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

[cle]

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.

I'm not aiming to be unsympathetic or disrespectful - this isn't a binary situation where folks have no choice. I am saying it is unrealistic to scope and build all transit for all needs - e.g. there are no tubes on the Met line and people do City - Amersham, that's a solid hour. But there are other options too - like a change for Marylebone, if you needed that provision.

In this case, Didcot to London has toilets at both stations and on the fast trains. But people with issues wouldn't be able to take the slower trains for the whole slog, without a plan (going in advance, hopping off somewhere en route etc) - it's not exhaustive and shouldn't be a reason to not operationally extend routes that might make sense for combining. End to end passengers will be few.

Agree that Japan are better for toilet provision in stations - less vandalism, more pride in civics, cleaning etc - we are who we are, and sometimes we don't have the investment, ethics or the behaviour for what other countries can provide. And they do some crazy complex through-running on subway stock - but I imagine very few end to end users - but yes in theory, many 2 hour + journeys on suburban, side seated stock.

 

[Wolfie]

I'm not aiming to be unsympathetic or disrespectful - this isn't a binary situation where folks have no choice. I am saying it is unrealistic to scope and build all transit for all needs - e.g. there are no tubes on the Met line and people do City - Amersham, that's a solid hour. But there are other options too - like a change for Marylebone, if you needed that provision.

In this case, Didcot to London has toilets at both stations and on the fast trains. But people with issues wouldn't be able to take the slower trains for the whole slog, without a plan (going in advance, hopping off somewhere en route etc) - it's not exhaustive and shouldn't be a reason to not operationally extend routes that might make sense for combining. End to end passengers will be few.

Agree that Japan are better for toilet provision in stations - less vandalism, more pride in civics, cleaning etc - we are who we are, and sometimes we don't have the investment, ethics or the behaviour for what other countries can provide. And they do some crazy complex through-running on subway stock - but I imagine very few end to end users - but yes in theory, many 2 hour + journeys on suburban, side seated stock.

Take a look at the length of some Seoul metro lines some time.....

 

[cactustwirly]

Take a look at the length of some Seoul metro lines some time.....

London to Didcot is hardly a metro route so it's not really a valid comparison.

Like saying the 158s should be replaced by metro stock on the Leeds to Hull or Leeds to York routes. It's madness

 

[cle]

London to Didcot is hardly a metro route so it's not really a valid comparison.

Like saying the 158s should be replaced by metro stock on the Leeds to Hull or Leeds to York routes. It's madness

After the wires and line speed works are done - who knows.

Given most journeys are one hub to another or a midpoint to a hub (i.e Manc-Leeds, Hudds-Manc/Leeds, Leeds-York, Manc-Liv covers most of it) - these will be 20-30 mins tops. Manc-Leeds being ~45. It's really not very long and maybe not metro stock itself - due to speeds - but no tables or anything are really needed.

I'd think something different (no doubt 80x) for Newcastle services than for some core commuter services in time, would be appropriate.

 

[miklcct]

TfL has inflicted glorified tube trains on the main line railway

That's great, the same was done in Hong Kong as well. By modifying a suburban stock into a tube train, capacity can be increased.

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

Then we should install toilets on every station of the route, like what Hong Kong's KCR did in order to remove on-board toilets to increase capacity.

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.

Did they expect people to change twice from intercity services (Reading and Maidenhead) to address local stations?

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?

When trains are dangerously overloaded, it's basically impossible to provide comfort.

A new, shiny, modern railway line will attract city residents to move out to the suburbs, resulting in the railway getting overloaded soon before expectation as what happened in Hong Kong.

 

[cactustwirly]

That's great, the same was done in Hong Kong as well. By modifying a suburban stock into a tube train, capacity can be increased.



Then we should install toilets on every station of the route, like what Hong Kong's KCR did in order to remove on-board toilets to increase capacity.



Did they expect people to change twice from intercity services (Reading and Maidenhead) to address local stations?


