Crossrail Gaps & Rolling Stock

[Nym]

Split from the Class 172 Production thread.

http://railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=731330#post731330

Now, my money is on Siemens to provide the crossrail rolling stock, but it has come up again, what for the 14tph that will be terminating at Paddington?

It's currently looking like

14tph Paddington
4tph Heathrow
4tph Maidenhead
2tph West Drayton

Now there are a fair few routes this line runs rather close to, and some branches it interacts with quite a bit.

Now my first 2d is that all routes and branches between reading and paddington should be operated by Crossrail, weather they be part of the core service or not.

Branches:

In order:

Greenford Branch line: Currently 2tph through to paddington, will become a 4tph shuttle.
Windsor & Eaton Branch line: Currently 3tph shuttle
Marlow Branch Line: 1 or 2tph
Henley Branch Line: about 1tph.

Now I have no idea about platform lengths, so am open to correction on some of these.

The Greenford Branch Line I would integrate into the full crossrail route, or if this is not possible, electrify the branch and run an electric shuttle.
The Windsor line is on the wrong side for through services, so would remain as a shuttle, but electric.
Marlow and Henley the same, shuttles, but electrified.

The Greenford Branch line I would have through services continue, using re-opened platforms to South Ruslip using the New North Mainline, possibly continuing as stopping services up the Chiltern Mainline, once electrified. Also looking at electrification of the direct route up the New North Mainline to the Chiltern Mainline so that Chiltern stoppers may use Crossrail.

Back to franchise arrangements, I would have all services within the crossrail catchment area, operated by crossrail.

Including all electrified shuttles on the GWML (every branch between Paddington and Reading) would operate as crossrail, as would the additional services on the GEML stoppers to Shenfeild. The latter could use the same rolling stock, however, the branches would need shorter than 10 car units to work properly, so a fleet of 3 or 4 car EMUs would be used for that, again, provided by Siemens, possibly exatly the same spec as the crossrail and thameslink units, but shorter.

The Thames Valley branches could be branded as Crossrail Connect, while the additional GEML services would use the same rolling stock (possibly 12 car units, as used on Thameslink) to provide the additional services. For ease of transfer, I'd proberbly also electrify the Dudden Hill Line so stock could easily transfer between the two routes. Maybe not for passenger use, but you never know, under the Crossrail Connect brand it could happen.

This would then bring the possibility of Crossrail and Thameslink being the same franchise, with the same rolling stock. And at the likes of Gravesend, possibly sharing stations and routes also. So I think it would be logical to combine them into one franchise.

They run broadly similar route structures (if additional branches are added west of Paddington), the same rolling stock (if the world sees sense), and potentially share some stations (in the South Eastern area).

Ultimately, if no other route is usable for Crossrail services west of Paddington, (Either the WCML, Chiltern ML or other routes). It would remain to be silly to use up so much terminating capacity at Paddington.

I'd then look at intergrating Oxford stoppers and possibly even Newbury and Basingstoke (with additional wires) services into the Crossrail routes.

** I don't mean Oxford fasts, the oxford slows.

It would mean though, limited stop services on Crossrail west of Paddington, eg.

Oxford - All Stations - Reading - Maidenhead - West Drayton - Paddington LL - Xrail route

Anyway, any routes you can think of for Crossrail to take over west of Paddington that make sense? I don't know the services round here too well. But everything between Reading and Paddington should be XRail.

 

[NXEA!]

Split from the Class 172 Production thread.

http://railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=731330#post731330

Now, my money is on Siemens to provide the crossrail rolling stock, but it has come up again, what for the 14tph that will be terminating at Paddington?

It's currently looking like

14tph Paddington
4tph Heathrow
4tph Maidenhead
2tph West Drayton

Now there are a fair few routes this line runs rather close to, and some branches it interacts with quite a bit.

Now my first 2d is that all routes and branches between reading and paddington should be operated by Crossrail, weather they be part of the core service or not.

