Extending Crossrail to Reading - ongoing discussion, merged topic

[whole diary]

[paul7575]

Why would the Act need to change just to alter the services if no changes in infrastructure would be required.

I agree no changes to infrastructure to allow the services to be lengthened is needed.  The main change to infrastructure that everyone talks about is to remove the works at Maidenhead in their entirety. An academic point because it is already being built.  AIUI^▸ (as I understand it) the Crossrail Act requires that the infrastructure that is described in the said Act has to be provided.

From what I have read and heard about the Crossrail trains as they are currently foreseen they will be optimised for the "metro' character of the inner London services. On page 43 of the December 2013 Modern Railways there is a quote saying "the new Class 345s will be a 'step on from the Overground'." To me this implies longitudinal seats and no toilets.

You cannot have all longitudinal seats, and get the seating capacity that Crossrail have already declared.  Their trains are to be 10 x 20m carriages, with 450 seats per train, so 45 seats per car on average.  Doesn't sound a lot, but it would still have to include a significant amount of 2+2 seating.  The LO 378s with all longitudinal seating have a total of 146 seats per 4 car set, around 36 per car.
They might well end up with a 50/50 mix of longitudinal and 2+2, for comparison the newly modified 458/5s have 270 seats in a 5 car unit, so about 54 per carriage on average, and they are all 2+2.

Paul

[IndustryInsider]

Political murmurings are gaining pace for an extension to Reading.  Fingers crossed that this happens, from the onset, as the benefits far outweigh the negatives in my opinion.

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local-news/home-secretary-discusses-extending-crossrail-6497532

[Electric train]

Political murmurings are gaining pace for an extension to Reading.  Fingers crossed that this happens, from the onset, as the benefits far outweigh the negatives in my opinion.

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local-news/home-secretary-discusses-extending-crossrail-6497532

That's because the Home Secretary aka the local MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) for the Twyford area is getting concerned about votes mainly losing them to UKIP so she need to placate a vocal part of her constituency where she happens to live

I have no doubt that Crossrail will go to Reading, but it is being built to the funding and program laid out the Bill, the politicians are the first to hammer projects for costing more and taking longer, they (the politicians) if they want Crossrail to Reading as part of the build need to stump and say they have authorised addition money and there will be a delay to delivering the final program.

The only real way to run Crossrail to Reading is for DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) to take a holistic view of the TV franchises which include Eastwest Rail with its running trains to Reading and the TV branches.  Are the TV branches to be run by Crossrail?

[IndustryInsider]

I have no doubt that Crossrail will go to Reading, but it is being built to the funding and program laid out the Bill, the politicians are the first to hammer projects for costing more and taking longer, they (the politicians) if they want Crossrail to Reading as part of the build need to stump and say they have authorised addition money and there will be a delay to delivering the final program.

Would there necessarily be a delay to the final program?  After all, it will be electrified by then and Reading's rebuild means there's plenty of platforms the trains could use as it has been rebuilt with passive provision for Crossrail anyway.  That leaves Twyford as the only station that would probably need modifications - unless SDO^▸ (Selective Door Opening) was used as it will be at other stations such as Hanwell?  The biggest hurdle might be the rebuilding of the B3018 Waltham Road bridge at that station, so that the up platform could be extended beneath it to get to the necessary length of 210 or so metres?  Otherwise both platforms on the main lines could be easily lengthened the short amount required, and the down relief platform is already plenty long enough (but would need a signal moved towards the end of its full length).

[SandTEngineer]

Otherwise both platforms on the main lines could be easily lengthened the short amount required, and the down relief platform is already plenty long enough (but would need a signal moved towards the end of its full length).

A signalling plan I have seen for the Reading Outer Resignalling area shows that signal (R114) being relocated anyway.

[Electric train]

The physical accommodation of the trains at Twyford is not an issue as SDO^▸ (Selective Door Opening) will deal with that.  The Crossrail project funding authority is the biggest issue an alteration to the current Crossrail construction and entry into service plan would put a big risk to the "on time on budget" obligation that has been placed on the Crossrail team by DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) and the Government.

