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..

On May 5, 5:49*pm, 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)

Certain to happen under any proposed GWML electrification plan, so why
not bring it forward out of operational convenience?

or more realistically terminate slow
Oxford services at Reading and inconvenience passengers from
intermediate stations between Reading and Oxford.

....but I agree this is more likely. Will the remodelled Reading allow
easy cross-platform interchange between slow Oxford terminators and
London services?

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.

Agreed.

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.

No, that doesn't follow - it's quite possible there'll be a positive B/
CA for short stretches of electrification that remove the need for
long-ish diesel workings and allow the slow lines to be all-Crossrail,
once the core suburban network is electrified.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

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???
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 don't hold any particularly strong opinions on this issue (not that
my opinions on such things really matter!), but I'd be interested if
anyone could explain why extending Crossrail to Reading is widely held
to be so important

Stock optimisation? If extended to Reading, you'd only need Crossrail
stock for inner suburban journeys, and the turbo stock could go off
elsewhere where stock is so in demand.....which is a main driver for
the discussions happening within the rail industry for extending
CrossRail back to Oxford - yes, it is a possibility, or was, until the
recession hit. What odds that CrossRail now gets postponed (again?) -
that ought to be the current discussion. Cameron has already been
quoted as saying he can't rule it out if they win the next
election....

On 5 May, 16:32, MIG wrote:
Given the ELLX experience, I wonder if there might yet be a tradeoff
so that the service for people heading to Reading from intermediate
stations is dramatically cut, and existing stopping serices merely
replaced by Crossrail between Maidenhead and Paddington

This is already in the public domain - the trade off being that it'll
only be CrossRail from Maidenhead inwards; they will take over the
CONNECT services from Heathrow, and between them there is no further
capacity from Airport Junction inwards on the releif lines for FGW
turbos. All the branch lines will lose their direct trains from
London, and become turbo-served branch lines - except for the Henley
branch, where research is being done to see if they can retain their
peak direct servives (but main line use will be necessary, hence the
research) - my opinion is that there'll be loss of capacity such that
it won't happen.

On 5 May, 16:47, "J. Chisholm" wrote:
Someone had suggest that new stabling facilities at Reading were
designed to cope with Crossrail stock.

NOT a suggestion - it's a fact. Both the Turbo depot & the CrossRail
depot are to be located on the North side of the lines, west of
Reading.

On 5 May, 17:01, Mizter T wrote:
If Crossrail ever got to Reading, I'd fully expect it to take over
most if not all of the existing stopping services - indeed that would
only make sense, would it not?

That is the current plan. FGW (and whoever wins that franchise in
2016) will run the fast lines inward, while CRossRail will share the
slow lines with freight companies. The stoppers from Oxford will go to
Gatwick Airport (via the reopened flyunder at the East end of Reading
station) and passengers from the Upper THames Valley local stations
will change at Reading for stations east of Reading (including Padd).

On 5 May, 16:56, "Paul Scott" wrote:
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.

With the extra services from LHR, there is no capoacity for fast
trains beyond Airport Junction, never mind Ealing Broadway. and the
current planning revolves around skip-stopping, rather than running
fast from point A to Point B. Bear in mind that CrossRail trains need
to present themselves at regular frequency at the tunnel portals, to
fit in with starters from Padd.....

However there is a similar debate about whether or not it should be Heathrow
Express or Connect that runs through onto Crossrail - it seems to hinge on
the lack of capacity and conflicting moves required on the crossovers from
main to relief running lines?

See above - there ios NO discussion as the decision is already taken.
The Connect services are being taken over by Crossrail.

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.....

On 5 May, 17:49, 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.

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.

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)

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.

On 5 May, 20:14, (Neil Williams) wrote:
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.

The vast majority of current HEx users get into taxis at Padd. And HEx
don't expect this to change. Theirs are premium customers who prefer
to get to their final destination directly.

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.

Not so - their passengers DON'T want to end up at a station close to
their destination, but AT their destination, so climb into taxis.

On 5 May, 22:47, Duncan wrote:
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.

Yup - and that problem is the one taxing planners at the moment.
Crossrail is likely to get the relief lines, so those 'stoppers' will
be pushed onto the fast lines at Maidenhead or Airport Junction.
Neither of which is ideal in the least - one major argument for
electrification and Crossrail to Reading.

On 5 May, 23:07, "tim....." wrote:
Surely Crossrail to Reading is more about commuting between Reading to/from
Maidenhead/Slough/Etc, than it is about Reading to London journeys

Indeed it is - BUT if CrossRail does come back to Reading, they will
get sole use of the relief lines (with frieght, of course), so
there'll be a distinct passenger choice from Reading - slower
CrossRail or faster HST. At which point there'll also be two distinct
fares an Any Permitted and a cheaper Crossraiul Only option. Commuters
will have to choose their option and dig in their pockets for the
faster option. Which will ease the cronic overcrowding on the HST /
IEP services which currently happens to/ from Reading. It surprises me
that I haven't read of this here yet.