Branches:

In order:

Greenford Branch line: Currently 2tph through to paddington, will become a 4tph shuttle.
Windsor & Eaton Branch line: Currently 3tph shuttle
Marlow Branch Line: 1 or 2tph
Henley Branch Line: about 1tph.

Now I have no idea about platform lengths, so am open to correction on some of these.

The Greenford Branch Line I would integrate into the full crossrail route, or if this is not possible, electrify the branch and run an electric shuttle.
The Windsor line is on the wrong side for through services, so would remain as a shuttle, but electric.
Marlow and Henley the same, shuttles, but electrified.

The Greenford Branch line I would have through services continue, using re-opened platforms to South Ruslip using the New North Mainline, possibly continuing as stopping services up the Chiltern Mainline, once electrified. Also looking at electrification of the direct route up the New North Mainline to the Chiltern Mainline so that Chiltern stoppers may use Crossrail.

Back to franchise arrangements, I would have all services within the crossrail catchment area, operated by crossrail.

Including all electrified shuttles on the GWML (every branch between Paddington and Reading) would operate as crossrail, as would the additional services on the GEML stoppers to Shenfeild. The latter could use the same rolling stock, however, the branches would need shorter than 10 car units to work properly, so a fleet of 3 or 4 car EMUs would be used for that, again, provided by Siemens, possibly exatly the same spec as the crossrail and thameslink units, but shorter.

The Thames Valley branches could be branded as Crossrail Connect, while the additional GEML services would use the same rolling stock (possibly 12 car units, as used on Thameslink) to provide the additional services. For ease of transfer, I'd proberbly also electrify the Dudden Hill Line so stock could easily transfer between the two routes. Maybe not for passenger use, but you never know, under the Crossrail Connect brand it could happen.

This would then bring the possibility of Crossrail and Thameslink being the same franchise, with the same rolling stock. And at the likes of Gravesend, possibly sharing stations and routes also. So I think it would be logical to combine them into one franchise.

They run broadly similar route structures (if additional branches are added west of Paddington), the same rolling stock (if the world sees sense), and potentially share some stations (in the South Eastern area).

Ultimately, if no other route is usable for Crossrail services west of Paddington, (Either the WCML, Chiltern ML or other routes). It would remain to be silly to use up so much terminating capacity at Paddington.

I'd then look at intergrating Oxford stoppers and possibly even Newbury and Basingstoke (with additional wires) services into the Crossrail routes.

** I don't mean Oxford fasts, the oxford slows.

It would mean though, limited stop services on Crossrail west of Paddington, eg.

Oxford - All Stations - Reading - Maidenhead - West Drayton - Paddington LL - Xrail route

Anyway, any routes you can think of for Crossrail to take over west of Paddington that make sense? I don't know the services round here too well. But everything between Reading and Paddington should be XRail.

Personally I agree with you to an extent. I'd say electrify all the GWML branches. Greenford I would integrate with Crossrail with 4tph, with all the other branches being run by FGW connecting into Crossrail services (cascaded and heavily refurbished 313's anyone?). I would extend Crossrail to Reading, but I wouldn't run services to Oxford and Newbury, I'd concentrate on making good connections with the Crossrail services at Reading. Now I wouldn't terminate 14 services at Paddington either, I'd reduce that to 6. The services to terminate at Paddington would be the 2 West Draytons, 2 Greenford's, and 2 Readings, with the other 18tph (I'm guessing the plan is for 24tph?) going to Shenfield and Abbey Wood, with Shenfield getting 12tph, and Abbey Wood 6tph. I realise you have to extend platforms at intermediate stations between West Ealing and Greenford, as well as Greenford possibly, but I think the Greenford branch could relieve the Central Line if dealt with properly.

 

[swt_passenger]

. Now I wouldn't terminate 14 services at Paddington either, I'd reduce that to 6. The services to terminate at Paddington would be the 2 West Draytons, 2 Greenford's, and 2 Readings, with the other 18tph (I'm guessing the plan is for 24tph?) going to Shenfield and Abbey Wood, with Shenfield getting 12tph, and Abbey Wood 6tph. I realise you have to extend platforms at intermediate stations between West Ealing and Greenford, as well as Greenford possibly, but I think the Greenford branch could relieve the Central Line if dealt with properly.