When trains are dangerously overloaded, it's basically impossible to provide comfort.

A new, shiny, modern railway line will attract city residents to move out to the suburbs, resulting in the railway getting overloaded soon before expectation as what happened in Hong Kong.

Which services are currently "dangerously overloaded"?

 

[Falcon1200]

That's great, the same was done in Hong Kong as well. By modifying a suburban stock into a tube train, capacity can be increased.

What requirement is there to increase capacity on GWR's Didcot/Paddington service by replacing perfectly adequate Class 387s with toiletless, mostly longitudinal-seated Class 345s, aka glorified tube trains ? From my observation, none whatsoever.

Then we should install toilets on every station of the route

So any passenger requiring a lavatory en route has to get off, use a station toilet, then wait for the next train ? Not acceptable for anything more than short-distance metro/tube style routes.

 

[Benjwri]

What requirement is there to increase capacity on GWR's Didcot/Paddington service by replacing perfectly adequate Class 387s with toiletless, mostly longitudinal-seated Class 345s, aka glorified tube trains ? From my observation, none whatsoever.

On some of the peak services there is, the Class 387s can be extremely busy. But more in the central section you most definitely need it.
The point of these trains isn’t for people to be travelling long distances on them though. With GWR running semi fast services on the 387s, it’s obvious the Elizabeth line isn’t meant for people to travel the entire journey on, in the same way you wouldn’t get someone travelling the entire Northern or District line.

 

[miklcct]

What requirement is there to increase capacity on GWR's Didcot/Paddington service by replacing perfectly adequate Class 387s with toiletless, mostly longitudinal-seated Class 345s, aka glorified tube trains ? From my observation, none whatsoever.



So any passenger requiring a lavatory en route has to get off, use a station toilet, then wait for the next train ? Not acceptable for anything more than short-distance metro/tube style routes.

345s are definitely needed on the stopping service between Reading and Paddington, no so much all the way to Didcot. This is what has been done in Hong Kong in the past, and London now.

And yes, people taking suburban trains wanting a ticket should get off the train, use a toilet at the station, and get back on the next train. Reading to Paddington is a typical suburban route, which should be operated like metro / tube line.

 

[cle]

So any passenger requiring a lavatory en route has to get off, use a station toilet, then wait for the next train ? Not acceptable for anything more than short-distance metro/tube style routes.

I don't think this is that common - but the thinking is more that each station has one, so you use it before you get on. The journey is barely more than an hour - and many metro journeys (see Amersham-Aldgate in an earlier post) can be an hour or a little over.

 

[Jamiescott1]

Slightly off topic but still relevant.
Any issues on the line then the Didcot stoppers are always the first trains to be cancelled or operate Didcot to reading only.
This afternoon Didcot stoppers were cancelled.

 

[Benjwri]

345s are definitely needed on the stopping service between Reading and Paddington, no so much all the way to Didcot. This is what has been done in Hong Kong in the past, and London now.

Out of interest what makes them needed to Reading but not Didcot? What makes the extension to Reading from Maidenhead needed but not to Didcot? The frequency of stops is actually greater between Reading and Didcot, and the distance between every stop is less than the distance between both Reading and Twyford and Twyford and Maidenhead.

 

[Trainbike46]

Out of interest what makes them needed to Reading but not Didcot? What makes the extension to Reading from Maidenhead needed but not to Didcot? The frequency of stops is actually greater between Reading and Didcot, and the distance between every stop is less than the distance between both Reading and Twyford and Twyford and Maidenhead.

They need to run to reading so that changing onto west-bound IC trains from the local stations is easier, which would require two changes if Elizabeth line ended at maidenhead

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Out of interest what makes them needed to Reading but not Didcot? What makes the extension to Reading from Maidenhead needed but not to Didcot? The frequency of stops is actually greater between Reading and Didcot, and the distance between every stop is less than the distance between both Reading and Twyford and Twyford and Maidenhead.

Great Western/CrossCountry/SWR services to Oxford & Cotswolds, Newbury, Basingstoke & South Coast, The North Downs, Waterloo via Richmond, Devon & Cornwall, Bristol, South Wales and Manchester via Birmingham do not run from Maidenhead...

 

[FGW_Lad]

As someone who has no choice in using the 345s between Burnham & Paddington, I’d agree they should not be used past Reading. 387s are more than suitable for the Didcot - Paddington services. Whilst the 387s have their flaws, they are a significant upgrade from the 345s.

 

[JohnRegular]

So any passenger requiring a lavatory en route has to get off, use a station toilet, then wait for the next train ? Not acceptable for anything more than short-distance metro/tube style routes.

Yeah? Very few journeys will be made longer than an hour on the 345s. Most stations will see at least 4tph. This is a reasonable compromise in my opinion.

It seems like (and I may be very wrong here) you don't think the Elizabeth line is a metro style route. No doubt there are plenty of hairs to split here, but by any sensible definition it is. Of course it has 'glorified tube trains'. I'm sure there are members of this forum that won't rest until compartment stock is introduced on the crossrail core, but the 345s are fine for what they do.

 

[leytongabriel]

Yeah? Very few journeys will be made longer than an hour on the 345s. Most stations will see at least 4tph. This is a reasonable compromise in my opinion.

It seems like (and I may be very wrong here) you don't think the Elizabeth line is a metro style route. No doubt there are plenty of hairs to split here, but by any sensible definition it is. Of course it has 'glorified tube trains'. I'm sure there are members of this forum that won't rest until compartment stock is introduced on the crossrail core, but the 345s are fine for what they do.

I wonder if there have been any real passenger surveys about what people feel about these trains with longditudanal seating and more space for standing for journeys of over 30m.

 

[Falcon1200]

It seems like (and I may be very wrong here) you don't think the Elizabeth line is a metro style route. No doubt there are plenty of hairs to split here, but by any sensible definition it is. Of course it has 'glorified tube trains'. I'm sure there are members of this forum that won't rest until compartment stock is introduced on the crossrail core, but the 345s are fine for what they do.

Actually I do think that a metro style route is exactly what the Elizabeth Line is, and by extension what Class 345 is designed for. But Paddington/Didcot outer suburban trains, at 53 miles, are not by any definition a metro-style service and should not therefore be operated by unsuitable stock - Which Class 345 certainly is, whereas Class 387 is eminently suitable (despite not having compartments....). Personally I feel that Slough would have been the natural western terminus for Elizabeth Line services, but that bird has well and truly flown.

 

[AM9]

I wonder how a thread like this would have progressed had Siemens won the contract for the trains and supplied versions of the Desiro City, (which even as the existing class 700 design would go a long way to meet the TfL speed, acceleration, dwell time and capacity requirement).

 

[nw1]

The Didcot via Crossrail thing does seem to be a solution looking for a problem.

What exactly is wrong with the existing 387s?

If you look at what kind of stock has historically run semi-fast services from around 50 miles out into London on any electrified line, it will almost always have been something similar to a 387, not inner-suburban stock.

 

[PeterC]

Did they expect people to change twice from intercity services (Reading and Maidenhead) to address local stations?

What's so special about the Thames Valley? A trip from Romford to Stowmarket last week involved 2 changes in each direction.

 

[Benjwri]

But Paddington/Didcot outer suburban trains, at 53 miles, are not by any definition a metro-style service and should not therefore be operated by unsuitable stock

But are they any more unsuitable than to Twyford/Reading? In reality no one is going to be taking the trains all the way from Paddington, so the distace argument shouldn't come into it. It is a higher frequency of stopping than some of the rest of the line.

What exactly is wrong with the existing 387s?

There's nothing wrong with the 387s, but more how GWR runs them. The first issue is the upcoming change to move GWR stopping services to the fast line after Slough. It further fragments the Thames Valley. Anyone looking to travel to a station after Slough from a station between Didcot and Reading now has to change at Reading to the Elizabeth line anyways, and in reality is barely spending any time on the 387. These are the people who would be affected to a move to 345s anyways, anyone traveling longer distances into London would take an IET anyways, or GWR could continue to run their 387s as well as the Elizabeth Line running, providing the best of both worlds. But as it will be to travel to a station such as West Drayton from a station between Didcot and Oxford will soon be 2 changes, while currently it is one, and before the electrification was a direct train.
GWR also cares very little about the stopping services, they are always the first to be cut when disruption occurs, often not even being run between Didcot and Reading. They feel like they are only run because they are obligated to. The stations between Didcot and Reading are also quite literally falling apart in places, and feel like they are forgotten about.

 

[PeterC]

On the subject of toilets I dug out some old coach timetables from the 1960s. Toilet breaks could easily be over 2 hours apart. A trip to Southend from Derby could leave you with legs crossed for over 4 hours.

 

[JohnRegular]

Actually I do think that a metro style route is exactly what the Elizabeth Line is, and by extension what Class 345 is designed for. But Paddington/Didcot outer suburban trains, at 53 miles, are not by any definition a metro-style service and should not therefore be operated by unsuitable stock - Which Class 345 certainly is, whereas Class 387 is eminently suitable (despite not having compartments....). Personally I feel that Slough would have been the natural western terminus for Elizabeth Line services, but that bird has well and truly flown.

My apologies if I took your comments somewhat out of context. I agree though, extension to Didcot is a solution looking for a problem. As are most of the suggestions made by OP- I think it would be neat if Crossrail could have branches to Henley, Marlow, Windsor, Greenford, Upminster etc, but the infrastructure isn't there for it and the current situation is perfectly acceptable.

 

[MattRat]

There's nothing wrong with the 387s, but more how GWR runs them. The first issue is the upcoming change to move GWR stopping services to the fast line after Slough. It further fragments the Thames Valley. Anyone looking to travel to a station after Slough from a station between Didcot and Reading now has to change at Reading to the Elizabeth line anyways, and in reality is barely spending any time on the 387. These are the people who would be affected to a move to 345s anyways, anyone traveling longer distances into London would take an IET anyways, or GWR could continue to run their 387s as well as the Elizabeth Line running, providing the best of both worlds. But as it will be to travel to a station such as West Drayton from a station between Didcot and Oxford will soon be 2 changes, while currently it is one, and before the electrification was a direct train.
GWR also cares very little about the stopping services, they are always the first to be cut when disruption occurs, often not even being run between Didcot and Reading. They feel like they are only run because they are obligated to. The stations between Didcot and Reading are also quite literally falling apart in places, and feel like they are forgotten about.

So the real problem is, they only care about London. So, why would they do your idea, as it helps places other than London.

 

[Benjwri]

So the real problem is, they only care about London. So, why would they do your idea, as it helps places other than London.

GWR only care about the fast services, TfL don't necessarily. My point is Crossrail as it was at it's inception was touted as a great railway which would improve the connectivity of the west. In reality it has now hugely increased journey times for anyone past Reading. We lost direct trains to Oxford to electrification, we lost direct trains to stations such as Southall to TfL Rail, and we are now losing direct trains to anywhere past Slough. Assuming the departure times from Reading remain fairly similar, there is a huge 20 minute change time at Reading to get to those stations. It is undenyable that the Elizabeth Line has ultimately negatively affected connectivety in for those coming from the Thames Valley outside of the actual route.

 

[JonathanH]

Assuming the departure times from Reading remain fairly similar, there is a huge 20 minute change time at Reading to get to those stations.

There are, I think, likely to be extra Elizabeth Line trains from Maidenhead into Crossrail which fill the 20 minute gap, albeit with a connection at Maidenhead rather than Reading.

 

[cle]

GWR only care about the fast services, TfL don't necessarily. My point is Crossrail as it was at it's inception was touted as a great railway which would improve the connectivity of the west. In reality it has now hugely increased journey times for anyone past Reading. We lost direct trains to Oxford to electrification, we lost direct trains to stations such as Southall to TfL Rail, and we are now losing direct trains to anywhere past Slough. Assuming the departure times from Reading remain fairly similar, there is a huge 20 minute change time at Reading to get to those stations. It is undenyable that the Elizabeth Line has ultimately negatively affected connectivety in for those coming from the Thames Valley outside of the actual route.

Won't the proposed Didcot - xxx - Reading - Twyford - Maidenhead - Slough - Padd fast line service be helpful for this?

It's planned as 2tph right now but could be 1tph, and perhaps a second tph could go to Newbury and offer the same type of connections to other Thames Valley stations?

 

[Benjwri]

Won't the proposed Didcot - xxx - Reading - Twyford - Maidenhead - Slough - Padd fast line service be helpful for this?

It's planned as 2tph right now but could be 1tph, and perhaps a second tph could go to Newbury and offer the same type of connections to other Thames Valley stations?

That's replacing the current slow stopping service though, and my point was for the stations past Slough but before Paddington. But yeah will help with getting to paddington itself.

 

[nw1]

But are they any more unsuitable than to Twyford/Reading? In reality no one is going to be taking the trains all the way from Paddington, so the distace argument shouldn't come into it. It is a higher frequency of stopping than some of the rest of the line.

There's nothing wrong with the 387s, but more how GWR runs them. The first issue is the upcoming change to move GWR stopping services to the fast line after Slough. It further fragments the Thames Valley. Anyone looking to travel to a station after Slough from a station between Didcot and Reading now has to change at Reading to the Elizabeth line anyways, and in reality is barely spending any time on the 387.

Could they not change at Slough, and spend more time on the 387 (which would also allow them to skip Taplow and Burnham)?

These are the people who would be affected to a move to 345s anyways, anyone traveling longer distances into London would take an IET anyways, or GWR could continue to run their 387s as well as the Elizabeth Line running, providing the best of both worlds. But as it will be to travel to a station such as West Drayton from a station between Didcot and Oxford will soon be 2 changes, while currently it is one, and before the electrification was a direct train.

Mind you I don't think most of the 387s call at West Drayton, do they? It's only Hayes and Ealing between Slough and Paddington for most, isn't it?

But the issue there is different. It's more a question of whether they should run the Didcot non-stop between Slough and London or keep it as it is, not a question of whether the 387 service is good or bad. FWIW I think the current pattern (Hayes and Ealing only) is quite a good compromise between keeping the service fairly fast and maintaining connectivity with Greater London stations.

The other issue there is the lack of electrification to Oxford leading to the pattern you describe above. Not sure if they could stop one of the two fasts to Oxford each hour (i.e the one which doesn't extend to Worcester) at Radley, which seems to be the most-important of the three stations?

Personally I feel that Slough would have been the natural western terminus for Elizabeth Line services, but that bird has well and truly flown.

I think Reading makes more sense for connectivity, and with the caveat that Twyford and Maidenhead should also get main-line services (which they do). The only Crossrail-only stops on that section are thus Taplow and Burnham, and they are similar distance to London as many other stations served by inner-suburban stock.

Won't the proposed Didcot - xxx - Reading - Twyford - Maidenhead - Slough - Padd fast line service be helpful for this?

It's planned as 2tph right now but could be 1tph, and perhaps a second tph could go to Newbury and offer the same type of connections to other Thames Valley stations?

That sounds a reasonable idea in theory, as it would give the smaller stations on the Newbury line a direct service to London (and other stations past Reading).

The second tph from Didcot could then terminate at Reading, in lieu of the Newbury slow.

Not sure whether the pathing would permit this to occur in practice, though.

Assuming the departure times from Reading remain fairly similar, there is a huge 20 minute change time at Reading to get to those stations. It is undenyable that the Elizabeth Line has ultimately negatively affected connectivety in for those coming from the Thames Valley outside of the actual route.

Could Crossrail run an even-interval 15 min service from Reading all day?