The other 12tph on Crossrail (GWML side)

[HST43257]

Apologies if a thread like this is already present

So as far as I’m aware, the plan on Crossrail is for 24tph as far as Paddington, from where only 12tph will go further along the route into the GWML. In the future, it should be that it is 24tph on the GWML. I have some ideas for services that I’ll set out below!

EXISTING PLAN (12tph):
4tph Heathrow T4
2tph Heathrow T5
2tph Reading
2tph Maidenhead
2tph West Drayton

MY IDEA:
4tph Heathrow T4 - Slow existing service that replaced Heathrow Connect
4tph Heathrow T5 - Replacing Heathrow Express. It’d run on the fast lines after Old Oak Common.
4tph Didcot Parkway - Replacing and doubling the GWR limited stop service
4tph Reading - pretty much the same as it is at the moment but double the services. It stops everywhere from Hayes & Harlington to Reading.
4tph West Drayton - stops everywhere. Half of these could go to Greenford instead to breathe some life back into that line.
2tph High Wycombe - Uses NNML. After OOC it calls at Hanger Lane, South Ruislip, Gerrards Cross, Beaconsfield and High Wycombe.
2tph Gerrards Cross - Also uses NNML. After OOC it calls at Hanger Lane and West Ruislip then all stations to Gerrards Cross.

4 tracks as far as High Wycombe would be required for this to work. Probably slow lines on the inside so turnbacks are easier. XR would have all the GWML slow line services so less potential issues hopefully.

 

[JonathanH]

Apologies if a thread like this is already present

This one?

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/extending-crossrail-up-the-chiltern-mainline.205418/

There are only 70 345s and they aren't yet running through the tunnel - the number corresponds to the expected level of service. Probably best to get that running reliably before grandiose ideas to expand the service. At the very least the ideas you propose involve a lot of infrastructure spending which simply isn't affordable. Keep it simple.

4tph Didcot Parkway - Replacing and doubling the GWR limited stop service
4tph Reading - pretty much the same as it is at the moment but double the services. It stops everywhere from Hayes & Harlington to Reading.

It is simply not necessary to run this level of service beyond the London boundary.

 

[D365]

Get the actual Crossrail running first before we speculate on any extension.

 

[HST43257]

It is simply not necessary to run this level of service beyond the London boundary.

In the peak, yes. In the off peak, just 2tph on the Didcot and Reading services

 

[Alex27]

A not inconsiderable amount of passengers boycott TfL trains and travel on GWR instead, I'm not sure they'd be too happy...

 

[SynthD]

The Paddington terminators will continue to Old Oak Common. They won’t go further because that would cross pollute delays between the GE and GWR, even though the slow lines on both sides are near dedicated to Crossrail. High Wycombe would be far worse as that’s fast and slow on the same pair of tracks as you want to use. There’s no room at HW for that siding. There’s not necessarily the need for the extra stops you add in London, especially Hangar Lane.

 

[cactustwirly]

Apologies if a thread like this is already present

So as far as I’m aware, the plan on Crossrail is for 24tph as far as Paddington, from where only 12tph will go further along the route into the GWML. In the future, it should be that it is 24tph on the GWML. I have some ideas for services that I’ll set out below!

EXISTING PLAN (12tph):
4tph Heathrow T4
2tph Heathrow T5
2tph Reading
2tph Maidenhead
2tph West Drayton

MY IDEA:
4tph Heathrow T4 - Slow existing service that replaced Heathrow Connect
4tph Heathrow T5 - Replacing Heathrow Express. It’d run on the fast lines after Old Oak Common.
4tph Didcot Parkway - Replacing and doubling the GWR limited stop service
4tph Reading - pretty much the same as it is at the moment but double the services. It stops everywhere from Hayes & Harlington to Reading.
4tph West Drayton - stops everywhere. Half of these could go to Greenford instead to breathe some life back into that line.
2tph High Wycombe - Uses NNML. After OOC it calls at Hanger Lane, South Ruislip, Gerrards Cross, Beaconsfield and High Wycombe.
2tph Gerrards Cross - Also uses NNML. After OOC it calls at Hanger Lane and West Ruislip then all stations to Gerrards Cross.

