Crossrail

[gwr4090]

When is the deadline for any decision to extend Crossrail west from Maidenhead to Reading ?

I have heard some concerns about the suitability of Crossrail trains as far west as Reading, as these will be essentially inner suburban/metro trains (like LUL surface stock) with low seating density, lots of standing space, no toilets etc, very different to what Thames Valley customers have been used to ?

 

[swt_passenger]

There is no known or published 'deadline'.

The infrastructure changes at Maidenhead are underway as required by the Crossrail Act.

The trains will not be much like LU surface stock, the length and declared capacity requires an average of 45 seats per carriage on the 200m train length, presumed to be 10 x 20m carriages.

 

[JamesRowden]

When is the deadline for any decision to extend Crossrail west from Maidenhead to Reading ?

I have heard some concerns about the suitability of Crossrail trains as far west as Reading, as these will be essentially inner suburban/metro trains (like LUL surface stock) with low seating density, lots of standing space, no toilets etc, very different to what Thames Valley customers have been used to ?

Extending Crossrail to Reading (2 of the 2 Maidenhead services per hour during off-peak and 2 of the 4 Maidenhead services per hour during the peak) would only require one extra Crossrail set (since a turbo presently takes 15 minutes between Reading and Maidenhead when running the equivalent service). This would take the place of the proposed peak only Slough-Reading shuttles (and save the stock required). The effective deadline for this would be when the Great Western franchise is awarded (2016).

If the proposed semi-fast Paddington-Reading (2tph) services were also transfered to Crossrail (both this service and Crossrail are planned to run along the relief lines) more Crossrail stock would need to be ordered but it probably would not be too complicated (I would guess that it would require an additional three/four Crossrail sets). The effective deadline would probably once again be when the Great Western franchise is awarded (2016).

I think that a decision has not been made yet due to the lack of urgency (since no more than 4tph of the 6tph relief line peak sevice to Maidenhead would need to run through to Reading and so turn back facilites at Maidenhead are useful either way) and the choice between the two potential forms in which Crossrail could be extended to Reading.

 

[Ironside]

Extending Crossrail to Reading (2 of the 2 Maidenhead services per hour during off-peak and 2 of the 4 Maidenhead services per hour during the peak) would only require one extra Crossrail set (since a turbo presently takes 15 minutes between Reading and Maidenhead when running the equivalent service). This would take the place of the proposed peak only Slough-Reading shuttles (and save the stock required). The effective deadline for this would be when the Great Western franchise is awarded (2016).

If the proposed semi-fast Paddington-Reading (2tph) services were also transfered to Crossrail (both this service and Crossrail are planned to run along the relief lines) more Crossrail stock would need to be ordered but it probably would not be too complicated (I would guess that it would require an additional three/four Crossrail sets). The effective deadline would probably once again be when the Great Western franchise is awarded (2016).

I think that a decision has not been made yet due to the lack of urgency (since no more than 4tph of the 6tph relief line peak sevice to Maidenhead would need to run through to Reading and so turn back facilites at Maidenhead are useful either way) and the choice between the two potential forms in which Crossrail could be extended to Reading.

Isn't there a complication with Twyford station, I can't remember whether it's not having enough platforms or if the Crossrail train stopped at Twyford then it holds up the fast trains?

 

[anthony263]

Isn't there a complication with Twyford station, I can't remember whether it's not having enough platforms or if the Crossrail train stopped at Twyford then it holds up the fast trains?

I am not sure what you mean with this Twyford has serperate platforms on both the relief and mainlines as well as the bay on the henley branch.

(The most recent episode of the FGW documentary on channel 5 has some shots filmed at Twyford so you can see the seperate platforms)

 

[Ironside]

I am not sure what you mean with this Twyford has serperate platforms on both the relief and mainlines as well as the bay on the henley branch.

