On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, 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,

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".

*raises eyebrow*

What makes us think this is the case?

tom

--
Jim-Jammity Jesus Krispy Kreme Christ on a ****-rocket!

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, Richard J. wrote:

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.

Hang on, what? The relief lines are the slow lines, right? Does that mean
that some Crossrails will run on the fast lines? Or that they'll skip
stops while running on the reliefs? How does this help provide paths for
longer-distance trains - by letting them run on the reliefs without
getting slowed down? Why is this necessary off-peak if it's not needed in
the peaks?

Which stations are going to get skipped?

tom

--
Jim-Jammity Jesus Krispy Kreme Christ on a ****-rocket!

On 16 Dec, 19:49, Tom Anderson wrote:
Hang on, what? The relief lines are the slow lines, right? Does that mean
that some Crossrails will run on the fast lines? Or that they'll skip
stops while running on the reliefs? How does this help provide paths for
longer-distance trains - by letting them run on the reliefs without
getting slowed down?

There'll be a half-hourly semi-fast Reading-4 or 5 stations-Paddington
diesel service that uses the relief lines. If all other trains stopped
at all stations it would quickly catch up with them. There's also the
problem of freight, which shares the Crossrail lines this end (freight
runs on the GEML fasts, so isn't affected by Crossrail).

Why is this necessary off-peak if it's not needed in the peaks?

I looks like there's more stop-skipping in the peaks to me, so my
answer would be that there isn't.

Which stations are going to get skipped?

See diagrams he
http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pd...fT-Apx4-E5.pdf

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, Peter Masson wrote:

"Tom Anderson" wrote

Reading 13.297
Twyford 1.083
Maidenhead 3.272
Taplow 0.149
Burnham 0.822
Slough 4.448
Langley 0.482
Iver 0.111
West Drayton 0.742
Hayes & H'ton 1.229
Southall 0.865
Hanwell 0.154
West Ealing 0.384
Ealing Broadway 6.307
Acton Main Line 0.115

i.e. Twyford is busier than all intermediate stations except Maidenhead,
Slough, Hayes & H, and Ealing Bdy. That seems to be before counting
passengers transferring from the Henley branch.

Yes. So it should have fast trains, not Crossrail! HA! Didn't think i'd
get out of that one, did you?

Point taken, though, Twyford is a far more important station than i'd
realised.

While Crossrail's current position is that it will run an entirely
stopping service, I think there is a case for a mixture of semi-fast and
stopping trains, at least west of West Drayton and possibly east of
Stratford.

True. These could also be non-Crossrails, though: Reading/Henley - Twyford
- Maidenhead - fast to Ealing Broadway, fast to Paddington perhaps,
running on the reliefs in the large spaces between the 6 tph of Crossrail
with a little bit of flighting. As has been suggested, these could also be
the cis-Reading part of the Oxford stoppers. This would reduce the amount
of electrification and the number of new trains needed, make Crossrail a
bit simpler, and give passengers from those stations a faster ride into
London. The downside would be that there wouldn't be through trains from
beyond Maidenhead to beyond Paddington; there would be same-platform
interchange to such trains at Ealing Broadway, though.

tom

--
Jim-Jammity Jesus Krispy Kreme Christ on a ****-rocket!

Mr Thant wrote:
On 16 Dec, 19:49, Tom Anderson wrote:
Hang on, what? The relief lines are the slow lines, right? Does
that mean that some Crossrails will run on the fast lines? Or that
they'll skip stops while running on the reliefs? How does this
help provide paths for longer-distance trains - by letting them
run on the reliefs without getting slowed down?

There'll be a half-hourly semi-fast Reading-4 or 5
stations-Paddington diesel service that uses the relief lines. If
all other trains stopped
at all stations it would quickly catch up with them. There's also
the problem of freight, which shares the Crossrail lines this end
(freight runs on the GEML fasts, so isn't affected by Crossrail).

Why is this necessary off-peak if it's not needed in the peaks?

I looks like there's more stop-skipping in the peaks to me, so my
answer would be that there isn't.

Using your reference (if I understand it - see below), the skips are
just different. Maidenhead Crossrail trains skip Burnham and Taplow
off-peak and skip Southall and Hanwell in the peaks, the latter two
stations being served by the peak-only West Drayton trains.

Which stations are going to get skipped?

See diagrams he
http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pd...fT-Apx4-E5.pdf

What a terrible document! Having clearly defined the Crossrail service
periods of peak, shoulder peak, off-peak and quiet, it then goes on to
show colour-coded diagrams with no colour key, and using terms like
"off-peak (busy)/contra peak".

However, I guess (there's no date on the document) that it may be more
up-to-date than the figures I was using, derived from a parliamentary
written answer from 2005, at http://shorl.com/hanudikoniti . Goodness
knows why we need to go ferreting around in these sorts of document.
Why isn't the service pattern on the Crossrail site?

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

In message i
Tom Anderson wrote:

[snip]

Point taken, though, Twyford is a far more important station than i'd
realised.


It taps into a lot of traffic from the Wokingham area which would otherwise
have to take the slow service to Waterloo.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, Graeme Wall wrote:

In message i
Tom Anderson wrote:

Point taken, though, Twyford is a far more important station than i'd
realised.

It taps into a lot of traffic from the Wokingham area which would
otherwise have to take the slow service to Waterloo.

Ah, i see.

Hmm. It looks like a train from Wokingham to Waterloo takes 68 minutes; a
train from Twyford to Paddington which stops at Maidenhead only takes 32,
and one which stops at eight stations on the way takes 50 minutes.
Crossrail would presumably be more like 50 minutes. Would people use it
instead of the fast train? Would they even use it in place of the
Wokingham train? If not, the value of Crossrail at Twyford is maybe less
than the passenger numbers indicate. I suppose you have to factor in the
value of having a single-seat ride all the way into town against those
time differences.

tom

--
Well, I'm making a list too. But I'm also preparing appropriate
retribution. -- Graham

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, 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,

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".

*raises eyebrow*

What makes us think this is the case?

I don't know what makes "us" think it, but what makes *me* think it is that
I was told it by someone heavily involved in the project (I can't remember
who).

In message i
Tom Anderson wrote:

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, Graeme Wall wrote:

In message i
Tom Anderson wrote:

Point taken, though, Twyford is a far more important station than i'd
realised.

It taps into a lot of traffic from the Wokingham area which would
otherwise have to take the slow service to Waterloo.

Ah, i see.

Hmm. It looks like a train from Wokingham to Waterloo takes 68 minutes; a
train from Twyford to Paddington which stops at Maidenhead only takes 32,
and one which stops at eight stations on the way takes 50 minutes.
Crossrail would presumably be more like 50 minutes.

I would hope an electrified service would do better than that.

Would people use it instead of the fast train? Would they even use it in
place of the Wokingham train?

It's still around 20 minutes quicker and Twyford station is easier to access
than Wokingham. IIRC the car park at the latter takes about a dozen cars.

If not, the value of Crossrail at Twyford is maybe less than the passenger
numbers indicate. I suppose you have to factor in the value of having a
single-seat ride all the way into town against those time differences.


Total journey time should be a lot less, especially for those working in the
City.



--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
In message i
Tom Anderson wrote:
....
Would people use it instead of the fast train? Would they even use it in
place of the Wokingham train?

It's still around 20 minutes quicker and Twyford station is easier to
access
than Wokingham. IIRC the car park at the latter takes about a dozen cars.

268 according to http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/statio...ml#Interchange
--
David Biddulph