabeth Line. From construction to operation - ongoing discussion  (Read 586980 times)
Btline
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4782



View Profile
« Reply #15 on: November 07, 2008, 19:52:49 »

I really like the idea of transferring the H&C line into CrossRail to let District Line terminate in the North Circle.

I, too, was confused why the route did not serve St Pancras International, but I suppose a route like that would be a duplicate of the Circle Line.

Have a look at "Superlink," a different idea for the branches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superlink_(railway_network)
Logged
G.Uard
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 426


"Are we at Yate yet?"


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: November 07, 2008, 21:46:43 »

I really like the idea of transferring the H&C line into CrossRail to let District Line terminate in the North Circle.

I, too, was confused why the route did not serve St Pancras International, but I suppose a route like that would be a duplicate of the Circle Line.

Have a look at "Superlink," a different idea for the branches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superlink_(railway_network)


I seem to remember reading in Modern Railways, that the Circle Line will, (long term wise), be cut, with the western chord serviced by District Line services terminating and reversing at Edgeware Rd. 
Logged
stebbo
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 445


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: November 07, 2008, 22:28:59 »

I've long thought (going back 25 years from when I lived in London between 1978 and 1985) that there's a case for electrifying Banbury and Oxford to London Paddington via Oxford and High Wycombe/Acton. In those dark days I could even see a case for closing Marylebone by extending the Met back to its historical stamping grounds of Aylesbury - those maybe banish those thoughts now given how good Chiltern are.

So given the new landscape, why not electrify Snow Hill to Paddington/Crossrail and Marylebone via Reading and Acton - oh and add in Westbury and the rest of the Berks and Hants commuter line.

Is this a bit too radical?

PS Remember my father saying that in the late 1940s, the quickest route from Birmingham to London was Snow Hill to Paddington via High Wycombe on the Birkenhead up express
Logged
IndustryInsider
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 10095


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: November 07, 2008, 23:01:31 »


The immediate nonsense  of Crossrail's missing 14 services could be remedied by small extensions to Greenford (pointed out in another post) and even to Aylesbury. The H&C line  is a surface stock gauge route and could be added to Crossrail, easing Metropolitan/Circle Line pathing, perhaps allowing the District Line to terminate usefully at Baker St rather than in mid-air at Edgware Rd, although a bay might be needed.

What a ^15Bn mess!

OTC

Isn't the provisional Crossrail timetable already banking on the Greenford's terminating in a new bay at West Ealing during the peak? I agree that it's tempting to suggest using Greenford and H&C lines to allow more trains to head westwards, but it should not be forgotten that there would need to be massive investment to modify platforms to accommodate them - most H&C platforms can barely accomodate the 6-car trains that currently use them, and there would also be implications for Drayton Green and Greenford which just wouldn't have space for a 160m long service. ^15bn would soon turn into ^20bn!
Logged

To view my GWML (Great Western Main Line) Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/
Btline
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4782



View Profile
« Reply #19 on: November 07, 2008, 23:06:04 »

I know the Hammersmith and City line is to become the Hammersmith and Circle line soon.

This is a possible alternative approach.

Snow Hill to Paddington is about 2 miles (I think) shorter than New Street to Euston.

The Greenford Branch will suffer with no direct trains to London, and people will use the Central Line (as it is probably quicker to get to Bond Street/ T Court Road direct using LU without a change at West Ealing.
Logged
onthecushions
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 977


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: November 09, 2008, 11:49:50 »


"Isn't the provisional Crossrail timetable already banking on the Greenford's terminating in a new bay at West Ealing during the peak? I agree that it's tempting to suggest using Greenford and H&C lines to allow more trains to head westwards, but it should not be forgotten that there would need to be massive investment to modify platforms to accommodate them - most H&C platforms can barely accomodate the 6-car trains that currently use them, and there would also be implications for Drayton Green and Greenford which just wouldn't have space for a 160m long service. ^15bn would soon turn into ^20bn!"



1. 15Bn to provide a journey between Greenford and Bond St that requires a change of train is poor value. How much will the West Ealing bay and trackwork/signalling cost?

2. Extending platform lengths is not prohibitive in cost to a competent railway industry. I believe both the LMS (London Midland Scottish - 1923 to 1948) and SR(resolve) had concrete prefabrication plants and could erect a halt in a weekend. It is true that some sites (between bridges, on viaducts etc) can be difficult. OLE (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE") (wires) clearances would be the challenge.

3.   Crossrail costs will need review - 6MW for an 8-car train that would have needed 1.5MW in the 1970's, architects' benefits at stations to name but two. The process for works on both NR» (Network Rail - home page) and LUL (London Underground Ltd) is unreasonably expensive - with simple jobs inflated many times and designs and contracts going over multiple companies' desks. It is a version of the LLoyds scam of a few years ago, where  a musical chairs of re-insurance took place, each time an un-earned commission being charged, leaving finally little left to cover the risk, which was borne by unsuspecting names. This is NOT the industry's fault, but entirely that of politicians and Civil Servants. Sorting this out would deliver a better Crossrail cheaper.

OTC
« Last Edit: November 09, 2008, 11:52:00 by onthecushions » Logged
IndustryInsider
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 10095


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: November 09, 2008, 12:57:49 »


1. 15Bn to provide a journey between Greenford and Bond St that requires a change of train is poor value. How much will the West Ealing bay and trackwork/signalling cost?

2. Extending platform lengths is not prohibitive in cost to a competent railway industry. I believe both the LMS (London Midland Scottish - 1923 to 1948) and SR(resolve) had concrete prefabrication plants and could erect a halt in a weekend. It is true that some sites (between bridges, on viaducts etc) can be difficult. OLE (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE") (wires) clearances would be the challenge.