You seem to have forgotten Heathrow, which gets at least 4 tph from Crossrail. HEx is also a possibility if the proposals in the London and SE RUS happen. So that reduces the Paddington terminators (from the east) to 10 tph. No Crossrail services will terminate at Paddington from the west - what would be the point?

And why reduce the Abbey Wood branch to 6 tph from 12 tph as planned?

 

[Nym]

As a note, the plan for the core is 24tph, but it could potentially take 32tph.

4tph Reading, 4tph Slough, 4tph Greenford, 4tph Heathrow Express, 4tph Heathrow Connect, 4tph Tring?

Or 4tph to: Reading, Slough, Greenford, Heatrow Connect, Tring, Watford DC?

The paddington terminators are from the East.

 

[anthony263]

The marlow platform at Bourne end would need to be extended slighly towards the main road to acomodate a 3 carriage dual voltage EMU.

i think crossrail should have a mixture of 5 carriage emu's running in pairs to work services on the heathrow branch with some possible working to Reading.

The 3 carriage emu's could then work services through to Reading and they will be able to split & attach at Twyford, Maidenhead etc so that the thames valley branches continue to have through services during the peaks, with a single 3 carriage emu working the branch shuttles off peak.

I have read a report online proposing to run at least 2 crossrail services per hour through to Hounslow, i have heard however that the idea has been dropped.

I also agree with not running crossrail west of Reading. FGW could use the class 319's to work service services to Oxford, Newbury. I personally think they should wire to Bassingstoke & the north downs line sand keep extra class 319's and order some brand new EMU's for northern.

As for local services between Reading & Oxford, these can be worked by FGW until the east west link is complete and so we could have a Reading/Oxford - Bedford/Milton Keynes service.

This also has the benefit of allowing the class 165/166's to be casaded to other operaters to operate routes where they can be fitted and allow older stock to be caseded or scrapped.

 

[tbtc]

Electrify all Thames Valley branches? Yes, of course

Extend more Crossrail services beyond Paddington? Yes, longer term

Extend Crossrail beyond Abbey Wood to include Dartford/ Gravesend/ Kentish Countryside? Yes, longer term

Extend Crossrail beyond Paddington to include WCML slows (Milton Keynes etc)? Yes, longer term

Rightly or wrongly, the powers that be have decided that they want Crossrail to be a "closed" system, in the short term at least. So, no initial plans for it to become a "horizontal Thameslink".

Once its been running for a decade or two I'm sure we'll see plans for expansion into Essex/ Kent/ Berkshire etc. But not any time soon.

 

[cslusarc]

Electrify all Thames Valley branches? Yes, of course

Extend more Crossrail services beyond Paddington? Yes, longer term

Extend Crossrail beyond Abbey Wood to include Dartford/ Gravesend/ Kentish Countryside? Yes, longer term

Extend Crossrail beyond Paddington to include WCML slows (Milton Keynes etc)? Yes, longer term

Rightly or wrongly, the powers that be have decided that they want Crossrail to be a "closed" system, in the short term at least. So, no initial plans for it to become a "horizontal Thameslink".

Once its been running for a decade or two I'm sure we'll see plans for expansion into Essex/ Kent/ Berkshire etc. But not any time soon.

Is there a business case to electrify all these branch lines that only see 1-2tph? I thought that there was a minimum frequency that produced net cost savings.

Here's the service pattern I see:
12tph on Great Western Relief Lines:
6 tph to Heathrow T5 with additional stops at EAL and HAY.
2 tph to Heathrow T4 stopping at all stations
2 tph to Slough [SLO] stopping at EAL, WEA, STL, HAY, WDT, IVR and LNY
2 tph to Reading [RDG] stopping at EAL, HAY, SLO, BNM, TAP, MAI and TWY

6tph on the West Coast Slow Lines:
2 tph to Tring in current LM stopping pattern possibly adding a stop at WIJ if moving over the West London Line
4 tph to MKC in current LM stopping pattern possibly adding a stop at WIJ if moving over the West London Line

6tph on the London to Aylesbury Line:
2tph to Aylesbury
2tph to Amersham
2tph to Chesham
if the train can split then have a section of the train that can go 6tph to Watford Junction via Croxley Rail Link while having the Metropolitan Line terminate at Moor Park.

