|
|
Post by amershamsi on Mar 4, 2006 18:50:47 GMT
Or maybe just scrap Crossrail, and build Crossrail Line 2/Chelney instead! absolutely, however how would you cope with the problem of the Shenfield lines - make it part of the central (using the spare trains left over from one of the lines being taken over by chelney)? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2006 21:48:01 GMT
Or maybe just scrap Crossrail, and build Crossrail Line 2/Chelney instead! absolutely, however how would you cope with the problem of the Shenfield lines - make it part of the central (using the spare trains left over from one of the lines being taken over by chelney)? I'm not a great expert on the Shenfield lines, but I'm sure that improving the signalling, building higher performance trains, and maybe a few infrastructure changes would allow for a sufficient capacity increase into Liverpool Street. If Chelney took over one of the Central's branches. Then the spare 92TS could be used to increase the Central's capacity through the core section. The Central's signalling can easily handle the originally planned 33tph (I have often seen headways of 85secs during the peaks). It is the lack of 92TS that restricts the service to a maximum of 30tph during the peaks. |
|
|
|
Post by dunois on Mar 5, 2006 12:38:23 GMT
To be honest I don't really see the Hammersmith services as part of Crossrail as it would involve a lot of changes for the plateforms and signals.
If there are problems with the Crossrail itself (spare capacity to the West) then an electrification of the Great Western Line to Reading and Greenford shoud be executed with signalling improvements to allow 4 trains per hour to Reading. A similar modernisation can be done in the East and with the bulk of the tunnel cost the Chelney should be build instead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2006 19:18:22 GMT
The only problems with electrifying to Greenford are a) the existing service loads too lightly for a through Crossrail service, b) there is no room to expand, as the Greenford loop is in heavy use by rotating HSTs, c) down Greenfords crossing up Paddingtons at West Ealing Junction would be a hindrance, and d) no one can convince anyone else to do it.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Mar 5, 2006 20:23:19 GMT
It really is a damn shame though that the district never reached the planned site of the NEC in Ickenham; you would have had the greenford line electrified as part of the tube, and a tube line between ruislip gardens and ickenham.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2006 22:12:33 GMT
you would have had the greenford line electrified as part of the tube, and a tube line between ruislip gardens and ickenham. Both of which would mainly be transporting air. |
|
|
|
Post by dunois on Mar 7, 2006 15:17:44 GMT
The only problems with electrifying to Greenford are a) the existing service loads too lightly for a through Crossrail service, b) there is no room to expand, as the Greenford loop is in heavy use by rotating HSTs, c) down Greenfords crossing up Paddingtons at West Ealing Junction would be a hindrance, and d) no one can convince anyone else to do it. I was not talking about putting the Greenford spur into Crossrail but rather about a modernisation of Paddington commuter services which would save the need of Crossrail. And for capacity problems on some lines the Chelney and part of a new east-west tube line could be build instead using the cost of the Crossrail tunnel. |
|
