So what other HST's should call at Maidenhead at peak times?

[whole diary]

[James]

You are wondering oh here we go again, Maidenhead People always going on about HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s, but what other trains are better?
Lets be serious, after all they are the fastest meanest mode of train fleet that can whizz you from Paddington to Maidenhead in a mere 15 minutes right.
However it would be acceptable if another stop was added into the 1622 and 1649 service from Paddington which currently stops at Slough to stop at Maidenhead as well.
Reasons for this;
There are large crowds of people who deboard from both the 1622 (arrives at 1638)  and 1649 (arrives at 1704) at Slough who travel to Maidenhead. It is horribly overcrowded at times on the station and on the 1645 train, which is worse if the 1645 (previously 1643) was cancelled. This goes for the 1718 from Slough as well. This would make sense to call those to trains at Maidenhead as First Great Western would be popular if it introduced them.

Or if HST's are to much to ask for just fix the Turbo air conditioning then FGW^▸ (First Great Western) will have a good commuter service.
If you made commuting easier First Great Western, then rest assured more people would travel on your trains, just believe me.

[ellendune]

The HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) were never designed for commuter services. They were designed for long runs not stopping and starting. Arguably stops at Reading, Didcot, Swindon, Chippenham, Bath and Bristol are putting a strain on them that is beyond their design capability.  I do not know how much the new engines hep this, but making them stop at Slough and Maidenhead as well may affect their reliability.

[grahame]

However it would be acceptable if another stop was added into the 1622 and 1649 service from Paddington which currently stops at Slough to stop at Maidenhead as well.

I suspect it wouldn't be acceptable to people travelling on the 16:30 and 17:00 expresses to Bath and Bristol, which would (I suspect) get delayed behind the 16:22 and 16:49 if they had extra stops.

The HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) were never designed for commuter services. They were designed for long runs not stopping and starting. ....

Agreed, but then again after refits which leave close pitch seating and very little luggage space indeed, you could argue they're no longer designed [just] for long runs only!

[James]

The HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) were never designed for commuter services. They were designed for long runs not stopping and starting. Arguably stops at Reading, Didcot, Swindon, Chippenham, Bath and Bristol are putting a strain on them that is beyond their design capability.  I do not know how much the new engines hep this, but making them stop at Slough and Maidenhead as well may affect their reliability.

Well thats funny, because Andrew Haine, who was the managing director of FGW^▸ (First Great Western) in 2007, decided that it would be good if HST's where to stop at the commuter stations of the Thames Valley, even the smaller stations such as Cholsey, Goring and Streatley, Pangbourne and Tilehurst not to mention Radley, and other stations that prior to 2007 did not see them at all.
I don't know how the reliability would affect the HST should they stop at both Slough and Maidenhead, because they have been going so since 2007, which is when i think the engines were fitted?
Nevertheless and as i have said previously the thames valley is getting more and more crowded, soon both towns might even over top Reading with commuters to London, especially when crossrail gets into gear  

[James]

However it would be acceptable if another stop was added into the 1622 and 1649 service from Paddington which currently stops at Slough to stop at Maidenhead as well.

I suspect it wouldn't be acceptable to people travelling on the 16:30 and 17:00 expresses to Bath and Bristol, which would (I suspect) get delayed behind the 16:22 and 16:49 if they had extra stops.

Well thats the issue of not having passing loops on the Mains at Slough and Maidenhead, i guess.




Edit note: Quote marks amended, in the interests of clarity in subsequent discussions. CfN.

[Chris from Nailsea]

If you made commuting easier First Great Western, then rest assured more people would travel on your trains, just believe me.

Unfortunately, from First Great Westerns' point of view, there are already too many people trying to travel on their trains between Paddington and Maidenhead in the peak times: that is why every such train is crammed now. 

[James]

If you made commuting easier First Great Western, then rest assured more people would travel on your trains, just believe me.

Unfortunately, from First Great Westerns' point of view, there are already too many people trying to travel on their trains between Paddington and Maidenhead in the peak times: that is why every such train is crammed now. 

Well thats more evidence that more fast trains should stop at Maidenhead...

[Chris from Nailsea]

Not if it increases journey times and makes those trains even more crowded? 

[James]

Well yes thats true, then tell fgw to cancel the Slough stop and call at Maidenhead instead, who cares about Slough commuters, there have a better choice of turbo services and obviously are closer to London.
One towns gain is other ones loss i am afraid 

[JayMac]

Slough:  Annual Rail Passenger Usage 2012 - 4.517 million.
Maidenhead: Annual Rail Passenger Usage 2012 - 3.292 million.

With 1.2 million more passenger journeys I think that, with limited resources, FGW^▸ (First Great Western) have the calling patterns about right. Notwithstanding the temporary loss of an evening HST^▸ (High Speed Train) call at Maidenhead, obviously.

[James]

Slough:  Annual Rail Passenger Usage 2012 - 4.517 million.
Maidenhead: Annual Rail Passenger Usage 2012 - 3.292 million.

With 1.2 million more passenger journeys I think that, with limited resources, FGW^▸ (First Great Western) have the calling patterns about right. Notwithstanding the temporary loss of an evening HST^▸ (High Speed Train) call at Maidenhead, obviously.

Erm the figure for rail usage from Maidenhead from 2011 to 2012 was: 3.964million so almost 4 million rather than 3.2million that was record back in 2002 2003. So you could argue that both Maidenhead and Slough almost have the same numbers of people, and yes adding additional stops shouldn't be an issue. For example take the South West Trains Model, where trains call at some of the busiest stations on there network such as Clapham Junction, Woking and Basingstoke. They manage to cope with 8 car trains with two station calls, so why should the same not be applied to calling at Slough and Maidenhead. If it is an issue, just run the 1622 and 1649 onto the reliefs at Slough and rejoin the mains after Maidenhead. After all Reading commuters are more likely to use the 1630/1636/1645/1700 services than the 1622 or 1649 from London Paddington. Also most Reading passengers heading to Oxford can use the Crosscountry services and with the 1622 and 1649, there should be practicably be quieter until Reading at the very least. However i do realize there will be extra journey time to Oxford and north to the cotswolds but at the end of the day, the commuter service is where the trains are most needed unfortunately.

[JayMac]

I'm not doing very well today. Blame lack of sleep (added to by not having a siesta - instead watching the cricket) and being a bit forum rusty after a break from posting.

I mistakenly quoted 2002-03 figures for both stations. So....

2011-12 Slough: 5.461 million
2011-12 Maidenhead: 3.964 million

Just shy of 1.5 million in favour of Slough. Which makes my point about service provision and use of limited rolling stock even more valid.

Nevertheless, thank you James for pointing out my error and leading me to more carefully look at the figures from the Office of Rail Regulation. And apologies for the erroneous early post.

[ChrisB]

The reliefs are full to capacity too - so there are no paths for re-directed HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train).

FGW^▸ (First Great Western) have experts on planning, and have been doing the job for quite some time, James - I think they probably know better than you....

Those on the 1622/1649 won't be happy having another stop added either - just so even more standees can pack out their train. There are already NO seats on these before Reading....

[grahame]

Well thats the issue of not having passing loops on the Mains at Slough and Maidenhead, i guess.

I'm not sure where you're quoting me from, James ... I don't think I have said that anywhere; it's not my view that there should be side loops on the mains to allow non-stop trains to pass semifasts.

Putting extra stops in to cover more stations at peak time especially doesn't make sense as it will lead to more overcrowding - I posted the maths of that in an earlier post when we were talking about why there's a gap at Surbiton, and I don't recall seeing any answer suggested to that.   We've explored the idea of extra stops, and the consensus is that it will overcrowd and irritate - unless anyone has any new points, shall we move on?

[James]

No problem, thats cool.    

Your analysis is good about giving Slough more train services than Maidenhead, and i see the logic in that (i.e with the branch to Windsor and Slough Trading Estate also added by the local resident commuting force of Slough).
However if First Great Western, would plan to stop the 1622 and 1649 at both Slough and Maidenhead, then this is how it could run (feel like i am repeating myself  )

Just before Slough the 1622 and 1649 should cross the main's onto the relief's and stay on the relief's until say Didcot Parkway. If not the trains could be put back on to the main's after departing Maidenhead. Thus meaning that the fast express trains of the 1630/1633/1645/1700 and 1703 wouldn't get stuck behind the 1622 and 1649 unless something goes wrong.

The timings would be;
1622 arrive at Slough 1638/depart at 1639 then run to Maidenhead arriving at; 1647 and departing 1648, then non stop to Reading arriving at; 1700. Then non stop to  Didcot Parkway arriving there at 1715/1720 departure then arriving Oxford at 1730.

The same applies to the 1649.
It would mean that certain local stopping services may either need to be retimed, or terminate at other destinations, which would conflict with the 1622 and 1649 services from London Paddington.

I am doing this because of the fact that Maidenhead needs better train provision especially at peak times.