Crossrail/Elizabeth Line. From construction to operation - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[grahame]

Thanks for posting that, Paul.  I would love to see what the revised Iteration 5 looks like.  12tph in the peak heading west would, I guess, mean 4tph to Heathrow, 2tph to Reading, 2tph to Maidenhead, 2tph to West Drayton and...what else....?!  Six to Heathrow? More to Maidenhead or Reading?

Logic is a 15 minute cycle as far as West Drayton - so two more to there.  Every 15 minutes
- a train to Heathrow
- a train to Maidenhead (alternate extended to Reading)
- a train to West Drayton

But the what's going to use that shining new refreshed bay at Hayes and Harlington?

[IndustryInsider]

The bay platform at Hayes would need further extensive and expensive lengthening to fit a 200m Crossrail Class 345 within it.  I think it was only ever meant as a stop-gap platform for the Hayes electric service which is due to cease in May 2018, after which it will be of very limited use.

[TonyK]

And what about the way they can say "we want five semi-fast paths in each peak taken off GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway)"? I imagine that will concern members of this forum more!

Quite right. It could almost be seen as franchise amendment by stealth and / or force.

[stuving]

The bay platform at Hayes would need further extensive and expensive lengthening to fit a 200m Crossrail Class 345 within it.  I think it was only ever meant as a stop-gap platform for the Hayes electric service which is due to cease in May 2018, after which it will be of very limited use.

The drawings of H&H station submitted for planning purposes are marked "new platform 5 face = 237.65 m".

An odd value, you may think. I imagine it's what there is to the end of platform 4, once you close the level access from Station Approach.

[IndustryInsider]

It would be good if a further extension was forthcoming, if only to be able to deal with Elizabeth Line trains when there are problems further west.

[ChrisB]

And what about the way they can say "we want five semi-fast paths in each peak taken off GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway)"? I imagine that will concern members of this forum more!

Quite right. It could almost be seen as franchise amendment by stealth and / or force.

Those in favour of TfL^» (Transport for London - about)/Mayor Khan extending their influence by taking over suburban London services need to think again. This will happen wherever he gets them. They won't release additional paths for longer distance trains as they suggest in an 'agreement' either.

[stuving]

The drawings of H&H station submitted for planning purposes are marked "new platform 5 face = 237.65 m".

An odd value, you may think. I imagine it's what there is to the end of platform 4, once you close the level access from Station Approach.

It would be good if a further extension was forthcoming, if only to be able to deal with Elizabeth Line trains when there are problems further west.

As I meant to imply, those are the plans as approved and now being built (unless they have run out of money). Sorry if that wasn't clear. The new concourse is at road bridge level but north of the station, leading to the footbridge across the longer platform 5 track.

Platform 5 is longer than shown in the drawings with the act/bill, but then the definitive information they needed to show was the land take and work sites. The station designs came later.

What is much less clear is the status of platform 1. It's shown in the application as existing and extended, but nowhere mentioned in the words, not even the list of extension lengths nor the lighting plan. Nor is there anything to say whether it will be fenced off and unlocked only when needed. But then there is nothing to suggest that platform 2 will be fenced off either.

[ChrisB]

Thanks for posting that, Paul.  I would love to see what the revised Iteration 5 looks like. 

Iteration 6 perhaps? :-)

[IndustryInsider]

As I meant to imply, those are the plans as approved and now being built (unless they have run out of money). Sorry if that wasn't clear. The new concourse is at road bridge level but north of the station, leading to the footbridge across the longer platform 5 track.

Platform 5 is longer than shown in the drawings with the act/bill, but then the definitive information they needed to show was the land take and work sites. The station designs came later.

What is much less clear is the status of platform 1. It's shown in the application as existing and extended, but nowhere mentioned in the words, not even the list of extension lengths nor the lighting plan. Nor is there anything to say whether it will be fenced off and unlocked only when needed. But then there is nothing to suggest that platform 2 will be fenced off either.

Good news about Platform 5 - I hadn't realised the concourse was moving up to the road level.  Platform 1 has already been extended and can fit in a full-length Class 345, so no need for further works there - aside from footbridge access to it.

[SandTEngineer]

I thought I had mentioned this somewhere before but the Signalling Scheme Plan shows Hayes and Harlington Platform No.5 as having a useable length of 218m.  Other useable platform lengths are: P1=234m; P2=242m; P3=220m and P4=230m.

Health Warning: The Signalling Scheme Plan is dated June 2011

[didcotdean]

I love the way TfL^» (Transport for London - about) can say "We want four new trains", and no-one laughs.

And what about the way they can say "we want five semi-fast paths in each peak taken off GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway)"? I imagine that will concern members of this forum more!

I wouldn't be surprised if the longer term aim of TfL is to have all the relief line passenger train paths east of Maidenhead.

[ChrisB]

Oh, I'm sure it is. Isn't that what their track access agreement gives them?

Eventually, to Reading maybe too!

And anyone West of London is disenfranchised anout it too, as they have no vote on the Mayor! Same as those in Amersham on the Met, who can't complain/influence TfL^» (Transport for London - about) either.

[IndustryInsider]

Oh, I'm sure it is. Isn't that what their track access agreement gives them?

I don't think it does.  I think it will give other operators (i.e. GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway)) the right to two off-peak paths an hour, as well as the peak paths and with freight fitting in the mix too.  That's not to say it might change over time though, as per this proposal we've been discussing since yesterday to take some/all of the peak paths on the relief lines from GWR.

[SandTEngineer]

Note that the new track layout at Maidenhead is arranged so that Eastbound Relief Line services can terminate in Platforms No.4 or 5 and return West therefrom, so watch this space

[eightf48544]

Note that the new track layout at Maidenhead is arranged so that Eastbound Relief Line services can terminate in Platforms No.4 or 5 and return West therefrom, so watch this space

They can also turnround from the East in Platform 2 Up Main but only from the Down Main back onto the Up. There is a stop signal at the West end of the platform 2,