4 tracks as far as High Wycombe would be required for this to work. Probably slow lines on the inside so turnbacks are easier. XR would have all the GWML slow line services so less potential issues hopefully.

Why???
The 345s are completely unsuitable for the Didcot Semis. Their suitability for the existing Reading services is questionable.

 

[HST43257]

Why???
The 345s are completely unsuitable for the Didcot Semis. Their suitability for the existing Reading services is questionable.

In what way, may I ask?

 

[cactustwirly]

In what way, may I ask?

Lack of toilets, no luggage space, not enough seating capacity and the seating layout is completely unsuitable.
Plus they can't reach 110mph, so are useless for peak time services.

Most people using this service would rather keep the 387 from Paddington high level.

 

[David Goddard]

It's bad enough with XR trains running out to Reading, 36 miles from Paddington, let alone further. The original plan was Maidenhead (24) which was plenty far enough. Passengers at Maidenhead and Twyford already vote with their feet, and it's clear they choose a GW 387 over an XR 345 when the option is appropriate.

 

[MarkyT]

It's bad enough with XR trains running out to Reading, 36 miles from Paddington, let alone further. The original plan was Maidenhead (24) which was plenty far enough. Passengers at Maidenhead and Twyford already vote with their feet, and it's clear they choose a GW 387 over an XR 345 when the option is appropriate.

A proportion of the trains going to Reading makes sense as it is electrified, has capability and capacity for turnback, and avoids having additional overlapping local stopping services terminating at (say) Slough from the west. I expect few people from Reading will want to go all the way into London on the Elizabeth when they can save over 20 minutes on almost every other service unless they can be attracted by a cheaper TfL only fare or are unable or unwilling to change trains to reach a central destination. Absolutely no case whatsoever for the Lizzy Line going any further west I agree.

 

[cle]

People should look at some of the through-running in Japan - say Atami/Odawara to Utsonomiya - these are long distances on stock which often also through run as the Tokyo Metro, on other lines. Reading is not such a big deal, and folks can be responsible enough to use a toilet before travelling or at a station. It is not destined for Central London-Reading demand either, but it is a hub and a smart place to end it.

Sending 2tph to Didcot or Oxford in the peaks could make some sense, but likely over-capacity. I could see 2tph more to Heathrow T5 in time, but otherwise we'll have to see how usage goes in the first few years.

I'd expect that OOC needs the empty trains for the HS2 passengers to jump onto. Plus people jumping off GWR too. Dispersal here will be a big issue. There is no tube and onward buses/cabs will be less popular than Euston. Chopping Overground options is criminal too, as that would really help Crossrail in not being the only game in town.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

. . . and folks can be responsible enough to use a toilet before travelling or at a station.

Being in my mid-70s I can assure you it's not as simple as that, particularly in cold weather. For many old men, it is normal to relieve themselves and nevertheless need to "go" again quite soon after. It's akin to having a disability.

 

[cactustwirly]

People should look at some of the through-running in Japan - say Atami/Odawara to Utsonomiya - these are long distances on stock which often also through run as the Tokyo Metro, on other lines. Reading is not such a big deal, and folks can be responsible enough to use a toilet before travelling or at a station. It is not destined for Central London-Reading demand either, but it is a hub and a smart place to end it.

Sending 2tph to Didcot or Oxford in the peaks could make some sense, but likely over-capacity. I could see 2tph more to Heathrow T5 in time, but otherwise we'll have to see how usage goes in the first few years.

I'd expect that OOC needs the empty trains for the HS2 passengers to jump onto. Plus people jumping off GWR too. Dispersal here will be a big issue. There is no tube and onward buses/cabs will be less popular than Euston. Chopping Overground options is criminal too, as that would really help Crossrail in not being the only game in town.

It's not just the toilet issue, the trains are not suitable in anyway for journeys above half and hour.
For places West of Slough the train has to compete with the car, if it isn't comfortable then people won't choose to take the train.

It would not be so bad if they were of a Thameslink 700 specification.

 

[CW2]

The 12 tph are needed at Old Oak Common to clear passengers off HS2. Filling those trains with passengers from the likes of Didcot (or High Wycombe) would be self-defeating. In any case, why would you travel on a 345 all the way from Didcot when you could get an express to Old Oak Common and get an earlier connection from there?

 

[cactustwirly]

The 12 tph are needed at Old Oak Common to clear passengers off HS2. Filling those trains with passengers from the likes of Didcot (or High Wycombe) would be self-defeating. In any case, why would you travel on a 345 all the way from Didcot when you could get an express to Old Oak Common and get an earlier connection from there?

It's more for Cholsey, Goring and Pangbourne passengers.

 

[SynthD]

It's more for Cholsey, Goring and Pangbourne passengers.

A lot of arbitrary choices can be made. Appleford customers lose out by it ending at Didcot, Langley customers lose out by it ending at West Drayton.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Reading - Didcot local, extending up to Oxford, should run off towards Milton Keynes or Bedford eventually as some sort of all-stops super service that allows all sorts of journeys to open up.

Crossrail should stop dead at Reading - no further. It then gets complicated and is far too far out of London.

There should be 4tph to Reading all day, so GWR don't need to run off-peak east of Reading on the slow lines. It's pointless. A through Didcot 387 for the sole reason of people in tiny-usage stations such as Pangbourne and Cholsey to London when they'd change at Reading for a fast London anyway is just removing good capacity for freight or even for service recovery.

For me, it's easy.

Off Peak
4tph Reading - Ealing, Southall, Hayes, all stations west thereof.
4tph Heathrow Terminal 4 - all stations west of Paddington.
I see no genuine reason for any more services than that. Heathrow Express are being forced onto the Relief Lines anyway, from memory, so will undoubtedly enable connections to Terminal 5 very easily. No need for through services.

That gives 16tph terminating/ starting back at Paddington or Old Oak in future. If you find capacity is actually needed, you can add more services where required.

Peak
4tph Reading - stops as required within the timetable.
4tph Heathrow Terminal 4 - stops as required within the timetable.
4tph Maidenhead - stops as required within the timetable.
If needed, 4tph West Drayton additional. Use the timetable to remove stops from Reading trains to "speed" them, and give seats to those going further west than Southall and Ealing.
Other trains terminate at Old Oak and/or Paddington.

There is, in my mind, a case for using the New North line for Crossrail if possible but one has to assume the way they have severed it is very, very deliberate.

 

[Ianno87]

Heathrow Express are being forced onto the Relief Lines anyway, from memory, s

No they're not.

 

[cactustwirly]

Reading - Didcot local, extending up to Oxford, should run off towards Milton Keynes or Bedford eventually as some sort of all-stops super service that allows all sorts of journeys to open up.

Crossrail should stop dead at Reading - no further. It then gets complicated and is far too far out of London.

There should be 4tph to Reading all day, so GWR don't need to run off-peak east of Reading on the slow lines. It's pointless. A through Didcot 387 for the sole reason of people in tiny-usage stations such as Pangbourne and Cholsey to London when they'd change at Reading for a fast London anyway is just removing good capacity for freight or even for service recovery.

For me, it's easy.

Off Peak
4tph Reading - Ealing, Southall, Hayes, all stations west thereof.
4tph Heathrow Terminal 4 - all stations west of Paddington.
I see no genuine reason for any more services than that. Heathrow Express are being forced onto the Relief Lines anyway, from memory, so will undoubtedly enable connections to Terminal 5 very easily. No need for through services.

That gives 16tph terminating/ starting back at Paddington or Old Oak in future. If you find capacity is actually needed, you can add more services where required.

Peak
4tph Reading - stops as required within the timetable.
4tph Heathrow Terminal 4 - stops as required within the timetable.
4tph Maidenhead - stops as required within the timetable.
If needed, 4tph West Drayton additional. Use the timetable to remove stops from Reading trains to "speed" them, and give seats to those going further west than Southall and Ealing.
Other trains terminate at Old Oak and/or Paddington.

There is, in my mind, a case for using the New North line for Crossrail if possible but one has to assume the way they have severed it is very, very deliberate.

There is a reason for GWR to provide a meaningful service to Maidenhead, Slough and Twyford, which require a high quality service to Paddington.
There is also demand for cross Reading journeys, such as Maidenhead and Slough to Pangbourne and Goring.

Your proposed timetable is a huge downgrade in seating capacity and journey times compared to now, and effectively pushes marginal passengers from the Thames valley into their cars, so the loss making passengers in West London get a better service.

 

[Ianno87]

There is, in my mind, a case for using the New North line for Crossrail if possible but one has to assume the way they have severed it is very, very deliberate.

Yes it's deliberate. It's the only practical way to fit in the required platforms at Old Oak Common.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Reading - Didcot local, extending up to Oxford, should run off towards Milton Keynes or Bedford eventually as some sort of all-stops super service that allows all sorts of journeys to open up.

Crossrail should stop dead at Reading - no further. It then gets complicated and is far too far out of London.

There should be 4tph to Reading all day, so GWR don't need to run off-peak east of Reading on the slow lines. It's pointless. A through Didcot 387 for the sole reason of people in tiny-usage stations such as Pangbourne and Cholsey to London when they'd change at Reading for a fast London anyway is just removing good capacity for freight or even for service recovery.

For me, it's easy.

Off Peak
4tph Reading - Ealing, Southall, Hayes, all stations west thereof.
4tph Heathrow Terminal 4 - all stations west of Paddington.
I see no genuine reason for any more services than that. Heathrow Express are being forced onto the Relief Lines anyway, from memory, so will undoubtedly enable connections to Terminal 5 very easily. No need for through services.

That gives 16tph terminating/ starting back at Paddington or Old Oak in future. If you find capacity is actually needed, you can add more services where required.

Peak
4tph Reading - stops as required within the timetable.
4tph Heathrow Terminal 4 - stops as required within the timetable.
4tph Maidenhead - stops as required within the timetable.
If needed, 4tph West Drayton additional. Use the timetable to remove stops from Reading trains to "speed" them, and give seats to those going further west than Southall and Ealing.
Other trains terminate at Old Oak and/or Paddington.

There is, in my mind, a case for using the New North line for Crossrail if possible but one has to assume the way they have severed it is very, very deliberate.

Sounds a bit similar to Crossrail 1 in the 1990's (the agreed 4.1 timetable languishes somewhere in my archives , but it was worked up to include stock and train crew diagrams) - shame it was cancelled.

Basically 4 trains an hour for most of the day at Reading - semi fast to London - last call Ealing Broadway, 2 semi/semi Maidenhead (peak only) - all to Slough then selective calls , 4 Slough starters and 2 West Drayton and 2 Hayes starters (all stations) - 14 Thames Valley and 10 Chiltern / Met corridors. The idea was for some / all of the West Drayton to Hayes workings to work to Heathrow , depending on how the ideas panned out on HEX which was indicative in those wonderful days when privatisation was a twinkle in some eyes.

Reversing points on the Chiltern / Met were Amersham / Chesham and Aylesbury (the latter of course being semi/fast) , and on the GE , Stratford (limited use in the bay to clear freight paths over Forest Gate Junction) , Ilford (peak) Chadwell Heath , Gidea Park , Brentwood and Shenfield

Various options were looked at for Southend , the LT&S and even onto the WCML but no further than Milton Keynes. All had benefits and downsides. If anything there was too much "service" out in the shires and suburbs - and it took a lot of re-working to get an agreed situation. There was tremendous co-operation from Thames / Chiltern / the Met and the GE / LT&S to get "best value" and to make sure non - London flows were catered for. Endless runs on both "BR" and "LUL" models for passenger flows / station management issues etc. The fleet of course was the class "341" - which had fairly generous seating pitch etc and of course toilets. Much of the development work in the latter , ended up in other builds such as ribbon glazing , pantograph design, etc etc .....

I am encouraged to see such plans as Chadwell Heath and Maidenhead came back into operational plans after some excursions into an "all metro" railway , interesting to see how Heathrow pans out.

 

[mr_jrt]

Yes it's deliberate. It's the only practical way to fit in the required platforms at Old Oak Common.

No it's not. There was a flyover designed to enable access to the near end of the NNML as the stub of a WCML connection - 3 turnback sidings curving along the NNML alignment, two of which would become running lines when extended. When the WCML connection went away, so did the flyover. Tragic penny-pinching. The geometry still works for the NNML to reach the 'V' between HS2 and the GWML, but there can never be anything beyond an engineering connection to the GWML due to the conflicting movements due to the intended lack of grade separation.

 

[cle]

Sounds a bit similar to Crossrail 1 in the 1990's (the agreed 4.1 timetable languishes somewhere in my archives , but it was worked up to include stock and train crew diagrams) - shame it was cancelled.

Basically 4 trains an hour for most of the day at Reading - semi fast to London - last call Ealing Broadway, 2 semi/semi Maidenhead (peak only) - all to Slough then selective calls , 4 Slough starters and 2 West Drayton and 2 Hayes starters (all stations) - 14 Thames Valley and 10 Chiltern / Met corridors. The idea was for some / all of the West Drayton to Hayes workings to work to Heathrow , depending on how the ideas panned out on HEX which was indicative in those wonderful days when privatisation was a twinkle in some eyes.

Reversing points on the Chiltern / Met were Amersham / Chesham and Aylesbury (the latter of course being semi/fast) , and on the GE , Stratford (limited use in the bay to clear freight paths over Forest Gate Junction) , Ilford (peak) Chadwell Heath , Gidea Park , Brentwood and Shenfield

Various options were looked at for Southend , the LT&S and even onto the WCML but no further than Milton Keynes. All had benefits and downsides. If anything there was too much "service" out in the shires and suburbs - and it took a lot of re-working to get an agreed situation. There was tremendous co-operation from Thames / Chiltern / the Met and the GE / LT&S to get "best value" and to make sure non - London flows were catered for. Endless runs on both "BR" and "LUL" models for passenger flows / station management issues etc. The fleet of course was the class "341" - which had fairly generous seating pitch etc and of course toilets. Much of the development work in the latter , ended up in other builds such as ribbon glazing , pantograph design, etc etc .....

I am encouraged to see such plans as Chadwell Heath and Maidenhead came back into operational plans after some excursions into an "all metro" railway , interesting to see how Heathrow pans out.

HS2 (and having OOC as a main GWML hub also) have killed off these ambitions.

Only more modest things for Crossrail would now ever be possible - peak extensions to Didcot or Basingstoke if wired, additional services extended to West Drayton/Heathrow. There would be churn at OOC, for instance Heathrow to HS2, GWR Main or Overground traffic... so some capacity would remain. These trains do take many more than the tubes at Euston - but you might have two or three trains worth of people per Crossrail service! Vs Victoria line frequencies...

That is likely it - as HS2 and GWR will need empty trains for all the transferring passengers.

 

[JonathanH]

Only more modest things for Crossrail would now ever be possible - peak extensions to Didcot or Basingstoke if wired, additional services extended to West Drayton/Heathrow.

Heathrow services planned at 6tph are probably as many as can run anyway. I'm not sure why extra trains at West Drayton are needed - the capacity uplift from Paddington through West London is already significant.

There is no reason at all for peak extensions to Basingstoke or Didcot. The capacity the 345s offer is not needed between Reading and Basingstoke or Didcot and the through journey to the Tunnel is not going to be quick enough for there to be significant demand. I don't see how the cost of more 345s could be justified for these kind of extensions, especially with the build finished.

I appreciate the point you are making is that the number of potential extensions is limited - I think it is almost certain there won't be any (other than to Old Oak Common in due course) beyond those currently planned.

 

[Ianno87]

No it's not. There was a flyover designed to enable access to the near end of the NNML as the stub of a WCML connection - 3 turnback sidings curving along the NNML alignment, two of which would become running lines when extended. When the WCML connection went away, so did the flyover. Tragic penny-pinching. The geometry still works for the NNML to reach the 'V' between HS2 and the GWML, but there can never be anything beyond an engineering connection to the GWML due to the conflicting movements due to the intended lack of grade separation.

Notice I used the word "practical". That means cost-effective. i.e. reasonable costs in relation to potential benefits.

And even if you did passively provide, you're making the assumption that the 3 curving turnback sidings work operationally as well as the proposed arrangement at Old Oak Common (which they may not if they are longer and/or slower, so might be detrimental to Crossrail operation until such a time that the remote chance it ever went up the NNML was realised)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why???
The 345s are completely unsuitable for the Didcot Semis. Their suitability for the existing Reading services is questionable.

They're perfectly well suited for the Readings, because (unlike Thameslink from Bedford due to the rather limited EMR service there) nobody will actually use them to travel from Reading to London or vice versa, any more than they presently (don't) use the all stations stopping DMUs. They are for local journeys connecting with the faster (80x and Electrostar) trains.

The situation, time-wise, is similar to Watford Junction - hardly anybody will use LO to go to London from there (taking an hour), they'll use the fast LNR services (taking 20 minutes).

 

[cle]

Heathrow services planned at 6tph are probably as many as can run anyway. I'm not sure why extra trains at West Drayton are needed - the capacity uplift from Paddington through West London is already significant.

There is no reason at all for peak extensions to Basingstoke or Didcot. The capacity the 345s offer is not needed between Reading and Basingstoke or Didcot and the through journey to the Tunnel is not going to be quick enough for there to be significant demand. I don't see how the cost of more 345s could be justified for these kind of extensions, especially with the build finished.

I appreciate the point you are making is that the number of potential extensions is limited - I think it is almost certain there won't be any (other than to Old Oak Common in due course) beyond those currently planned.

Why would 6tph + 4tph HEx be as many as can run? Pretty pitiful for the infrastructure which is there, including Airport Junction/Stockley works. I'm thinking really only 2tph more to T5 - BA will certainly feel at a disadvantage as people move to the direct, cheaper services.

 

[JonathanH]

Why would 6tph + 4tph HEx be as many as can run? Pretty pitiful for the infrastructure which is there, including Airport Junction/Stockley works. I'm thinking really only 2tph more to T5 - BA will certainly feel at a disadvantage as people move to the direct, cheaper services.

A number of things:
* there is a single line into Heathrow Airport Terminal 4
* there are conflicting movements between the Terminal 4 and Terminal 5 branches
* the ideal operation for Terminal 5 is to always have a Heathrow Express train in the platform and allow time for alighting and boarding to be separate processes.

10tph into the Airport really ought to be sufficient, regardless of the flexibility of the grade separated junctions with the main and relief lines.

 

[cle]

* the ideal operation for Terminal 5 is to always have a Heathrow Express train in the platform and allow time for alighting and boarding to be separate processes.

I think this isn't necessary for a high frequency commuter service, a regular part of the network - as this will become. Crossrail will put paid to this side of the model, as it will become the new competition, vs taxis and so forth. It's a 15-21 min ride, the white glove rubbish can go.

Let's be real here - what Zurich and Amsterdam have is far better (cheaper, higher frequency, more varied) than the Gatwick Express or the even more binary Oslo one, for instance. Even Narita has multiple options, and runs onwards on the Yama freight loop/Tokaido line. Integration is coming, and it's way better.