|
|
Post by Sean B on Feb 29, 2012 18:29:04 GMT
Chesham could/should be turned over to Chiltern Rail. This would partly relive the anomaly of having an "Underground" station way out in the countryside. (Having "Overground" below the uderground at Whitechapel !) IMHO convert the whole lot to 3rd rail ,the anything could go almost anywhere as required although surface size stock obviously could not use the tubes.(But tube stock could go anywhere else.) I thought the ORR weren't keen on electrifying on 3rd rail these days? |
|
|
|
Post by glom on Feb 29, 2012 19:07:50 GMT
1) Because you can't MAKE them take it. Why would they want it? 2) Because l doubt their stock can so easily handle the radii of the branch curves I think asking Chiltern to take the Chesham branch is verging on the ridiculous. You can't TELL them to take it. They are a privatised business who will not want an albatross What if the Chesham branch was extended to Berkhamsted. That would bring a whole new catchment from the WCML who might want to go to places in the Bucks/Herts border area. That might make it more attractive to Chiltern. Does that sound at all less ridiculous? |
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 811
|
Post by castlebar on Feb 29, 2012 19:32:11 GMT
@ glom
(very) Slightly less so. But this is not a new proposal. I think it is about 150 years old!! (See "Eleven minutes late" by Matthew Engel). The problem now which still makes it fairly ridiculous is the cost. 150 years ago, the area was so underpopulated that it could have been built for little money, but now it would cost £Zillions for very little extra revenue. And this certainly isn't on Chiltern's radar and l don't think it ever has been. Their priority is to get to Oxford, not Berkhamsted.
|
|
|
|
Post by martello736 on Feb 29, 2012 20:07:20 GMT
@ glom (very) Slightly less so. But this is not a new proposal. I think it is about 150 years old!! (See "Eleven minutes late" by Matthew Engel). The problem now which still makes it fairly ridiculous is the cost. 150 years ago, the area was so underpopulated that it could have been built for little money, but now it would cost £Zillions for very little extra revenue. And this certainly isn't on Chiltern's radar and l don't think it ever has been. Their priority is to get to Oxford, not Berkhamsted. Or to Tring? |
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 811
|
Post by castlebar on Feb 29, 2012 20:28:36 GMT
Or to anywhere beyond Chesham, No. Forget it. Not even for any board unless the "R" in R.I.P.A.S. stands for "ridiculous".
Some ideas on the RIPAS board are quite sensible, but this isn't one of them, And unfortunately, the ridiculous ones will tend to devalue the strength of the sensible ones. This isn't just about extending a branch line by joining up dots on a map, > it is about tunnelling under the Chilterns at massive expense, SSSIs, and monumental expense for no new stations (don't even go there!) to extend a single track branch line to where another railway company already operates. Forget it. If you took this idea to Chesham on a Saturday morning to garner support, you would be more likely to get your petition torn up and rammed somewhere personal than obtain any signatures.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Feb 29, 2012 21:19:46 GMT
Chesham could/should be turned over to Chiltern Rail. This would partly relive the anomaly of having an "Underground" station way out in the countryside. (Having "Overground" below the uderground at Whitechapel !) IMHO convert the whole lot to 3rd rail , I thought the ORR weren't keen on electrifying on 3rd rail these days? I don't think there's any objection to converting from 4-rail to three (as happened on the ELL), which is what i think is suggested here. Some small 3-rail electrification projects have been allowed in recent years as extensions of existing systems - Weymouth, North Woolwich (RIP) Hunts Cross and the West London Line come to mind in recent decades |
|
|
|
Post by bassmike on Mar 1, 2012 2:00:18 GMT
Re: Chesham, I didn't say "make" C/R take it, it was just an idea which would tie in with my 3rd rail suggestion. Also, many mainline stocks have run on the Chesham branch without trouble inc: mk1's,mk2's Hastings demu,s ER emu,'s which regularly use sharper curves in other places.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tubetrain29 on Mar 1, 2012 3:05:53 GMT
In my opinion the Metropolitan Line should not serve Richmansworth and beyond. I think that the Metropolitan Line should only go to Uxbridge and Watford Junction. London Underground services are not suitable for well outside of London, and where possible (because at stations like Epping there are no suitable alternatives) they should be taken over by National Rail operators. Chiltern Rail could then take over all services to Rickmansworth and beyond, as well as running from Watford Junction to Aylesbury. It would have the added bonus of making everything much simpler on the Croxley Rail Link.