On 5 May, 23:48, D DB 90001 wrote:
Oxford already has fast
services calling at Reading and Slough only, and passengers for
intermediate stations would need to change at Reading

Don't you think this is what happens currently? You don't get a
stopper from Oxford now if you want an intermediate station east of
Reading - you get a fast from Oxford - Reading and change. So there's
no change with CrossRail.

so you might as
well terminate the service at Reading, but this would reduce the tph
from Oxford to Paddington from 4 to 2.

Yup - but it is trhat effectively now, with the slow trains only being
used for intermediate stations, and changing from fast services where
necessary. The 'churn' on these trains is around 4 times in the entire
Padd - Oxford trip


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.

When did you last make the trip then? Only in the VERY early mornings
or last services at night these days! I don't think there's a turbo on
the fast lines east of Reading in the peaks any more!

On 6 May, 07:26, wrote:
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

To Oxford.....

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

Phase 1 would - any further would bne a phase 2....
But remember - the depot is at Reading, so how will stock get there if
at least two lines aren't under wires all the way to the
depot?......think, folks, think! The cost of going to Reading fully
isn't anywhere as much as one might think....

, 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.

Oxford (and therefore Didcot) would be in a phase 2, Bristol TM might
make a phase 3.

Chris

On May 5, 11:48*pm, 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.

No it wouldn't - there are already only 2tph from Oxford to Paddington
in any meaningful sense, as unless you're a great lover of spending
time on 16x-es instead of at your destination, waiting for the next
fast train is always the best option.[*]

Splitting the slow trains into a 2tph Oxford-Reading stopping shuttle
and a 2tph Reading-London extra Crossrail would only be a significant
inconvenience for passengers from stations west of Reading seeking
intermediate stations between Reading and Paddington (as if you want
to go from Goring to Paddington, you'll change onto a fast train at
Reading anyway).
[*] well, actually getting the next fast train to Reading, whether
it's XC or FGW, and then the next fast train to Paddington, whether
that involves changing or not, is the fastest option, but it only
saves you a few minutes compared with waiting for the direct fasts.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

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

"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, 16:56, "Paul Scott" wrote:

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.....

Should really have said 'integrated programme delivery team' - from the CP4
enhancement plan:

"Our [NR's] obligation is to deliver the scope of works associated with the
Crossrail and Reading area redevelopment projects. The scope of these
projects is set out in the following pages. There are significant interfaces
between these projects and as such we are delivering them through an
integrated programme delivery team."

Unless you know different of course...

Paul S

In message
Chris wrote:

[snip]

Stock optimisation? If extended to Reading, you'd only need Crossrail
stock for inner suburban journeys, and the turbo stock could go off
elsewhere where stock is so in demand.....which is a main driver for
the discussions happening within the rail industry for extending
CrossRail back to Oxford - yes, it is a possibility, or was, until the
recession hit. What odds that CrossRail now gets postponed (again?) -
that ought to be the current discussion. Cameron has already been
quoted as saying he can't rule it out if they win the next
election....


Cameron, for once, is taking the sensible option politically and giving
himself room to manouvre. By not making any definite statements about
individual budget items he's not leaving any hostages to fortune. At least
he hopes not. You can't, at this stage, assume anything about any particular
project. From the tory point of view Crossrail still has a lot going for it,
the potential users and beneficiaries are mainly tory voters.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On May 6, 11:58*am, wrote:
On May 5, 5:49*pm, 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)

Certain to happen under any proposed GWML electrification plan, so why
not bring it forward out of operational convenience?

or more realistically terminate slow
Oxford services at Reading and inconvenience passengers from
intermediate stations between Reading and Oxford.

...but I agree this is more likely. Will the remodelled Reading allow
easy cross-platform interchange between slow Oxford terminators and
London services?

I'm not sure if that would be possible, but it would be the next best
thing, second only to electrification of the line to Oxford, which
admittedly *should* happen, but probably not until after crossrail.


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.

Agreed.

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.

No, that doesn't follow - it's quite possible there'll be a positive B/
CA for short stretches of electrification that remove the need for
long-ish diesel workings and allow the slow lines to be all-Crossrail,
once the core suburban network is electrified.


I'm not convinced about this, I can understand why they would want to
extend electrification to Reading, but not Henley, unless there were
regular through services, which is not currently under consideration.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot orgwww.johnband.org

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.

On May 6, 12:08*pm, wrote:
On May 5, 11:48*pm, 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.

No it wouldn't - there are already only 2tph from Oxford to Paddington
in any meaningful sense, as unless you're a great lover of spending
time on 16x-es instead of at your destination, waiting for the next
fast train is always the best option.[*]

Splitting the slow trains into a 2tph Oxford-Reading stopping shuttle
and a 2tph Reading-London extra Crossrail would only be a significant
inconvenience for passengers from stations west of Reading seeking
intermediate stations between Reading and Paddington (as if you want
to go from Goring to Paddington, you'll change onto a fast train at
Reading anyway).

Well, yes it's not a major inconvenience for passengers travelling to
Paddington, and since most passengers are presumeably travelling to
Paddington they won't be affected by the change because they will
either change at Reading as they usually do, or simply catch a fast
train from Oxford instead. It's only a more significant inconvenience
for passengers travelling from Twyford to Tilehurst, for example, who
would have a twenty minute journey replaced with 2 10 minute journeys
seperated by an inconvenient change at Reading.