Should CrossRail have been built as a interurban rail service?

[JonathanH]

Skipping a few stops is no real issue.

Skipping a few stops in this instance isn't going to make the trains quicker so they may as well stop.

 

[HST43257]

Skipping a few stops in this instance isn't going to make the trains quicker so they may as well stop.

I found that a good 9 mins could be saved between West Drayton and Reading as well as a lot of capacity that isn’t effectively stolen by people from Taplow and Langley (and others receiving the stopper service).

 

[JonathanH]

I found that a good 9 mins could be saved between West Drayton and Reading as well as a lot of capacity that isn’t effectively stolen by people from Taplow and Langley (and others receiving the stopper service).

Yes, but the saving of 9 minutes isn't here or there in the context of comparing a service which takes 57 minutes from Reading to London or 48 minutes from Reading to London with one that takes 25 on the main line. The purpose of Crossrail is not only to serve Reading. Indeed, it isn't its purpose at all.

 

[CBlue]

In what way exactly? Skipping a few stops is no real issue. I doubt the Relief lines have a high speed that the 387s can take advantage of. If this is about the issue of seating, in the peaks when there’s a lot of commuters, the longer distance travellers from places like Twyford and Tilehurst can take the seats and those from Hayes and Ealing can stand. Is that such a big deal?

90mph top speed versus 110mph for a 387. They're equipped for fast acceleration between stops, not flat out mainline runs. Other services may well catch them up in that scenario. That would require a timetable rewrite - and that's a big job. So I guess it is a big deal.

 

[cactustwirly]

The obvious option to provide faster Crossrail services for Twyford, Maidenhead and Slough is to make the Didcot to Paddington GWR service non-stop on the main lines between Reading and Paddington, and transfer the semi-fast relief line paths east of Reading to Crossrail.

So you'd remove one of your most lucrative commuter services. Sounds like a great plan!

People traveling within London on Oyster pay peanuts and people traveling from Slough and Maidenhead plus the branches are paying £20-30 off peak. That's the flow that makes the most money. If the trains aren't good enough, they'll drive instead, or park and ride from High Wycombe or Uxbridge etc

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Dec 2020 ==

In what way exactly? Skipping a few stops is no real issue. I doubt the Relief lines have a high speed that the 387s can take advantage of. If this is about the issue of seating, in the peaks when there’s a lot of commuters, the longer distance travellers from places like Twyford and Tilehurst can take the seats and those from Hayes and Ealing can stand. Is that such a big deal?

You clearly have no idea, have you ever been on these services?
People are already voting with their feet atm, there's a clear preference for GWR trains for Thames valley passengers

 

[JamesRowden]

So you'd remove one of your most lucrative commuter services. Sounds like a great plan!

People traveling within London on Oyster pay peanuts and people traveling from Slough and Maidenhead plus the branches are paying £20-30 off peak. That's the flow that makes the most money. If the trains aren't good enough, they'll drive instead, or park and ride from High Wycombe or Uxbridge etc

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Dec 2020 ==

I care about speed, reliability, connectivity and getting a seat. If I lived between Didcot and Reading I'd want the faster and simpler London journeys of the idea. If I lived between Reading and London I'd want the faster simple journeys to Central London of the idea.

 

[cle]

People will do different things based on individual preferences and travel needs. And let's let them.

I recall some stopping patterns which had non-stop West Drayton from Paddington - those (or Hayes) would definitely help the Reading journeys be more attractive. I'd expect a faster pattern might be workable in time - possibly with a few Didcot peak extensions for the Tilehursts of this world. Maybe some people will jump on IET at Reading, others might bust out the laptop to start work/Netflix and chill. Sounds great.

Once OOC opens, Paddington will not be guaranteed quieter trains, so that may become the consideration, and with fast line trains too, I expect a lot of that, and a quieter Paddington.

 

[JonathanH]

I recall some stopping patterns which had non-stop West Drayton from Paddington - those (or Hayes) would definitely help the Reading journeys be more attractive.

But running non-stop trains on the same line as an intensive stopping service is counter-productive - my point about the 0824 from Slough demonstrates that it just becomes a crawl behind a stopper. If it is not going to be quicker, it might as well stop.

 

[Ianno87]

But running non-stop trains on the same line as an intensive stopping service is counter-productive - my point about the 0824 from Slough demonstrates that it just becomes a crawl behind a stopper. If it is not going to be quicker, it might as well stop.

Provided there's room for the passengers to actually get on...

 

[JonathanH]

Provided there's room for the passengers to actually get on...

Yes, stops could be cut out to manage crowding but as 12tph of trains to the west have to arrive and leave Paddington every five minutes, there is limited scope to run trains with different calling patterns to speed up the service.

 

[cle]

As with the age-old Oxford fasts and HExes in front (enabling the Slough calls) - if you had 1-2 Heathrow Crossrail services in succession, a faster service could follow them as they would drop off at Airport Junction. Perhaps a Hayes call would regulate catching up, but then allow a faster run west, where they are markedly less services, and the one in front will be a ways ahead.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

Yes, but the saving of 9 minutes isn't here or there in the context of comparing a service which takes 57 minutes from Reading to London or 48 minutes from Reading to London with one that takes 25 on the main line.

I thought that some of the eastbound Crossrail services would start from Paddington and westbound ones terminate there. Depending on how long it might take to go between the two levels at Paddington, passengers to and from west of Slough, particularly Reading may find it faster to change at Paddington for points east.

