Great Western Coffee Shop

I read something in rail magazine a while back, that said a possible third track may be inserted between Slough and Hanwell so that some faster crossrail services could run between Maidenhead and Central London. However it seems since the article was written that little action has been taken. I think the article was in the August 2012 Modern Rail Mag. Can anyone confirm if that statement is true or whether it's just talk, thank you :)

Network Rail's London & South East RUS looked at having two additional lines between Ladbroke Grove and Airport Junction, but ruled it out due to the amount of disruption to install as well as the high cost.

The favoured alternative, which Network Rail are pursuing (Option A5) is for Crossrail services to run more frequently, but with a skip-stop pattern as well as mainline EMUs running at 110mph along with all peak hour Heathrow services running on the relief lines with a mixture of calling patterns.

Thankyou Network Southeast, some useful information.
Problem with that is without additional tracks the train services even from heathrow let alone Maidenhead, will be slower due to more trains that have to call at Southall, West Ealing and Acton Mainline. That means that if disruption occurs well you have a major problem on your hands.
Also it makes sense for Heathrow Express to stay on the relief lines all day instead of switching tracks during off peak periods.

What i would suggest to network rail is to run 2 tph from Maidenhead to London during the peaks and off peaks, which i think is what they will do.
At least the train stock will be air conditioned Class 350's or Class 377's that can do 110mph!.

The reason why the Heathow Express services won't stay on the relief lines all day is because the capacity is needed for freight trains.

The proposed Option A5, which Network Rail DO want to pursue will see 4tph in the peaks between Reading and Paddington, with all of them stopping at Maidenhead. Half will also stop at Slough and the others will also stop at Twyford. These services will start at Reading on the relief lines and will cross over to the main lines, some after Maidenhead, some after Slough.

A resignalling is also proposed.

If Network Rail get their way and Option A5 becomes a reality we'll see the following peak services (although not for a few years):

20tph main line peak service
 - 9 IEP services
 - 1 HST service
 - 4 Reading to Paddington shuttles (as I describe above, but running on relief lines Reading to Maidenhead/Slough)
 - 6 LTV services (from Oxford, Newbury and potentially Basingstoke (option F6)) running non stop between Paddington and Reading

16tph relief line peak service
 - 8tph Crossrail to Heathrow Terminal 5
 - 2tph Crossrail to Heathrow Terminal 4
 - 4tph Crossrail to Reading
 - 2tph Crossrail to Slough

Originally the Crossrail works included a fifth passenger track between just east of Langley and just east of West Drayton, (achievable with an upgrade and extension to the current up goods line) which would be reversible and allow stopping trains to be overtaken by faster trains on the relief in the peak hours.  Has that plan now been removed from the Crossrail works?

I'm not aware of any plan to drop it. The up relief line would take the place of the current goods loop, with the existing up relief line becoming the new bi-directional goods loop.

You mean bi-directional passenger loop?  It would be useful in the peaks in the up direction in the morning and down direction in the evening, and useful for freights and as an overtaking section when there's late running in between - though I await with interest how that all fits in with the revised layout at West Drayton and the connection to the Colnbrook freight branch.

We have discussed this in the Crossrail thread and the drawing referred to in a post by Industry Insider (not me  ::)) can be found here: http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/s18-xrail-appx2_single_line_GW.pdf

This "fifth line" has been banned about for many years, at least 30 to my knowledge. One iteration I saw was to run the UP stoppers from Plat 6 at Slough along it leaving the UP Relief as a bi-di; Langley Stn, Hayes Stn and Southall Stn needed the UP Relief platforms and buildings demolished along with quite a few bridge rebuilds and land takes so the line can run from Slough or the very least Dolphin Jcn, It has always come down to cost BR just never had the money.

True.   ;)

Things do change though, and I was a little surprised to see Network SouthEast hadn't mentioned it in his reply to the OP, given that he's obviously pretty well up-to-speed on the situation, so I just thought I'd ask...

I'm a little late to the party regarding plans for Crossrail and the Western route. Every time I read again the same documents (of which there are so many), I still find new information. For example, the map which S&T gives you credit for is the first time I have seen it. So even I learn something new every now and again  :)

Thank you once again Network Southeast, maybe you should run the runways :)
Even tho the possible skip stop pattern of services will run it will be a mess.
It means that if passenger numbers grow rapidly as they have done, they will be no more capacity. So really another track between Slough and Hanwell (possibly to London Paddington due to the capacity problems) is needed sooner rather than later, regards of the cost. Really people need to look at the Passenger rather than continually at money, as you have to invest in rail services now and in future years to come, and i don't agree with anything else sorry.