What needs to be developed by DfT is a post 2018/9 extension of Crossrail to Reading and the integration of the West of Reading - Oxford local trains into the Eastwest Rail plan with a cross platform interchange at Reading between Crossrail and Eastwest Rail there will also need to be a number of semi fast run on the Main Lines between Paddington and Oxford / Banbury and even Newbury with stops at Slough, Maidenhead, Didcot.

I would advocate the Sectary of State for Transport holding their nerve on the current Crossrail program but the do need to announce what the GW^▸ (Great Western) TV franchising is going to look like in 2020, yes I know its a long way off but if the Sectary of State for Transport buckles the political pressure Crossrail budget will just get blow out of the water

[4064ReadingAbbey]

The physical accommodation of the trains at Twyford is not an issue as SDO^▸ (Selective Door Opening) will deal with that.  The Crossrail project funding authority is the biggest issue an alteration to the current Crossrail construction and entry into service plan would put a big risk to the "on time on budget" obligation that has been placed on the Crossrail team by DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) and the Government.

What needs to be developed by DfT is a post 2018/9 extension of Crossrail to Reading and the integration of the West of Reading - Oxford local trains into the Eastwest Rail plan with a cross platform interchange at Reading between Crossrail and Eastwest Rail there will also need to be a number of semi fast run on the Main Lines between Paddington and Oxford / Banbury and even Newbury with stops at Slough, Maidenhead, Didcot.

I would advocate the Sectary of State for Transport holding their nerve on the current Crossrail program but the do need to announce what the GW^▸ (Great Western) TV franchising is going to look like in 2020, yes I know its a long way off but if the Sectary of State for Transport buckles the political pressure Crossrail budget will just get blow out of the water

I agree. Changing the scope of the present project at such a late stage is a recipe for loss of control of costs. If Crossrail is to extended to Reading (and I am not convinced of the suitability of what is, in effect, metro-type stock running on such long journeys) then it should be a separately identified and funded project - 'Crossrail - western extension' or some such. It certainly has to be considered together with the 'Western Approach to Heathrow' as that will also have an effect on train services.

Maybe the two projects should be merged?

[IndustryInsider]

Is it really necessary to make things that difficult though?  It's probably too late to stop the large amount of money being spent on turnaround facilities at Maidenhead, and had GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) electrification not been announced then I would agree that it adds a lot of complications, but (especially is SDO^▸ (Selective Door Opening) were used at Twyford), hardly any other physical work would be required, so it's all about altering a bit of the paperwork, and probably spending a little more money on a couple of extra Crossrail trains to work the extension - but you'd need fewer new electric GWML trains instead.  Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that the railway can't do that without risking plunging both projects into chaos though!

...and I am not convinced of the suitability of what is, in effect, metro-type stock running on such long journeys

I think, for me at least, that's not a problem.  You're already expecting people to commute from somewhere like Taplow the 30 odd miles to the city on these trains, so what's the difference in asking people from West Drayton to Reading to do the same thing?  Extending Crossrail to Reading is NOT about Reading to London commuters and never will be (unless a fast Crossrail service was introduced - can't see that happening).  It's about connectivity into Reading from places like West Drayton, Langley and Southall which looks like it will suffer badly, and it's also about not having an unnecessary EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) shuttle service from Reading to Slough with all the conflicting moves into/out of a bay at Slough and (unnecessary) increases in trains on the stretch between Maidenhead and Slough that will result.

[Electric train]

The Crossrail programme does not want to become another Wimberley Stadium fiasco where the client keep moving the goal posts ( ) the most cost effective thing to do now is to make the decision that Crossrail will be extended in say 2020 authorise any additional rolling stock required to be purchased as part of the Crossrail rolling stock build and to start the GRIP^▸ (Guide to Railway Investment Projects) stage 3 process for the infrastructure changes. 

The whole Thames Valley part of the GW^▸ (Great Western) needs a review to how its going to be operated, I doubt much common sense will happen before 2016 as there is a general election campaign to be fort and much political point scoring to be had on the lead up to May 2015 and then it will take at least a year for the politicians to realise they have to do something,

[stebbo]

Reading Abbey mentions the western extension to Heathrow. As I've said before, perhaps the government first needs to make its mind up about what it's going to do about airport capacity before building more rail links to the airport.

