On Tue, 5 May 2009 19:25:19 +0100, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

Not an official debate. But a remarkable number of contributors here are
convinced that HEx cannot continue as is with Crossrail.

Because nobody will use it when they can have a direct train to
somewhere less inconvenient than Paddington.

However my own
understanding is the same as yours, ie I've read the Crossrail rationale...

The rationale can be what it likes, but a through service from
Heathrow to various points in London will (so long as it's not as slow
as the Picc) prove a lot more popular than a fast train to somewhere
people don't want to go. Thus, HEx would likely quickly prove
uneconomic as-is.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

In article ,
says...

I'm one of those that doesn't think Reading will be that useful a Crossrail
terminus IF all the proposed Crossrail services remain as all station
stoppers. However, if there is a way of having a Crossrail fast service -
perhaps as far as Ealing for instance it could be a useful way of freeing up
capacity on longer distance services.

It'll be more useful for people trying to get from Reading to
intermediate stations, e.g. Maidenhead and Slough.

If Crossrail only runs to Maidenhead then the current stopping services
still have to be run from Reading, thereby using up some of the capacity
on the relief lines. Otherwise services will have to run from Reading to
Twyford and Maidenhead before either terminating or running fast / semi-
fast to Paddington.

Duncan

In article cbdb0206-4847-455b-af10-3e344d0db8d5
@o30g2000vbc.googlegroups.com, says...

Unfortunately even if they extend crossrail to Reading it still can't
replace all the stopping services because there are 2 stopping
services an hour from Oxford which call at many of the intermediate
stations. So then you would either have to electrify the line to
Oxford (ooh, look a flying pig) or more realistically terminate slow
Oxford services at Reading and inconvenience passengers from
intermediate stations between Reading and Oxford. Of course there is
the option of running the Oxford slow services under the wires on the
slows but this would take up valuable crossrail paths and of course
result in more diesels under wires which is a waste of fuel.

Or they could do as the Bedwyn services do and stop until Reading and
then run fast into Paddington. This assumes that capacity can be found
on the main lines for 90mph services between the 125mph service.

Duncan

"Mizter T" wrote in message
...

There have been plenty of comments on these newsgroups in the past
that getting Crossrail to Reading might not be all that it's cracked
up to be in certain quarters, what with a Crossrail train from Reading
into central London being slower that a fast non-stop service to
Paddington (where interchange with Crossrail would of course be
available).

Surely Crossrail to Reading is more about commuting between Reading to/from
Maidenhead/Slough/Etc, than it is about Reading to London journeys

tim

In article
,
(Mizter T) wrote:

There have been plenty of comments on these newsgroups in the past
that getting Crossrail to Reading might not be all that it's cracked
up to be in certain quarters, what with a Crossrail train from Reading
into central London being slower that a fast non-stop service to
Paddington (where interchange with Crossrail would of course be
available).

A bit like the way Thameslink to Cambridge seems to be going. It looks
like IEP to King's Cross will be rather faster, even with a walk to SPILL.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article
,
(D DB 90001) wrote:

Unfortunately even if they extend crossrail to Reading it still can't
replace all the stopping services because there are 2 stopping
services an hour from Oxford which call at many of the intermediate
stations. So then you would either have to electrify the line to
Oxford (ooh, look a flying pig) or more realistically terminate slow
Oxford services at Reading and inconvenience passengers from
intermediate stations between Reading and Oxford. Of course there is
the option of running the Oxford slow services under the wires on the
slows but this would take up valuable crossrail paths and of course
result in more diesels under wires which is a waste of fuel. And no,
I'm not even going to suggest that putting a loco on and off at
reading is a viable idea, because it's not going to happen.

Maybe in the short term they will continue to run under the wires
until more of the Great Western Mainline and branches are electrified
and then they can remove that anomaly. Talking of branches there would
still be the outstanding issue of Henley trains which would almost
certainly run under the wires in the peaks on the slows anyway,
because that branch will *never* be electrified.

Bi-mode!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On May 5, 10:50*pm, Duncan wrote:
In article cbdb0206-4847-455b-af10-3e344d0db8d5
@o30g2000vbc.googlegroups.com, says...

Unfortunately even if they extend crossrail to Reading it still can't
replace all the stopping services because there are 2 stopping
services an hour from Oxford which call at many of the intermediate
stations. So then you would either have to electrify the line to
Oxford (ooh, look a flying pig) or more realistically terminate slow
Oxford services at Reading and inconvenience passengers from
intermediate stations between Reading and Oxford. Of course there is
the option of running the Oxford slow services under the wires on the
slows but this would take up valuable crossrail paths and of course
result in more diesels under wires which is a waste of fuel.

