Montague Report on Crossrail
 

I've just skim-read the Montague Report, finally available four months
late at:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C168319D8

It raises various concerns over the way Cross London Rail Links Ltd
(CLRL) have costed the project, highlighting both overestimates and
underestimates.

It analysed 6 different route options:
Option 1: Paddington to Shenfield and the Isle of Dogs
Option 2: Paddington to Shenfield and Abbey Wood
Option 3: Paddington to Shenfield and Ebbsfleet
Option 4: Heathrow, Maidenhead and Paddington to Shenfield and Ebbsfleet
Option 5: Heathrow, Maidenhead, Kingston and Paddington to Shenfield and
Ebbsfleet
Option 6: Heathrow, Maidenhead and Paddington to Shenfield and the Isle
of Dogs (variant
of Option 4)

They found Option 5 to have the highest cost-benefit ratio at 2.14:1
although seemed to prefer Option 4 at 1.97:1 since it was cheaper with
fewer operational issues and avoiding residential backlash on the
Kingston route.

I was rather surprised to hear about Maidenhead; apparently it was a
late addition to CLRL's plans (after Kingston), although the first I
heard of it was about 4 hours ago.

The other main concerns the report raised were that the complexity of
the branches meant that the proposed 24tph through the core section was
unachievable given that it would require Crossrail trains to arrive at
Network Rail "interfaces" on time (within 5 mins) over 95% of the time.
I think this assumed that Crossrail would not be segregated on any of
the branches except Shenfield.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Montague Report on Crossrail
 

Dave Arquati wrote:
I've just skim-read the Montague Report, finally available four
months late at:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C168319D8

[...]

The other main concerns the report raised were that the complexity
of the branches meant that the proposed 24tph through the core
section was unachievable given that it would require Crossrail
trains to arrive at Network Rail "interfaces" on time (within 5
mins) over 95% of the time. I think this assumed that Crossrail
would not be segregated on any of the branches except Shenfield.

Unfortunately Crossrail have taken down their consultation site with all
the detailed information, but IIRC there will still be fast trains to
Liverpool Street from Shenfield and Romford.

Crossrail is certainly not segregated in West London, sharing tracks
with FGWL DMUs on the GreatWestern main line (hence the proposal to
replace some of these as far as Maidenhead), and with SWT services
between Richmond and Kingston. Also there would be flat junctions with
the NLL at Gunnersbury and Richmond.

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Montague Report on Crossrail
 

In message , Richard J.
writes
I think this assumed that Crossrail
would not be segregated on any of the branches except Shenfield.

Unfortunately Crossrail have taken down their consultation site with all
the detailed information, but IIRC there will still be fast trains to
Liverpool Street from Shenfield and Romford.

Is the proposal to segregate the trains on the Shenfield branch? Is that
by commandeering two of the existing four lines (which would surely
cause conflicts between Southend and Chelmsford trains sharing the
remaining two) or are they proposing to triple the tracks (an expensive
exercise especially through places like the Brentwood cutting).
--
Roland Perry

Montague Report on Crossrail
 

The spur to Kingston is likely to be dropped(and I was told this from
a very senior source at Tfl) due to cost considerations and will save
a substantial amount of money. Besides the Kingston link will go
through an area notorious for middle class articulate whingers who
have already started on certain aspects of the scheme and will no
cause untold misery if anything get's in their way.

The Maidenhead option is a far better option as it also extends
electrifcation from Hayes Junction, hopefully they will also consider
extending Crossrail onto Reading. Bearing in mind the importance of
the Thames Valley corridor linking with Ciry and the East will have
much bigger benefits.

Martin

Dave Arquati wrote in message ...
I've just skim-read the Montague Report, finally available four months
late at:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C168319D8

It raises various concerns over the way Cross London Rail Links Ltd
(CLRL) have costed the project, highlighting both overestimates and
underestimates.

It analysed 6 different route options:
Option 1: Paddington to Shenfield and the Isle of Dogs
Option 2: Paddington to Shenfield and Abbey Wood
Option 3: Paddington to Shenfield and Ebbsfleet
Option 4: Heathrow, Maidenhead and Paddington to Shenfield and Ebbsfleet
Option 5: Heathrow, Maidenhead, Kingston and Paddington to Shenfield and
Ebbsfleet
Option 6: Heathrow, Maidenhead and Paddington to Shenfield and the Isle
of Dogs (variant
of Option 4)

They found Option 5 to have the highest cost-benefit ratio at 2.14:1
although seemed to prefer Option 4 at 1.97:1 since it was cheaper with
fewer operational issues and avoiding residential backlash on the
Kingston route.