I agree with several of your points OTC. The cost of the West Ealing bay would not be too significant, especially given that it would free up two peak paths per hour that have to be operated with a two car turbo - the increase in capacity is needed badly.

I don't think OLE would present too many problems on the Greenford branch. There are only two overbridges and the only tunnel is of quite a modern design with a reasonable clearance. The trouble with that line, as I mentioned, is Drayton Green and Greenford.

At Drayton Green the platforms start as soon as the junction of the triangle leading to West Ealing and Hanwell converge, and end as soon as the tracks pass under a busy road bridge - that's just enough room for a two carriage train.

At Greenford, there is just room for a 3-car turbo, but the platform is nestled in-between the Central Line tracks and so can't be extended in a westerly direction. The other direction the track immediately goes down a steep gradient to pass beneath the Westbound Central Line.

With Greenford already served by a pretty frequent Central Line service, and the other stations on the route not busy enough to warrant anything other than a two-car service, even at peak hours, I just don't see a big enough market to warrant the expense of the modifications. In fact, I would say there would be much more potential in electrifying the line through from Old Oak Common to South Ruislip and beyond to High Wycombe to provide another route west of Paddington as has been mentioned on here before - though again, you'd need lots of money spent on platforms, the electrification costs, and a grade-seperated junction at Old Oak Common, so the ^20bn price-tag would be hit again in no time!
« Last Edit: November 09, 2008, 19:16:24 by IndustryInsider » Logged

To view my GWML (Great Western Main Line) Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/
Btline
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4782



View Profile
« Reply #22 on: November 09, 2008, 17:02:33 »

But the Greenford trains run on the slow lines (I assume) and the slow lines are being taken up by XR (Crossrail) anyway. It would just be an extension to the Paddington terminators.
Logged
IndustryInsider
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 10095


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: November 09, 2008, 19:27:19 »

But the Greenford trains run on the slow lines (I assume) and the slow lines are being taken up by XR (Crossrail) anyway. It would just be an extension to the Paddington terminators.

Not quite sure what you're getting at there, Btline - but as far as I am aware, should the West Ealing bay platform get built (hopefully well before Crossrail services start), then during peak hours there would be a 20-minute frequency stopping service between Greenford and West Ealing connecting there with trains from/to Paddington. The present off-peak 30-minute frequency of trains would operate between Paddington and Greenford as they currently do.

This would free up two peak-hour paths per hour between Paddington and West Ealing which could be operated by 5/6/7-car trains heading out to Slough or Reading, rather than the 2-car train which plies between Paddington and Greenford all day.
Logged

To view my GWML (Great Western Main Line) Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/
onthecushions
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 977


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: November 10, 2008, 13:40:01 »


With Greenford already served by a pretty frequent Central Line service, and the other stations on the route not busy enough to warrant anything other than a two-car service, even at peak hours, I just don't see a big enough market to warrant the expense of the modifications. In fact, I would say there would be much more potential in electrifying the line through from Old Oak Common to South Ruislip and beyond to High Wycombe to provide another route west of Paddington as has been mentioned on here before - though again, you'd need lots of money spent on platforms, the electrification costs, and a grade-seperated junction at Old Oak Common, so the ^20bn price-tag would be hit again in no time!

What a good idea!

The Greenford branch looks like one of those Beeching left-overs which the DfT» (Department for Transport - about) couldn't close. Its logical termination in today's network would be where it meets Chiltern Trains' network, i.e. South Ruislip. That is only 16 tkm from W Ealing.
It would require main line platforms put back on the spacious GW (Great Western) High Wycombe main line at Greenford, Northolt and a turn-round facility at S Ruislip. The tiny Drayton Green halt is close to Hanwell, W Ealing and (the new stretchable?) Castle Bar stations so might close. This could then be worth 4 rather than 2 trains per hour, should give change from 50M and a hike in overall BCR (Benefit Cost Ratio).

OTC



Logged
Btline
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4782



View Profile
« Reply #25 on: November 10, 2008, 20:15:26 »

What I am saying is that stopping the Greenford trains in a bay won't free up paths, as the slow lines will be used for Crossrail.

Why not extend some of the Paddington terminators to Greenford, therby making use of the space (and more trains to Slough etc.)?
Logged
Lee
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7519


GBR - The Emperor's New Rail Network


View Profile WWW
« Reply #26 on: June 16, 2009, 10:09:22 »

FOI (Freedom of Information) request for copies of the drawing which supported the Crossrail (Nomination) Order 2008 - http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi/responses/2009/june/foicrossraildrawings/
Logged

Vous devez ĂȘtre impitoyable, parce que ces gens sont des salauds - https://looka.com/s/78722877
IndustryInsider
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 10095


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: January 13, 2010, 21:38:59 »

The first real physical signs of work on the western end of the project have started this week with the lifting of the small number of sidings and run-round loop at Westbourne Park stone terminal. This is to allow construction of the western end tunnel portal to start.
Logged

To view my GWML (Great Western Main Line) Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/
eightf48544
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4574


View Profile Email
« Reply #28 on: January 13, 2010, 23:11:41 »

Does that mean the ready mix depot has closed?  No more freight trains within sight of Paddington station.

If the plant was going to close why was the exit signal changed to fibre optic a few years ago?
Logged
IndustryInsider
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 10095


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: January 14, 2010, 11:01:54 »

Yes, no more freight trains running to within half a mile of Paddington station - though it was in use pretty much right up to the 'end'.

I guess the LED signals were installed before the final nod to Crossrail was given. It is only a standard 3-head LED signal head though, so could presumably be re-used elsewhere?
Logged

To view my GWML (Great Western Main Line) Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 114
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by customers of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link to report). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page