Great Western Coffee Shop

There's been a lot of discussion about the value for money of the Crossrail scheme. Doubts over the funding of its ^16bn cost are rife at the moment given the financial problems affecting the country. I've made a post on the CANBER website containing details of what I think would make the whole project much better value for money at little extra cost. In summary it involves utilising existing infrastructure to provide a service west from Paddington via Greenford and Ruislip to High Wycombe.

You can view the CANBER post here: http://www.canber.co.uk/?q=node/54 (http://www.canber.co.uk/?q=node/54)

You can download the full document here: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=3NXC2RK7 (http://www.megaupload.com/?d=3NXC2RK7)


As I respect the opinions of so many visitors to this forum, I would appreciate your feedback and comments, and if you think my proposals are sensible then 'spread the word' to others.

I have been saying for a long time now that this version of Crossrail does not work West of London.

It is ludicrous as the canber paper says terminate 14 out of 24 tph in the peaks at Westbourne Park sidings and having to build a special paltform to detrain people who forget to leave at Eastbourne Terrace (Paddington).

Another argument is that it disrupts a very heavy freight flow of stone from the Mendips to Acton Yard for distribution around the SE. More lorries on the road.

Another substantial problem is that it totally disrupts the heavy commuter flow from Twyford and stations Westwards to Langley and stations to Ealing Broadway, if it terminates as proposed at Maidenhead, by enforcing a change at Slough or Maidenhead, .

I fully supoport the idea of using both the Greenford and OOC route to High Wycombe and beyond to take at least 10tph.

In the first Crossrail proposal late 80s? it was proposed to put a link from OOC to the Ayesbury line at Neasden and not use the High Wycombe line which I thought was odd at the time. This could be revived as well as OOC line.   

An interchange with the Central Line at North Acton would be essential. Greenford is a bit of problem I'm not sure of the best way to serve the branch stations.  Greenford mainline station must obviously be reopened and linked to the Central line hopefully with 4 tracks. It's whether the bay is still used for the branch stoppers.

Although there are triangles at both ends of the branch, which gives endles routing posibilities (including the chance to turn  Heathrow Express Units at night to even out tyre wear on the wheels) all 6 junctions are flat with conflicting moves.Maybe someone might have a solution.

The trouble is there isn't a Brunel to push the scheme through the "bean counters" are in charge and they can't see beyond the ^ sign.

I always thought that 2 tph should terminate at Greenford, but apparently the platforms are too short.

I do, however, have 3 problems with 10 tph to High Wycombe:

*Even with the extra track through the Ruslips, I doubt the infrastructure could take 10 tph + 3 Chiltern express tph + hourly local trains to Aylesbury via Princes R + W&S + possibly Arriva expresses (from December).

*You would need full quadruple tracking, a way of turning 10 tph at HW without disrupting the expresses, and more platform space at HW!

*I don't think there is the space - besides it would cost too much.

A great idea in principle, but there are flaws (unfortunately).

Sorry I didn't mean 10 tph to terminate at High Wycombe I had Alyesbury (well Snow Hill actually)in mind and if say 6 tph went via Neasden and Amersham then it would not be so many via High Wycombe.

There's probably room for a longer terminating bay at Greenford mainline although that would lose the current on the level change to the Central line.

Of course if Bourne End High Wycombe was reinstated and electrified you could lose 2tph up teh branch from Maidenhead.

Ah... that makes more sense!

But I still think there would be capacity problems.

(and not sure about Crossrail to Snow Hill... unless it ran semi fast all the way)

I like direct trains to the Maidenhead branch!

Just to clarify that my proposals involve a peak hours service of:

6 tph from/to Northolt
2 tph from/to Gerrards Cross
2 tph from/to High Wycombe

and off-peak:

4 tph from/to Northolt
2 tph from/to High Wycombe
1 tph from/to Gerrards Cross

So only 4tph peak and 3tph off-peak would interfere with the Chiltern Line.

I don't think that extending Crossrail further than High Wycombe would be a cost effective use of the cash. Crossrail is (and should be on financial and operational grounds) a high-frequency, suburban style service, with the main London terminals handling the long distance traffic.

Is this not the 1980/90s Crossrail concept  ??? but that did have a new cord to be built through Old Oak to Neasden.

The key with Crossrail is to actually get the east west tunnels built the expansion of it further west of Maidenhead and even a new route to Wycombe and Aylesbury should be pushed for once the tunneling is underway.

Indeed. My proposals are made on that basis, as they could easily be built separate to the main Crossrail project.

As an aside, the Arriva services mentioned by Btline are featured in the link below.
http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/2009/01/19/plans-for-direct-aberystwyth-to-london-train-55578-22722119/

I am glad they are keeping an eye on the Arriva plans, to make sure W&S passengers are not poached.

I personally think an hourly service would be better for the region than 2 London trains.

Andrew Adonis and London Mayor Boris Johnson have announced the appointment of Tony Gregory as the new independent Crossrail Complaints Commissioner (link below.)
http://nds.coi.gov.uk/environment/fullDetail.asp?ReleaseID=390339&NewsAreaID=2&NavigatedFromDepartment=False

DOH!

I've had an official reply to this document from the DfT. Probably the response I expected, but at least it's not just 'standard reply letter #4' and there is a definite commitment to looking at possible Crossrail expansion and designing the current scheme to allow for it.

