Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[eightf48544]

East of Reading relies on Kensal Green feeder station and Crossrail electrifying Stockley to Maidenhead 

And that's the problem we don't want Crossrail on teh GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) what we want is an electric railway.

Surely it would be better for Network rail to electrify throughout from Stockley to Swansea and not build the turnback sidings at Maidenehad but run trains that gothrough the Crossrail tunnels at Paddington to Reading.

Also we don't want 378 style coaches for our local trains which Crossrail will probably go for.

[paul7575]

Network Rail are to all intents electrifying from Stockley. All the on-network work is being done by Network Rail.  When documentation refers to it being 'done by Crossrail' it really just means 'paid for from the TfL^» (Transport for London - about)/DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) Crossrail budget' rather than the DfT HLOS^▸ (High Level Output Specification) budget.

Paul

[eightf48544]

It's the allocation of the money that's the problem if the elctrifcation as far as Maidenhead comes out of Crossrail's budget they will think they own it and have priority. Which would be similar to HEX and the problem that causes.

[Electric train]

Network Rail are to all intents electrifying from Stockley. All the on-network work is being done by Network Rail.  When documentation refers to it being 'done by Crossrail' it really just means 'paid for from the TfL^» (Transport for London - about)/DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) Crossrail budget' rather than the DfT HLOS^▸ (High Level Output Specification) budget.

Paul

That is correct, there are some works being funded by GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) electrification between Stockley and Maidenhead.

It's the allocation of the money that's the problem if the elctrifcation as far as Maidenhead comes out of Crossrail's budget they will think they own it and have priority. Which would be similar to HEX and the problem that causes.

The relationship of Crossrail and occupancy is defined by DfT who are funding it.  It has been mentioned before Crossrail is delivered under an Act of Parliament which has defined the Western terminals one of which is Maidenhead, to overturn the Act would result in reopening a public enquiry and any consequential Judicial Reviews  not to mention the cost in doing all that pale into insignificance cost of building a few turn back sidings at Maidenhead.   My personal guess is that by 2022 the time table on the GW^▸ (Great Western) will be re-jigged for Crossrail to run to Reading also to take account of EWrail running into Reading replacing the Reading / Oxfords

[TonyK]

I agree, ET, the traffic will go where it is needed. If a train load of Canary Wharf bankers want to travel to and from Oxford daily, then a train will do the trip. Maidenhead is as good a place to start and stop as any, but once the infrastructure is in, the TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) will want to use it to the full.

[eightf48544]

I can't see Canary Wharf bankers wanting to travel from Oxford in a 378!

[Network SouthEast]

I think the odds of them travelling in a 378 are pretty slim, as the Crossrail rolling stock will be a similar spec to the Thameslink stock, which will have proper 2+2 seating for starters.

[IndustryInsider]

I think the odds of them travelling in a 378 are pretty slim, as the Crossrail rolling stock will be a similar spec to the Thameslink stock, which will have proper 2+2 seating for starters.

Will they have 2+2 seating though?  The specification states that each Crossrail train will have 450 seats (with room for a total of 1500 passengers).  That equates to just 45 seats per carriage in a 10-car train.  Compare that with the Class 378s 38 seats per carriage with its longitudinal seating and the 60-70 seats per carriage you'd expect to find in a typical 2+2 seated 20m carriage, and that suggests to me there will be quite a lot of longitudinal seating?

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/assets/download/4962

I personally think that they will go with a mixed layout of 2+2 and longitudinal, in a similar fashion to the S8 underground stock on the Metropolitan Line, to achieve that 45 seats per carriage ratio.

[Jonty]

I may be being stooped, but how does 450 seats per train equate to 1,500 passengers.

Lots of folks standing...?

[paul7575]

The passenger carrying design must surely reflect the intended type of service, high capacity regional metro.

Considering Crossrail 1 to have 'four legs', people expecting to use this presumed extension to Reading are just  going to have to deal with accommodation that's designed around the needs of Shenfield (GE slows), Abbey Wood (new route but only zone 4) and Heathrow (Connect style).

I've always assumed that they aren't at all likely to design the train internals to be suitable for a Reading extension - and there isn't likely to be a subset of different stock either.

Paul

[paul7575]

I may be being stooped, but how does 450 seats per train equate to 1,500 passengers.

Lots of folks standing...?

Well of course they allow for standing.    Those 378s mentioned earlier had a published capacity of 500 back when they were only 3 car trains.  That was the way they were 'sold' as an improvement over the elderly Class 313 EMUs^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit). So in that respect they are little different to underground trains. 

The idea that capacity is equal to seat numbers is something peculiar to long distance trains.

(Incidentally, there was quite a kerfuffle when SWT^▸ (South West Trains) reduced the seating in their inner suburban 455s to allow for more standing in the aisles and around the doors, but they still ended up with 244 seats (and 28 'perch' seats) per 4 car unit.  Standing capacity though is defined on them as 4 per sq m.) 

Edited for more exact seat numbers

Paul 

[eightf48544]

Considering Crossrail 1 to have 'four legs', people expecting to use this presumed extension to Reading are just  going to have to deal with accommodation that's designed around the needs of Shenfield (GE slows), Abbey Wood (new route but only zone 4) and Heathrow (Connect style).

I've always assumed that they aren't at all likely to design the train internals to be suitable for a Reading extension - and there isn't likely to be a subset of different stock either.

Paul

Another reason why Crossrail doesn't work West of Paddington even if only to Maidenhead because it's 24m 19ch miles out.

Although Shenfield is 20m 16ch there have always been a fasts and semi running on the mainline which will presumably still run and interchange with Crossrail at Stratford.

Plus you've got to admit the Current Heathrow Connect 360/2s have got style so the Crossrail stock won't be an improvement.

[TonyK]

Out here in the sticks, the first bit of preparation for electrification is under way. The footbridge over the railway at Stapleton Road station - between Bristol Temple Meads and Bristol Parkway - is having extra bits added to it. This should render it more difficult for an accidental connection between 25KV AC OHLE and Mk 1 pedestrian.

[eightf48544]

Getting old and not necessarily wiser I'd back the stupidity of Mk 1 pedestrian against the ingenuity of the OHLE engineer.

[IndustryInsider]

Will these be the electric units that end up working the LTV^▸ (London [and] Thames Valley) routes from Paddington to Oxford and Newbury after a short stint on the Thameslink route.  And will that 'extended order' end up providing the trains that end up working the East-West Rail route after that has been electrified?

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/southern-selects-bombardier-to-supply-trains-for-thameslink-cascade.html