I was rather surprised to hear about Maidenhead; apparently it was a
late addition to CLRL's plans (after Kingston), although the first I
heard of it was about 4 hours ago.

The other main concerns the report raised were that the complexity of
the branches meant that the proposed 24tph through the core section was
unachievable given that it would require Crossrail trains to arrive at
Network Rail "interfaces" on time (within 5 mins) over 95% of the time.
I think this assumed that Crossrail would not be segregated on any of
the branches except Shenfield.

Montague Report on Crossrail
 

In article , Martin
Whelton wrote:
Besides the Kingston link will go
through an area notorious for middle class articulate whingers who
have already started on certain aspects of the scheme and will no
cause untold misery if anything get's in their way.

If there is a town in Japan called Kamikaze, perhaps Richmond upon
Thames could be twinned with it. Crossrail is/was a golden opportunity
for the Borough but everywhere people only see problems, not benefits
and opportunities.

Mind you, as I pointed out a while back, the main line goes through
Surbiton because 1830's Kingstonians fought hard to keep it out and so
protect their coaching trade.

--
Tony Bryer

Montague Report on Crossrail
 

Roland Perry wrote:
writes
I think this assumed that Crossrail
would not be segregated on any of the branches except Shenfield.

Unfortunately Crossrail have taken down their consultation site with all
the detailed information, but IIRC there will still be fast trains to
Liverpool Street from Shenfield and Romford.

Is the proposal to segregate the trains on the Shenfield branch? Is that
by commandeering two of the existing four lines (which would surely
cause conflicts between Southend and Chelmsford trains sharing the
remaining two) or are they proposing to triple the tracks (an expensive
exercise especially through places like the Brentwood cutting).

The former, although some recent versions of the plan have given up on
the segregation idea.

Montague Report on Crossrail
 

Martin Whelton wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote in message ...

I've just skim-read the Montague Report, finally available four months
late at:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C168319D8

It raises various concerns over the way Cross London Rail Links Ltd
(CLRL) have costed the project, highlighting both overestimates and
underestimates.

It analysed 6 different route options:
Option 1: Paddington to Shenfield and the Isle of Dogs
Option 2: Paddington to Shenfield and Abbey Wood
Option 3: Paddington to Shenfield and Ebbsfleet
Option 4: Heathrow, Maidenhead and Paddington to Shenfield and Ebbsfleet
Option 5: Heathrow, Maidenhead, Kingston and Paddington to Shenfield and
Ebbsfleet
Option 6: Heathrow, Maidenhead and Paddington to Shenfield and the Isle
of Dogs (variant
of Option 4)

They found Option 5 to have the highest cost-benefit ratio at 2.14:1
although seemed to prefer Option 4 at 1.97:1 since it was cheaper with
fewer operational issues and avoiding residential backlash on the
Kingston route.

I was rather surprised to hear about Maidenhead; apparently it was a
late addition to CLRL's plans (after Kingston), although the first I
heard of it was about 4 hours ago.

The other main concerns the report raised were that the complexity of
the branches meant that the proposed 24tph through the core section was
unachievable given that it would require Crossrail trains to arrive at
Network Rail "interfaces" on time (within 5 mins) over 95% of the time.
I think this assumed that Crossrail would not be segregated on any of
the branches except Shenfield.
The spur to Kingston is likely to be dropped(and I was told this from
a very senior source at Tfl) due to cost considerations and will save
a substantial amount of money. Besides the Kingston link will go
through an area notorious for middle class articulate whingers who
have already started on certain aspects of the scheme and will no
cause untold misery if anything get's in their way.

The Maidenhead option is a far better option as it also extends
electrifcation from Hayes Junction, hopefully they will also consider
extending Crossrail onto Reading. Bearing in mind the importance of
the Thames Valley corridor linking with Ciry and the East will have
much bigger benefits.

Martin

If they electrified to Reading then it would also be possible to run
other services from Reading direct to Heathrow. Kingston can wait for
Crossrail 2 :-)

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Montague Report on Crossrail
 

Roland Perry wrote in
:

In message , Richard J.
writes
I think this assumed that Crossrail would not be segregated on any of
the branches except Shenfield.

