What's a "Crayonista", and why are they called that?

[Deepgreen]

But that's the point. Crossrail didn't start off as a line on a map. It started off (over 80 years ago) as the answer to the question 'how do we cater for the large demand east to west London and vice versa, and thus help to solve congestion on the Central line' ... and evolved from there.

A crayonista might say, and I paraphrase, 'we could build a chord from Waterloo East to Waterloo, now what question does that answer'

You mean 're-instate' that chord - wildly fanciful as it is, what a spectacular scene that would make with trains inching across the crowded concourse, Weymouth tramway-style!

 

[Tetchytyke]

London Reconnections are not bad with their moderating, really, but people need to remember it is a blog not a discussion forum.

The term crayonista is a bit harsh, but it's meant to be. It drives me mad when I see the same people repeatedly coming up with the same "solutions" for problems that don't exist. Doing a pdf of a Google map doesn't make the idea sensible or worthy of discussion.

A great example of a crayonista is someone who wants Chiltern Railways to run from Milton Keynes to Watford Met, for no other reason than the north curve at Rickmansworth is not used. Never mind that it serves no purpose, it has no business need, they've just squiggled on a map because they've seen a chord that could hypothetically be used more.

If one doesn't like the moderating on LR- which I generally find balanced and fair- then do a blog about fantasy railways.

 

[MarkyT]

As someone who has squiggled many a line on a Google map I have been generally well accepted on LR even with a couple of diagrams officially published there in articles following various discussions. I have been accused on the one hand of being the 'official LR crayonista' and on the other as 'definitely not a crayonista' (because an idea was properly thought through and justified . . . and not endlessly repeated). Sometimes discussions stray way, way off topic on LR however, often much worse than threads on here, simply because as a blog there's clearly no way of starting a new thread and often it's hard to find the appropriate article to contribute to something you were sure was being discussed only recently but has dropped off the recent article or comment list (and their search facility isn't too hot either!). Commentary is mostly only censured there due to that wild thread drift or for frequent repetition, as well as the usual legal concerns and simple taste and respect reasons.

As to the crayonista term, I don't like it but I understand the reason it has been coined. It is not innappropriate for any armchair so-called experts to suggest and sketch ideas for railway developments in any online forum or blog, no matter how grandiose or misguided. It is those contributors' attitude and response in the face of comment and fair criticism of their ideas from others, including moderators, that generally defines them as unreasonable and worthy of criticism, even ridicule in some cases.

It would be a great shame however if anyone feels discouraged by that term from expressing ideas graphically rather than 'only' in words, as often 'a picture is worth a thousand words'.

 

[HowardGWR]

Very good posting Mark and I always look forward to reading of your ideas, both here and on LR. There are still plenty of crayonista challenges out there. Two very similar cities, Sheffield and Bristol, are both good crayonista challenges. The western and northern sides of both are hilly and have difficulties in bringing people into the centre more directly than is possible by just reclaiming former abandoned solums.

I see the Liverpool thread here is struggling in very similar fashion

Merseyrail planning new stations

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=102146

 

[Tetchytyke]

It would be a great shame however if anyone feels discouraged by that term from expressing ideas graphically rather than 'only' in words, as often 'a picture is worth a thousand words'.

I'd agree with that, definitely, there are some very interesting ideas that come away from looking at maps of old railways. It'd be a shame if a disparaging term stopped people coming up with good ideas. I'm sure once upon a time reopening the snow hill tunnel (Birmingham or London flavour, take your pick) would have been dismissed as crayoning.

 

[The Ham]

I'd agree with that, definitely, there are some very interesting ideas that come away from looking at maps of old railways. It'd be a shame if a disparaging term stopped people coming up with good ideas. I'm sure once upon a time reopening the snow hill tunnel (Birmingham or London flavour, take your pick) would have been dismissed as crayoning.

There is a balance between people coming up with ideas which are not high up the priority list but could be useful in solving valid problems and people realising that the suggestion that they have come up with may resolve an issue that they have observed is dead in the water.

An example which could fall into either camp is the building of a junction at Frimley to allow trains to travel direct from Camberley to London with faster journey times than going via Aldershot or Ascot.

First off, it could be something that is built at some point in the future to encourage a greater use of rail services - however it would require paths to be free for such a service which are not available at the present time.

Conversely, it could be argued that if there were paths for such a service that they would be better used by running services to other locations with a larger existing market (Southampton, Salisbury, Portsmouth) which would also call at a range of other large stations on route. Rather than calling at as few stations as possible so as to achieve a reasonable journey time saving over the existing.

 

[swt_passenger]

Conversely, it could be argued that if there were paths for such a service that they would be better used by running services to other locations with a larger existing market (Southampton, Salisbury, Portsmouth) which would also call at a range of other large stations on route. Rather than calling at as few stations as possible so as to achieve a reasonable journey time saving over the existing.

This is why I personally prefer to take a steer from the RUSs or Route Studies (the new terminology). As per your example it is fairly clear from the latest Wessex route study (in draft) that the NR preference is just as you suggest, for more main line trains to places such as Southampton or Portsmouth etc.

 

[The Ham]

This is why I personally prefer to take a steer from the RUSs or Route Studies (the new terminology). As per your example it is fairly clear from the latest Wessex route study (in draft) that the NR preference is just as you suggest, for more main line trains to places such as Southampton or Portsmouth etc.

Personally I think that the proposal in my example has no merit until such time as there are more paths. However I also think that more paths are likely to be used up by an increase in passenger numbers from other locations by the time they are available, resulting in the proposal being unlikely to go ahead.

Having said that, if Crossrail 2 is built (likely given my reading of the route study), there could be an argument to extend Crossrail 2 services from Working to Camberley as some of the dis-benefit from the longer journey times would be offset by the improvement in journey times to central London stations along the core.

Although I also think it is a lot of money to spend to improve services to two stations which contribute less than 750,000 passengers to the network (I know that passenger numbers are likely to go up if the link was provided, but not by much), so is unlikely to be justifiable.

IF you were to spend money to provide a junction (full grade separated) there a west facing junction would likely bring more benefits. Although it wouldn't bring the same level of journey time improvements to London from Camberley it would reduce a bit by changing trains at Farnborough Main (which could be one of the locations which sees improved train frequencies when more paths are available). In addition, such a junction would also provide a more frequent to the stations service between Basingstoke and Farnborough (including Hook which on its own has more passengers than Camberley and Frimley combined, and Whinchfield which is likely to see several thousand new homes built in the coming decades which is therefore likely to see a lot more passengers added to the network than Camberley and Frimley would add if the east bound junction was provided, especially as many of the extra passengers at Camberley would likely to be people who currently drive elsewhere to then catch the train).

However even that is unlikely to be built any time soon, if at all.