Slough - Hanwell and third track possibility.

[whole diary]

[paul7575]

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.

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^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly) (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^» (Disability Discrimination Act - about) 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^▸ (Invitation to Tender) 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^▸ (Train Protection and Warning System), AWS^▸ (Automatic Warning System), LU style ATO^▸ (Automatic Train Operation), CCTV^▸ (Closed Circuit Tele Vision) 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

[James]

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...

[eightf48544]

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!

[James]

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)

[John R]

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^▸ (Great Western) branches then so be it - it's never been the intention anyway.

[James]

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

[paul7575]

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...

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...

[eightf48544]

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.

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

[ChrisB]

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^▸ (Smartcard system used by passengers on Transport for London services) 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.

[Network SouthEast]

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^▸ (Smartcard system used by passengers on Transport for London services) 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.

[ChrisB]

Thameslink isn't a TfL^» (Transport for London - about) franchise.

LO is, and I think completely usable with an Oyster^▸ (Smartcard system used by passengers on Transport for London services)?

[paul7575]

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^▸ (Great Western) route involved was part of Oyster^▸ (Smartcard system used by passengers on Transport for London services) PAYG^▸ (Pay as you go) before the final rollout to all TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company), it is in the 'green zone' where TfL^» (Transport for London - about)'s 'Tube/Rail/DLR^▸ (Docklands Light Railway)' 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

  

[Network SouthEast]

Thameslink isn't a TfL^» (Transport for London - about) franchise.

LO is, and I think completely usable with an Oyster^▸ (Smartcard system used by passengers on Transport for London services)?

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^▸ (Train Operating Company) 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.

[ChrisB]

They may start with base fares 'as is', but will immediately come under the TfL^» (Transport for London - about) price rise mechanism rather than the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) 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^▸ (First Great Western) also stop at.

[paul7575]

Why are you so sure? 

That is NOT what currently happens at Watford Junction, and other similar stations on c2c with Oyster^▸ (Smartcard system used by passengers on Transport for London services) PAYG^▸ (Pay as you go) available, but outside the zonal area.

Paul