Unfortunately Crossrail have taken down their consultation site with all
the detailed information, but IIRC there will still be fast trains to
Liverpool Street from Shenfield and Romford.

Is the proposal to segregate the trains on the Shenfield branch? Is that
by commandeering two of the existing four lines (which would surely
cause conflicts between Southend and Chelmsford trains sharing the
remaining two) or are they proposing to triple the tracks (an expensive
exercise especially through places like the Brentwood cutting).

The Shenfield service is pretty much segregated already: a few longer
distance services use the electric (=slow) lines between Liverpool Street
and Stratford, mainly due to the fact that there are simultaneous
departures (at xx.00 to Norwich, when Ipswich tunnel reopens, and Southend
and at xx.45 to Ipswich (currently diverted to Harwich) and Clacton).

Only on Sundays do fast trains to Romford use the slow lines.

This leaves the Maryland problem (note that Maryland does not appear on any
of the Crossrail maps ...)

Montague Report on Crossrail
 

"David Jackman" wrote in message
52.50...

This leaves the Maryland problem (note that Maryland does not appear on
any
of the Crossrail maps ...)


Does anybody know what they might be? About a year ago CLRL ltd sent me an
email assuring me that Maryland would continue to be served by other
services, but I can't see it if all the inner suburbans are going to go to
Crossrail. Is there a plan to use spare capacity at Liverpool Street to take
some of the Tilbury line trains via Woodgrange Park that I don't know about?
(I would have thought Liverpool Street - Stratford - Barking - Rainham -
Tilbury could potentially be quite popular).

Or are they planning to close Maryland - and if so, why? Is to too close to
the planned portal, or do they just not think it's important enough to add
an extra minute to the journey?

Jonn Elledge

Montague Report on Crossrail
 

"Jonn Elledge" wrote in
:


"David Jackman" wrote in message
52.50...

This leaves the Maryland problem (note that Maryland does not appear
on any of the Crossrail maps ...)


Does anybody know what they might be? About a year ago CLRL ltd sent me
an email assuring me that Maryland would continue to be served by other
services, but I can't see it if all the inner suburbans are going to go
to Crossrail. Is there a plan to use spare capacity at Liverpool Street
to take some of the Tilbury line trains via Woodgrange Park that I
don't know about? (I would have thought Liverpool Street - Stratford -
Barking - Rainham - Tilbury could potentially be quite popular).

Or are they planning to close Maryland - and if so, why? Is to too
close to the planned portal, or do they just not think it's important
enough to add an extra minute to the journey?

Jonn Elledge




Crossrail trains will be 10 cars. Maryland only has room for 8 with no
room to extend at either end (there are road bridges). Therefore Crossrail
trains can't serve Maryland.

I can see three possible solutions to this problem:

a) (Crossrails stated proposal) A "rump" service - presumably either Gidea
Park/Ilford to Liverpool Street, serving Maryland. The slow lines
currently have slightly more than 12 trains per hour in the peak so this
makes sense, though it would be less than ideal operationally. Off-peak it
is a nonsense.

b) Fit selective door opening and stop Crossrail services but only open the
doors on the front 8 cars. (the 375 fleet in Kent makes extensive use of
selective door opening, as does the existing underground, so there are
plenty of precedents)

c) Close Maryland.

David

Montague Report on Crossrail
 

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article , Martin
Whelton wrote:
Besides the Kingston link will go
through an area notorious for middle class articulate whingers who
have already started on certain aspects of the scheme and will no
cause untold misery if anything get's in their way.

If there is a town in Japan called Kamikaze, perhaps Richmond upon
Thames could be twinned with it. Crossrail is/was a golden opportunity
for the Borough but everywhere people only see problems, not benefits
and opportunities.

Mind you, as I pointed out a while back, the main line goes through
Surbiton because 1830's Kingstonians fought hard to keep it out and so
protect their coaching trade.

--
Tony Bryer

I have to agree. And it always seems to be retired / semi-retired people
with too much time on their hands that do the whinging. I guess these people
much prefer the District line to go shopping in Kensington / Chelsea than
they would benefit from being able to get to (god forbid) EAST LONDON!

