Extending Crossrail to Reading - ongoing discussion, merged topic

[whole diary]

[Chris from Nailsea]

Blimey, you're all trying to test me now! 

I've now split the past few previous posts off from the specific 'car parking at Maidenhead' topic and merged them with this existing discussion of the wider implications of Crossrail - in the interests of continuity and ease of reference, as always. 

[Gordon the Blue Engine]

... Reading has plenty of platform capacity. 

This has been stated before as a "given", but I wonder if it's true.  Just 4 RL platforms for arrivals from /departures to Padd is no better than before the station rebuild, and if you count in the loss of the GL's behind the old platform 9 there's arguably less capacity than before for RL traffic.  Currently we have 2tph terminating from Padd, after Crossrail there will be rather more - 4 tph? There's freights to pass through, and Rdg - Oxford stoppers need platforms whether they run as through services to/from Padd or terminate/start at Rdg.  There's moves in and out of the depot.  On the plus side I accept that platform space will be freed up if (as I assume) all XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise))'s, terminating or not, will go over to P3, 7 or 8.

Platform sharing is currently required as a necessary evil to provide sufficient RL platform capacity.  If more than 1 train per platform is required as a permanent feature, is some mid-platform signalling going to be installed to divide each of P12 - 15 into 2 platforms and thus avoid platform sharing? 

[stuving]

... Reading has plenty of platform capacity. 

This has been stated before as a "given", but I wonder if it's true.  Just 4 RL platforms for arrivals from /departures to Padd is no better than before the station rebuild, and if you count in the loss of the GL's behind the old platform 9 there's arguably less capacity than before for RL traffic.  Currently we have 2tph terminating from Padd, after Crossrail there will be rather more - 4 tph? There's freights to pass through, and Rdg - Oxford stoppers need platforms whether they run as through services to/from Padd or terminate/start at Rdg.  There's moves in and out of the depot.  On the plus side I accept that platform space will be freed up if (as I assume) all XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise))'s, terminating or not, will go over to P3, 7 or 8.

Platform sharing is currently required as a necessary evil to provide sufficient RL platform capacity.  If more than 1 train per platform is required as a permanent feature, is some mid-platform signalling going to be installed to divide each of P12 - 15 into 2 platforms and thus avoid platform sharing? 

My view is that the relief-side design was based on two through platforms and two bays each end. Joining two bays as one platform makes then longer (though still too short for two "proper" trains) and adds the flexibility of a through platform, at least part of the time. That much makes good sense, but only if you have short terminators from both ends.

If you replace the current Paddington terminators with Crossrail trains (just 2 tph to start with), then sharing isn't possible. That's true whether they stay at platform or run through to reverse somewhere else (not that such a somewhere else is part of the new layout).

Why is reversing at platform so popular anyway? While it may help with staff access, including to check trains of remove overstaying passengers, and gives passengers a more comfortable seat to await departure, it can be very expensive of platforms.

The Western Route Study raises lack of capacity as a significant constraint, but that's partly because it proposes concatenating short routes into longer ones through Reading. That includes East-West Rail and Gatwick trains, which are additional to the current services in these platforms.

The study does not consider options for extending Reading Station ...

[IndustryInsider]

I would imagine that 2tph Crossrail services will arrive and depart from 13/14.  With sensible timetabling they need not occupy more than one platform at a time.  It's true that when they're there that platform will be out of bounds for anything else, but that still gives three relief line platforms to play with.  I am hoping that as many through trains run as possible, like now the Oxford to Paddington semi-fasts could form the other two relief line trains per hour (though speeded up a little with fewer stops after Reading).  Then that is your core hourly relief line service.  East-West Rail might alter that, but by then Heathrow might be open to trains from the west so there's an awful lot of known unknowns to factor in.

[Gordon the Blue Engine]

Of course, with Crossrail and GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit)^s running as 8 car (or more) platform sharing isn^t an option because of platform lengths, so maybe the rear clear boards and platform sharing will go anyway.

As regards the Crossrail terminators, they could of course run forward into the stabling sidings at the east end of the depot (which is what I always assumed would happen with terminators from Padd, whether GWR or Crossrail) and then come out again for the return journey ^ this would reduce platform occupancy time.

[stuving]

As regards the Crossrail terminators, they could of course run forward into the stabling sidings at the east end of the depot (which is what I always assumed would happen with terminators from Padd, whether GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) or Crossrail) and then come out again for the return journey ^ this would reduce platform occupancy time.

Maybe, though the layout never looked to me as if the depot was designed to make that work well. And there is a loop, too, but that lacks staff "walking" access. Or is that kind of "reverse engineering" of the design not really viable, even In this age of track layouts designed to exactly match the expected operations rather than valuing flexibility?

But what will the "residual" non-Crossrail service be? The current stopping service is (most of the time) 4 tph, two terminating at Reading and two running to Oxford or a bit further. Before the Reading extension was announced, the plan was for 2 tph, and I had always assumed these would run through to maintain links through Reading (e.g. Pangbourne-Maidenhead), though that probably was never decided.

The (unpublished) "2019 ITSS" provides the service details in the Route Study, the draft of which describes those residuals as "2tph London Paddington ^ Reading (residual stopping outer suburban service operating on the Relief Lines using the existing London Paddington Station)". "Outer suburban" doesn't really tell you how far out they go. In the final study, this has become "2tph London Paddington ^ Reading or beyond (residual semi fast outer suburban service operating on the Relief Lines using the existing London Paddington Station)". What do you think that slight change means?

On the west side, the 2019 service includes 2 tph on East-West Rail terminating at Reading, and there is an option - more of an assumption, really - that the XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) terminators will be extended further south. Of course there is still a 2 tph stopping service to Oxford.

In the draft those residuals were to disappear when the Crossrail service to Reading increases to 4 tph, though the corresponding diagram showed them still present in 2043. In the final version, their removal is no longer mentioned. In both, 4 tph between Reading and Heathrow (and maybe through it) are added after 2019. Finally, it is proposed that the 2 tph from East-West Rail should by 2043 be extended to Paddington. Since that is not mentioned as part of the service there, I can only presume it would form that residual "semi fast" service.

[ChrisB]

2tph Oxford-Padd stoppers (possibly to become semi-fast/major stations east of Reading combined with 2tph Crossrail stoppers? May go down to one stopper/hour plus East West to Reading semi-fast?

[IndustryInsider]

It's a pretty fluid situation and depends on when East-West Rail and WRATH is finished - I have little faith in T&WO applications going through smoothly for either project!

It obviously makes sense to have as many through trains as possible, especially with a higher percentage utilising six or more carriages which makes platform sharing at Reading not an option.  The two Crossrail trains per hour obviously won't be through trains and could quite easily shunt out to the depot, or to Kennet Bridge Loop, although shunting obviously creates extra train movements.  Better, in my opinion, to arrange the timetable so they both use Platform 14 (or 13), arriving at, for example, xx:04 and departing at xx:18 and xx:34 departing at xx:48.  That would still give twenty-five or so minutes in the hour for other trains to use that platform if necessary.  The 'B' ends of 13/14 aren't used very much at the moment, mostly for terminating trains heading to the depot, so I don't think that keeping them in the platform would be too restrictive.

[Gordon the Blue Engine]

Minimising terminators at Reading would be good, but could be difficult to achieve.  As a Pangbourne traveller the idea of our stoppers running to/from Padd calling at Twyford and Maidenhead only is attractive.  However, there will presumably also be Newbury semi-fasts (ie replacing the Bedwyns) which could also form the Reading ^ Twyford - Maidenhead ^ Padd service.  So either the Oxford stoppers or Newbury semifasts will need to terminate at Reading.

You could have these two services splitting and combining at Reading, but with the current quality of train operation west of Reading and the primacy (or at least equal treatment) given to freights this would probably not be good for a robust service.   
   
Incidentally, if the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit)^s all run as 8 car or more the Newbury services will not be able to use P1-3.  They may have to use the Festival Feeder lines and P12 -15, adding to the demand for platform space.

[stuving]

The 2019 ITSS service pattern on the B&H^▸ (Berks and Hants - railway line from Reading to Taunton via Westbury) is 1 tph Paddington-Newbury (EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit)) and 1 tph Paddington-Westbury or further (SET^▸ (Super Express Train (now IET))), plus 1 tph long-distance (Plymouth or further). These are all main-line services east of Reading, so share the fate of the other current semi-fasts - if the new rule is "no switching lines", they do not stop before Paddington. There are to be extra peak-only services that terminate at Reading.
There is a proposed second London-Newbury service later on. However, this does not match the proposed extra services post-2019 east of Reading.

[paul7575]

Incidentally, if the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) EMU^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit)^s all run as 8 car or more the Newbury services will not be able to use P1-3.  They may have to use the Festival Feeder lines and P12 -15, adding to the demand for platform space.

They could then rebuild P1/2 as a second, but longer, XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) terminating or reversing bay, as there's near zero chance of them lengthening their trains in the foreseeable future...

Paul

[Adelante_CCT]

Yes there is space for a crossrail to run through and reverse in the up loop or eastern end of the depot but I wouldn't have thought this would be common practice and fully expect the trains to simply reverse in P13/14 (Personally I would choose P14 thus directing all passengers heading towards East Berkshire stations to use the same island platform P14/15). Timetabling wise as long as they are due to have an under 25 minute turnaround then these can simply just use up 1 platform throughout the day (unlike now where the turbos have 40 minutes turnaround and are forced to alternate between P13 & P14).

I'm unsure on the proposed rush hour plans but throughout the day I believed the 'other' two services, (ie the 365s) would be calling at ....Pangbourne, Tilehurst, Reading, Twyford, Maidenhead, Slough, Hayes, Ealing, Paddington, these would still use P12/P15 as current and therefore don't require any additional platform space. This could still allow an XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) to use P13. As for Newbury stoppers then again I would expect it to simply be a 4-car 365 therefore still being able to use P1/2.

Of course once (if) East-West and WRATH start then platform capacity COULD become a problem however based purely on crossrail alone then I see no problems at Reading.

They could then rebuild P1/2 as a second, but longer, XC terminating or reversing bay, as there's near zero chance of them lengthening their trains in the foreseeable future...

This would require infrastructure changes as P1/2 can only currently be accessed from the Up/Down Westbury lines and not from the Tilehurst direction.

[Gordon the Blue Engine]

At the risk of stating the obvious, it would be good to see the proposed service pattern at least for the east end of GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway), with stopping patterns, line usage, frequencies, stock type, train lengths etc.  When will this be available?

[ChrisB]

Probably in the Crossrail ITT^▸ (Invitation to Tender)/concession/franchise doc?

[eightf48544]

One point mentioned in a recent Crossrail presentation to SWRS^» (Slough and Windsor Railway Society - about) was that Crossrail do not want to run through Heathrow to the West if Western loop is ever built. Timetable difficulties were mentioned.