Re: Chiltern's plans for Oxford-Princes Risborough via Cowley
1506
> On Jun 3, 5:49 pm, bebop <u...@domain.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > TimB wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 3, 1:19 am, Richard Brooks <richardbro...@vickers-
>
> > [snip]
>
> > >> Also;
> > >> <http://www.transitionoxford.org.uk/sites/default/files/TransportEDPfo...>
>
> > > No, not that plan.
> > > That's Evergreen 3, to the north of Oxford.
>
> > Well, turn back a page or three and the original version of Chiltern
> > Railway's 'Evergreen 3' proposal would have put Leicester back on the
> > list of destinations at Marylebone, and with a long franchise ahead of
> > them they were serious about it.
>
> > The map they issued used the correct shade of magenta for the proposed
> > route too.
>
> > Given the state of East Midlands Trains Sunday services, and the
> > provision of platforms for domestic services at St Pancras the other six
> > days of the week, some people will be thinking 'Bring it on'.
>
> Though I think platform space at Marylebone is a bit tight too
> nowadays.
It certainly is which is good. If Chiltern continues to expand and
improve they will need more space for London bound trains.
At one time I thought a new ariel curve above Neasden to carry
services to Saint Pancras by way of Cricklewood might be an answer.
But St P. is now full.
Paddington is hardly an option. It is also well utilized. Could
Kensington Olympia handle some Chiltern trains? Perhaps there is a
bigger role for TfL's Central Line in taking some of the load carried
by Chiltern.
Still, this is a great problem to have. I can recall two attempts to
close Marylebone.
Crossposting to uk.transport.london and misc.transport.urban-transit
for a wider more focused discussion.
Peter Masson
"1506" <adrian_a...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>Paddington is hardly an option. It is also well utilized. Could
>Kensington Olympia handle some Chiltern trains? Perhaps there is a
>bigger role for TfL's Central Line in taking some of the load carried
>by Chiltern.
It would I suppose be possible to evict the car park or whatever it is from
the space formerly occupied by the Motorail loading bays and create some
platforms there. But the West London Line is pretty full, and it's not clear
how trains would get there from the Chiltern line - the direct route
parallel to the LUL Central Line between North Acton and Shepherds Bush has
long gone.
Peter
Tom Anderson
> On Jun 3, 1:10�pm, Mizter T <mizte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Though I think platform space at Marylebone is a bit tight too
>> nowadays.
>
> It certainly is which is good. If Chiltern continues to expand and
> improve they will need more space for London bound trains.
Stick another deck on top of Marylebone, in a slightly St Pancras style?
You'd have to lift the roof a bit to fit them in, but not by much. Or you
could build them beyond the end of the shed, in a more St Pancras style.
You'd have to sever Rossmore Road to make this work, but you know,
omelettes, eggs.
Or, of course, you could dive, and build some platforms in tunnel.
> At one time I thought a new ariel curve above Neasden to carry
> services to Saint Pancras by way of Cricklewood might be an answer.
> But St P. is now full.
>
> Paddington is hardly an option. It is also well utilized.
People keep telling me Euston has capacity. Difficult connection to make,
though.
tom
--
Teach us how to die well
Mr Thant
> People keep telling me Euston has capacity. Difficult connection to make,
> though.
You've obviously never ridden the world-famous South Hampstead 270
degree spiral. A marvel of British engineering.
U
Mizter T
On Jun 4, 12:48 am, Mr Thant <maha.thray.sithu.u.th...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
Cripes! Hold tight, chaps...
John Rowland
> On Wed, 3 Jun 2009, 1506 wrote:
>
>> On Jun 3, 1:10 pm, Mizter T <mizte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Though I think platform space at Marylebone is a bit tight too
>>> nowadays.
>>
>> It certainly is which is good. If Chiltern continues to expand and
>> improve they will need more space for London bound trains.
>
> Stick another deck on top of Marylebone, in a slightly St Pancras
> style? You'd have to lift the roof a bit to fit them in, but not by
> much. Or you could build them beyond the end of the shed, in a more
> St Pancras style.