 

[tbtc]

Is there a business case to electrify all these branch lines that only see 1-2tph? I thought that there was a minimum frequency that produced net cost savings

Its partly about trying not to leave any daft wee gaps (where the operator in the Thames Valley would have to maintain a very small number of DMUs to run the branches...

...partly for staff training/ maintenance reasons...

...partly because the branches may lose what through service to London they have if they are not electrified...

...partly because a self contained branchline will free up 100% of the trains on it (compared to some electrified lines which still see a significant number of diesels under the wires)...

...and partly because the cost of wiring something like Slough - Eton (or Oxenholme - Windsor, to give an example elsewhere) as part of a big electrification scheme is marginal, compared to the cost of doing it as a stand alone project in a few years time.

There are some electrified lines which see very very little electrified service, e.g. Stockport - Hazel Grove.

 

[gordonthemoron]

32tph seems somewhat optimistic, Munich only manages 24tph using ATO and that's with double sided platforms at busier stations

 

[Buttsy]

Certainly an extenstion to Greenford could work providing a new platform is built on the Bicester cut-off route as the current bay would not be long enough and cannot reasonably be extended. The intermediate stations are not a problem as selective door opening has been included in the spec for the units as Hanwell's platforms can't be extended.

Splitting has been discounted as an option for turn around times so, unfortunately, the Marlow branch (and probably Henley too) wouldn't get through Crossrail trains, though electrifying would be of benefit for stock purposes. Through London services could still be possible once Oxford is wired as this stock would only be working to Paddington not down the tunnel, so appropriate stock could be used for these through services.

Windsor could get through services if there were a flyover/dive under available to get trains to & from fast lines to the reliefs. Potential for doing something at Airport Junction - curve linking flyover line to the down fast? The up fast to up relief is less of a problem as the 'weave' could be before HAY and only cause a problem with the down relief. This way Crossrail would run all stations to HAY then fast SLO and Windsor & Eton. 2tph should be sufficient for this so as not to foul the down fast at Slough (4tph could be run on the branch with a 'short' working before the service runs back to Crossrail).

 

[Minstral25]

Interesting - but the Crossrail services are fixed formation 10 coach units. I don't think many of the branches will take trains of this length without extensive platform extensions.

Immediately I think they should extend all Maidenhead trains to Reading to replace the local services that terminate there and similarly the West Drayton trains should go to Slough as the current local trains do. That means that there is no duplication of services with Paddington locals as they have been replaced.

They should also replace the Heathrow Express with a fast Crossrail service calling only at Ealing Broadway, which would take out 4 more of the Paddington terminators. All of these services will free platforms at Paddington.

 

[Buttsy]

Interesting - but the Crossrail services are fixed formation 10 coach units. I don't think many of the branches will take trains of this length without extensive platform extensions.

Windsor is very close to being long enough if it isn't long enough already and that's why a new platform would be required at Greenford. Other, non-terminal stations are not a problem due to SDO because the trees at Hanwell (which would need to be removed for a platform extension) are protected.

Marlow would be nigh on impossble with 10 car stock because of the turn-out at Bourne End onto the branch, though with a PPM, a shuttle could be run if a platform at Bourne End were long enough! Henley may have room for sufficiently long platforms to take such stock. 2tph to Henley anyone?

 

[cle]

Interesting - but the Crossrail services are fixed formation 10 coach units. I don't think many of the branches will take trains of this length without extensive platform extensions.

Immediately I think they should extend all Maidenhead trains to Reading to replace the local services that terminate there and similarly the West Drayton trains should go to Slough as the current local trains do. That means that there is no duplication of services with Paddington locals as they have been replaced.

They should also replace the Heathrow Express with a fast Crossrail service calling only at Ealing Broadway, which would take out 4 more of the Paddington terminators. All of these services will free platforms at Paddington.

