Great Western Coffee Shop

"Theresa May calls for more fast and semi-fast rail services from Maidenhead and Twyford

A call for more fast and semi-fast train services running from Maidenhead and Twyford has been made by Theresa May.

The Maidenhead MP said there should be more of the service running to and from London Paddington to reflect commuters' working patterns.

She made the comments in response to a Network Rail consultation on the future of the Great Western Main Line, which is aiming to set out a strategic vision for the next 30 years of the rail network.

In Mrs May's submission to the consultation, she urged Network Rail to look at increasing the number of fast and semi-fast services beyond the current peak periods to respond to modern working patterns which are seeing more and more people working to flexible arrangements.

She said: ^With people making more use of flexible working arrangements, there is a need for more fast and semi-fast services beyond the current peak periods ^ this means services throughout the day to ensure that the timetable keeps pace with modern patterns of work.^

The Home Secretary also welcomed Network Rail's commitment to assessing the feasibility of semi-fast Crossrail services to cut the time between Maidenhead and Paddington.

She said the best approach would be for Crossrail to provide semi-fast services alongside those already offered by First Great Western to offer more choice for commuters."


http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/News/Areas/Maidenhead/Theresa-May-calls-for-more-fast-and-semi-fast-rail-services-from-Maidenhead-and-Twyford-12012015.htm

NIMBY!

Surely that applies to commuters using any TV station? Therefore they should get more fast & semi-fast services?

Yeah right! Is she going to pay for the extra tracks, perchance....

I imagine this is primarily a pre-retaliation against the suggestion of "segregation" (Option A1) in the Route Study - meaning removing all semifast services (defined as crossing from the Reliefs to the Mains somewhere between Reading and Airport Jn) so as to maximise the number of Main Line paths.

And not NIMBY in any real sense, just a very partisan demand, which isn't out of order for a submission to a very preliminary study from a constituency MP.

I disagree, sorry, for exactly the reasons I give.

She needs to come up with a better reason than her constituents changing working pattern, as that applies to everyone, not just her constituents - thus the NIMBY charge

But what, exactly, is she asking to have built somewhere else, as it would ruin her patch?

And she isn't MP for anywhere else, so can quite properly make a claim that applies generally and only relate it to her electors.

And, as the study includes a set of assumed objectives, she can suggest changes there - which is I think what this is.

By definition, more of these will take paths unusable by trains serving other stations....thus worsening the offer for other commuters not on her patch.

How about the fact that Maidenhead is the 7th busiest station on the FGW network (4.12m entries and exits in 2012-13) and yet:
- All direct trains in the mornings and evenings are consistently overcrowded, particularly since the downgrade from HST to turbo.
- There is only 1 direct train out of Paddington between 18:00 and 19:00.  A turbo.
- The two following direct trains out of Paddington are 3 carriage turbos including a Henley train which are notoriously overcrowded as it is.
- We have no direct services at weekends (50mins to Paddington)

And for Twyford? Where in the rankigs are they?

Surely that depends on how you provide more capacity (that is a basic assumption of the study). And "solutioneering", and its details such as how to allocate paths, is NR's technical business, and not something a mere MP should try to second guess. She should - and did - stick to suggesting some deficiencies in their objectives as regards her voters.

And as for NIMBY - isn't that an attitude of "It's a good thing, they should build one, we'd use it, but don't build it near where we live/play golf/ride our horses/whatever"?
 

Not at all...its asking for improvements that may well stitch up other local constituency commuters while gaining improvements for hers.

I consider that nimbyism too

For my clarity, do you mean "non-stop" when you say "direct"?

..or they may not. That's a technical matter, best left to the "considering" she was asking for.

Really, I can't see there's much a constituency MP could say that you'd approve of.

Surely improved services from Twyford and Maidenhead would free up capacity on the often very crowded stoppers for places such as West Drayton, Hayes and Southall?

They would, but where do you find the additional paths to what's proposed already?

