|
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
On 14 Dec, 22:51, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"Dan G" wrote I live in Reading and I don't want Crossrail to come here. Why? Because Crossrail will be a stopper service. I want to catch an HST to Paddington, overtaking the slow Crossrail trains past Maidenhead, and then change for the ride into central London (or beyond). If Crossrail is extended to Reading the Main (Fast) Lines will still be available for 125 mph trains running non-stop (or possibly calling at Slough) between Paddington and Reading. Network Rail are trying to remove stops on the fast lines twixt Paddington & Reading. And I think they'll finally take this opportunity should Crossrail make it to Reading, which I think it might - although Ken Livingstone won't be able to spend any money on it as it's outside his jurisdiction, as is Ebbsfleet. Yes, I think Reading commuters are right to be worried about any extension to Reading. With the relocation of the Paddington platforms for Crossrail, there will certainly be an opportunity to charge extra to Reading commuters to travel on the HSTs to Paddington, and a cheaper option to use Crossrail all the way. Ken will definitely ensure that Travelcards are usable on the cross-London section, so a Crossrail plus all zones season that don't operate the main gates on Paddington station will definitely be an option over a more expensive HST plus all zones travelcard. There are naturally plus points as well though - for those passengers travelling from further than Reading - they won't have so many commuters doing the short-hop & not removing their bulky coats before sitting down! I do find Reading commuters a pain the a**e for that reason....and the overcrowding that results as hundreds clamber on at the last moment at Paddington.... There's a further benefit for Twford passengers too - see below. But if it terminates at Maidenhead how are London to Twyford/Henley passengers to be catered for, or passengers travelling to Reading from intermediate stations? Will there be a Paddington - Reading stopping service sandwiched between Crossrail trains (using capacity which really ought to be kept for freight)? Or will passengers have to use Crossrail, and change at Slough or Maidenhead for a shuttle service? The latter I suspect - a new fast cross-over before Maidenhead - the Crossrail trains using the bay platform there will keep the down slow platform clear for arriving trains - would allow fast trains run as far as the crossover & then run slow from Maidenhead to Reading (and possibly beyond - slow train to Oxford perhaps?) 24 Crossrail trains an hour leaves little or no room for extra trains to fit in on the same tracks as Crossrail, so there's little room for any other way of running slow (non-Crossrail) to Reading - even if you remove, say, half of those (12) that would probably terminate at Heathrow. I doubt it would be as many as 12 trains to Heathrow though - I can't see the customer levels for heathrow needing a train every 5 minutes (12 an hour). So maybe 6 Heathrows and 18 to Maidenhead would be a better assumption? Still no real room to insert slow Readings in between the CRossrails after Hayes though. Or will Main Line capacity be used up with 90 mph trains calling at Slough, Maidenhead and Twyford (perhaps crossing to the Relief Lines at Dolphin, Maidenhead East or Ruscombe once the Crossrail service has thinned out - and the crossing move eats capacity)? As I said earlier, those stops that would be necessary on the fast lines are, I think, unlikely and those passengers would be on the Crossrail trains to wherever they terminate to change trains. With these fast to Maidenhead trains, commuters from there and Twyford will get a faster service....which is something that they've been after for some time now - viz Theresa May's campaign. While Crossrail can be justified as a stopping service within Greater London, as Acton Main Line and Hanwell would undoubtedly get much more use if they had a decent service) stopping all Maidenhead trains at Iver and Taplow is daft, as in population terms these two stations at least are in the middle of nowhere. Indeed - maybe only half of those Crossrails travelling beyond Heathrow junction could miss those stops out? That would still give these stations a train at least every 15 minutes.... The argument that saddling Crossrail with the cost of rebuilding and resignalling Reading would make Crossrail unaffordable is sound, but the argument that even if these necessary improvements are funded separately, as they will be, Crossrail still can't go there is weak. However, it has to be realised that although Reading is only two stations further than Maidenhead it is actually half as far again as Paddington to Maidenhead. I suspect for these reasons Crossrail will get to Reading, even if only half of them do, with the others terminating at Maidenhead as planned - indeed, there are extra platform(s) in the Reading remodelling to allow for this, just in case the decision is taken. This would then allow for passenger expansion west of Reading on the long distance services, which is a DfT aspiration. Chris |
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
"Chris" wrote in message ... 24 Crossrail trains an hour leaves little or no room for extra trains to fit in on the same tracks as Crossrail, so there's little room for any other way of running slow (non-Crossrail) to Reading - even if you remove, say, half of those (12) that would probably terminate at Heathrow. I doubt it would be as many as 12 trains to Heathrow though - I can't see the customer levels for heathrow needing a train every 5 minutes (12 an hour). So maybe 6 Heathrows and 18 to Maidenhead would be a better assumption? Still no real room to insert slow Readings in between the CRossrails after Hayes though. Your proposals haven't accounted for about half the crossrail trains not going any further than the turnback sidings at the 'ghost station' at Westbourne Park? Paul S |
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
In article ,
Jane Sullivan wrote: In message , lonelytraveller writes Why? Should all new trains be built to look like the Rocket? That would be nice. No it wouldn't. The Rocket was a locomotive, so it couldn't carry many passengers if any, and it could be very unpleasant travelling on it at this time of year. Fanny Kemble seems to have managed OK.. -- Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair) |
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
On 15 Dec, 19:08, Chris wrote:
On 14 Dec, 22:51, "Peter Masson" wrote: "Dan G" wrote I live in Reading and I don't want Crossrail to come here. Why? Because Crossrail will be a stopper service. I want to catch an HST to Paddington, overtaking the slow Crossrail trains past Maidenhead, and then change for the ride into central London (or beyond). If Crossrail is extended to Reading the Main (Fast) Lines will still be available for 125 mph trains running non-stop (or possibly calling at Slough) between Paddington and Reading. Network Rail are trying to remove stops on the fast lines twixt Paddington & Reading. And I think they'll finally take this opportunity should Crossrail make it to Reading, which I think it might - although Ken Livingstone won't be able to spend any money on it as it's outside his jurisdiction, as is Ebbsfleet. (big snip) Just because Reading and Ebbsfleet are outside Greater London doesn't mean TfL can't deal with them. If the DfT were to give the money and the go-ahead to TfL for either project then they could thus be in charge of delivering that project and the services that run on it, as a kind of contractor. Bear in mind that just under half of TfL's annual income comes from a central government grant. In addition TfL are responsible for operating rail services outside of Greater London, in Buckinghamshire (LU Met line), Essex (Central line), and Hertfordshire (London Overground to Watford Jn and LU Metropolitan line). TfL were pushing an embryonic proposal that would've led to the creation of a London Regional Rail Authority - this would stretch beyond Greater London into the home counties, and would somehow 'take control' of commuter and local London services. AIUI the plan was that the authority would have been led by TfL but would have had inputs from those counties it covered, including a mechanism of democratic accountability (i.e. a board of councillors from the relevant local authorities of the area covered). This has all been put on the back burner, but the Mayor and TfL are certainly keen on having more control over rail services in Greater London, so similar proposals might well come round again, especially after TfL have had some time to prove their competence by running the London Overground network. |
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
|
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
|
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
Paul Scott wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message ... 24 Crossrail trains an hour leaves little or no room for extra trains to fit in on the same tracks as Crossrail, so there's little room for any other way of running slow (non-Crossrail) to Reading - even if you remove, say, half of those (12) that would probably terminate at Heathrow. I doubt it would be as many as 12 trains to Heathrow though - I can't see the customer levels for heathrow needing a train every 5 minutes (12 an hour). So maybe 6 Heathrows and 18 to Maidenhead would be a better assumption? Still no real room to insert slow Readings in between the CRossrails after Hayes though. Your proposals haven't accounted for about half the crossrail trains not going any further than the turnback sidings at the 'ghost station' at Westbourne Park? For the westbound peaks, out of 24 tph through central London, 14 will reverse at Paddington (via Westbourne Park sidings), 4 will go to Heathrow, and 6 will go west of Hayes on the GWML, of which 2 will terminate at West Drayton, leaving just 4 to Maidenhead. Although all Crossrail trains will stop at all stations east of London, this is not true west of Paddington, particularly off-peak. This is supposed to be in order to leave paths on the relief lines for FGW trains to/from Reading and further west. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
"Richard J." wrote in message .uk... Paul Scott wrote: "Chris" wrote in message ... .........So maybe 6 Heathrows and 18 to Maidenhead would be a better assumption? Still no real room to insert slow Readings in between the CRossrails after Hayes though. Your proposals haven't accounted for about half the crossrail trains not going any further than the turnback sidings at the 'ghost station' at Westbourne Park? For the westbound peaks, out of 24 tph through central London, 14 will reverse at Paddington (via Westbourne Park sidings), 4 will go to Heathrow, and 6 will go west of Hayes on the GWML, of which 2 will terminate at West Drayton, leaving just 4 to Maidenhead. Although all Crossrail trains will stop at all stations east of London, this is not true west of Paddington, particularly off-peak. This is supposed to be in order to leave paths on the relief lines for FGW trains to/from Reading and further west. Exactly. The previous poster has gone off and proposed a whole raft of difficulties, without first having a glance at the published proposals... Paul |
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
Paul Scott wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message ... 24 Crossrail trains an hour leaves little or no room for extra trains to fit in on the same tracks as Crossrail, so there's little room for any other way of running slow (non-Crossrail) to Reading - even if you remove, say, half of those (12) that would probably terminate at Heathrow. I doubt it would be as many as 12 trains to Heathrow though - I can't see the customer levels for heathrow needing a train every 5 minutes (12 an hour). So maybe 6 Heathrows and 18 to Maidenhead would be a better assumption? Still no real room to insert slow Readings in between the CRossrails after Hayes though. Your proposals haven't accounted for about half the crossrail trains not going any further than the turnback sidings at the 'ghost station' at Westbourne Park? They won't actually do that - it's another accounting fiction, like "We're not going to Reading". |
The Ermine strikes back - The Crossrail Saga
John Rowland wrote:
Paul Scott wrote: "Chris" wrote in message ... 24 Crossrail trains an hour leaves little or no room for extra trains to fit in on the same tracks as Crossrail, so there's little room for any other way of running slow (non-Crossrail) to Reading - even if you remove, say, half of those (12) that would probably terminate at Heathrow. I doubt it would be as many as 12 trains to Heathrow though - I can't see the customer levels for heathrow needing a train every 5 minutes (12 an hour). So maybe 6 Heathrows and 18 to Maidenhead would be a better assumption? Still no real room to insert slow Readings in between the CRossrails after Hayes though. Your proposals haven't accounted for about half the crossrail trains not going any further than the turnback sidings at the 'ghost station' at Westbourne Park? They won't actually do that - it's another accounting fiction, like "We're not going to Reading". And "we're not going to Terminal 5 at Heathrow". (Current plans are to serve T123 and T4 only.) I agree that some of the current plans look odd, but I don't have your confidence that sense will prevail. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:03 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk