|
Sense seen on Crossrail at last?
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. Whilst there is no current commitment to extend Crossrail out to Reading, safeguarding provides additional protection against future developments on the route. Transport Minister Andrew Adonis said: “Our current priority is to get on with the delivery of the Crossrail Project as it is currently planned, but safeguarding would provide additional protection against developments impacting on future operational requirements. "Safeguarding will also allow the line to be electrified in the future and for Crossrail to be extended if a case can be made to do so.” Notes for editors 1.The Department for Transport (DfT) has issued Safeguarding Directions to protect a potential extension of Crossrail from Maidenhead Station to Reading West Junction. This follows a consultation on the draft Directions which closed on 25 July 2008. 2.The aim is to ensure that developments along this rail corridor do not impact on the ability to extend Crossrail in the future. Crossrail Ltd (CRL), a wholly owned subsidiary of TfL, has responsibility for delivering the Crossrail scheme and is responsible for safeguarding this corridor. 3.The Safeguarding Direction has been issued to Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) by the Secretary of State. The LPAs are required to consult CRL when determining planning applications for land within the limits shown on the safeguarding plans attached to the direction. 4.The Crossrail project currently terminates at Maidenhead. No decision or commitment to extend it further west to Reading has been made. However, DfT believes it sensible to safeguard this corridor for a potential extension of Crossrail to Reading. Safeguarding will also allow us to carry out alternative works, such as electrification, that could enable future operational requirements to be met. 5.Crossrail will run 118 km from Maidenhead and Heathrow in the west, through new twin-bore 21 km tunnels under central London to Shenfield and Abbey Wood in the east. It will bring an additional 1.5 million people within 60 minutes commuting distance of London's key business districts. When Crossrail opens in 2017 it will increase London's public transport network capacity by 10 per cent, supporting regeneration across the capital, helping to secure London's position as a world leading financial centre, and cutting journey times across the city. Preparatory works will continue throughout 2009 and main Crossrail construction starts in 2010. Public Enquiries: 020 7944 8300 Department for Transport Website: http://www.dft.gov.uk -----8-----End of quoted text-----8----- Original URL: http://nds.coi.gov.uk/environment/fullDetail.asp?ReleaseID=400344&NewsAreaID=2 Cheers, Barry |
Sense seen on Crossrail at last?
On May 5, 4:05*pm, 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. Whilst there is no current commitment to extend Crossrail out to Reading, safeguarding provides additional protection against future developments on the route. Transport Minister Andrew Adonis said: “Our current priority is to get on with the delivery of the Crossrail Project as it is currently planned, but safeguarding would provide additional protection against developments impacting on future operational requirements. "Safeguarding will also allow the line to be electrified in the future and for Crossrail to be extended if a case can be made to do so.” [Notes for editors snipped] -----8-----End of quoted text-----8----- Original URL: http://nds.coi.gov.uk/environment/fullDetail.asp?ReleaseID=400344&New.... It's only safeguarding of course, which doesn't mean it's actually going to happen, just that if it ever does it'll be a bit easier. 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). 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. |
Sense seen on Crossrail at last?
On May 5, 4:28*pm, Mizter T wrote:
On May 5, 4:05*pm, 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. Whilst there is no current commitment to extend Crossrail out to Reading, safeguarding provides additional protection against future developments on the route. Transport Minister Andrew Adonis said: “Our current priority is to get on with the delivery of the Crossrail Project as it is currently planned, but safeguarding would provide additional protection against developments impacting on future operational requirements. "Safeguarding will also allow the line to be electrified in the future and for Crossrail to be extended if a case can be made to do so.” [Notes for editors snipped] -----8-----End of quoted text-----8----- Original URL: http://nds.coi.gov.uk/environment/fullDetail.asp?ReleaseID=400344&New... It's only safeguarding of course, which doesn't mean it's actually going to happen, just that if it ever does it'll be a bit easier. 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). 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. 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. |
Sense seen on Crossrail at last?
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 |
Sense seen on Crossrail at last?
"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 |
Sense seen on Crossrail at last?
Mizter T wrote:
On May 5, 4:05 pm, Barry Salter wrote: NEW CROSSRAIL ROUTE SAFEGUARDED It's only safeguarding of course, which doesn't mean it's actually going to happen, just that if it ever does it'll be a bit easier. 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). 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. 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. 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? 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... Paul S |
Sense seen on Crossrail at last?
On May 5, 4:32*pm, MIG wrote: On May 5, 4:28*pm, Mizter T wrote: [snip news of Crossrail to Reading safeguarding measures] It's only safeguarding of course, which doesn't mean it's actually going to happen, just that if it ever does it'll be a bit easier. 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). 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. 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 services merely replaced by Crossrail between Maidenhead and Paddington. 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? In fact surely a large part of the argument for Crossrail going as far as Reading is that of operational convenience - Crossrail would simply take over the existing FGW Reading to Paddington stoppers. Indeed if this weren't to happen then you'd have to deal with the issue of how Crossrail trains that terminate at Maidenhead mesh with stopping services from Paddington to Reading, when simply combining the two services would be logical (or at least appears to be so). This wouldn't leave passengers any worse off either. Readers paying any attention will see a volte face from my original comments, which is the unfortunate side-effect of using usenet for the purposes of thinking aloud! I'm afraid I've never paid that much attention to the Crossrail to Reading issue (and it shows!). |
Sense seen on Crossrail at last?
On 5 May, 17:01, Mizter T wrote:
On May 5, 4:32*pm, MIG wrote: On May 5, 4:28*pm, Mizter T wrote: [snip news of Crossrail to Reading safeguarding measures] It's only safeguarding of course, which doesn't mean it's actually going to happen, just that if it ever does it'll be a bit easier. 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). 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. 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 services merely replaced by Crossrail between Maidenhead and Paddington. 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? In fact surely a large part of the argument for Crossrail going as far as Reading is that of operational convenience - Crossrail would simply take over the existing FGW Reading to Paddington stoppers. Indeed if this weren't to happen then you'd have to deal with the issue of how Crossrail trains that terminate at Maidenhead mesh with stopping services from Paddington to Reading, when simply combining the two services would be logical (or at least appears to be so). This wouldn't leave passengers any worse off either. Readers paying any attention will see a volte face from my original comments, which is the unfortunate side-effect of using usenet for the purposes of thinking aloud! I'm afraid I've never paid that much attention to the Crossrail to Reading issue (and it shows!). 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. |
Sense seen on Crossrail at last?
Paul Scott wrote on 05 May 2009
16:56:45 ... 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. 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? Is there such a debate? Crossrail have been saying for years that Crossrail would replace Connect and that HEx would continue to run. They've planned the changes to Airport Junction to achieve this. However, it wouldn't surprise me if a debate had been re-opened. The Crossrail maps show every station on the line except at Heathrow, where it just shows "Heathrow Airport". If it replaces Connect, that will mean Crossrail running to T123 and T4, and not serving the main BA terminal at T5, which never looked like a plan that would survive unscathed. -- Richard J. (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address) |
Sense seen on Crossrail at last?
Richard J. wrote:
Paul Scott wrote on 05 May 2009 16:56:45 ... 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? Is there such a debate? Crossrail have been saying for years that Crossrail would replace Connect and that HEx would continue to run. They've planned the changes to Airport Junction to achieve this. However, it wouldn't surprise me if a debate had been re-opened. Not an official debate. But a remarkable number of contributors here are convinced that HEx cannot continue as is with Crossrail. However my own understanding is the same as yours, ie I've read the Crossrail rationale... Paul S |
Sense seen on Crossrail at last?
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. |
Sense seen on Crossrail at last?
|
Sense seen on Crossrail at last?
|
Sense seen on Crossrail at last?
"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 |
Sense seen on Crossrail at last?
|
Sense seen on Crossrail at last?
|
Sense seen on Crossrail at last?
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. |
Sense seen on Crossrail at last?
"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 |
Sense seen on Crossrail at last?
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. |
Sense seen on Crossrail at last?
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 |
Sense seen on Crossrail at last?
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.. |
Sense seen on Crossrail at last?
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 |
Sense seen on Crossrail at last?
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 |
Sense seen on Crossrail at last?
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 |
Sense seen on Crossrail at last?
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 |
Sense seen on Crossrail at last?
"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 |
Sense seen on Crossrail at last?
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 |
Sense seen on Crossrail at last?
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 |
Sense seen on Crossrail at last?
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. |
Sense seen on Crossrail at last?
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. |
Sense seen on Crossrail at last?
|
Sense seen on Crossrail at last?
D DB 90001 wrote:
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 the probability that *none* of this will happen is increasing by the day. |
Sense seen on Crossrail at last?
On 6 May, 14:05, "Paul Scott" wrote:
wrote: 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? Highly unlikely to be cross platform, and may not even be on adjacent islands, as far as the various drawings of the Reading layout show. It won't be cross-platform - fast London's will leave from current platforms 8 & 9, the slows / crossrail would be from the 3 extra platforms (behind current Plat 9 and a further island platform to the north of that. |
Sense seen on Crossrail at last?
