Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2005 21:38:53 GMT
Not too sure if this is the right forum, but I've recently seen a few alternatives to the Crossrail Line 1 proposal, which is presently stuck in parliament with over 300 objections. The first is the well known about Superlink, which provides longer distance Cross-London services. Personally I think running reliable high frequency long(ish) distance services through a Cross-London tunnel would be verging on impossible. There would also be issues of train design, as metro trains are not suitable for long(ish) distance services and vice-versa. Another alternative I recently came across is called SuperCrossrail, and was proposed by GB Railways (now First). This involved tunnelling across London mainly under the Thames, with the under-river stations serving both sides of the river. The route would be Paddington, Green Park, Charing X/Embankment, London Bridge, Canary Wharf, and beyond. I could see problems with the under-river stations, access would be slow along long walkways, escalators, and travellators. Also the line avoids the West End, which is an important area served by both Crossrail Line 1 and 2 proposals. Another new proposal is at www.bettercrossrail.co.uk I'm not too sure if this an amateur, or professional site, but I would go for the former. This proposal seems to be a cheaper alternative, but omits serving Canary Wharf, which is a rather major omission (given that it's still rapidly expanding, and needs more public transport capacity). Personally I'd rather see something along the lines of Crossrail Line 2/Chelsea Hackney Line built before Crossrail Line 1 to relieve the Victoria Line. If it could be extended out to Leytonstone then it could help relieve the Central as well, and running it to Clapham Junction at the other end would help relieve congestion at Waterloo and Victoria. If it was built to be a self contained line, it would be more reliable, and possibly cheaper to construct (especially if the Barcelona Line 9 method of construction was used - giant 10.9m internal diameter monotube containing running lines, station platforms/sidings/crossovers). The main downside being that it wouldn't solve the problem with Canary Wharf access. What is everyone elses opinions on Crossrail's routings and needs? |
|
|
|
Post by edb on Dec 30, 2005 22:11:38 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2005 16:46:57 GMT
I'd already linked to that ;-) |
|
|
|
Post by edb on Dec 31, 2005 17:29:12 GMT
Oh god i am dumb.
Ha ha ha, well that made me laugh
|
|
|
|
Post by amershamsi on Jan 9, 2006 20:46:12 GMT
couldn't crossrail run from Clapham Junction to Liverpool Street. IIRC a route that combined crossrail east of TCR and crossrail 2 to the west of TCR gave a better cost/benefit ratio. you can then serve Heathrow via Richmond and Airtrack, as well as places like Epsom and even Gatwick. And also, you could make the line less lopsided.
You can also make it third rail, with dual votage units (swap power at Stratford), saving money on having to make tunnels big enough for OHLE, and saving even more money in not requiring crossrail 2.
Simon
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2006 21:23:27 GMT
no you couldn't. HMRI will only allow 3rd rail to be laid on existing 3R routes. All new-build electrification schemes these days must be OHLE.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2006 21:35:48 GMT
no you couldn't. HMRI will only allow 3rd rail to be laid on existing 3R routes. All new-build electrification schemes these days must be OHLE. I'm not too sure how well defined, and strict these rules are. For example the AGT under construction at Heathrow will use 3rd (and ?4th) rails. Maybe Crossrail could be built as an extension to the South Western region? However IMO, HMRI would probably not allow a 3rd rail Crossrail. |
|
|
|
Post by russe on Jan 10, 2006 0:24:20 GMT
All new-build electrification schemes these days must be OHLE. The DLR got an exemption from that one, then! Russ |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2006 7:27:12 GMT
All new-build electrification schemes these days must be OHLE. The DLR got an exemption from that one, then! Russ The rule was implemented after the initial DLR construction, so it is exempt. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,767
|
Post by Chris M on Jan 10, 2006 18:42:40 GMT
no you couldn't. HMRI will only allow 3rd rail to be laid on existing 3R routes. All new-build electrification schemes these days must be OHLE. I'm not too sure how well defined, and strict these rules are. For example the AGT under construction at Heathrow will use 3rd (and ?4th) rails. Maybe Crossrail could be built as an extension to the South Western region? However IMO, HMRI would probably not allow a 3rd rail Crossrail. Extensions are allowed, although I don't know what the exent this can be pushed - could you electrify the Heart of Wessex Line from Bristol to Weymouth with 3rd rail as an extension of the South Western 3rd rail between Upwey and Weymouth? Also, does anyone know if LU were to build a Chelsey-Hackney Line (or any other completely new line) whether they would be allowed to do so using 4th rail or would it have to be OHLE? I do know that all new-buid third rail stock has to be able to be convered to OHLE (i.e. it needs to be able to be fitted with a panotgraph). Is the 'S' stock exempt from this? Chris |
|
|
|
Post by russe on Jan 10, 2006 19:18:01 GMT
I do know that all new-buid third rail stock has to be able to be convered to OHLE (i.e. it needs to be able to be fitted with a panotgraph). And where, pray, is this piece of nonsense enshrined? Russ |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,767
|
Post by Chris M on Jan 10, 2006 19:36:10 GMT
I don't actually remember where i read this, but it is probably one of the wikipedia articles on one of the newer build 3rd rail EMUs 458? 450? Either that or one an article about third rail electrification or the Southern region of BR or somewhere like that.