>
> You'd have to sever Rossmore Road to make this work, but you know,
> omelettes, eggs.
>
> Or, of course, you could dive, and build some platforms in tunnel.
And sever the Regents Canal?
>> At one time I thought a new ariel curve above Neasden to carry
>> services to Saint Pancras by way of Cricklewood might be an answer.
>> But St P. is now full.
>>
>> Paddington is hardly an option. It is also well utilized.
>
> People keep telling me Euston has capacity. Difficult connection to
> make, though.
No: you build a curve from Northwick Park to South Kenton and divert all
Chiltern Amersham trains through it to Euston, and sell off the Chiltern
tracks from Northwick Park to Neasden.
1506
There would be some merit in a Euston to Aylesbury Parkway service,
leaving Chiltern to focus on their Birmingham route. However, your
Northwick Park to South Kenton curve, which is a great idea, needs
some clarification. Dropping the Aylesbury route onto the Watford DC
lines would be less than ideal. Better that it should join the AC
Semi-fast tracks utilizing a non-conflicting junction. That would
take some land, and need heavy civils. But one would have thought
that it is do-able.
1506
> bebop wrote:
>
> *West Hampstead Interchange*
>
And, whatever happened to the West Hampstead Interchange? It is such
and obvious thing to do and cannot be THAT hard!
1506
> "1506" <adrian_auerhud...@yahoo.com> wrote
It is a pity that the North Acton and Shepherds Bush has gone. I
guess the Central Line could be droppep into a sub surface trench and
a new link built above it.
Although for commuter traffic Kensington Olympia is not an ideal
destination. I could see a link being useful if the GC GW joint line
becomes HS2 though!
Tom Anderson
> Tom Anderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 3 Jun 2009, 1506 wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 3, 1:10 pm, Mizter T <mizte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Though I think platform space at Marylebone is a bit tight too
>>>> nowadays.
>>>
>>> It certainly is which is good. If Chiltern continues to expand and
>>> improve they will need more space for London bound trains.
>>
>> Stick another deck on top of Marylebone, in a slightly St Pancras
>> style? You'd have to lift the roof a bit to fit them in, but not by
>> much. Or you could build them beyond the end of the shed, in a more
>> St Pancras style.
>>
>> You'd have to sever Rossmore Road to make this work, but you know,
>> omelettes, eggs.
>>
>> Or, of course, you could dive, and build some platforms in tunnel.
>
> And sever the Regents Canal?
Underground locks.
>>> At one time I thought a new ariel curve above Neasden to carry
>>> services to Saint Pancras by way of Cricklewood might be an answer.
>>> But St P. is now full.
>>>
>>> Paddington is hardly an option. It is also well utilized.
>>
>> People keep telling me Euston has capacity. Difficult connection to
>> make, though.
>
> No: you build a curve from Northwick Park to South Kenton and divert all
> Chiltern Amersham trains through it to Euston, and sell off the Chiltern
> tracks from Northwick Park to Neasden.
No, use them for an extension of the Brent Cross light rail.
tom
--
Women are monsters, men are clueless, everyone fights and no-one ever
wins. -- cleanskies
thcon...@googlemail.com
> It is a pity that the North Acton and Shepherds Bush has gone. I
> guess the Central Line could be droppep into a sub surface trench and
> a new link built above it.
No chance - from North Acton the Central Line quickly rises to
embankment once it emerges from under the GWML and North Pole depot
and passes over a number of bridges and then, just after East Acton,
the WB line crosses over as right-hand running is in place from there
to just before Shepherd's Bush (a throwback to the old CLR Wood Lane
loop).
THC
E.L. O'Hesra
> On Jun 3, 3:35 pm, "Peter Masson" <peter.mass...@privacy.com> wrote:
>> "1506" <adrian_auerhud...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>> Paddington is hardly an option. It is also well utilized. Could
>>> Kensington Olympia handle some Chiltern trains? Perhaps there is a
>>> bigger role for TfL's Central Line in taking some of the load
>>> carried by Chiltern.