The people who would really benefit from being able to get to work in the
City / Docklands unfortunately are too busy with their work to spend their
spare time making representations.

Crossrail from Twickenham would have been one reason for me to consider
staying around here in the long term. If it doesn't materialise the chances
of me moving somewhere else have dramatically increased.

Montague Report on Crossrail
 

On 21 Jul 2004 04:58:17 -0700, Martin Whelton wrote:

The spur to Kingston is likely to be dropped(and I was told this from
a very senior source at Tfl) due to cost considerations and will save
a substantial amount of money. Besides the Kingston link will go
through an area notorious for middle class articulate whingers who
have already started on certain aspects of the scheme and will no
cause untold misery if anything get's in their way.

That bunch could (and should) be destroyed. The vast majority of people in
SW london want crossrail, that bunch of winger's shouldn't be allowed to
get in the way.

Heathrow should be dropped, putting in another link just because the
Heathrow express is too expensive make no sense at all.

Steve

Montague Report on Crossrail
 

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, David Jackman wrote:

"Jonn Elledge" wrote in
:

"David Jackman" wrote in message
52.50...

This leaves the Maryland problem (note that Maryland does not appear
on any of the Crossrail maps ...)

Or are they planning to close Maryland - and if so, why? Is to too
close to the planned portal, or do they just not think it's important
enough to add an extra minute to the journey?

Crossrail trains will be 10 cars. Maryland only has room for 8 with no
room to extend at either end (there are road bridges).

Moreover, presumably, road bridges that can't be widened?

Therefore Crossrail trains can't serve Maryland.

I can see three possible solutions to this problem:

b) Fit selective door opening and stop Crossrail services but only open
the doors on the front 8 cars. (the 375 fleet in Kent makes extensive
use of selective door opening, as does the existing underground, so
there are plenty of precedents)

Hang on, though; on the tube, it's just the last door in each end car that
doesn't open, so anyone in those cars who wants to get off can do so via
another door. If you've got two whole cars with no open doors, anyone
who's in one of them and wants to get off is probably buggered.

What happens in Kent?

And don't forget:

d) Park the train with the first eight carriages in the station, open the
doors on those, let people off, close them, drive the train forward two
carriage lengths, park again, open the back eight doors.

Or even:

e) Kill all HMRI and HSE inspectors, bring the train in so that the first
eight cars are at the platform, open the doors, then drive forward very
slowly, opening each door as it reaches the platform or closing it as it
passes beyond it, until the last car is at the platform, then close up and
drive off. Fast.

tom

--
I know you wanna try and get away, but it's the hardest thing you'll ever know

Montague Report on Crossrail
 

In article , Tom Anderson wrote:
[snip discussion of Maryland platform being too short for Crossrail trains]

e) Kill all HMRI and HSE inspectors,

That should be enough all by itself. I vote for alternative e!

Niklas
--
"You just don't get to see, on the .us shows, the pathologist thoughtfully
weighing a decomposing heart in one hand while the corpse is lying open and
gutted in plain view on the slab behind him."
-- David Cameron Staples

Montague Report on Crossrail
 

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 at 10:51:20, Tom Anderson
wrote:

Hang on, though; on the tube, it's just the last door in each end car that
doesn't open, so anyone in those cars who wants to get off can do so via
another door. If you've got two whole cars with no open doors, anyone
who's in one of them and wants to get off is probably buggered.

What happens in Kent?

I don't know what happens in Kent, but when I travelled on the
mid-Sussex line they made on-train announcements before all the shorter
stations to tell "customers" that they needed to be in the front end of
the train if they wanted to get off there, so there was plenty of time
for them to change into the relevant carriage before they got there.
--
Annabel Smyth
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html
Website updated 18 July 2004

Montague Report on Crossrail
 

Steve Peake wrote:

On 21 Jul 2004 04:58:17 -0700, Martin Whelton wrote:

The spur to Kingston is likely to be dropped(and I was told this from
a very senior source at Tfl) due to cost considerations and will save
a substantial amount of money. Besides the Kingston link will go
through an area notorious for middle class articulate whingers who
have already started on certain aspects of the scheme and will no
cause untold misery if anything get's in their way.

That bunch could (and should) be destroyed. The vast majority of people in
SW london want crossrail, that bunch of winger's shouldn't be allowed to
get in the way.

Heathrow should be dropped, putting in another link just because the
Heathrow express is too expensive make no sense at all.