I agree. I think this is planned - although the Heathrow Express trains will need to run on the slow tracks, so maybe just one stop at Ealing Broadway wouldn't be enough, as they would need to not catch up with the train in front.

If all other services had a stop or two removed, it might work by spreading the stops on the basis that all trains stop at Paddington, Ealing Broadway, Hayes and either two of: Acton, West Ealing, Hanwell, Southall. With West Ealing (for Greenford branch) and Southall getting the most if possible.

So skip stopping might be needed for faster journeys and even pathing. I think adding 5 mins on to a Heathrow journey is fine - overall most journeys will be shorter (to West End/City etc) than previously on the Express and then tube/cab from Paddington.

And it'll clear 4 paths from the fasts (free to be all 125mph paths too, so maybe a fifth can be squeezed?) - which I think are wanted for Reading shuttles, or maybe two more Bristol trains, via Parkway.

 

[gmiller]

I think it would be sensible to hand over Northolt Junction to the planned West Ealing bay platform, to Chiltern Railways. Now this route is going to be run as a shuttle branch it would seem the perfect opportunity.

The planned shuttle could be extended to say West Ruislip and a Birmingham-Warwick-Banbury-High Wycombe-West Ealing fast service could be provided. In the future a Milton Keynes-Aylesbury-High Wycombe-West Ealing service could be provided too.

This would provide travellers from the Birmingham and the rest of the Chiltern line access to Crossrail and make up for some of the shortfall in customers on the west end of the route without polluting performance on Crossrail itself.

Birmingham and Chiltern passengers could access Heathrow, the West End, Docklands, the 02 and Essex with just one change of train, avoiding the Underground and relieving congestion at Marylebone station.

East London would have improved access to Wembley Stadium/Arena.

This may provide West Coast Mainline passengers with better options for their destination from Birmingham.

Note: The current project evergreen 3 reduces travel times from Birmingham to London by half an hour. Further improvements could be made over time.

The rest of the London end of the Chiltern route could get its long awaited "metro" service as a follow on phase as described below, taken from Wikipedia.


Future Plans

Lengthening of platforms at South Ruislip, West Ruislip, Saunderton, Kings Sutton, Sudbury Hill Harrow, Sudbury and Harrow Road and Northolt Park to accommodate eight vehicles, thereby obviating the need for vehicles to be locked out of use on departure from London Marylebone.

The restoration of the quadruple track between South Ruislip (Northolt Junction) and West Ruislip, allowing trains to call at both stations without blocking the line. Triple track currently exists at West Ruislip, with the up platform loop still in situ, and at South Ruislip, with the Down Main through line also in situ. This would involve the reconstruction of the new down platform at West Ruislip, and the reconstruction of the up platform at South Ruislip. This 'Chiltern Metro' service was not programmed in to the last round of franchising agreements.

Building of the West Hampstead interchange to allow easy interchange with the London Overground, Jubilee Line, Metropolitan Line and First Capital Connect services.

New Chiltern Metro Service that would operate 4+tph for Wembley Stadium, Sudbury & Harrow Road, Sudbury Hill Harrow, Northolt Park, South Ruislip and West Ruislip. This would require a reversing facility at West Ruislip, passing loops at Sudbury Hill Harrow, and a passing loop at Wembley Stadium (part of the old down fast line is in use as a central reversing siding, for stock movements and additionally for 8-car football shuttles to convey passengers to the stadium for events)

 

[Zoe]

It's currently looking like

14tph Paddington
4tph Heathrow
4tph Maidenhead
2tph West Drayton

The 24 tph and West Drayton services are only peak. Off peak at the last check was: 6 tph Shenfield to Paddington of which 2 tph continues to Maidenhad. 8 tph Abbey Wood to Paddington of which 4 tph continues to Heathrow. That leaves only 8tph terminating at Paddington.

 

[swt_passenger]

This entire thread is overtaken by events, the finalised London and SE 2nd generation RUS proposes 10 tph to Heathrow, 6 tph on the GWML including services to Reading, and 8 tph via a new connection to the WCML slows.

