Should Elizabeth line take over the Thames Valley branches and also Romford - Upminster branch?

[Jamiescott1]

Just as well there are fast trains from Didcot with toilets then! And toilets at the station - I’m sure a semi-fast Crossrail service would be 60-70 mins to Central London. It’s not that long without a bathroom if you plan and don’t guzzle water.

Those with medical needs such as ulcerative colitis can't plan

 

[cactustwirly]

Most people don't notice the comfort side that much. I think sending 1-2tph or some in the peaks to Didcot wouldn't be a terrible thing for Thames Valley connectivity and one seat rides. Curious on platform lengths though!

Hayes has a bay - I agree Slough would be a better inner terminus to ramp up frequency - as the Heathrows cover a lot of that - West Drayton was also going to turn 2tph - so maybe in time once the new timetable is stabilized, these will become options for furtive extensions of terminators.

However, OOC/Paddington will have need for some empty starting trains in future!

If people don't notice the comfort that much, then how come there have been so many complaints at the 800 seats?

345s are awful trains, if they do run to Didcot they should all be refitted with a 700 style interior as a minimum

 

[Bald Rick]

If people don't notice the comfort that much, then how come there have been so many complaints at the 800 seats?

how many, out of interest?

 

[hkstudent]

Those with medical needs such as ulcerative colitis can't plan

They can get off at a station with toilet facilities. Imagine those SWR class 455 to Guildford, no toilets also.

 

[cactustwirly]

They can get off at a station with toilet facilities. Imagine those SWR class 455 to Guildford, no toilets also.

But the journey time is shorter, as no one takes them all the way from Guildford to London.

Personally I'd rather have a 455 over a 345.
I think they ride better and the interior is more comfortable

 

[cle]

Those with medical needs such as ulcerative colitis can't plan

The railway isn’t built around niche medical conditions and is a choice to use, ultimately. It might not be suitable for some, of course. And as I mentioned, Didcot also has IC trains with comfy seats and toilets.

Not everything has to be catered for the eldest among us, the most entitled generation.

 

[tomuk]

Not everything has to be catered for the eldest among us, the most entitled generation.

What is that meant to mean? Ulcerative colitis doesn't just effect old people. There was a story in the press recently about a 17 year old girl with ulcerative colitis who ended up having stroke due to a blood clot. Was she entitled?

 

[Jamiescott1]

The railway isn’t built around niche medical conditions and is a choice to use, ultimately. It might not be suitable for some, of course. And as I mentioned, Didcot also has IC trains with comfy seats and toilets.

Not everything has to be catered for the eldest among us, the most entitled generation.

Half a million suffers in the uk is not niche and symptoms mostly start in people in their 20s and 30s. I would class those as entitled.

Id hardly say having a toilet on a train is building around something, I'd think it would be considered quite normal for journeys of 90 minutes plus

 

[Falcon1200]

And as I mentioned, Didcot also has IC trains with comfy seats and toilets.

But Cholsey, Goring, Pangbourne and Tilehurst do not.

Half a million suffers in the uk is not niche and symptoms mostly start in people in their 20s and 30s. I would class those as entitled.

Id hardly say having a toilet on a train is building around something, I'd think it would be considered quite normal for journeys of 90 minutes plus

Absolutely, toiletless trains should be confined to short distance metro style service only.

 

[Busaholic]

The railway isn’t built around niche medical conditions and is a choice to use, ultimately. It might not be suitable for some, of course. And as I mentioned, Didcot also has IC trains with comfy seats and toilets.

Not everything has to be catered for the eldest among us, the most entitled generation.

That's a highly ignorant and prejudiced view, and not one that's shared among most train operators in equivalent countries in the case of toilet provision.

 

[PeterC]

IIRC wasn't the western terminus originally meant to be at Maidenhead?

Was the extension to Reading purely an operational decision or the result of political pressure. I certainly recall news articles suggesting some of the latter.

 

[JN114]

Maidenhead was meant to be the Western terminus, hence the fairly extensive provision of sidings there and not Reading (all the other terminii have a fair degree of stabling provided).

It was then seen how much infrastructure on top of what was already being provided would be needed to maintain a decent outer-suburban service to Twyford and Reading - a full length West-facing Bay at Slough, a separate Marlow branch platform at Maidenhead, more extensive resignalling towards London to permit more trains to run on the relief lines. Crossrail baulked at the cost and instead decided to purchase 3(?) additional 345s to allow for extension towards Reading.

They were careful not to finalise that as their intention before the Reading remodelling was completed as they’d likely be expected to pick up some of that tab. But shortly after Reading project was completed it was announced Crossrail would be coming to Reading.

As it was the Reading project did have the foresight to design in a hypothetical (at the time) Crossrail extension.

Crossrail saved on mounting infrastructure costs and delays, for the price of just a small handful of extra 345s.

 

[JonathanH]

Crossrail baulked at the cost and instead decided to purchase 3(?) additional 345s to allow for extension towards Reading.

Only 2 - original order 68, final order 70, so an even cheaper decision.

 

[JN114]

Only 2 - original order 68, final order 70, so an even cheaper decision.

Stand corrected, thank you

 

[swt_passenger]

IIRC wasn't the western terminus originally meant to be at Maidenhead?

Was the extension to Reading purely an operational decision or the result of political pressure. I certainly recall news articles suggesting some of the latter.

A lot of the latter from Reading local politicians and MPs, I thought at the time.

Many posters here highlighted that the train facilities would be unsuitable. It seems the debate continues.

I just found an “early day motion” from as far back as 2005:

That this House regrets the decision that the proposed Crossrail link will terminate at Maidenhead, rather than continue on to Reading; recognises that this decision has the potential to have a severe adverse impact upon the economic future of Reading; and supports those who wish for the scheme to be extended to the western end of Reading.

https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/28476/extension-of-crossrail-to-reading

 

[JonathanH]

Stand corrected, thank you

Sorry, actually, looking back, the initial extension to Reading needed one extra unit. The doubling of services to Reading in the peak another but included in a step up of four, not two units.

Initial expectation of an order for 60 units
https://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/articles/crossrail-moves-forward-with-major-train-depot-contract-1

New fleet of 60 trains will deliver Crossrail services, boost London’s rail capacity by ten per cent and deliver new journey opportunities and faster journey times

Actual order for 65
https://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/ar...nd-depot-contract-to-be-awarded-to-bombardier

65 trains to be built in Derby

Then increased to 66 for Reading
https://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/articles/crossrail-trains-take-shape

Manufacture and delivery of the 66 Crossrail trains and depot is supporting 760 UK jobs and 80 apprenticeships

Then 70 to allow for a higher frequency in the peak to Reading and other service enhancements.
To enable the additional services, ...e on the Elizabeth line from 66 to 70 trains.

To enable the additional services, TfL will be increasing the number of trains that will operate on the Elizabeth line from 66 to 70 trains.

 

[Benjwri]

Many posters here highlighted that the train facilities would be unsuitable. It seems the debate continues.

I think what’s missed here is that the point of services to Reading, and hypothetical services to Didcot, is not that someone is taking a train all the way from even Paddington, let alone Abbey Wood, and instead they would take a fast train as far as possible.
Most people would be taking the line from an intermediate station to Reading or Didcot. The journey from Didcot to Reading is shorter than that in the central section, with far more easily accessible, and free, toilets at either station, and most inbetween. Therefore the lack of toilets would be less of a problem than the central section or most of the underground. It is currently quicker to take a fast train to Paddington and then a train to Ealing Broadway just about from Reading, and therefore no one from after would feasibly be making a journey longer than this, and so as much as the lack of toilets isn’t good, it wouldn’t be made worse by an extension to Didcot than it already is.

 

[cle]

That's a highly ignorant and prejudiced view, and not one that's shared among most train operators in equivalent countries in the case of toilet provision.

Nope I stand by it. The shrill reaction (vs frequent running down of the young, within which I don’t count myself) - vindicates it entirely.

If 500,000 people have this condition I’ve never heard of, then ~1/126 people do. In other words, 125/126 don’t, so we build for them. It’s utilitarianism at its purest. There are many more folks with actual ability and accessibility issues higher up the list to ethically invest in - so many - than being old and not being smart enough to wee before leaving on a journey.

And as I keep saying, there are plenty of options like faster trains with toilets? Stations too! Or homes, coffee shops, pubs. Can’t make it? Don’t take it.

And these long extending side-seated suburban routes exist in Tokyo, the RER, all work fine without this pearl clutching, smelling salts hysteria. Perfectly rational.

 

[cactustwirly]

I think what’s missed here is that the point of services to Reading, and hypothetical services to Didcot, is not that someone is taking a train all the way from even Paddington, let alone Abbey Wood, and instead they would take a fast train as far as possible.
Most people would be taking the line from an intermediate station to Reading or Didcot. The journey from Didcot to Reading is shorter than that in the central section, with far more easily accessible, and free, toilets at either station, and most inbetween. Therefore the lack of toilets would be less of a problem than the central section or most of the underground. It is currently quicker to take a fast train to Paddington and then a train to Ealing Broadway just about from Reading, and therefore no one from after would feasibly be making a journey longer than this, and so as much as the lack of toilets isn’t good, it wouldn’t be made worse by an extension to Didcot than it already is.

Let's make the journey as uncomfortable as possible.
That's how make the railway attractive.

What next? Re-introduce pacers on Leeds to York services?

 

[Benjwri]

Let's make the journey as uncomfortable as possible.
That's how make the railway attractive.

What next? Re-introduce pacers on Leeds to York services?

Because the Class 387s that are currently running the line are the picture of comfort? I wouldn’t say they are very different to the Class 345 in terms of comfort …

 

[cactustwirly]

Because the Class 387s that are currently running the line are the picture of comfort? I wouldn’t say they are very different to the Class 345 in terms of comfort …

I disagree, the 387s are night and day.
They have carpets, luggage racks, chargers, and 2+2 seats with tables.

345s have very uncomfortable tube seating with no luggage storage and a very harsh ride.

 

[Acton1991]

Would the current GWR proposal also mean that certain stations in the western stretch be passed to TfL to manage?

 

[Falcon1200]

Because the Class 387s that are currently running the line are the picture of comfort? I wouldn’t say they are very different to the Class 345 in terms of comfort …

i would also disagree, I find the 387s to be comfortable and well suited to their originally intended duties (ie not perhaps Cardiff/London !)

 

[JN114]

Would the current GWR proposal also mean that certain stations in the western stretch be passed to TfL to manage?

What GWR managed stations do you think would need to transfer? TfL already manage almost all the stations between Paddington and Maidenhead; and have done for several years now.

 

[Acton1991]

What GWR managed stations do you think would need to transfer? TfL already manage almost all the stations between Paddington and Maidenhead; and have done for several years now.

Slough, Maidenhead and Twyford? If the Elizabeth line becomes the primary mode at these stations, surely it makes more sense to be managed by TfL and not GWR?

 

[JN114]

Slough, Maidenhead and Twyford? If the Elizabeth line becomes the primary mode at these stations, surely it makes more sense to be managed by TfL and not GWR?

Not really.

Nothing changes for those 3 stations under GWR’s proposal - indeed if anything it makes the GWR services more attractive as they’ll be another 5-6 minutes quicker journey time to Paddington.

Why do you feel it needs to change? There’s plenty of cases up and down the country of minority operators “managing” stations; if they operate trains there at all. West Mids Railway and Water Orton to cite just one example amongst dozens.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

. . . being old and not being smart enough to wee before leaving on a journey.

Elderly men do urinate before leaving their houses. Their problem is that an expanded prostate prevents them from draining their bladders completely and consequently those bladders are soon full again. Hence: old men get up in the night. Hence: old men need public lavatories. The problem is more acute in cold weather. In today's temperature, there won't be a problem for most old men.

You'll be old one day. When you are, unless you're one of the fortunate few, you're going to understand exactly what I mean.

 

[Acton1991]

Not really.

Nothing changes for those 3 stations under GWR’s proposal - indeed if anything it makes the GWR services more attractive as they’ll be another 5-6 minutes quicker journey time to Paddington.

Why do you feel it needs to change? There’s plenty of cases up and down the country of minority operators “managing” stations; if they operate trains there at all. West Mids Railway and Water Orton to cite just one example amongst dozens.

Not saying anything does need to change, although I do feel like TfL do a better job at station upkeep, branding, signage etc

 

[WideRanger]

Nope I stand by it. The shrill reaction (vs frequent running down of the young, within which I don’t count myself) - vindicates it entirely.

If 500,000 people have this condition I’ve never heard of, then ~1/126 people do. In other words, 125/126 don’t, so we build for them. It’s utilitarianism at its purest. There are many more folks with actual ability and accessibility issues higher up the list to ethically invest in - so many - than being old and not being smart enough to wee before leaving on a journey.

And as I keep saying, there are plenty of options like faster trains with toilets? Stations too! Or homes, coffee shops, pubs. Can’t make it? Don’t take it.

And these long extending side-seated suburban routes exist in Tokyo, the RER, all work fine without this pearl clutching, smelling salts hysteria. Perfectly rational.

This is getting a bit off topic. But your reaction seems to be aimed at the wrong people. Someone upthread mentioned half a million people with ulcerative colitis. This is not about peeing. This is about people who frequently have a sudden and urgent need to empty their bowels. It's deeply embarrasing, and although lots of people are affected, they understandably don't like talking about it. That's just one - there are many, many diseases and conditions that make it hard to plan when to go to toilet. And lots of non-diseases - for example some unexpected food poisoning. For all of these people, not having a toilet makes things more difficult. And the most affected are not old men, to be frank.

Someone who is unable to go out because of the fear of soiling themselves and their surroundings has an actual accessibility issue.

You mention Japan as having routes with longitudinal seating and no toilets. True, but the longest of such routes do have toilets on board, albeit only a limited provision. They also have well maintained toilets within the gateline at pretty much every station, along with super high frequencies so that if someone needs to get off to use the toilet, it won't normally wreck their journey.

I actually agree that not having toilets on these trains is not the end of the world, especially because there are often alternatives available. But you are massively underestimating the number of people who are affected. And worse, you are simply being dismissive and disrespectful of people who aren't as fortunate as you.

 

[Benjwri]

Not saying anything does need to change, although I do feel like TfL do a better job at station upkeep, branding, signage etc

Definitely agree on branding and signage, any GWR station smaller than about Bath still has FGW branding, even Oxford, wouldn’t necessarily agree on upkeep though. Liz line ones are nice because they are new but there are some pretty terribly kept tube stations which rival the worst of GWRs stations, Cholsey for example.