I didn't realise we were in a position where government could fund everything that needed doing regardless of cost.

Well if the government could fund everything, then we would be seeing the construction of two additional lines between Hayes and London Paddington, to make 6 tracks, which isn't going to happen.
The feeling i get is that the government are spending money on wasteful things rather than the things that are needed, and i also speak on a general scale as well

Like what?

Like High Speed 2 which is costing the country billion's of pounds which isnt needed, as a lot of people have protested against.
Or the government generally isnt doing anything, anything to save money, you know cut backs, surely u heard of that no?

The majority of whom (although not exclusively, in the interests of balance) appear to be affected by the proposals, so would have to declare an interest in any debate. What's interesting is that the proposal still has broad cross party support - not many subjects of national interest are in that position.

Unfortunately those who benefit from HS2 don't live in the FGW area.  They are the small minority of the country (33%) who live in Scotland and the North of England whose views therefore do not count. The same number of people who live in London and the South East are much more important.

Clearly since HS2 will not benefit London and the South East it is a waste of money.  But we have had that argument elsewhere on this forum.

However, spending the same amount of money on moving Heathrow to the Thames Estuary is somehow seen as a really good deal, presumably because those who benefit live in London and the South East.  For the rest of use it will make the UK's only hub airport much less accessible.

What percentage of our population live in London and the South East - yes a huge proportion 33%!  So we must do whatever they ask.

Of course those of us who live in the South West (<5%) know we don't count.

At a cost of around ^1600 per UK tax payer for phases one and two of HS2, or ^160 per year for the 10 years to build it, then everyone in the UK is affected by the proposals to build HS2.

I'd like to see the ^43 billion (a recent jump of ^10 billion in the estimated cost) earmarked for HS2 phases one and two, spent on rail infrastructure nationwide, not on a political/rail industry vanity project, the business case for which has certainly not convinced me. Or indeed many who have looked at the project from a neutral standpoint.

Ask most taxpayers if they'd like a high speed rail line at a cost to them of ^160 a year for 10 years and you may just find that wide public support for HS2 isn't there. On the flip side, ask those same people if they'd like to see a portion of that ^160 spent on public transport provision in and around the area they live, then they may just be more amenable.

Of course, the individual taxpayer has no direct say in where the money paid to the treasury in tax is actually spent.

And why are you considering it to be a vanity project?  Is it because the opponents have mounted a publicity campaign to say so.  All we hear in the press says that.  So we all believe it.  Their arguments were so good that a court has thrown out their case. 

Of course we could provide some additional capacity on the West Coast Main Line by small improvements (such as the work at Stafford which has just started), but in the end it needs another pair of tracks.  You can either put this on the existing route which would entail building at night and at weekends - which would massively increase the cost and would be incredibly disruptive to existing customers. Also since it would go through all the towns on route it will involve demolishing many more buildings. 

Providing additional capacity on the West Coast Main Line also has some knock-on benefits to the East Coast Mail Line and the Midland Main Line. So it makes sense to do the job properly.  Unfortunately it does not provide benefits for FGW passengers, though some of us also venture north so would benefit on those occasions.

Sorry Mods wandered off topic.

Only reason why i wrote this post in the first place, is that in the longer term trains from the Thames Valley east of Reading would use the relief lines instead of crossing onto mains which of course at present reduces capacity during the peak times for Intercity services not to mention the possible punctuality problems that they may face.

Now that we know that Crossrail will terminate at Maidenhead as planned, it would be a good idea to run Crossrail services of at least 1tph from Henley, 1tph from Bourne End and these would of course run relief line only.
The other 4 tph would run from Maidenhead, however it's silly to run a shuttle between Reading and Slough of 2 tph when you could run 2 crossrail trains per hour (peak times) from Reading to Central London.

Plus of course, the non stop trains, from Maidenhead that currently use the mainlines should run relief line only, by calling at; Slough and possibly Ealing Broadway, with a possible increase in journey times but at least the trains would run as 10 car units, Although this plan may be a cause of tension and protest if it became reality.

Oh that'll be fun running 10 car trains on to Bourne End which only has a 5 car platform not to mention Cookham and Furze Platt and the Henley branch is the same.

Crossrail will I am sure start out terminating at Maidenhead in 2018/9 my guess will a couple of years after a change will be made to run Crossrail to Reading.