You can view the letter here: http://img186.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=12782_img594_122_344lo.jpg (http://img186.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=12782_img594_122_344lo.jpg)

Apologies for any advertising, just click on 'continue to the image' when the countdown timer has reached zero.

If services to High Wycome are to be considered, then redouble Old Oak junction to Ruislip and reinstate the through lines at Denham and Beaconsfield (pity it's too late at Gerrards X) - the fast lines ought to be reinstated anyway if Chiltern want to run a fast Oxford srvice via Bicester. 

Why is it too late at Gerrards Cross? Even the Tesco website emphasises that the tunnel is sized for four tracks, even if platforms might need shifting...

Paul

Isn't it too late at Denham now? I thought the recent rebuild put the up platform on the old through lines?

Oh well, you're probably right - haven't been on that line for a few years. So why does an enlightened TOC like Chiltern take out high speed capacity just when they're planning more fast services? Barmy.

Assuming the space is still there you could add High Wycombe and Princes Risborough to my list.

After what happened, would you want to risk four tracks under that thing? The poisoned legacy of Railtrack lives on...

That Tesco store should be bulldozed to the ground!

None of the locals wanted it, Chiltern/NR didn't want it and it was built in an area which is meant to be green-belt.

I wonder how many local shops will close due to it? :'(

The other thing Tesco have scuppered is improvements to Worcester Foregate Street station. They out-bid the council and bought the adjacent ex-Post Office building. So instead of a new, expanded station, (what Worcester needs) we have yet another supermarket! (what Worcester, and the two local newagents DON'T need) >:(

Carefully, I hope.

Well, since the great collapse, they have got an M&S food shop and Waitrose are said to be looking for a site - rather less local opposition to that one in Gerrards Cross!

And it will only be the sixth Tesco in Worcester - I'm sure there's room for a few more...

I believe a loop in the  Denham area is still on the cards as are others along the line. However, as
I understand it they  will be dynamic bi directional loops so that instead of four tracks there will be three.

Re Gerrads Cross probably best to leave tunnel where it is pull down the steel structure that was to be Tesvos  and use site as an extra car park for the town/station.

Actually it is even worse - at least the 7th - 2 big; 4 express; and now Foregate St

I was relying on their website's store finder, which only admits to five.

ooooooooo nasty closet tescos they are the worse type you never know when you'll fall into one.

There are many former railway yards etc that were sold off by BR it was really the only way BR had to fund resignalling, new trains etc due to the way DoTp worked, RT well they just needed money for the bubbly at the share holders meeting, now in a number of place the railway actually could do with the land back ............ think thats called foresightedness and progress

Now on another topic, it's been pointed out (totally unfairly, of course) that Hereford is small City not worthy of fast trains to London - but we do merit two Tescos, one Sainsburys, one M&S food hall, one Morrisons, one Aldi, one Lidl and a Waitrose rumoured.

Paignton gets 2 trains a day to London and we have 1 large Sainsburys, 1 large Morrisons, 2 Somerfields, 1 Tesco Metro, 1 Iceland and god knows how many Co-Ops.

I don't think we should use supermarkets to compare the needs of travellers :p

Too many supermarkets could  be a good reason to get away from these towns, the problem is where do you go to get away from them?

Why not try Hanborough? Frequent long distance trains aimed at the park-and-ride market and only a lovely small Co-Op for those essential supplies, eh Will?  ::)

And Evesham has a Co-op where the old Midland station was (oh and a ghastly Tesco nearby - at least it's not over the railway).

Yes a missed opportunity possibly.  Especially since a large amount of land in the vicinity of the station has also been redeveloped recently.  With a bit of forethought they could have at least safeguarded some space for improvement of the railway station.

I have to admit though that enlarging Foregate street would have been prohibitively expensive even if all the adjacent land was up for redevelopment.

P.S. Sorry for going a bit off topic but Worcester is west of Crossrail...

It was on the council's plans.

Until they realised they had been out-bid. >:(

What Worcester really needs is a 3 or 4 platformed Foregate Street (re-named Central) station - 2 HST length through platorms with 1 or 2 East facing bays, long enough for 3 car DMUs. Shrub Hill could then close and all trains extended to Foregate.

That land where they built flats recently could have been used to provide a multi-storey car park for passengers!

A shame that there is no vision today.

A nice idea in principle, though when you factor in the elevated nature of the tracks (a good 30 feet above street level) and the viaduct that starts immediately the platforms end, and surely such a vision would have been prohibitively expensive?

Viaduct is west of the station. The extra bays would be east facing.

It would be expensive - but it is needed. Worcester's main railway station is in-adequate.

Well it ain't gonna happen mate. Two full length platforms and two bays would cost the earth given the nature of the stations location. Much better would be to re-do the signalling to create a metro style station with proper bi-directional signalling and much reduced headways, then rebuild Shrub Hill (where there's ample sensible land available), or close Shrub Hill and build a parkway station near the M5 in the Norton Junction area.

I doubt even the most optimistic railwayman could expect Crossrail to reach as far west as Worcester especially as even Reading being slightly optimistic ......

and back on topic  :P  ;D

The other problem would be that the line would have to close while the works are going on - too problematic!

I agree - new bi-directional signalling, reduced headways, an extra few sets of points to allow FULL platform flexibility and a new Parkway station.


Sorry, my rants about Tesco have pulled this thread over 100 miles off route (although Crossrail to Worcester would be better than the current arrangement!)

Hmmmm: 10 tph to Worcester? (all express of course!) :P ;D

Not quite, but it is on the site of the railway goods yard!