|
|
|
|
Post by bassmike on Mar 1, 2012 4:07:40 GMT
Drop the names "Underground" and "Overground" which now probably cause confusion to non Londoners with tube stock running through Overground stations and stations in south London called either Overground or southern (all mixed up ) and call the whole thing" London transport" or similar.
|
|
kabsonline
Best SSL Train: S Stock Best Tube Train: 92 Stock
Posts: 667
|
Post by kabsonline on Mar 1, 2012 10:32:17 GMT
In my opinion the Metropolitan Line should not serve Richmansworth and beyond. I think that the Metropolitan Line should only go to Uxbridge and Watford Junction. London Underground services are not suitable for well outside of London, and where possible (because at stations like Epping there are no suitable alternatives) they should be taken over by National Rail operators. Chiltern Rail could then take over all services to Rickmansworth and beyond, as well as running from Watford Junction to Aylesbury. It would have the added bonus of making everything much simpler on the Croxley Rail Link. Don't take the Underground away from beyond Rickmansworth! How are enthusiasts like me going to be able to train spot in Bucks when home for the weekend? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by ruislip on Mar 1, 2012 15:45:34 GMT
Getting back to the OP, wasn't there talk a few years ago about Barons Court closing, as the wider platforms between District and Piccadilly services at Hammersmith facilitates more cross-platform interchange there vs Barons Court(plus the fact that shorts to Barons Court on the Piccy have been a thing of the past for at least 30 years now)?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sean B on Mar 1, 2012 16:54:03 GMT
Getting back to the OP, wasn't there talk a few years ago about Barons Court closing, as the wider platforms between District and Piccadilly services at Hammersmith facilitates more cross-platform interchange there vs Barons Court(plus the fact that shorts to Barons Court on the Piccy have been a thing of the past for at least 30 years now)? Could have sworn there are still Barons Court reversers at the end of the morning peak, or is it just that the Picc nearly always recovering from a problem when I'm travelling? I'd have to agree that I don't see the purpose of Barons Court apart from being useful to recover late running trains. |
|
|
|
Post by anthonyfendall on Mar 3, 2012 21:16:44 GMT
Mansion House. It's very close to Canon Street. Cannon Street. Its very close to Mansion House. And, its close to Bank, which will have an exit only a hundred yards along Walbrook. There is a large gap between Blackfriars and Mansion House, but not between Mansion House and Cannon Street. So if one of them was to close, I'd think it would be Cannon Street, not Mansion House. Plus, large numbers of Blackfriars trains go to London Bridge (now that Thameslink 2000 is done) - which is where Cannon Street trains go, so if you can get to Blackfriars, or London Bridge, you're not missing out that much. If you wanted to go onto the tube, from somewhere that goes to Cannon Street, you can get off at London Bridge, and get it from there, or get a Blackfriars train. People going in the other direction can do the same, so its not really adding much. So interchange is more of a convenience, than a practical benefit. And people actually going to the Cannon Street area aren't missing out much by going to Mansion House or Monument. Its more like Cannon Street is inserted as a later thought into a preexisting and sensibly laid out tube system, with fairly distant gaps between stations. But Mansion House serves an area to the west as well as the bit between Mansion House and Cannon Street. So the loss of Mansion House would have a much greater impact. |
|
kabsonline
Best SSL Train: S Stock Best Tube Train: 92 Stock
Posts: 667
|
Post by kabsonline on Mar 3, 2012 21:25:22 GMT
Isn't Cannon Street currently being refurbished, hence the weekend closures or is it just because there close together that it is closed at weekends?  |
|
|
|
Post by anthonyfendall on Mar 3, 2012 22:04:26 GMT
What if the Chesham branch was extended to Berkhamsted. That would bring a whole new catchment from the WCML who might want to go to places in the Bucks/Herts border area. That might make it more attractive to Chiltern. Does that sound at all less ridiculous? But its still single track - an extension would mean less trains per hour, because you'd still only be able to have one train on the track at a time. Double tracking would have to happen first, so that's an extra cost again. And its a bit of a random branch. Its really twisty, not terribly fast. I'm not sure it would really work as a mainline. I suppose you could link it, via a reconstructed Watford & Rickmansworth railway (that's the one that went to Rickmansworth Church Street), to the St. Albans shuttle, but going via Oxhey so that you don't need to cross the tracks at Watford Junction. Then it would be, a sort of local light railway, a bit DLR-like, and could be handed over to the local council / some other railway firm. Perhaps tram-style construction could be used to save costs (like the croydon tram, so more or less still like a railway). Or you could extend the central line massively, via Chalfont St. Peter, to take it over. But I don't think it would work as a mainline branch. |
|