(The most recent episode of the FGW documentary on channel 5 has some shots filmed at Twyford so you can see the seperate platforms)

I freely accept there are five platforms as you describe, my point is that I have a vague memory of reading that Twyford could be a problem because if extra services were operating on those lines through twyford their would be some sort of capacity problems. It's only a vague memory and I may well be wrong, hence why the previous post was a little vague.

 

[anthony263]

One problem could be with those services which run directly between London & Henley on thames have to crossover to the up platform to acess the branch.

I suppose the main problem is beyond Twyford just as you get to Reading which will hopefully be fixed over the next few years

 

[swt_passenger]

I suppose the main problem is beyond Twyford just as you get to Reading which will hopefully be fixed over the next few years

What problem are you talking about?

There is nothing left to be done 'just as you get to Reading' (at least on the relief side). The track and platform layout is already the finished article.

 

[MarkyT]

I am not sure what you mean with this Twyford has serperate platforms on both the relief and mainlines as well as the bay on the henley branch.

Perhaps there are likely to be more varied stopping patterns on the reliefs with the mains becoming yet more dedicated to the 125MPH expresses. Any increase in all stations stopping service fragments the space in between and reduces its capacity for multiple fast passenger trains and freights. Variable stopping patterns are also where the flexible relief overtaking facilities at Reading can also come in useful. It seems wasteful to use up much of this newly won relief side through platform capacity with frequent terminating Crossrail trains. Perhaps much better to combine the Newbury-Reading, limited stop and Didcot-Reading, all stations services with the CR Express Reading-Twyford-Maidenhead-Slough-Hayes-London pattern. Additional build emus could be configured internally more suitably for outer suburban service.

 

[mr_jrt]

...what they really need are 6 tracks at points so the semi-fast services can overtake the stopping services...

 

[Ironside]

Perhaps there are likely to be more varied stopping patterns on the reliefs with the mains becoming yet more dedicated to the 125MPH expresses. Any increase in all stations stopping service fragments the space in between and reduces its capacity for multiple fast passenger trains and freights. Variable stopping patterns are also where the flexible relief overtaking facilities at Reading can also come in useful. It seems wasteful to use up much of this newly won relief side through platform capacity with frequent terminating Crossrail trains. Perhaps much better to combine the Newbury-Reading, limited stop and Didcot-Reading, all stations services with the CR Express Reading-Twyford-Maidenhead-Slough-Hayes-London pattern. Additional build emus could configured internally more suitably for outer suburban service.

This is what I was alluding to, and that's a good solution too, as is mr jrt's although the cost of the extra tracks might be eye watering.

 

[tbtc]

Crossrail is primarily about extra capacity between Liverpool Street and Paddington, taking pressure off the Central Line/ Circle Line etc, so the design for high capacity toiletless trains (45 seats per carriage, so plenty of space for people to stand on short journeys between stations in central London).

That design wouldn't be appropriate all the way to Newbury/ Didcot, and a conventional EMU design wouldn't work in the "core".

 

[Ironside]

Crossrail is primarily about extra capacity between Liverpool Street and Paddington, taking pressure off the Central Line/ Circle Line etc, so the design for high capacity toiletless trains (45 seats per carriage, so plenty of space for people to stand on short journeys between stations in central London).

That design wouldn't be appropriate all the way to Newbury/ Didcot, and a conventional EMU design wouldn't work in the "core".

May I ask why the conventional emu won't work in the core? I presume that it it the difficultly in moving large numbers of people on and off the train ie too much seating and not enough standing/moving room?

 

[tbtc]

May I ask why the conventional emu won't work in the core? I presume that it it the difficultly in moving large numbers of people on and off the train ie too much seating and not enough standing/moving room?

Mechanically it'd be fine - I'm meaning that Crossrail requires identical stock (to suit the platform screen doors etc), and you'd need something fairly high density to suit the short distance passengers (Crossrail will get a lot more short distance passengers in London than Thameslink will).

Passengers from Didcot/ Newbury etc will need more seats/ toilets etc.

