On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, 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). Taking it all
the way to Reading would increase the already sky-high cost and take
away capacity for other, more useful, trains for Reading.

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. But if it terminates at
Maidenhead how are London to Twyford/Henley passengers

Hey, don't forget Marlow!

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? 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)?

Yes.

I suspect that demand for trips between Twyford and London, and between
Reading and stations on the way to London, is very small compared to the
demand further in along the line. Even if Crossrail could run to Reading,
i really doubt that the demand would justify more than a few tph. Doing
all the electrification work etc just for that seems daft. Might as well
interleave a few non-Crossrail Reading stoppers. Or couple a diesel loco
onto a few Crossrail trains at Maidenhead!

Actually, i'm skeptical about the value of extending beyond Slough,
really. Maidenhead has lots of demand, but would be better served by
stopping some fast trains, allowing Crossrail to focus on London.

Here are some passenger numbers (from Wikipedia, 2004/5 figures, millions
of entries and exits per year) for public amusement:

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'm surprised how low some of the London ones are. I imagine this is due
to competition from the tube, which will change post-Crossrail. Will be
interesting to see.

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.

Where does Iver stand with respect to the Green Belt? Seems like somewhere
that's ideal for plonking down some of these hundreds of thousands of
houses we need. Ditto Taplow, i suppose.

tom

--
The most successful people are those who are good at plan B. --
James Yorke

"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.

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.

Peter

On 15 Dec, 14:49, "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.

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.

Peter

A-la Thameslink's current patterns?

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!

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

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

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007, Graeme Wall wrote:

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.

How much difference does it make? And why? This is something that's always
puzzled me, actually - why are electric trains so much preferred to
diesels? Do they accelerate faster? I assume it's not a question of top
speed.

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.

Depends where you live - there seem to be a lot more houses near Wokingham
than Twyford, meaning most people in that area (if i've understood the
area you were referring to right) would be looking at a longer drive (or
even a drive rather than a walk) to get to Twyford. That offsets some of
the train's advantage.

tom

--
never mind your fingers, i've got blisters on my brain

On 17 Dec, 00:09, Tom Anderson wrote:
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.

Post-Crossrail Twyford's main service to London will be a diesel semi-
fast on the slow lines taking ca. 40 minutes (and probably few if any
fast trains). I'd hope this would also be the basis of any Crossrail
to Reading service, rather than extending the Maidenhead stoppers,
which would make Crossrail at Twyford a good thing.

U

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