Well if that is a problem, then because Maidenhead is going to be the terminating point, the train would divide at Maidenhead with one portion for Henley (5 CAR) and one portion for Bourne End (5 CAR), however it also depends on how long the 5 car train will be... and if needs be the platform at Bourne End may need lengthening with realigned track if the platform will get in the way of it. At Henley it isn't a problem as the platform could be lengthened with possible track realignment.
With Furze Platt the only direction the platform could be lengthened is northwards, likewise Cookham can only be lengthened southwards. I have no knowledge about Wargrave and Shiplake stations, however if needs be the selective door option would need to be operational. At the end of the day the people of the Marlow and Henley branch would also like a direct crossrail service to london, and if that means spending money for this to happen then so be it. Its a risk yes but worth a try... :)




Edit note: Quote marks fixed, for clarity. CfN.

The Crossrail trains aren't going to be two 5 car trains coupled together, they are going to be just one train made of 10 carriages. They will be the same length all day on all routes. So all 10 carriages would need to go to Bourne End or Henley.

I personally think the idea is a non starter. I think Crossrail trains carrying on beyond Maidenhead to Reading, rather than Henley or Bourne End would be a better option.



Edit note: Quote marks fixed, for clarity. CfN.

I really don't know why, but i read some where that the trains would be 5 car sets instead of being a long 10 car unit. If it happens to be just a 10 car train then, it's not designed correctly. Whats the point of electrifying the branches if Crossrail trains cant even run down them? Its a waste of money yet again.



Edit note: Quote marks fixed, for clarity. CfN.

The branches were never due to be electrified as part of Crossrail.

The branches are being electrified as part of the Thames Valley branches scheme, which will see the Windsor, Bourne End and Henley lines electrified. Because of the wider GWML electrification scheme, the benefits of electrifying the branches will enable the electric fleet of trains to be operated more efficiently, as well as enabling more DMUs to be cascaded to other lines.

Fair enough. It would have been better to run Crossrail on the reliefs and branches only, rather than other operator running on them as well, regards of the rolling stock used. However i do understand why Crossrail can't be the only operator due to capacity issues. It feels as if the whole crossrail thing will be a nightmare once it starts, slow trains, no direct crossrail services from the thames valley branches and high ticket prices. Rock on Crossrail!



Edit note: Quote marks fixed, for clarity. CfN.

Bit judgemental to say there will be high ticket prices, not too sure if the ticketing has been published yet my guess there will be an Oyster extension to Maidenhead (like there is to Watford)  There are only 4 through trains on the Bourne End branch now which I believe will continue post Crossrail.

The benefits for Maidenhead passengers using Crossrail will be elimination of changing to / from the Tube at Padd which takes quite a bit of time in the peaks



Edit note: Quote marks fixed, for clarity. CfN.

Maybe i am judgemental however everything is this place seems to rise and rise in price, so how are people going to believe that the fares may be cheaper?
And who's to say the oyster thingy will come to Maidenhead, and bit out of the way is it not? I suppose at the end of the day who will operate Maidenhead Station will give us a better idea of the available ticket prices.

Yes the direct Crossrail service between Maidenhead and Central London is great, if only it didn't take 40 plus minutes as Crossrail proposes it would. Thats why a third track is needed asap, even now as we speak.



Edit note: Quote marks fixed, for clarity. CfN.

The mess results from four publicy funded projects affecting the same bit of Railway line.

First there's Crossrail who could only afford, after they'd spent all the money on digging the tunnels, to electrify from just west of Airport Junction Airport to Maidenhead and not Reading. Besides Reading unrebuilt wouldn't have been able to handle  Crossrail.

Then the Reading rebuild was annouced which has some provision for Crossrail.

Then the Great Western Main Line Electrification was approved which would sling the wires West from Maidenhead.

So already you had Crossrail using Networkrail to electrify from Airport Junction to Maidenhead with Networkrail also electryfying West from from Maidenhead. The trouble being although it's all public money it comes from different buckets. The situation is further compicated in that Crossrail was a parliamentary bill which specified in great detail what's to be done whereas GWML elecctrification is just approved by DaFT (and the Treasury)

Then someone came up with the idea of electrifying the TV branches, Although not the Greenford one which is in  TFL territory! This adds the complication that there will be two local servcie operaors. One Crossrail workng from Maidenhead through the tunnels and a TOC local service working from Oxford/Newbury to Padd  plus the branches.

A properly planned integrated railway!



