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

"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

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)

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.

In message
(Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:

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..


Mind you that was September.

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

In article ,
says...

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.

I wouldn't say the numbers are very small. Passenger numbers in 2002/3
showed that long the GWML 8.6m journeys were into Berkshire, whilst
21.1m were into Central London. Also Reading is the second busiest
station outside London, so passengers from West London and East
Berkshire are also likely to use Reading as an interchange.

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.

Which will reduce the capacity for Crossrail services into London. The
alternative is to run a shuttle from Maidenhead to Reading / Oxford, but
then passengers traveling from Twyford - London or West London to
Reading will have to change 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.

However the cost per mile of extending from Slough to Maidenhead or even
Reading must be very low compared to the cost within the central area.
There is also the cost of the impact of not extending to consider, for
example if Crossrail doesn't go to Reading then some sort of DMU
stopping service will still be required, which currently eats up 4 paths
per hour off-peak, paths which will then not be available to Crossrail.

Duncan

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

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)