Extending Crossrail to Reading - ongoing discussion, merged topic

[whole diary]

[lordgoata]

I really don't follow all these different named routes - so a simple question. If Crossrail eventually runs from Reading, would the FGW^▸ (First Great Western) services stop running on the same route ? Eg. if I get local service FGW into Reading, would I then have to change onto Crossrail to get off at Maidenhead ? Or would the local FGW service still carry on as it does now ?

[ChrisB]

The relef lines are going to Crossrail, so it would be down to them to determine, what if any, paths exist on 'their' lines - whether from Maidenhead or Reading.

[paul7575]

The releif lines are going to Crossrail, so it would be down to them to determine, what if any, paths exist on 'their' lines - whether from Maidenhead or Reading.

In what way?   On current plans they will certainly be the majority user, in amongst the freight trains and 2 or 3 tph of rump FGW^▸ (First Great Western) services, but there are no indications that the relief lines will be anything other than a normal part of Network Rail's 4 track railway through the area.

I suggest that Crossrail will not be in charge of the timetable at all, it will be under NR^» (Network Rail - home page) control with ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) supervising any conflict resolution in their normal manner.

Paul

[ChrisB]

Hmmm.....I think there's an agreement otherwise. Haven't got time currently to nose around the CRossrail site though.

[IndustryInsider]

One of the reasons having extra unnecessary shuttle services clogging up paths and creating conflicting moves at Slough isn't a very good solution.

[John R]

I notice that the contract awarded today includes an option for a further 18 trains. Maybe some of these could be for the extension to Reading, Reading to Heathrow, and possibly a thickening up of the service east of Paddington.  As an aside, I was surprised to see the contract was for 9 coach trains - I had it in mind they were going to be 10 coach sets.

[Thatcham Crossing]

A question from someone who has high hopes for Crossrail making my journeys into London quicker and easier.

I live in Thatcham, and although not a daily commuter, I do travel into London for work about 4 to 5 times a month, on average.
Mostly I need to travel to the City or Canary Wharf.

Today, I try to catch a direct HST^▸ (High Speed Train) or Turbo from Thatcham to Paddington, and that journey is usually around an hour (I can do it in around the same time even if I have to change at Reading).

Then, it takes me around 35-45 minutes on the Tube across London to the aforementioned locations. So, the journey is around 2 hours, give or take.

Post Crossrail, and assuming firstly that it runs only from Maidenhead, it seems like I might as well go to Paddington and take it across to the City from there. I am assuming it will be a bit faster (with less stops) than the Tube?

If it does come out to Reading, I am tempted to think I should take it from there, in order to take advantage of the direct link it will offer into the City - but would that be the right thing to do?

I am slightly concerned that the trains sound like they may not be too comfortable for a journey of that length? Have I understood correctly that they are going to be configured a bit like the new Underground trains (whch seem to be a massive improvement for that job, by the way)?

What do those with more knowledge than me think? There must be thousands of people who live outside of Crossrail's immediate area of operation who are wondering whether it will really be of benefit?

[John R]

If the planned Maidenhead terminators are started back at Reading then I think the journey time penalty of using Crossrail from Reading to Paddington would far outweigh the benefit of not having to change at Paddington, as these services will call at all stations.  Realistically, that will probably be what happens if (when) it is extended to Reading.

However, there are only 4 tph planned east of west of Airport Junction to Maidenhead, with many services turning back at Paddington. So in theory it would be possible to extend two of these becoming semi-fast Crossrail services to Reading, maybe calling Twyford, Maidenhead and Slough. I say in theory because I have no idea whether the timetable would allow it. This would start to give a more attractive journey time from Reading, which might then seem attractive enough when added to the convenience of not changing at Paddington. And that could also have the advantage of taking some pressure off HSS^▸ (High Speed Services) between Reading and Paddington. The comfort of the rolling stock could well be an issue though, and the 90mph top speed would add a few more minutes to such a service than if it were 100mph.

I doubt whether that will happen though, particularly if space has to be found for the new Heathrow to Reading services.

[stuving]

The RUSs^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy) favoured "skip-stop", which only gets you a small time gain - nothing like a true fast or semi-fast. That would need to run on the main lines, which was considered but rejected because there is no grade separated crossing onto them. The top speed would be an issue too.

But across London, the gain in time should be substantial - it's only seven miles to Canary Wharf, and with just six stops and suburban rail rather than tube timings.

[ellendune]

I am slightly concerned that the trains sound like they may not be too comfortable for a journey of that length? Have I understood correctly that they are going to be configured a bit like the new Underground trains (which seem to be a massive improvement for that job, by the way)?

Why would they be configured like underground trains when the Thameslink ones are not.  Nothing has been published about the seating pattern, just the numbers.  

Can we restore the meaning of the word realisitic to the dictionary definition. - In this forum it seems to have come to be a synonym for pessimistic.

Congratulations stuving on lifting the gloom

The RUSs^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy) favoured "skip-stop", which only gets you a small time gain - nothing like a true fast or semi-fast. That would need to run on the main lines, which was considered but rejected because there is no grade separated crossing onto them. The top speed would be an issue too.