Yep

True, it probably would free up space on stoppers but it would result in an increase in overcrowding on the fast services because you would need to cut services out in order to fit additional calls at Tywford & Maidenhead in.  There just isn't the space on the mains. 
Things might improve with the IEP and a new fleet of electric multiple units with superior acceleration.

Indeed, but the proposed IEP timetable has already made use of those too....

To what extent is IEP/Crossrail expected to "solve" the overcrowding problem, or is it merely likely to reduce it for a bit in the short term until the increase in passenger numbers swallows up the additional capacity?

IEP produces a 20% gain in capacity when run in 'HST lengths' (I reckon that means 9car electrics?) and therefore slightly more than that when two 5car bi-modes form a service.

Your guess is as good as mine re the EMU replacement of the turbos, as they haven't yet been confirmed...

The solution is simple - double decker trains. Seeing as they are raising bridges for the electrification, it would be the ideal to raise them sufficiently for that ....

As far as I know, CrossRail platforms are 250m long to accommodate 200m trains so there's is scope to increase capacity in the future. They were original.  It should solve overcrowding as they're going to be 9-car trains with a seating capacity of 450 and a design capacity of 1500.  Big increase on what we have currently. (A 3-car 165 has around 270 seats)
As for the IEP.  I'm not convinced.  5-car IEP trains replacing 8-car HSTs??  I can see another CrossCountry situation happening again.


I think they should have built Crossrail tunnels to a double deck gauge as well as lifting bridges to allow for double deck trains.  There's no future planning, it's all short term thinking.

I'm getting confused with wording again - ?design capacity? - 450 seated and 1050 standing? 2.3 times the number of standees as seats?  Maidenhead to London users will be overjoyed!  ;D

Oh, Mrs May wants the IEPs to stop I'm sure, not the Crossrail trains....

In terms of gross numbers, this did come up not long ago. The answer I posted then was from the "London and South East Route Utilisation Strategy July 2011" (revised here):

There are three 2010 base figures: capacity in seat, seats plus "acceptable standing", and actual numbers carried. That last one may be demand, unless that's well above capacity in which case demand is unknown.

There's a pre-RUS baseline capacity, i.e. including CP4 infrastructure enhancements and further things known and "committed" (Reading, Crossrail) or announced by the government to 2011 (SET, electrification, etc).

Then there's 2031 predicted demand, based on a huge increase on the relief/Crossrail side (211%) and "only" 55% on the mains and HEX.

This gives, for the morning peak hour arrivals:

Lines	2010	2010	2010	committed	2031	2031
	seats	+standing	actual	capacity	demand	unmet
Relief-Crossrail	2,500	3,100	4,100	17,600	12,800	-
Main	8,000	8,300	9,000	9,200	13,600	4,400
Heathrow Express	2,800	2,800	800	2,800	1,300	-

The table actually says "main line and other fast trains", so I guess it includes those that swap onto the mains after Reading. However, there must still be some some assumption built into the figures about how, for example, Maidenhead commuters split between the Crossrail and fast trains.

Those figures are into Paddington, where the increase is pretty big. For Maidenhead specifically, standing isn't "acceptable"all the way to Paddington on Crossrail. Logically, the number of trains that run from or through MAI has to be increased to eliminate standing, so the question is whether that logic will actually be applied.

The Western Route Study doesn't include these numbers for capacity added by Crossrail and SET - its starting point is the "committed" case in 2019. I recommend reading its discussion of how to add capacity above that baseline (pp 104-125).

I thought the (what will be) former Thameslink 319s are replacing the turbos for local Newbury / Oxford services.

So, assuming that the 2010 actual figure on Mains of 9000 has already increased in the four years since then, the 2019 committed is already at least at committed capacity? Thus Theresa May's chances of getting more of her constituents onto more fast Main trains is at best likely to only allow them to stand, and at worst for there to be no more space on those that might be stopped - and Twyford get first dibs in the morning, if she achieves stopping the same trains at both stations.

She could have easily worked that out before making that public statement - as Home Secretary as well as for her job as an MP, I'm sure she has read it.

So one can assume that at best, its political posturing to get the document changed, at worst its NIMBYism.