No, Heathrow should stay on there - after all, it's a very popular
destination. However, Crossrail trains serving it should stop at all
stations - then the Heathrow Express can continue to operate and the
residents of West London get a much better service.

Montague Report on Crossrail
 

"Aidan Stanger" wrote in message
...

Heathrow should be dropped, putting in another link just because the
Heathrow express is too expensive make no sense at all.

No, Heathrow should stay on there - after all, it's a very popular
destination. However, Crossrail trains serving it should stop at all
stations - then the Heathrow Express can continue to operate and the
residents of West London get a much better service.

I seem to remember from somewhere that Crossrail is being slated to take
over the soon-to-be-starting 4tph (?) FGW Link Heathrow service. This being
the one that stops at Ealing, Hayes, etc. and uses spare Desiros from
Angel's speculative build. I think there
was an article about it in last month's Modern Railways.

Angus

Montague Report on Crossrail
 

Tom Anderson wrote in message ...
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, David Jackman wrote:

"Jonn Elledge" wrote in
:

"David Jackman" wrote in message
52.50...

This leaves the Maryland problem (note that Maryland does not appear
on any of the Crossrail maps ...)

Or are they planning to close Maryland - and if so, why? Is to too
close to the planned portal, or do they just not think it's important
enough to add an extra minute to the journey?

Crossrail trains will be 10 cars. Maryland only has room for 8 with no
room to extend at either end (there are road bridges).

Therefore Crossrail trains can't serve Maryland.

I can see three possible solutions to this problem:

b) Fit selective door opening and stop Crossrail services but only open
the doors on the front 8 cars. (the 375 fleet in Kent makes extensive
use of selective door opening, as does the existing underground, so
there are plenty of precedents)

Hang on, though; on the tube, it's just the last door in each end car that
doesn't open, so anyone in those cars who wants to get off can do so via
another door. If you've got two whole cars with no open doors, anyone
who's in one of them and wants to get off is probably buggered.

What happens in Kent?

I don't know about Kent, but I managed to google up this from Southern
Railway (formerly South Central, formerly Connex South Central, etc
etc):

http://www.southernrailway.com/pdfs/stakeholder_briefs/September-03-Brief.pdf

begin quote
SDO – some more information

South Central will soon start operating class 377 trains on the 0625
Eastbourne-London Bridge and the 1745 London Bridge-Eastbourne
services. These will be followed by the 0717 Eastbourne-London Bridge
and the 1752 London Bridge-Bognor Regis services.

With the approval of Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate (HMRI) these
new services will operate a Selective Door Opening system (SDO) on a
trial basis. SDO ensures the correct number of doors open for the
length of a platform, so long trains can stop safely at stations with
small platforms. SDO uses GPS to tell the train where it is. Each
station has the platform length programmed into a database on the
train, and the door control system uses this information to allow the
right number of doors to open at each station. The system is safer
[than what?] as it prevents passengers opening doors on carriages not
at the platform.

When approaching a station with a short platform, the on-train
information system will announce the next station, that it has a short
platform and the number of coaches from which you can leave the train.
The message will also be shown on the visual displays. At the station
only those doors next to the platform will be released (unlocked).
Doors on the remaining coaches will not be released and will not be
able to be opened. Passengers will need to make their way forward to
those carriages that will have their doors opened. Conductors will be
on board to help passengers.

The trains above will be 12-cars long, and the stations at which SDO
will be used a

Eastbourne-London Bridge
Hampden Park 5-car platforms
Berwick 8-car
Glynde 6-car
Cooksbridge 6-car
Plumpton 7-car
Balcombe 8-car

London Bridge-Bognor Regis
Ifield 5-car platforms
Littlehaven 4-car
Christs Hospital 7-car
Billingshurst 4-car
Pulborough 9-car
end quote



Now, it's some months since the date on this document, but I don't
know to what extent the above proposals have been implemented. I do
know that there is at least once Southern departure ex Victoria for
which the announcement includes 'Customers for ... must travel in the
front seven coaches, furthest from the ticket barrier etc'; I can't
remember where.

Montague Report on Crossrail
 

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 at 07:45:10, LarryLard
wrote:

Now, it's some months since the date on this document, but I don't
know to what extent the above proposals have been implemented. I do
know that there is at least once Southern departure ex Victoria for
which the announcement includes 'Customers for ... must travel in the
front seven coaches, furthest from the ticket barrier etc'; I can't
remember where.