On May 6, 2:33*pm, Tony Polson wrote: D DB 90001 wrote: 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 the probability that *none* of this will happen is increasing by the day. I think John B is on the record as saying he'll eat a hat factory if there hasn't been an announcement by the end of the year. That said, perhaps he's calculated that there won't be any hat factories left! Of course an announcement in the next year doesn't mean that what gets announced will actually happen - the government's going to change next May, and the Tories are talking about making lots of "hard choices" (see the other thread about the purported Tory threat to Crossrail... though I do wonder if this is a pre-emptive strike by Boris & co or some other interested pro-Crossrail protagonist(s)... ) |
Sense seen on Crossrail at last?
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.[*] [snip] Except that (if I've got this right) in the evening peak you can use off-peak tickets on the slower Turbo services but not on the HSTs, at least for journeys leaving London - though to outsiders this information is rather hard to come by. |
Sense seen on Crossrail at last?
On May 6, 4:45*pm, Mizter T wrote:
Of course the probability that *none* of this will happen is increasing by the day. I think John B is on the record as saying he'll eat a hat factory if there hasn't been an announcement by the end of the year. That said, perhaps he's calculated that there won't be any hat factories left! Hehe. Electrification is an uncontroversially popular programme, except among wilful contrarians ('Polsons'). The government is uncontroversially screwed. An announcement would very slightly reduce the extent by which the government lost the next election, and it would also make the Tories look like public-transport-hating, gas-guzzling *******s if they were to cancel after winning. Therefore, there is no reason for the government not to announce it, and every reason for them to do so. (it's possible that I'm underestimating the current government's potential to do deliberately stupid things for no reason that makes everyone hate it, c.f. Gurkhas. In which case I suppose I should look into hat factory closing-down sales). Of course an announcement in the next year doesn't mean that what gets announced will actually happen - the government's going to change next May, and the Tories are talking about making lots of "hard choices" (see the other thread about the purported Tory threat to Crossrail... though I do wonder if this is a pre-emptive strike by Boris & co or some other interested pro-Crossrail protagonist(s)... ) If the recent Crossrail fuss isn't coming directly from Boris himself, the campaign has conveniently forced him to nail his Crossrail colours to the mast (as well as stitching up Blears, which is an excellent pursuit in and of itself). Given that the Tories will be nervous about winning next time round - they were on track for an epic loss in 1983 after Thatcher failed to halt the recession, right up until the mad Argentinian general invaded - and that London is historic swing-land, which they need to hold to keep the country, I'd be amazed to see Crossrail axed (the cost doesn't matter one way or another: that kind of electoral calculus always allows an extra few billion to be dug out of the woodwork). GWML and MML electrification, although *actually* necessary and although cancellation would be unpopular, aren't *electorally* critical in the same way, so might indeed be canned when the Stupid Party get in. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Sense seen on Crossrail at last?
"Chris" wrote It won't be cross-platform - fast London's will leave from current platforms 8 & 9, the slows / crossrail would be from the 3 extra platforms (behind current Plat 9 and a further island platform to the north of that. AIUI existing 5 & 8 will be the Down Main platforms, 9 and a new face opposite it will be theUp Main platforms, and the Relief/Crossrail platforms will be two new islands beyond that. Peter |
Sense seen on Crossrail at last?
In message
, at 09:51:46 on Wed, 6 May 2009, remarked: Electrification is an uncontroversially popular programme, except among wilful contrarians ('Polsons'). I thought the residents in the vicinity of Maidenhead were opposed to the ugly looking OHL? Or have they come to terms with it now. -- Roland Perry |
Sense seen on Crossrail at last?
Mizter T wrote:
I think John B is on the record as saying he'll eat a hat factory if there hasn't been an announcement by the end of the year. That said, perhaps he's calculated that there won't be any hat factories left! That's probably the most useful thing John Band has ever said on here. I sincerely hope he gets to keep his promise. Of course an announcement in the next year doesn't mean that what gets announced will actually happen - the government's going to change next May, and the Tories are talking about making lots of "hard choices" NuLabour has been littered with announcements and re-announcements (and re-re-announcements) of things they are going to do, but don't. This will be no different. (see the other thread about the purported Tory threat to Crossrail... though I do wonder if this is a pre-emptive strike by Boris & co or some other interested pro-Crossrail protagonist(s)... ) Boris is as much a thorn in the Tories' side as Ken was in Labour's. ;-) |
Sense seen on Crossrail at last?
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. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:17 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk