'CHARD Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 Bizarre stretch of new line has been imagineered through Windsor by Auntie Beeb: http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/77771000/jpg/_77771413_train_graphic.jpg NB: Not intended to be read in connection with or to detract in any way from the tragic events of this afternoon at Slough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim H Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 Didn't the original plan for the LSW line propose that the line stayed on the north side of the river, running round the back of Eton and joining the GW line with a triangular junction? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brightspark Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Interesting. There seems to be a reluctance to reinstate the Staines West Branch with the junction at Staines. Track bed is still there it just requires a bridge over the M25. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sto243 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Bizarre stretch of new line has been imagineered through Windsor by Auntie Beeb: http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/77771000/jpg/_77771413_train_graphic.jpg NB: Not intended to be read in connection with or to detract in any way from the tragic events of this afternoon at Slough. It's not that bizarre - there is a proposal to link the 2 lines at Windsor with a new tunnel, and the BBC are just getting a bit ahead of themselves (or rather, reusing a graphic from a previous story without checking it). Initial funding for the Windsor Link Railway is reported by the Beeb here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-27760760 And the website for the group is here: http://windsorlink.co.uk/ Hugh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted October 24, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 24, 2014 It's not that bizarre - there is a proposal to link the 2 lines at Windsor with a new tunnel, and the BBC are just getting a bit ahead of themselves (or rather, reusing a graphic from a previous story without checking it). Initial funding for the Windsor Link Railway is reported by the Beeb here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-27760760 And the website for the group is here: http://windsorlink.co.uk/ Hugh I do wonder if the nice lady who lives in that big grey building some of the time would be really happy to have a railway built through the foundations of her castle (because you aren't going to join the two existing termini end-to-end without going under the castle). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium petethemole Posted October 24, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 24, 2014 I think a tunnel below the castle would be an excellent idea. G. Fawkes Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Metr0Land Posted October 24, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 24, 2014 I think a tunnel below the castle would be an excellent idea. G. Fawkes Careful now that's treason. No not the royalty bit, connecting LSWR lines to God's Wonderful Railway. T.Knyvett Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted October 24, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 24, 2014 I do wonder if the nice lady who lives in that big grey building some of the time would be really happy to have a railway built through the foundations of her castle (because you aren't going to join the two existing termini end-to-end without going under the castle). As I recall (attended a Thames Valley Chamber of Commerce meeting where this project was proposed about six years ago), the route passed some way south of Windsor & Eton Central so did not go under the castle. To be honest, one of the barmiest rail projects that I have ever seen proposed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted October 24, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 24, 2014 As I recall (attended a Thames Valley Chamber of Commerce meeting where this project was proposed about six years ago), the route passed some way south of Windsor & Eton Central so did not go under the castle. To be honest, one of the barmiest rail projects that I have ever seen proposed. I think your final sentence says it all, in a moderately restrained understatement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ron Ron Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 Completely bonkers ! The enormous cost could never, ever be justified for such a minimal potential market.. It wouldn't serve much purpose at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ron Ron Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 Interesting. There seems to be a reluctance to reinstate the Staines West Branch with the junction at Staines. Track bed is still there it just requires a bridge over the M25. The only likelihood of that happening, is if a new version of the dormant "AirTrack" proposal, or if a completely new proposal is put forward. In which case it wouldn't link up to the remaining part of the old line at Poyle anyway and would route to T5, thus no requirement to cross the M25. Even the new WRAtH line (Western Rail Access to Heathrow), linking T5 to the GWML at Langley, follows a completely new route, avoiding and ignoring the remains of the Staines West Branch (i.e. the Colnebrook Branch). (n.b. Work on this is due to start in just over 4 years time.) . . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted October 24, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 24, 2014 Even the new WRAtH line (Western Rail Access to Heathrow), linking T5 to the GWML at Langley, follows a completely new route, avoiding and ignoring the remains of the Staines West Branch (i.e. the Colnebrook Branch). (n.b. Work on this is due to start in just over 4 years time.) . . But what I can't understand about that - assuming the drawing I have seen is correct - is why it is going to be necessary to seriously reduce speeds on the GWML at the site of the junction and divergence. Reducing the speed on the Mains from 125mph to 90mph strikes me as little short of idiocy. Maybe it comes from the same Perway design office as the new Reading layout because at this rate journey times between Reading & London will be back to their pre-HST level before too many other bright ideas are implemented on the route. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ron Ron Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 But what I can't understand about that - assuming the drawing I have seen is correct - is why it is going to be necessary to seriously reduce speeds on the GWML at the site of the junction and divergence. Reducing the speed on the Mains from 125mph to 90mph strikes me as little short of idiocy........ How could this junction possibly affect the mains, when the WRAtH lines pass underneath in a tunnel, emerging on the north side and have grade separated junctions with both the re-aligned up and down relief lines? . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted October 24, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 24, 2014 How could this junction possibly affect the mains, when the WRAtH lines pass underneath in a tunnel, emerging on the north side and have grade separated junctions with both the re-aligned up and down relief lines? . That is what I was struggling to understand Ron - but the line speeds on the Main were very clearly shown as 90mph, effectively it would seem from a point somewhere about the west end of Iver platforms to Langley (with no indication in that distance that they returned to 125mph). I asked the person who showed me the drawing if there had been an error of some sort and was assured that those were the speeds shown on the original Perway drawing. I do wonder if (in view of the ground conditions in the area?) the vertical profile of the Mains is going to be altered? Or maybe it is cheaper to do the flyunder with a mix of raising the Mains and not having to go so deep for the Airport link? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ron Ron Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 ....I do wonder if (in view of the ground conditions in the area?) the vertical profile of the Mains is going to be altered? Or maybe it is cheaper to do the flyunder with a mix of raising the Mains and not having to go so deep for the Airport link? I wonder if it's because the existing road bridge for Hollow Hill Lane is going to be replaced by a new wider bridge under the main lines? Could it be that what you saw is a temporary speed restriction whilst excavation under the main line embankment is taking place? There will also be the excavation under the mains for the new (WRAtH) airport lines, just to the east of Hollow Hill Lane. Is it normal to reduce speeds when embankments under a main line are cut away to install new bridges? "Construct new bridges for Hollow Hill Lane under GWML and over future Up Relief and Airport lines;" . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xerces Fobe2 Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Vapourware! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ron Ron Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Vapourware! What is? . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted October 25, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 25, 2014 I wonder if it's because the existing road bridge for Hollow Hill Lane is going to be replaced by a new wider bridge under the main lines? Could it be that what you saw is a temporary speed restriction whilst excavation under the main line embankment is taking place? There will also be the excavation under the mains for the new (WRAtH) airport lines, just to the east of Hollow Hill Lane. Is it normal to reduce speeds when embankments under a main line are cut away to install new bridges? . Definitely a permanent speed Ron - or definitely marked as such on the drawing using the standard symbol for linespeed and it was a drawing being used for other design purposes. All rather mysterious and the person who had the drawing couldn't explain it either. Mind you it wouldn't come as a surprise if someone had passed on a stage drawing as the 'final' I'm sorry to say. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.