 

[MarkyT]

Mechanically it'd be fine - I'm meaning that Crossrail requires identical stock (to suit the platform screen doors etc), and you'd need something fairly high density to suit the short distance passengers (Crossrail will get a lot more short distance passengers in London than Thameslink will).

Passengers from Didcot/ Newbury etc will need more seats/ toilets etc.

All images of potential CR stock I have found indicate a fairly standard twin entrance per car side design which clearly must match the door screen spacing in new core stations. The trains are specified for 100MPH surface speed and are supposed to be based on existing designs to reduce development costs. I think a compromise interior design for the same basic train could be devised for a follow on build that retains large circulation space around the doors for quick boarding combined with a more conventional seating arrangement and toilets within for outer suburban operations, all without reducing theoretical maximum core capacity significantly, remembering that the slightly lower density stock might only form perhaps a third of all trains in the centre.

 

[edwin_m]

Crossrail have also specified wide gangways similar to 378s. I'm not sure if transverse seating and toilets would be compatible with emergency evacuation of the train in a tunnel, particularly if wheelchairs are involved.

 

[swt_passenger]

Crossrail have also specified wide gangways similar to 378s. I'm not sure if transverse seating and toilets would be compatible with emergency evacuation of the train in a tunnel, particularly if wheelchairs are involved.

There has to be a fair proportion of ordinary (transverse) 2+2 seating, because as you already can see from a 378, you can only get around 30 seats in a 20m carriage with fully longitudinal seating. As mentioned on Crossrail's website, these are to have 450 seats per train, so an average of 45 seats per vehicle, 50% more seats than a 378. As they'll probably have a couple of massive wheelchair spaces anyway (as it's 10 car length overall) I suggest most normal carriages will have about 48-50 seats...

 

[Nym]

Crossrail have also specified wide gangways similar to 378s. I'm not sure if transverse seating and toilets would be compatible with emergency evacuation of the train in a tunnel, particularly if wheelchairs are involved.

So put the wheelchair areas at the ends of the train... ?

How would one evacuate a wheelchair passenger through the 'J and M Doors' of a train anyway, I really dowbt that is wide enough to fit a chair through, let alone wheel them down the 4ft..!

 

[edwin_m]

So put the wheelchair areas at the ends of the train... ?

How would one evacuate a wheelchair passenger through the 'J and M Doors' of a train anyway, I really dowbt that is wide enough to fit a chair through, let alone wheel them down the 4ft..!

I'm assuming what you refer to as "J and M Doors" are the end doors in LU stock. These won't be needed on Crossrail because the tunnels have a side walkway.

Wheelchair spaces have to be near the middle of the train so they are platformed at all the stations including those with short platforms. While it is possible for a wheelchair to get through the gangways it's not workable for them to do this routinely on a crowded train.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There has to be a fair proportion of ordinary (transverse) 2+2 seating, because as you already can see from a 378, you can only get around 30 seats in a 20m carriage with fully longitudinal seating. As mentioned on Crossrail's website, these are to have an average of 45 seats per train, 50% more seats than a 378. As they'll probably have a couple of massive wheelchair spaces anyway (as it's 10 car length overall) I suggest most normal carriages will have about 48-50 seats...

Good point. A wheelchair needs a gangway of 0.9m as far as I remember, which I presume exists on the Metro layout 455s etc.

Does the average 45 seats include tip-ups in the wheelchair area?

 

[Nym]

I'm assuming what you refer to as "J and M Doors" are the end doors in LU stock. These won't be needed on Crossrail because the tunnels have a side walkway.

Wheelchair spaces have to be near the middle of the train so they are platformed at all the stations including those with short platforms. While it is possible for a wheelchair to get through the gangways it's not workable for them to do this routinely on a crowded train.

I said ENDS, this is the plural, so long as this is symetrical there isn't an issue(!) with the diagramed directions thing, short stations would be an issue though.