Chris
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,767
|
Post by Chris M on Jan 10, 2006 19:38:13 GMT
I don't think its legislation, but more liekly a HSE condition for acceptance of new stock. It is presumably due to some grand plan to eventually elminate all 3rd rail electrification.
Chris
|
|
|
|
Post by dunois on Jan 10, 2006 23:08:18 GMT
In order to eliminate some gauge constraint why not using a OHLE with 750 Volts DC instead of the classical 25kV AC.
That's probably stupid but direct current is far more adapted for dense urban railways networks.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,767
|
Post by Chris M on Jan 10, 2006 23:22:37 GMT
750v DC OHLE isn't exactly non-standard either - its used by about 90% of modern tramway systems, including Croydon Tramlink.
I suppose that they could use 630v DC OHLE and use the same power source as LU? (although the rails would need to be adapted to cope with running-rail return, unless they went for a two trolley pole system, which I image would not be a good choice for a guage-restricted environment.)
|
|
|
|
Post by dunois on Jan 10, 2006 23:29:17 GMT
750v DC OHLE isn't exactly non-standard either - its used by about 90% of modern tramway systems, including Croydon Tramlink. I suppose that they could use 630v DC OHLE and use the same power source as LU? (although the rails would need to be adapted to cope with running-rail return, unless they went for a two trolley pole system, which I image would not be a good choice for a guage-restricted environment.) Another alternative would be the conversion of the tube to 1500v DC but that would be expensive and it is not necessary. True there are safety issues with third rail current but if the Chelsea Hackney line is ever build and I hope that it will be, there will be doors on the plateform on the model on the JLE stations and I guess that it will be the same for every tube line extension (maybe there will have doors like this in Heathrow T5). And doors like this prevent an electrocution consecutive to a fall. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2006 23:29:56 GMT
750v DC OHLE isn't exactly non-standard either - its used by about 90% of modern tramway systems, including Croydon Tramlink. I suppose that they could use 630v DC OHLE and use the same power source as LU? (although the rails would need to be adapted to cope with running-rail return, unless they went for a two trolley pole system, which I image would not be a good choice for a guage-restricted environment.) 750DC isn't the optimum type of electrification for power hungry modern high performance suburban/metro trains. If you wanted to keep things DC, then 1500V or 3000V would probably be more suitable. The sadly abandoned Space Train concept for tube profile lines was at one stage designed with an overhead electric rail, as on the Madrid Metro. |
|
|
|
Post by russe on Jan 11, 2006 0:23:25 GMT
I don't actually remember where i read this, but it is probably one of the wikipedia articles on one of the newer build 3rd rail EMUs 458? 450? Yes, Chris, I've found it on Wikipedia (in the 450 section), but I'm not sure that makes Wikipedia a paragon of authority. HSE has plans for the elimination of all 3rd rail electrification? Hmmm, very interesting...One wonders what planet they think they live on. Those 450s and their like will probably have gone to the knackers yard long before the south-east of this country ever gets a full overhead implementation. I don't have any problems with a railway company wanting to overhead a particular line where there is a good business case for it, but to impose artificial and expensive constraints on all rolling stock at this stage is totally mad to my way of thinking. Russ |
|