Any fantastic ideas about Chiltern involvement in Crossrail should be seen in that context. Whilst extending the Greenford shuttle looks fine in principle, that corridor is allocated to HS2 - if that happens Greenford will almost certainly be the practical limit.

Likewise that stuff in wiki about four tracking through the Ruislips - that'll be almost impossible with HS2 as well...

 

[Zoe]

This entire thread is overtaken by events, the finalised London and SE 2nd generation RUS proposes 10 tph to Heathrow, 6 tph on the GWML including services to Reading, and 8 tph via a new connection to the WCML slows.

That's all very well but I can't see BAA wanting to give up the lucrative Heathrow Express. I'm also not sure the central section of Crossrail will warrent 24 tph off peak considering the ORR rejected additional paths to the east.

 

[swt_passenger]

That's all very well but I can't see BAA wanting to give up the lucrative Heathrow Express.

Read the consultation responses associated with the report then. Heathrow Airport Limited reckon that as long as the offpeak 'HEx' trains' stopping patterns are fast from Paddington (Crossrail) they'll be happy with it - and that's what seems to be proposed.

Their opinion may have altered from the original stance of Heathrow Express Ltd, who aren't after all actually the 'owners' of the service.

24 tph is a peak frequency, but I'd be amazed if transfer of passengers from the Central Line and the GEML (not to mention from Abbey Wood) doesn't make it become an all day requirement very soon after opening.

I expect similar with Thameslink - the latest service pattern info still has it reducing to 16 tph offpeak - can't see that lasting very long either...

 

[gmiller]

I am a fan of high speed but not the current hs2 plans. I feel the current ones haven't gained enough popular support. combine austerity, a weak yes campaign and the fact the Tories are alienating their heartland support, so I cant see it happening in the current form.

The biggest argument for phase one is capacity not speed and i consider marylebone Birmingham upgrades are a more cost effective first resort. plus WiFi on trains enables the business community to work while they travel, lessening the time saved argument.

Re open the chiltern uxbridge branch and continue it to heathrow to give the Birmingham access, link into crossrail at west ealing, open west hampsted interchange, repurchase land at marylebone for platforms, open a walkway at marylebone to link the station to baker street to improve connections and link chiltern into watford via the croxley link.

In time princes risborough oxford could re open providing another route to Birmingham or just a diversionary loop, if stratford honeyborne re opened then that would be a third access point to birmingham. All could be added incrementally.

The GCR could re open to rugby (again could be extended later) connecting into the current network. Long distance trains could operate missing the pinch point of Birmingham.

Northampton to Bedford could re open and become part of thameslink. With one change of train Birmingham travellers could access Luton and gatwick airports and cross London without using the underground.

I could go on.

 

[swt_passenger]

I could go on.

...but this thread is about Crossrail, and now you are discussing HS2.

 

[gmiller]

Indeed but you knocked a crossrail suggestion with a hs2 reference. Therefore my rebuttal was likely to mention hs2 and to make sense of it I had to expand on my views.

I still mentioned west ealing greenford, oxford and part of the cotswold line, all GWR so therefore form part of the crossrail conversation.

 

[TheWalrus]

They wouldnt do greenford i dont think as apparrently theres no business case unfortunately.

 

[gmiller]

There isn't a case for crossrail to greenford but if you re read that was not what I was suggesting in my first post.

 

[Minstral25]

24 tph is a peak frequency, but I'd be amazed if transfer of passengers from the Central Line and the GEML (not to mention from Abbey Wood) doesn't make it become an all day requirement very soon after opening.

I expect similar with Thameslink - the latest service pattern info still has it reducing to 16 tph offpeak - can't see that lasting very long either...

I am pretty sure that Crossrail will quickly become like a tube line with trains every 2/3 minutes all through the day, as it serves Oxford Street, Liverpool Street (City) and Canary Wharf - all big traffic generators, as will Stratford become.