And even with a side walkway, you're going to evac someone in a wheelchair down that? Lets face it, if you're in a tunnel the only way you're evacuating a wheelchair bound passenger is with an 'evacchair' or carrying them on your shoulder...

(Single bore tunnel before pedants start up...)

 

[D365]

All images of potential CR stock I have found indicate a fairly standard twin entrance per car side design which clearly must match the door screen spacing in new core stations. The trains are specified for 100MPH surface speed and are supposed to be based on existing designs to reduce development costs. I think a compromise interior design for the same basic train could be devised for a follow on build that retains large circulation space around the doors for quick boarding combined with a more conventional seating arrangement and toilets within for outer suburban operations, all without reducing theoretical maximum core capacity significantly, remembering that the slightly lower density stock might only form perhaps a third of all trains in the centre.

I've always read conflicting reports of either 90mph or 100mph top speed. The linked ITT news article states 90mph in the 'fact sheet'. Tunnel running speed is supposed to be 60mph IIRC. The basic train design is supposed to be rather similar to that of Thameslink, particularly if Bombardier go ahead with Aventra.

 

[Andyjs247]

Isn't there a complication with Twyford station, I can't remember whether it's not having enough platforms or if the Crossrail train stopped at Twyford then it holds up the fast trains?

A possible complication would be the length of the platforms, particularly on the Up Relief. I doubt you could fit a 10 car train in the platform without extending. It would be relatively easy to extend platforms to the west if it wasn't for the Henley branch junction. To the east is a road bridge. I'd imagine you would need to extend the up platform under the bridge - not impossible but more expensive.

 

[Nym]

With Siemens backing out, the only unit I can see on BT's books are the evolution of the Electrostar, since BT building these anywhere but Derby would be political suicide for the company, chances are, CrossRail will not get off to a good start, unless they have a very good shakedown between 2015/6 and core opening on the Shenfeild Shuttles...

 

[Pumbaa]

There has to be a fair proportion of ordinary (transverse) 2+2 seating, because as you already can see from a 378, you can only get around 30 seats in a 20m carriage with fully longitudinal seating. As mentioned on Crossrail's website, these are to have an average of 45 seats per train, 50% more seats than a 378. As they'll probably have a couple of massive wheelchair spaces anyway (as it's 10 car length overall) I suggest most normal carriages will have about 48-50 seats...

45 seats per train? Plenty of standing room then

 

[edwin_m]

I said ENDS, this is the plural, so long as this is symetrical there isn't an issue(!) with the diagramed directions thing, short stations would be an issue though.

And even with a side walkway, you're going to evac someone in a wheelchair down that? Lets face it, if you're in a tunnel the only way you're evacuating a wheelchair bound passenger is with an 'evacchair' or carrying them on your shoulder...

(Single bore tunnel before pedants start up...)

Whether you can evacuate in the wheelchair or not, the wheelchair user still has to get to the front of the train as it's unlikely the driver will be either able or permitted to go to the wheelchair space during an evacuation. So the interior layout needs to be suitable for a wheelchair to pass right through (but as pointed out this doesn't rule out 2+2 seating). I'm not in touch with latest thinking on this though I was involved with early development of Crossrail operating procedures a few years back, but I don't think it would be acceptable to design a modern rapid transit system on the assumption that wheelchair users have to be carried by other passengers during an emergency evacuation.

 

[swt_passenger]

45 seats per train? Plenty of standing room then

Aaarghh!

I'm sure you knew what I meant to write. I've fixed the original to avoid confusing everyone...

 

[Class377/5]

With Siemens backing out, the only unit I can see on BT's books are the evolution of the Electrostar, since BT building these anywhere but Derby would be political suicide for the company, chances are, CrossRail will not get off to a good start, unless they have a very good shakedown between 2015/6 and core opening on the Shenfeild Shuttles...

Bombardier staff from Derby has confirmed that the Crossrail bid from them is based on the Adventra design just like the failed Thameslink bid.

And they will be built in Derby.