 

You would definitely have read of 5 car Crossrail trains, because all the original Crossrail Act information describes pairs of 5 car trains running in the peaks, with the declared intention of reducing to single units off-peak and at weekends etc.

However, IIRC (from discussions elsewhere a good few years ago), this immediately raised an issue regarding their intention to have platform edge doors (PEDs) in the tunnelled section, because they'd be introducing a significant risk concerning stopping position accuracy, and controlling the PEDs differently on a train by train basis.  When paired up the presence of back to back cabs in the middle of the train would have to leave all the other door positions usable, which I assume is manageable by design.  Then there's a slightly different issue with having particular carriages laid out for DDA purposes - there'd be two DDA areas in a 5+5 train, which would stop at different places to that of a single train, unless that train stopped at one end of the platform - and of course that would seriously reduce the benefits of having double ended stations in the central section.

Whatever, by the time the stock was at the stage of an ITT being issued, they had changed their minds, and 10 car (or 200m) trains were specified.  Apart from the above, halving the number of driving cabs presumably has a significant cost reduction, given the numbers of complex equipment fits each cab needs, once you account for the normal driving controls there's also all the GSM(R), TPWS, AWS, LU style ATO, CCTV displays etc etc...

(When the Jubilee line fleet was extended by adding an extra car to all the existing trains, it was done in a big bang over a Christmas/New Year line closure, apparently the main reason for this was the perceived risk of having a PED failure with the two lengths of train in service together.)

Paul

Thank You paul, that statement is useful so i have a better understanding of what is going now :)
I do hope they pursue the 5+5 Car option as it would be beneficial to all concerned.
However if they don't it may cause a bit of upset on the branches, although at the end of the day, what is done is done.
Then the people on the branches just have to put up with other services...

Dead right you can't have an integrated railway what ever next!

Well to make matters better, they may see that Taplow and Iver don't deserve 4 trains an hour during peak periods due to low passenger demand thats what. Do those planners exactly come to the areas that Crossrail will have an effect on, for some reason i have my doubts... (Oh wait only the Central London and Heathrow Airport part thingy is important no surprise there then)

I suspect that the journey time improvements offered by Crossrail in the central section will be so dramatic that the line will quickly become preferred over existing underground routes for may journeys. In which case 5 coach trains off peak are unlikely to cope even with the frequency proposed. If this means that Crossrail can't serve any of the GW branches then so be it - it's never been the intention anyway.

As i have said before its poor planning from Crossrail, anyway ill leave it at that.

They won't 'pursue it' at all though, as I already said they are definitely ordering 200 metre fixed formation trains. The decision was made and this is their current position:

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/articles/crossrail-issues-rolling-stock-depot-tender

60 x 200m, (with 10 x 20m carriages expected), still corresponds to the 600 vehicles they have consistently mentioned as needed for the peak service...

thnaks James cheered me up no end! Unfortunately I think you are probably right.

I think you're right too. It's definitely time to use it or lose it along the smaller stations in the Thames Valley.

I'm thinking that Crossrail will have it's own fare structure (yes, likely on Oyster I think), with the ability to buy extension tickets to join Crossrail trains at your nearest station - so extension tickets up the branches provided you use Crossrail into London.

That's not the case with London Overground though, nor will it be the case on Thameslink.

Thameslink isn't a TfL franchise.

LO is, and I think completely usable with an Oyster?

I think there's a risk of overcomplicating what might happen with the fares.  Within zones 1 to 6, ie as far as West Drayton, the fares already exist, and there'd be no need to do anything at all.  As the GW route involved was part of Oyster PAYG before the final rollout to all TOCs, it is in the 'green zone' where TfL's 'Tube/Rail/DLR' zonal fares already apply.  It is the Shenfield arm of the route where it is expected that fares will be altered to the TfL rates, rather than TOC rates, this diagram attempts to explain this:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/tickets/national-rail-map.pdf

Then the precedent used so far wherever Oyster availability extends outside the fare zones, is that the existing National Rail fares are used 'as is'.  

Paul

  

Yes, you can use Oyster throughout on London Overground. But there aren't any special fares for London Overground services where they share lines with other TOCs such as Southern and London Midland.

That's why I think it will be unlikely there'll be any special Crossrail fares between Maidenhead and Paddington.

They may start with base fares 'as is', but will immediately come under the TfL price rise mechanism rather than the TOC price rise mechanism - and they've been different in the past, so I suspect that there will need to be a Crossrail only fare at stations that FGW also stop at.

