Logistics

[LMS6202]

Right. As we all know there are projects mooted for Crossrail and a high speed line a' la' TGV to the north.. What, in your opinion, would be the best solution for the building of these lines? Should Crossrail be connected to the proposed northern route as well as the GW?

In my opinion if Crossrail is to connect with the GW west of Paddington perhaps using the connection to the line past North Acton and West Ruislip and then onto the old Great Central line [which is built to continental loading gauge anyway] may not be a bad idea as it goes more or less centrally up the backbone of the land to the north. Let's see what your proposals would be?

 

[gordonthemoron]

IIRC,someone posted on this forum recently that GCR being built to continental loading guage is an urban myth

 

[Waddon]

I can't see much advantage in routing services from Crossrail onto HS2, as one is essentially a north/south mainline route and the other is basically a high capacity east/west metro service. The crawling around in the suburbs necessary to make the link would remove a lot of the time advantage of a high speed service.

However a good interchange would make sense. It seems likely to me that the only possible locations for a HS2 London terminal will be at Euston or (possibly) at a site near St. Pancras. Paddington is the only other station large enough but can you really see them getting permission to demolish most of Brunel's station to fit the facilities needed for high speed?.

I've always thought that it would make sense for HS2 to connect at some point with the NR network at somewhere like Banbury, so that, for example, services from the West of England and Oxford could be routed onto the High Speed network (if electrification gets to Oxford it is not a huge leap to extend it a little further north).

 

[LMS6202]

IIRC,someone posted on this forum recently that GCR being built to continental loading guage is an urban myth

Not as far as I am aware Sir. I seem to recall that Watkin deliberately asked for continental gauge as he had dreams of connecting Manchester to Paris by rail. The GCR book may set you right.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I can't see much advantage in routing services from Crossrail onto HS2, as one is essentially a north/south mainline route and the other is basically a high capacity east/west metro service. The crawling around in the suburbs necessary to make the link would remove a lot of the time advantage of a high speed service.

However a good interchange would make sense. It seems likely to me that the only possible locations for a HS2 London terminal will be at Euston or (possibly) at a site near St. Pancras. Paddington is the only other station large enough but can you really see them getting permission to demolish most of Brunel's station to fit the facilities needed for high speed?.

I've always thought that it would make sense for HS2 to connect at some point with the NR network at somewhere like Banbury, so that, for example, services from the West of England and Oxford could be routed onto the High Speed network (if electrification gets to Oxford it is not a huge leap to extend it a little further north).

You misunderstand me Sir. I meant that Crossrail would have a deep level station at Paddington surfacing somewhere west of it. Stratford will be a deep level effort for crossrail believe.

 

[Ivo]

Quoted from Wikipedia:

Unlike other railway lines in Britain, the line was built to an expanded continental loading gauge which meant it could accommodate larger sized continental trains, in anticipation of traffic to a future Channel Tunnel. There is, however, a popular myth that the GCR was built to the standard continental Berne loading gauge - impossible, since the Berne gauge convention was not held until 1912.

Is Stratford really going to be a deep-level station for Crossrail? What use would that be?

As for the connection... Heathrow is the popular one, but the danger there is overcrowding. If they have to be connected I would say introduce a route to Portsmouth/Southampton and have a stop at Reading.

 

[LMS6202]

Quoted from Wikipedia:

Unlike other railway lines in Britain, the line was built to an expanded continental loading gauge which meant it could accommodate larger sized continental trains, in anticipation of traffic to a future Channel Tunnel. There is, however, a popular myth that the GCR was built to the standard continental Berne loading gauge - impossible, since the Berne gauge convention was not held until 1912.

Is Stratford really going to be a deep-level station for Crossrail? What use would that be?

As for the connection... Heathrow is the popular one, but the danger there is overcrowding. If they have to be connected I would say introduce a route to Portsmouth/Southampton and have a stop at Reading.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well according to a contact I have it's either Stratford or LS that will have a deep level station for CR. I did not specify Berne loading gauge but what I read in the books I have seen stating that the GCR loading gauge was greater than normal British practice.

As for CR connection beyond Paddington, well the obvious thing would be to aim for Bristol and Cardiff as well as destinations to the north. Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow, Newcastle. Not Edinburgh though. Possibly eventually Aberdeen from Glasgow.

 

[Ivo]

It would be Liverpool Street then. which would make sense because at subsurface level it would hit the Circle! It will be subsurface at Whitechapel anyway, so it would presumably go deeper from there.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

IIRC,someone posted on this forum recently that GCR being built to continental loading guage is an urban myth

It was probs this post, in Traction & Rolling Stock - Double-Decker coaches - on 12th Jan:

The restrictive loading gauge is one of the (many) prices we pay for being first.

I know the Great Central was designed to a "European" loading gauge- was this just in width, or height as well?

No, it wasn't. This is an urban myth generated by the fact that the line had large clearances on sections around Rugby.

If you look at pictures of the preserved GCR you'll see that it's simply not true. You'll never hear station staff there having to say 'mind the gap'...

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
To return to the OP's question:

Right. As we all know there are projects mooted for Crossrail and a high speed line a' la' TGV to the north.. What, in your opinion, would be the best solution for the building of these lines?

I find the question VERY open, allowing us to repond to any issues that concern or interest each of us.
Personally, I don't have much to say about the choices of its integration with existing London connections, but I am concerned to see it provide-
a) significant benefits to inter-regional travellers;
b) an effective, attractive, affordable, regular and reliable alternative to road and air travel;
c) route and layout design using mininum standards far higher than we've become used to. (eg flyover/unders instead of crossovers, tunnelling on the scale that we haven't seen for a century, the confidence to separate routes from existing lines to achieve the required calling points),
d) the committment to actually deliver the project as submitted, in its entirety.

I'm sorry if that isn't very precise, but I have to say what I'm trying to avoid IS very precise - its the long standing tradition of compromises, changes in stewardship, fickleness of investors and governments etc. which have consistently left UK rail with half deliverd projects based on plans which were half the original proposal which were aiming to achieve half the original headline goals.
Lets just try and one big rail project right?

 

[LMS6202]

Couldn't agree with you more Dave of N,cle. But knowing politicians have no common sense and bankers no foresight I doubt very much whether something beneficial to the general public will emerge. Bet yer life someone, somewhere, will want a big return for small outlay.