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.

Again, see above - those trains won't terminate at Reading, but
provide a direct train to Gatwick Airport, via the fly-under outside
Reading. Didcot passengers will continue to use the HST services, and
yes, other intermediate passengers would change at Reading - either
onto HSTs to Padd or Crossrail.

Ah, that makes sense.

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.

Correct assumptions. Not a chance.

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.

This is still being worked on by the industry - Twford may well lose
all their fast trains to Padd, as may Maidenhead. It's the only
downside to an otherwise very positive scheme. Whether an HST could
make a call or two is under investigation - an HST already calls
Maidenhead in the am peak, so it's possible with SDO (selective door
opening)

Fair enough

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.

As I've said earlier, all the branches including Henley will remain
turbo operated. Henley branch line peak trains may still run direct to
Padd, under investigation still. If they do, they'd change over to
fast lines at Maidenhead. All depends on the extra capacity required
to run at 90mph, rather than 125mph - and if it's considered too
tioght, well, they'll remain branch line services in the peak.

I thought as much. Don't the Henley peak trains already run on the
fasts at the moment? From the timetable they only call at Slough and
Maidenhead as far as I can see.

What I suspect is more significant [than the safeguarding] is that NR are to
run Crossrail [their wider network changes] and Reading remodelling as a
combined project under one manager...

Oh yeah? Do you know just how large these two projects are? Not a hope
in hell.....


Sorry to contradict, but they are being developed by a single NR team,
with a single manager at the helm. I know this to be true because he
gave a presentation last week, at which I was present.

"Chris" wrote...
Plenty of *uninformed* comment too, to boot - why doesn't everyone
READ the CrossRail website contents, and if you're that interested,
ensure that you attend one of Network Rail / CrossRail exhibitions???
And if you're NOT that interested (fair enough), refrain from posting
in CrossRail threads? - because we could do with cutting down on the
spread of inaccurate info.

I wouldn't worry unduly; much of the content of every thread in every
'news'group is speculation, and few would expect much solid 'fact'.

And reliance on official handouts is not really a viable solution; I've been
to Crossrail exhibitions where they were unable to answer a single question
with any authority - and until recently, the web site was denying even the
possibility of reaching Reading.

As one of the few in this group who has always argued that Reading was not
only logical, but inevitable, I'm equally confident that more wise decisions
will erupt over the ten years before the line opens (8? don't make me
laugh!).

Reading is logical because of the interchange facilities, as well as the
ability to fill up the train with Reading-bound travellers as the London
leavers thin out (and vice versa); something Maidenhead simply couldn't
offer.

But the main attraction of Reading is (and always was) the interchange
opportunities. And to take full advantage of them, I'm happy to speculate
that stopping patterns won't be the simple 'all stations' that has been
claimed and rarely questioned.

The Metropolitan line has demonstrated for decades that LU have no
difficulty understanding mixing stoppers with semi-fasts, and the Crossrail
tunnels will (easily) accomodate some fasts or semifasts from Reading, even
a few non-stoppers in the peaks, relieving FGW's problem of the
trains-formerly-known-as-Intercity being assimilated by Reading-London
commuters.

I'm sure others with imagination can foresee many other possibilities; wires
to Oxford becoming viable is just one dream for the decade after Crossrail
opens.

There's an interesting side debate on the future of all the DMUs being no
longer required, especially when DaFT is still planning to order more new
ones, just as electrification is being taken seriously all round.

Just don't get sidetracked by the 'Heathro Hub'; more of a successor to
Jethro Tull than a policy, at this stage.
--

Andrew

"She plays the tuba.
It is the only instrument capable
of imitating a distress call."

On 9 May, 15:13, "Andrew Heenan" wrote:

But the main attraction of Reading is (and always was) the interchange
opportunities. And to take full advantage of them, I'm happy to speculate
that stopping patterns won't be the simple 'all stations' that has been
claimed and rarely questioned.

The Metropolitan line has demonstrated for decades that LU have no
difficulty understanding mixing stoppers with semi-fasts, and the Crossrail
tunnels will (easily) accomodate some fasts or semifasts from Reading, even
a few non-stoppers in the peaks, relieving FGW's problem of the
trains-formerly-known-as-Intercity being assimilated by Reading-London
commuters.

But the Met has access to a fast line south of Harrow-o-t-Hill for
fast trains to overtake the all-station stoppers, something that
Crossrail certainly won't get is access to the fast lines twixt
Reading & Padd. And terminating platforms at Padd on the up lines,
like there are at Baker Street - every train coming from LHR or
Maidenhead / Reading has to go through the portal, interlinking with
the starters coming from the yard just outside the portal.....skip
stopping is just about the only way you might get a slightly faster
trip - if you were to accept that stations wouldn't get a regular xx
mins past each hour 'Metro' service.

