"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

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)

"Richard J." wrote in message
news
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

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

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)

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".

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)

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!

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).