Thameslink won't because relatively few people will use the core only, as it doesn't link big traffic generators. Yesterday I was on a off peak thameslink train from East Croydon to City Thameslink. It was only 4 coaches and from ECR to London Bridge it was full and there was a standing crush, after London Bridge I had a selection of four seat bays to sit on - lots of space.

Thameslink is about avoiding platform terminus's where there aren't enough in Central London for better services in the suburbs - it really isn't likely to be much of a central London hop on hop off service as it isn't in the right place. I'm sure it will generate some more as it is there and passengers will find it, and a few cross London journeys will be made but the bulk of the passengers (80%+) will get off at St Pancras or Farringdon from the north and London Bridge or Blackfriars from the South

 

[cle]

2tph west of Hayes off peak is ridiculous, and won't last. I tihnk the 2tph to Reading and 2tph to Slough proposed could easily stay off peak.

I think it's a shame the RUS didn't cost/benefit building a dive under at Slough from the relief lines to the Windsor line, and wiring/doubling that.

Windsor has a big station (but underused for its stature) and is a big place for tourists as well as commuting to and especially from. Currently someone working in the City or West End would need to change twice (Slough and Paddington) and so most take the slow Waterloo trains. A one-seat ride through London would be a clever option - extend the Slough terminators.

 

[Buttsy]

2tph west of Hayes off peak is ridiculous, and won't last. I tihnk the 2tph to Reading and 2tph to Slough proposed could easily stay off peak.

I think it's a shame the RUS didn't cost/benefit building a dive under at Slough from the relief lines to the Windsor line, and wiring/doubling that.

Windsor has a big station (but underused for its stature) and is a big place for tourists as well as commuting to and especially from. Currently someone working in the City or West End would need to change twice (Slough and Paddington) and so most take the slow Waterloo trains. A one-seat ride through London would be a clever option - extend the Slough terminators.

If you 'amended' the Heathrow flyover junction, you might be able to cross Windsor trains onto the down fast here and run fast to Slough. The up services would then cross the down fast at Slough and could then 'weave' to the up relief before Hayes, therefore minimising conflicting moves.

 

[Zoe]

2tph west of Hayes off peak is ridiculous, and won't last. I tihnk the 2tph to Reading and 2tph to Slough proposed could easily stay off peak.

The 2 tph Crossrail to Maidenhead is in addition to a 2 tph FGW Paddington to Reading service and a 2 tph FGW shuttle from Slough to Reading.

 

[swt_passenger]

I am pretty sure that Crossrail will quickly become like a tube line with trains every 2/3 minutes all through the day, as it serves Oxford Street, Liverpool Street (City) and Canary Wharf - all big traffic generators, as will Stratford become.

Thameslink won't because relatively few people will use the core only, as it doesn't link big traffic generators.

However a couple of years after Thameslink KO2 is running, won't Thameslink to Crossrail interchanges at Farringdon make many current train/tube journeys redundant - they are planning for Farringdon to be heaving with interchanges all day? For a whole load of passengers off the GN, and all those additional service from SN and SE origins, Farringdon could easily become their preferred 'London Terminus' for transfer onto Crossrail for both its own stations and onward transfer from Liverpool St or Paddington.

I'd also expect the new Blackfriars south bank entrance to popularise the station for tourists, and the improved Blackfriars underground station will possibly change travel patterns slightly when it reopens this December.


--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The 2 tph Crossrail to Maidenhead is in addition to a 2 tph FGW Paddington to Reading service and a 2 tph FGW shuttle from Slough to Reading.

Crossrail is currently publicising 4 tph to Maidenhead surely?

 

[Zoe]

Crossrail is currently publicising 4 tph to Maidenhead surely?

4 tph peak but the ORR rejected 2 of the paths off peak.

 

[cle]

The 2 tph Crossrail to Maidenhead is in addition to a 2 tph FGW Paddington to Reading service and a 2 tph FGW shuttle from Slough to Reading.

I think it's quite obvious these will become 2tph to Reading and 2tph to Slough. I think West Drayton 2tph is just peak.

And the Reading slows will be removed from Paddington terminus (along with HEx) giving station approach and platform capacity.