Why are you so sure? 

That is NOT what currently happens at Watford Junction, and other similar stations on c2c with Oyster PAYG available, but outside the zonal area.

Paul

So who sets the fare at Watford Junction?

AS I've already saud, we're talking TfL contracts, not TOC ones. so LO and going forward Crossrail only.

Also, Crossrail has a central core of new route, where currently there are no fares set. The central stations won't be classed as 'London Terminals' for sure, as Farringdon isn't now. So there will be new Crossrail fares from the off. Yes, Travelcards will be valid, but single (assuming its all Oysterised to the extremities) fares will still be required. TfL will presumably set these (who else?)

London Midland.   The equivalent at Maidenhead etc would be that FGW retained the fare setting role. 

Through fares starting outside the zonal area, to stations within Zone 1 are set by the TOCs adding to their London Terminals fare.  Suitable fares for a journey such as 'Reading to Farringdon' therefore already exist, and would be shown as Reading to U1 on a ticket. 

All the central Crossrail stations, and AFAICT all those anywhere within the zones, will have common gatelines with the relevant LU station, so would have to charge the same fare as the normal 'underground' - eg there is no way to differentiate a Crossrail journey from Ealing Broadway to Liverpool St from the same journey on the Central Line.

The situation regarding stations 'beyond and between' London Terminals, ie at Farringdon, is already a bit of a nightmare under Thameslink, where different rules apply from stations on the MML north of St Pancras who have a valid destination of London Thameslink - AIUI this is good as far as Elephant and Castle.

Crossrail can hardly make it any worse.

Paul  

Crossrail however can, and should be IMHO, competition for FGW.

You may be right, but I'd like to see them undercut FGW, especially if/when it reaches Reading. That might ease the crush on the HSTs if they get the differential right, and/or introduce skip-stop pattwern of service making the journey time/fare differential worth considering.

Trick one that. If the Crossrail franchise is like Overground, and assuming it does not run at a profit, then London taxpayers would be subsidising competition with a commercial company.  That presents all sorts of issues.

Why? Crossrail is surely not designed to be competition for FGW really. If you are coming from Reading it is going to be so much quicker to take an FGW service into London that I doubt many would transfer to Crossrail. The price undercut required would probably undermine the whole fares structure on the route, you'd have to lower fares along the whole line just to make Reading fares attractive enough to tempt people onto a much slower train. The only limited competition would be at Slough, Maidenhead and Twyford. And the extent on the competition at those stations will depend on service patterns.

This board was ment for Slough to Hanwell and third track possibility, but i think most has been said about this earlier on in this thread. I have no idea why it has wondered of into posts for Competition and fares. Remember there are other areas of the coffee shop where you can post these things. Therefore i want to call and end to this thread and can the mods please remove it, or transfer the relevent parts to more appriopriate areas. Thankyou

It took me a while to realise just how interlinked all the various elements of railway provision, operation and finance really are.  I've no idea how this one "morphed" either, but I'm not surprised. When you start a thread, you've no idea where it will go; you may feel you have some sort of "grandfather" rights over it and in terms of influence and advise, yes you do ... but only a very little.  In fact, the more I think of it, the more grandfather / granddaughter  it reminds me of; we have a lovely granddaughter, we have everything needed for her to visit us and perhaps stay. But it's all been outgrown and never used because in an extended family riddled with nursery school qualified people, we're untrained apart from through the school of life. So - we celebrate our granddaughter, we see her occasionally, we rejoice as she grows and becomes a person rather than a baby.   So, James, celebrate your thread and the fascinating discussion you've triggered.



I'm going to leave it to another of the moderator team who, I suspect, has been following more closely than I have and will know whether and where to split to make the discussions more followable and a better resource for the future; and I'm certainly going to restrain from deleting anything; such action's unnecessary and I always feel that deleting even a single post is changing history, and is showing a disrespect of the person who put time and interest and knowledge and his/her personality into writing it.  Splitting and moving to give better indexing / exposure?  Maybe.

Thank You Grahame, to be honest yes i do agree with you on some things such as the wonderful things people have put into the thread, however I have sort of dropped the idea of removal of this thread after discovering it may just be better to split or move it into areas that are more appropriate. Just also wanted to say thankyou to everyone who has posted in this thread, some information such as the Track Layout of Crossrail is very useful and didn't know it existed until it was posted by Southern Stag i think. So thankyou :)
Feel free to post anything that relates to the topic.
Cheers Guys