The latter might just work, but I think they'll go for a regular
clockface timetable at all but the very small stations.

I'm sure others with imagination can foresee many other possibilities; wires
to Oxford becoming viable is just one dream for the decade after Crossrail
opens.

I'm certainly with you on that one, assuming the money can be found.

There's an interesting side debate on the future of all the DMUs being no
longer required, especially when DaFT is still planning to order more new
ones, just as electrification is being taken seriously all round.

There's always a demand for DMUs in parts of the country where usage
doesn't demand electrification. At the moment, they could always be
cascaded to the SW, where they are desparate for more stock.

Just don't get sidetracked by the 'Heathro Hub'; more of a successor to
Jethro Tull than a policy, at this stage.

Yup.

"Chris" wrote ...
But the Met has access to a fast line south of Harrow-o-t-Hill for
fast trains to overtake the all-station stoppers, something that
Crossrail certainly won't get is access to the fast lines twixt
Reading & Padd. And terminating platforms at Padd on the up lines,
like there are at Baker Street - every train coming from LHR or
Maidenhead / Reading has to go through the portal, interlinking with
the starters coming from the yard just outside the portal.....skip
stopping is just about the only way you might get a slightly faster
trip - if you were to accept that stations wouldn't get a regular xx
mins past each hour 'Metro' service.

I agree it won't be easy - and the initial service will probaly be closer to
your vision than mine; but with the faster acceleration available, the
reallignment at Reading, the vague possibility of some intelligent design in
signalling and points, Crossrail could be so much more than the 'official'
version.

All it really needs is for DaFT / Network Rail / TfL to realise that a
little extra design and build expense will actually make the line much more
useful (and therefore more likely to repay the investment).

But there, I'm dreaming again ;o)
--

Andrew

"If A is success in life, then A = x + y + z.
Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut." ~ Albert Einstein

"Chris" wrote in message
...
Apologies for the length of this post, but I've chosen to answer many
posts in this one, rather than several....but there's a LOT of
misinformation in this thread!

On 5 May, 16:28, Mizter T wrote:
On May 5, 4:05 pm, Barry Salter 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).

Plenty of *uninformed* comment too, to boot - why doesn't everyone
READ the CrossRail website contents, and if you're that interested,
ensure that you attend one of Network Rail / CrossRail exhibitions???
SNIP

Would do if they mounted one in Perth, Western Australia. I might be one of
maybe 50-100 that'd come and look. Don't think my contacts at Crossrail
would entertain the idea, though

David down under

Barry Salter wrote:
Hi folks,

Nobody appears to have picked up on this Press Release on the DfT site
that was posted on Friday:

-----8-----Start of quoted text-----8-----

056 01 May 2009

NEW CROSSRAIL ROUTE SAFEGUARDED

The Government today safeguarded a potential Crossrail route from
Maidenhead to Reading.
Someone had suggest that new stabling facilities at Reading were
designed to cope with Crossrail stock.

Have they 'safeguarded' the other end to Gravesend as well, or are they
just 'consulting' on that. For that would you need dual voltage stock as
for Thameslink?

Jim Chisholm

"J. Chisholm" wrote

Have they 'safeguarded' the other end to Gravesend as well, or are they
just 'consulting' on that. For that would you need dual voltage stock as
for Thameslink?

Yes, and yes (confirmed in the Knt draft RUS).

Peter

On 5 May, 16:55, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"J. Chisholm" wrote

Have they 'safeguarded' the other end to Gravesend as well, or are they
just 'consulting' on that. For that would you need dual voltage stock as
for Thameslink?

Yes, and yes (confirmed in the Knt draft RUS).

Peter

Exactly what service would they propose to Gravesend? Would they
squeeze in the Crossrail stoppers between the North Kent trains? Would
they remodel Dartford?

It all seems a bit vague. I haven't yet seen anything in the Kent RUS
or S London RUS to suggest what they would plan on doing. Maybe I
missed it..

wrote

Exactly what service would they propose to Gravesend? Would they
squeeze in the Crossrail stoppers between the North Kent trains? Would
they remodel Dartford?

It all seems a bit vague. I haven't yet seen anything in the Kent RUS
or S London RUS to suggest what they would plan on doing. Maybe I
missed it..

It is vague - as there is no current intention to extend Crossrail to
Gravesend. The safeguarding seems to include more land than was envisaged in
the original Crossrail proposals, suggesting that there will be more track,
especially in the Slade Green - Dartford area, and it is clear that a
terminus at Ebbsfleet has been dropped in favour of Gravesend.

Peter