I don't know whether the Victoria-Eastbourne/Bournemouth (and/or
Littlehampton) services are now on Electrostars, nor what their running
pattern now is. However, at one stage they were a 12-coach train, made
up of (mostly) CIG stock, but these days increasingly using CEP stock,
too, and even (alas) VEP. The front 4 coaches went off to Eastbourne or
Hastings and the rear 8 to Littlehampton/Bournemouth, and it was usually
suggested that passengers for Durrington and Goring-by-Sea travel in the
middle four coaches only, as those stations are short-platformed (and,
at Goring, the train stop is half-way along the station, I don't know
why).
--
Annabel Smyth
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html
Website updated 18 July 2004

Montague Report on Crossrail
 

Angus Bryant wrote:
"Aidan Stanger" wrote in message
...

Heathrow should be dropped, putting in another link just because the
Heathrow express is too expensive make no sense at all.


No, Heathrow should stay on there - after all, it's a very popular
destination. However, Crossrail trains serving it should stop at all
stations - then the Heathrow Express can continue to operate and the
residents of West London get a much better service.


I seem to remember from somewhere that Crossrail is being slated to take
over the soon-to-be-starting 4tph (?) FGW Link Heathrow service. This being
the one that stops at Ealing, Hayes, etc. and uses spare Desiros from
Angel's speculative build. I think there
was an article about it in last month's Modern Railways.

Angus

The service is known as Heathrow Connect and will be 2tph; I've got some
info at http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/67


--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Montague Report on Crossrail
 

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...
Angus Bryant wrote:
"Aidan Stanger" wrote in message
...

Heathrow should be dropped, putting in another link just because the
Heathrow express is too expensive make no sense at all.


No, Heathrow should stay on there - after all, it's a very popular
destination. However, Crossrail trains serving it should stop at all
stations - then the Heathrow Express can continue to operate and the
residents of West London get a much better service.


I seem to remember from somewhere that Crossrail is being slated to take
over the soon-to-be-starting 4tph (?) FGW Link Heathrow service. This
being
the one that stops at Ealing, Hayes, etc. and uses spare Desiros from
Angel's speculative build. I think there
was an article about it in last month's Modern Railways.

Angus

The service is known as Heathrow Connect and will be 2tph; I've got some
info at http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/67

If the Heathrow Connect is going to replace the Slough all-stations services
then what is going to happen to West Drayton, Langley and Iver?

Peter Smyth

Montague Report on Crossrail
 

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...

No, Heathrow should stay on there - after all, it's a very popular
destination. However, Crossrail trains serving it should stop at all
stations - then the Heathrow Express can continue to operate and the
residents of West London get a much better service.


I seem to remember from somewhere that Crossrail is being slated to take
over the soon-to-be-starting 4tph (?) FGW Link Heathrow service. This
being
the one that stops at Ealing, Hayes, etc. and uses spare Desiros from
Angel's speculative build. I think there
was an article about it in last month's Modern Railways.

The service is known as Heathrow Connect and will be 2tph; I've got some
info at http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/67

Sorry, should have looked at your site first! Thanks.

Angus

Montague Report on Crossrail
 

In article ,
Peter Smyth wrote:

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...
Angus Bryant wrote:
"Aidan Stanger" wrote in message
...

Heathrow should be dropped, putting in another link just because the
Heathrow express is too expensive make no sense at all.


No, Heathrow should stay on there - after all, it's a very popular
destination. However, Crossrail trains serving it should stop at all
stations - then the Heathrow Express can continue to operate and the
residents of West London get a much better service.


I seem to remember from somewhere that Crossrail is being slated to
take over the soon-to-be-starting 4tph (?) FGW Link Heathrow
service. This being the one that stops at Ealing, Hayes, etc. and
uses spare Desiros from Angel's speculative build. I think there
was an article about it in last month's Modern Railways.

Angus

The service is known as Heathrow Connect and will be 2tph; I've got
some info at http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/67

If the Heathrow Connect is going to replace the Slough all-stations
services then what is going to happen to West Drayton, Langley and Iver?

There is to be a new Paddington-Reading stopping service running every 15
minutes which will probably serve these stations. Two trains per hour will
continue to Oxford.

David