But across London, the gain in time should be substantial - it's only seven miles to Canary Wharf, and with just six stops and suburban rail rather than tube timings.

But a skip stop emu service would still eb fatser than a full stopping Turbo surely!

[Network SouthEast]

Hmmm.....I think there's an agreement otherwise. Haven't got time currently to nose around the CRossrail site though.

No there isn't any such agreement, nor is it proposed.

As paul7755 says, the relief lines will remain under NR^» (Network Rail - home page) control, overseen by the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about). It is worthwhile to point out that at the moment, the ORR have only approved 4tph peak / 2tph off-peak Crossrail to Maidenhead at the current point in time. Crossrail's plan to have a 4tph off-peak service to Maidenhead needs a fresh track access application from them.

As an aside, I was surprised to see the contract was for 9 coach trains - I had it in mind they were going to be 10 coach sets.

{edit} The stock will be made of 9x23m cars instead of 10x20m cars. A 9x23m car formation works out at 207m, which is close to the 200m length of a 10x20m car formation. A contributor to the London Reconnections blog reports the tender did allow bidders to offer a longer 9 car instead of a 10 car.{/edit}

However, there are only 4 tph planned east of west of Airport Junction to Maidenhead, with many services turning back at Paddington.

Not quite, there are also 2tph terminating at West Drayton.

So in theory it would be possible to extend two of these becoming semi-fast Crossrail services to Reading, maybe calling Twyford, Maidenhead and Slough. I say in theory because I have no idea whether the timetable would allow it. This would start to give a more attractive journey time from Reading, which might then seem attractive enough when added to the convenience of not changing at Paddington. And that could also have the advantage of taking some pressure off HSS^▸ (High Speed Services) between Reading and Paddington. The comfort of the rolling stock could well be an issue though, and the 90mph top speed would add a few more minutes to such a service than if it were 100mph.

You really need to read the Network Rail London & South East RUS^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy). Option A5, which Network Rail wants to go ahead with, proposes an eventual 4tph Crossrail to Reading, 2tph to Slough, with 10tph to Heathrow Airport. There is also a proposed 20tph on the mains between Reading and Paddington on the peaks - the majority non stop to Paddington, but with 2tph calling at Maidenhead and Slough and 2tph calling at Twyford and Maidenhead.

Current maximum speed on the relief lines is 90mph, with sections with lower speeds, so 90mph seems an adequate speed for Crossrail stock.

Why would they be configured like underground trains when the Thameslink ones are not.  Nothing has been published about the seating pattern, just the numbers.  

You are right. Nobody really knows at the moment.

What is interesting is that the press image released shows a train with three sets of doors in a carriage, a bit like the S7 and S8 tube stock.

[paul7575]

Why would they be configured like underground trains when the Thameslink ones are not.  Nothing has been published about the seating pattern, just the numbers.  

I did try to rationalise why they cannot be 'just like the new 378s, i.e. with full longitudinal seating, a few posts back here:  http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=1109.msg143495#msg143495

Now, the change to 9 car units only changes the maths slightly - what may be more significant is that there are now apparently 3 sets of doors, so with a bit of rounding that extra door set will take up another 3 metres or so, if including typical stand back areas. 

So the 450 seats now become 50 per 9 car coach, with a few extra to account for the expected PRM^▸ (Persons with Reduced Mobility) and bike/pram spaces in a couple of carriages.  So let's say we now need to fit 54 seats in the average coach, which because of those extra doors has no more notional interior length than the 20m coach.

I therefore suggest that the seating will still have to be mainly 2+2 to give a number around 450...

Paul

[ChrisB]

Just like the new Thameslink trains then.

No toilets either, which might cloud the trip from Reading, should it ever get there.

Also, throw into the mix the proposed station at Old Oak Common under HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)), which both FGW^▸ (First Great Western) and Crossrail will serve with all trains (confirmed verbally so far), and your options will change again.

When built, Old Oak will change most peoples travelling patterns with, I reckon, the vast majority changing there for inwards travel. Unless you want the Paddington environs, it will be quicker & easier to change at Old Oak and access Crossrail & then any tubes you need there.

[ellendune]

No toilets either, which might cloud the trip from Reading, should it ever get there.

Where does it say this?

[paul7575]

Here's a Hansard report extract, that coincides roughly with the time the trains were ordered:

Crossrail

7. Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab): What steps his Department is taking to ensure that the Crossrail programme provides adequate toilet facilities at stations and on its rolling stock. [61512]

The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers): Provision of adequate and accessible facilities is an important consideration for many passengers. The majority of Crossrail stations will have toilet facilities. Since this will be a high frequency metro service, with most passengers travelling relatively short distances, we have no current plans to provide toilets on Crossrail trains.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110623/debtext/110623-0001.htm

Another statement from Boris here:

Written answer received on 21 December 2011:
Crossrail will be a high-frequency metro-style service for London and the south east. It is estimated that the average time a passenger will travel on Crossrail will be 20 minutes. It is not intended that toilets will be provided on board Crossrail trains.

http://www.london.gov.uk/mqt/public/question.do?id=39392

Paul