 

[JonathanH]

I thought that some of the eastbound Crossrail services would start from Paddington and westbound ones terminate there. Depending on how long it might take to go between the two levels at Paddington, passengers to and from west of Slough, particularly Reading may find it faster to change at Paddington for points east.

Indeed, that is how I imagine most people travelling to Reading would use Crossrail.

 

[Ianno87]

As with the age-old Oxford fasts and HExes in front (enabling the Slough calls) - if you had 1-2 Heathrow Crossrail services in succession, a faster service could follow them as they would drop off at Airport Junction. Perhaps a Hayes call would regulate catching up, but then allow a faster run west, where they are markedly less services, and the one in front will be a ways ahead.

To all intents and purposes, everything has to be timed at give or take the same speed between Acton West Jn and Airport Jn, given how many services there are (including freight in the mix)

Let's say you had a basic Heathrow service every 15 minutes, but Ealing Broadway (where logically everything calls) can take a train about every 3-4 minutes (Dwell time plus platform re-occupation). That means between each 'basic' 4tph Heathrow service there can be 3 other paths; so 12 'other' paths per hour in total.

Let's say:
-2 freights per hour
-2 x 'other' Heathrow service
-4-6 Maidenhead/Reading Crossrails

So probably only 2 nominally 'spare' paths per hour to account for a speed differential (and a bit in reserve for performance).

 

[londonteacher]

Netflix and chill

Let's hope that people don't start doing this on the train!

 

[adamedwards]

Occurs to me the Superlink plans would have turned Crossrail into a London version of the Castlefield corridor in Manchester. We know how we that turned out. Crossrail as is keeps things simple which is always better.

 

[coppercapped]

In what way exactly? Skipping a few stops is no real issue. I doubt the Relief lines have a high speed that the 387s can take advantage of. If this is about the issue of seating, in the peaks when there’s a lot of commuters, the longer distance travellers from places like Twyford and Tilehurst can take the seats and those from Hayes and Ealing can stand. Is that such a big deal?

The Relief Line speed limit between Reading West Junction and Didcot East Junction is 100mph for multiple units to permit 125mph XC services to be routed on the Relief or Main Lines as needed.

387s can easily reach these speeds on the Reliefs and the 90mph 245s would be out of place.

 

[HST43257]

The Relief Line speed limit between Reading West Junction and Didcot East Junction is 100mph for multiple units to permit 125mph XC services to be routed on the Relief or Main Lines as needed.

387s can easily reach these speeds on the Reliefs and the 90mph 245s would be out of place.

I can’t honestly see how having 345s rather than 387s is such a disaster. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure many Didcot semi stoppers wait at Reading for 10-15 minutes, so lowering that to a 7-11 minute wait is not so much of a problem in my opinion. Still allows for a driver change (if needed) and make up time.

 

[JonathanH]

I can’t honestly see how having 345s rather than 387s is such a disaster. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure many Didcot semi stoppers wait at Reading for 10-15 minutes, so lowering that to a 7-11 minute wait is not so much of a problem in my opinion. Still allows for a driver change (if needed) and make up time.

There aren't enough 345s. From a network perspective, Crossrail trains do not need to go west of Reading. From a passenger perspective, 387s are better equipped for a longer distance journey although I note that many of the passengers travelling from stations between Didcot and Reading will be getting off at Reading, which is why the long dwell at Reading is deemed acceptable.

 

[HST43257]

There aren't enough 345s.

As Crossrail builds and develops I’m sure a new fleet order will come at a later stage. Aren’t there plans to have 24tph west of Paddington/OOC at some point?

 

[JonathanH]

As Crossrail builds and develops I’m sure a new fleet order will come at a later stage. Aren’t there plans to have 24tph west of Paddington/OOC at some point?

A few extra tph, perhaps 6tph to Old Oak Common, not beyond, can probably be resourced from the initial 70 units with some tightening of diagramming, especially as initial issues with reliability are overcome - it is only a few minutes west of Westbourne Park. If really needed, there might be an option to cut back some Shenfield services to Gidea Park or Reading services to Maidenhead.

 

[NorthOxonian]

There aren't enough 345s. From a network perspective, Crossrail trains do not need to go west of Reading. From a passenger perspective, 387s are better equipped for a longer distance journey although I note that many of the passengers travelling from stations between Didcot and Reading will be getting off at Reading, which is why the long dwell at Reading is deemed acceptable.

Having taken that journey quite a few times, it's always seemed to me that the vast majority of passengers from the stations towards Didcot are travelling to or from Reading, or changing there. This may not be the case at peak times, but through journeys seem very rare (and many will only be to local destinations like Slough/Maidenhead anyway).

 

[cactustwirly]

I can’t honestly see how having 345s rather than 387s is such a disaster. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure many Didcot semi stoppers wait at Reading for 10-15 minutes, so lowering that to a 7-11 minute wait is not so much of a problem in my opinion. Still allows for a driver change (if needed) and make up time.

Yes they do, that's because they need to wait for a path. The reliefs are full of freights and XC trains west of Reading.
The 345s are completely unsuitable for that service anyway. They are basically underground trains built for heavy rail, the Didcot semis also provide Twyford and Maidenhead with a decent train service into London don't forget.

Worth noting that Didcot services use the main lines in the peak times, which the 345s would not be able to use.