I'm not sure that has been confirmed in writing - to start with, there doesn't appear to be any other avaiklable stock, but 387s have been talked about to arrive shortly after electrification (by 2019?)

These are 9 x 23m trains with an average of 50 seats per carriage (hence many need to be 2+2 layout), but three sets of double doors.   I'd be thinking tube train type of standing levels in the door areas, and in the wide inter-car gangways. 

For comparison, the full and standing capacity of the four car London Overground Class 378s is suggested to be about 500, with only about 32 seats per car.  A 3:1 standing to seating ratio...

Paul

Funnily enough, my very first post on this forum (back in 2008) was a suggested timetable for a Paddington to Westbury service using the 180s and giving a (roughly) hourly fast service from Maidenhead to Paddington.

The Westbury to Paddington service looks like it's going to happen when the IEPs arrive, and I would suggest that is the most likely chance of a non-stop service that Maidenhead has got.  Though probably the best Maidenhead (and Twyford) can hope for, in my opinion, is the twice hourly EMU service promised post-Crossrail, which, with stops at Twyford, Maidenhead, Slough, and Ealing Broadway, would provide a much improved service off-peak - providing they get a clear run!

Here's my 2008 timetable though, to show what could happen:

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7559/16238504696_f0b2791628_b.jpg)

(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8614/16076892188_ed1f7618bc_b.jpg)

Absolutely and I would expect nothing else from my MP.   Now all she has to do make it happen, NR after all is a Government Agency

One thing that puzzles me slightly is how do all these hoards of extra passengers get to Maidenhead station. Full carparks most buses a fair bit away. Cycle?

It's not the most accessible being being basically off a very large squashed roundabout. For those that don't know the entrance is one way off the North side of the rail bridge Northbound off the A308, which at this point is dula carriage way with a conventional roundabout on the Southside of the line. I'm not really sure how you get Southbound coming out of the station a U turn atGrenfell Way Jn? I come in from th North and depart Northbound so no real problem.   e

Given that "it" in this case is a plan to meet the demand in 2043, maybe you are overestimating the lady's political durability. Plus, of course, her actions as a minister must not give undue preference by her own arguments as an MP. One of the quirks of the lack of "separation of powers" in our national governance. 

It's very close to the town centre and all buses.. There are three car station car parks plus RBWM ones nearby.. If you are talking about the front station car park and want to go southbound to windsor then it's a quick trip north and through the town centre to get back southbound.. not ideal but not prohibitive.. From the other two car parks it's easier..

You ask how the extra hoards of passengers get there and the main thing is they do..They have been increasing in numbers big time since I've been commuting  from here  (22 years)..

Now all we need to do is find out where they are all coming from ;-)

In regard to Twyford, I do happen to know that a number of regular commuters come there from Wokingham because the SWT peak-hour service is so tediously slow. That particular line really does need speeding up, even more so than the off-peak FGW service from TWY and MAI.

My personal thoughts are as follows:
- Shoppenhangers car park is reasonably full by 7am and totally full by 7.30am.  Most vehicles, in my experience, are coming from the A404 hence why they use this carpark rather than the forecourt or Silco.
- Given that if you live north of Marlow you'd need your head examined to be using FGW as opposed to Chiltern one must assume that Marlow is the northern most reach of Maidenhead station. 
- From conversations I've heard on the platform some also drive down from Henley area as parking is better than Twyford.
- In summary, if the branch line services were better then less people would be driving to the station.




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

Numbers are are reasonably small however a lot of Taplow commuters will "travel back" to Maidenhead in the morning to get a faster London train.




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

There are also plans for quite a large re-development of Maidenhead Town Centre, with a large increase in housing expected. For example, the old Olympic car park, by the sewage works and tip has just had planning requested for 300 dwellings; most of the occupants may be escapees from London. :D




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

There was also talk of FGW wanting to increase the Marlow service to 2 TPH, there is talk of a possible plan to build several thousand homes on the land between Cookham and Furze Platt and around the Cox Green / White Waltham area Maidenhead's commuting by train is only going to expand.