Or they could do as the Bedwyn services do and stop until Reading and
then run fast into Paddington. This assumes that capacity can be found
on the main lines for 90mph services between the 125mph service.

Duncan

But this still wouldn't be an ideal outcome, Oxford already has fast
services calling at Reading and Slough only, and passengers for
intermediate stations would need to change at Reading, so you might as
well terminate the service at Reading, but this would reduce the tph
from Oxford to Paddington from 4 to 2. Incidently the current Oxford
fast services are commonly 165s or 166s anyway so there are already 2
paths an hour for 90mph stock, whether there is any room for more than
that is debateable.

"D DB 90001" wrote

But this still wouldn't be an ideal outcome, Oxford already has fast
services calling at Reading and Slough only, and passengers for
intermediate stations would need to change at Reading, so you might as
well terminate the service at Reading, but this would reduce the tph
from Oxford to Paddington from 4 to 2. Incidently the current Oxford
fast services are commonly 165s or 166s anyway so there are already 2
paths an hour for 90mph stock, whether there is any room for more than
that is debateable.

We're looking 8 years ahead, as Crossrail won't open before 2017. While
Crossrail trains won't convey passengers from London beyond Maidenhead, or
perhaps Twyford, it should be worth running them through to Reading, to
connect from intermediate stations into trains running further west, and to
save having to run dmus on the Relief Lines. Intermediate stations Tilehurst
to Cholsey, also Appleford to Radley, would lose their off-peak through
trains to Paddington, though this wouldn't be much of a loss, as passengers
mostly change at Reading on to a fast. In the peaks there could well be
trains from Oxford or Didcot which stop to Reading, then run fast to
Paddington (and these should be 125 mph stock - IEP anyone?

Crossrail trains shouldn't be all stations west of Paddington. It probably
wouldn't be too much of a loss if there were no through trains to Bourne End
or Henley - many passengers would be able to get a through train from a
central or east London Crossrail station to Maidenhead or Twyford, so they
would be saved the Paddington interchange at the expense of a change at
Maidenhead or Twyford.

Peter

On May 6, 12:19*am, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"D DB 90001" wrote



But this still wouldn't be an ideal outcome, Oxford already has fast
services calling at Reading and Slough only, and passengers for
intermediate stations would need to change at Reading, so you might as
well terminate the service at Reading, but this would reduce the tph
from Oxford to Paddington from 4 to 2. Incidently the current Oxford
fast services are commonly 165s or 166s anyway so there are already 2
paths an hour for 90mph stock, whether there is any room for more than
that is debateable.

We're looking 8 years ahead, as Crossrail won't open before 2017. While
Crossrail trains won't convey passengers from London beyond Maidenhead, or
perhaps Twyford, it should be worth running them through to Reading, to
connect from intermediate stations into trains running further west, and to
save having to run dmus on the Relief Lines. Intermediate stations Tilehurst
to Cholsey, also Appleford to Radley, would lose their off-peak through
trains to Paddington, though this wouldn't be much of a loss, as passengers
mostly change at Reading on to a fast. In the peaks there could well be
trains from Oxford or Didcot which stop to Reading, then run fast to
Paddington (and these should be 125 mph stock - IEP anyone?

Crossrail trains shouldn't be all stations west of Paddington. It probably
wouldn't be too much of a loss if there were no through trains to Bourne End
or Henley - many passengers would be able to get a through train from a
central or east London Crossrail station to Maidenhead or Twyford, so they
would be saved the Paddington interchange at the expense of a change at
Maidenhead or Twyford.

Peter

The main losers would be stations between Oxford and Reading which
would lose out on direct London services and also no direct services
to intermediate stations, which is a shame, but it is probably easier
for everyone else if they just change at Reading. And yes, it would
only be a change at Twyford or Maidenhead instead of a change at
Paddington, and changing at Twyford is a lot simpler than a change at
Paddington.

On May 5, 4:56*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

NEW CROSSRAIL ROUTE SAFEGUARDED

I'm one of those that doesn't *think Reading will be that useful a Crossrail
terminus IF all the proposed Crossrail services remain as all station
stoppers. However, if there is a way of having a Crossrail fast service -



There is a surprising amount of joined up thinking *if* one includes
GWML electrification. If - yes its a big if - the strategy really is
to electrifiy GWML, and the runes currently suggest it is, then 100%
sense is to deal with Crossrail only as an inner suburban / stopping
train project, and leave the outer suburban / express commuter service
as an overlay on GWML intercity. After all, all the relevant 25 kV
wires will be in place at least along the main route[s] if not on the
Thames dead end branches, and would not leave Reading as the electric
limit, at least [I assume] Oxford and Swindon would be in it, the
latter would make a good extension of out suburban, rather line GN
route EMU reach Peterboro.


--
Nick