|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Colin McKenzieColin McKenzie Date: Oct 18, 2007 13:38
A Hammersmith MP writes (in a circular email):
> I believe there should be an additional station on the Crossrail
> line at Old Oak to interchange with the West London Line. It is
> technically possible to build this, but the economic case will
> depend on the success of the Overground system.
My response:
I agree an extra station would be beneficial, but I think it should
interchange with the North London Line. New platforms could be built
on that line to interchange with Crossrail at one end and the Central
Line at the other end. The West London line already interchanges with
the Central Line at Shepherds Bush, so my suggestion would give more
new travel options.
What do the assembled experts think?
The top priority, of course, is getting Crossrail built - without
wasting time reconsidering all possible changes to the proposal.
Colin McKenzie
|
| Show full article (1.08Kb) |
|
| | 9 Comments |
|
|
Author: Tom AndersonTom Anderson Date: Oct 18, 2007 15:02
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, Colin McKenzie wrote:
> A Hammersmith MP writes (in a circular email):
>
>> I believe there should be an additional station on the Crossrail line
>> at Old Oak to interchange with the West London Line. It is technically
>> possible to build this, but the economic case will depend on the
>> success of the Overground system.
>
> I agree an extra station would be beneficial, but I think it should
> interchange with the North London Line. New platforms could be built on
> that line to interchange with Crossrail at one end and the Central Line
> at the other end.
This location is known as Acton Wells, incidentally - Acton Wells Junction
is where the Dudden Hill freight branch and the curve from the GWML join
the NLL, where it crosses the Central and the Paddington - Chiltern line.
> The West London line already interchanges with the Central Line at
> Shepherds Bush, so my suggestion would give more new travel options.
>
> What do the assembled experts think?
|
| Show full article (1.92Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Mr ThantMr Thant Date: Oct 18, 2007 15:11
On 18 Oct, 21:38, Colin McKenzie proof-read.co.uk> wrote:> I agree an extra station would be beneficial, but I think it should
> interchange with the North London Line. New platforms could be built
> on that line to interchange with Crossrail at one end and the Central
> Line at the other end.
>
> The West London line already interchanges with
> the Central Line at Shepherds Bush, so my suggestion would give more
> new travel options.
The problem you have is journeys to Paddington (and beyond) are
already covered well enough by the Bakerloo Line one stop north of
both these stations. Once stop south on the WLL you have a decent
route to Ealing Broadway (and Heathrow) via the Central Line. That
leaves NLL to points west as the only journey you're making more
convenient. I don't think that justifies the cost of essentially three
new stations in the middle of nowhere.
U
|
| Show full article (0.97Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Tom AndersonTom Anderson Date: Oct 18, 2007 15:39
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, Tom Anderson wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, Colin McKenzie wrote:
>
>> A Hammersmith MP writes (in a circular email):
>>
>>> I believe there should be an additional station on the Crossrail line at
>>> Old Oak to interchange...
|
| Show full article (1.97Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Richard J.Richard J. Date: Oct 18, 2007 16:05
Tom Anderson wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, Colin McKenzie wrote:
>
>> A Hammersmith MP writes (in a circular email):
>>
>>> I believe there should be an additional station on the Crossrail
>>> line at Old Oak to interchange with the West London Line. It is
>>> technically possible to build this, but the economic case will
>>> depend on the success of the Overground system.
>>
>> I agree an extra station would be beneficial, but I think it should
>> interchange with the North London Line. New platforms could be
>> built on that line to interchange with Crossrail at one end and
>> the Central Line at the other end.
>
> This location is known as Acton Wells, incidentally - Acton Wells
> Junction is where the Dudden Hill freight branch and the curve from
> the GWML join the NLL, where it crosses...
|
| Show full article (3.59Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Tom AndersonTom Anderson Date: Oct 19, 2007 11:16
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, Richard J. wrote:
> Tom Anderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, Colin McKenzie wrote:
>>
>>> A Hammersmith MP writes (in a circular email):
>>>
>>>> I believe there should be an additional station on the Crossrail
>>...
|
| Show full article (5.04Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Richard J.Richard J. Date: Oct 19, 2007 15:00
Tom Anderson wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, Richard J. wrote:
>
>> Tom Anderson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, Colin McKenzie wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree an extra station would be beneficial, but I think it
>>>> should interchange with the North London Line. New platforms
>>>> could be built on that line to interchange with Crossrail at
>>>> one end and the Central Line at the other end.
>>>
>>> This location is known as Acton Wells, incidentally - Acton Wells
>>> Junction is where the Dudden Hill freight branch and the curve
>>> from the GWML join the NLL, where it crosses the Central and the
>>> Paddington - Chiltern line.
>>
>> Yes, and any station that links to both the GWML/Crossrail and the
>> Central Line would be in the middle of Acton Wells Junction, a vital
>> node on the London freight network, which also has links to
>> the WCML and the WLL. You would have to build a new bridge across ...
|
| Show full article (5.78Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: SteveSteve Date: Oct 20, 2007 15:09
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 22:00:18 GMT, Richard J. wrote:
> ... which Richmond residents vociferously opposed when it was proposed
> by Crossrail in 2003.
That should be a few Nimbys, and one loony councillor(now loony London
assembly member). The majority of people in south west london were in
support of the plan. I don't see why crossrail were so weak on the issue,
that bunch were not the cause for dropping the route.
Crossrail in its final form always seemed quite a weak proposal compared to
what it should have been.
Steve
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Tim Roll-PickeringTim Roll-Pickering Date: Oct 20, 2007 15:22
Steve wrote:
>> ... which Richmond residents vociferously opposed when it was proposed
>> by Crossrail in 2003.
> That should be a few Nimbys, and one loony councillor(now loony London
> assembly member). The majority of people in south west london were in
> support of the plan. I don't see why crossrail were so weak on the issue,
> that bunch were not the cause for dropping the route.
Is there any actual evidence that "the majority of people" were in support
(and silence is not a terribly convincing form of support). Losing the
District Line isn't a minor thing.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Richard J.Richard J. Date: Oct 22, 2007 13:06
Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
> Steve wrote:
>
>>> ... which Richmond residents vociferously opposed when it was
>>> proposed by Crossrail in 2003.
>
>> That should be a few Nimbys, and one loony councillor(now loony
>> London assembly member). The majority of people in south west
>> london were in support of the plan.
That may be true but "south west London" is not the same as Richmond.
>> I don't see why crossrail were so weak on the issue, that bunch
>> were not the cause for dropping the route.
True. It was the cost of the tunnel to Turnham Green and the risk of
service unreliability from conflicts with other services that actually
killed Corridor 6. The Montague Report mentioned the opposition from
Richmond as a side comment only.
> Is there any actual evidence that "the majority of people" were in
> support (and silence is not a terribly convincing form of support).
> Losing the District Line isn't a minor thing.
|
| Show full article (1.42Kb) |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