Personally, I think extending Heathrow is the right thing to do and it looks like the political wind is blowing that way and thus the western extension of the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) will be needed. But I still think a firm commitment is needed before you build the rail link.

[ellendune]

From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page): Bombardier wins ^1bn Crossrail deal

Bombardier has won a ^1bn contract to provide trains for the Crossrail project, the government has announced.

The company will provide 60 trains for the Crossrail service, set to open in 2018.

The trains will be manufactured and assembled at Bombardier's plant in Derby.

The Department for Transport said Bombardier's contract would provide 760 manufacturing jobs and 80 apprenticeships.

It also that about 74% of the amount spent on the contract would stay in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) economy.

Bombardier beat Japan's Hitachi and Spain's CAF to secure the deal.

The Crossrail system is due to run from Maidenhead and Heathrow Airport in the west, to Abbey Wood and Shenfield in the east.

[ellendune]

And from DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)

Crossrail rolling stock and depot contract to be awarded to Bombardier

A couple of extracts:

65 trains to be built in Derby, with over 1,000 jobs and around 100 apprenticeships supported in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom).
Crossrail train

The intention to award a contract to deliver rolling stock and a new depot for Crossrail with a capital value of around ^1 billion to Bombardier has been announced today (6 February 2014) by Transport for London (TfL^» (Transport for London - about)) and The Department for Transport (DfT).

The contract between TfL and Bombardier covers the supply, delivery and maintenance of 65 new trains and a depot at Old Oak Common. The contract award is subject to a 10 day standstill period.

TfL will run Crossrail as part of its integrated transport services for London, including ticketing and customer travel information.

Bombardier has confirmed that the new trains will be manufactured and assembled at their plant in Derby. This contract will support 760 UK manufacturing jobs plus 80 apprenticeships. An estimated 74% of contract spend will remain in the UK economy.

The construction of the maintenance depot at Old Oak Common will support 244 jobs, plus 16 apprenticeships. When fully operational the depot will support 80 jobs to maintain the new fleet of trains.

Each Crossrail train is 200 metres long and able to carry up to 1,500 passengers. Key features of the new high-capacity Crossrail trains include air conditioning and inter-connecting walk-through carriages. On-train passenger information systems will deliver real-time travel information to allow passengers to plan their onward journeys.

The new lightweight Crossrail trains will be built with an emphasis on energy efficiency and use of intelligent on-train energy management systems.

[a-driver]

Each Crossrail train is 200 metres long and able to carry up to 1,500 passengers. Key features of the new high-capacity Crossrail trains include air conditioning and inter-connecting walk-through carriages. On-train passenger information systems will deliver real-time travel information to allow passengers to plan their onward journeys.

The new lightweight Crossrail trains will be built with an emphasis on energy efficiency and use of intelligent on-train energy management systems.

[/quote]

Basically, the train which is able to carry 1,500 isn't suitable for journeys from Reading.  Of that 1,500 capacity there is only 450 seats!

And as for lightweight..... they will be great fun to drive in the Autumn then!!

[IndustryInsider]

Basically, the train which is able to carry 1,500 isn't suitable for journeys from Reading.  Of that 1,500 capacity there is only 450 seats!

Perhaps you can tell me why a train from Reading with passengers aboard for Twyford, Maidenhead, Slough, West Drayton and Ealing (etc.) isn't suitable with 450 seats?  Agreed that for London that would not be suitable, but the Crossrail extension to Reading is not about passengers for London, it's about providing an excellent commuter service into Reading from the local stations without needing unnecessary shuttle services to Slough.  In those examples 450 seats - roughly equivalent to a 5-Car Turbo - would be just about right I'd have thought?  Though passengers might need to be encouraged to use the full length of the train rather than all cram in at the middle! 

[ChrisB]

AS long as there is a hopping off point from fast trains (Old Oak Common or PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) seem sensible), it *does* seem sensible to run Crossrail from Reading for the locals commuting along the line towards London. Ther train is then emptyish from Maidenhead / Slough for those wanting cross-London direct services.