>>
>> It would I suppose be possible to evict the car park or whatever it
>> is from the space formerly occupied by the Motorail loading bays and
>> create some platforms there. But the West London Line is pretty
>> full, and it's not clear how trains would get there from the
>> Chiltern line - the direct route parallel to the LUL Central Line
>> between North Acton and Shepherds Bush has long gone.
>
> guess the Central Line could be droppep into a sub surface trench and
> a new link built above it.
Wouldn't building a flyover from the North Pole depot access to the Perivale
line be just a bit cheaper?
TimB
>
> There would be some merit in a Euston to Aylesbury Parkway service,
> leaving Chiltern to focus on their Birmingham route.
I rather like the prospect of eventually having two Euston-Milton
Keynes services, via Aylesbury and via Watford. But the public might
prefer a choice of London termini.
Tim
1506
There would plenty of interchanges with the Met. And, Baker St is
very close to Marylebone. :-)
TimB
Point taken, although the Euston-MKC services don't actually stop at
many of those interchange points.
Tim
Tom Anderson
> On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, John Rowland wrote:
>
>> Tom Anderson wrote:
>>
>>> Or, of course, you could dive, and build some platforms in tunnel.
>>
>> And sever the Regents Canal?
>
> Underground locks.
I had a bit of a look to see if there was such a thing as an underground
lock, and i couldn't quite find any, although i did find an underground
inclined plane:
http://www.d.lane.btinternet.co.uk/canal2.htm
Does anyone know of an actual underground lock?
tom
--
non, scarecrow, forensics, rituals, bacteria, scientific instruments, ..
Paul Scott
"Tom Anderson" <tw...@urchin.earth.li> wrote in message
news:alpine.DEB.1.10.0...@urchin.earth.li...
> On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Tom Anderson wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, John Rowland wrote:
>>
>>> Tom Anderson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Or, of course, you could dive, and build some platforms in tunnel.
>>>
>>> And sever the Regents Canal?
>>
>> Underground locks.
>
> I had a bit of a look to see if there was such a thing as an underground
> lock, and i couldn't quite find any, although i did find an underground
> inclined plane:
>
> http://www.d.lane.btinternet.co.uk/canal2.htm
>
> Does anyone know of an actual underground lock?
>
No, but this might help. Depending on the required gradient on the tracks,
you could conceivably cross the canal on the near level, traditionally this
would have involved a swing bridge. However a 'drop lock' (or sump lock) has
been provided for the Forth and Clyde restoration to allow the canal to
effectively burrow under a road, the same could be done under a railway:
http://www.gentles.info/link/Drop_Lock/Drop_Lock.htm
Paul S
Richard J.
> On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Tom Anderson wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, John Rowland wrote:
>>
>>> Tom Anderson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Or, of course, you could dive, and build some platforms in tunnel.
>>> And sever the Regents Canal?
>> Underground locks.
>
> I had a bit of a look to see if there was such a thing as an underground
> lock, and i couldn't quite find any, although i did find an underground
> inclined plane:
>
> http://www.d.lane.btinternet.co.uk/canal2.htm
>
> Does anyone know of an actual underground lock?
There's one in Manchester, near Piccadilly station.
Photo at http://www.flickr.com/photos/binaryape/92608490/
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)
Tom Anderson
Ah yes, i'd forgotten about that. That's a fine bit of engineering!
Although now i come to look at it, i'm not sure the canal needs to be
interfered with at all. I make it 2200 feet from the buffer stops to the
canal; if we take 960 feet for platforms (enough to hold 12 cars of class
172 - not that you'd use diesels in a tunnel, but it's indicative), that
leaves 1240 feet, which at a gradient of 1:30 is enough to dive 40 feet.
That's not as deep as a normal tube line, but it's deep enough to fit in
under the existing platforms, although it might have to be built as
cut-and-cover.
If that gradient is too steep, you could shorten the platforms, make them
deeper, or push them further towards Marylebone Road under the station.
tom
--
In-jokes for out-casts