Great Western Electrification Progress

[Philip Phlopp]

Hi. Hopefully this is the right thread. I've written a piece on the electrification impact on Reading. I personally think the overcrowding from Reading to Paddington isn't being given the focus is needs, and ensuring the additional post electric services call at Reading would be a sensible and fair move. Interested in your views. Link here
http://readingonthames.com/2016/03/...-coming-down-the-line-for-readings-commuters/

As someone has already commented on your blog - CrossRail.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Hi. Hopefully this is the right thread. I've written a piece on the electrification impact on Reading. I personally think the overcrowding from Reading to Paddington isn't being given the focus is needs, and ensuring the additional post electric services call at Reading would be a sensible and fair move. Interested in your views. Link here
http://readingonthames.com/2016/03/...-coming-down-the-line-for-readings-commuters/

Firstly, I wouldn't be looking at Network Rail and their ITSS. They tend to be a bit behind the curve. The post electrification main line timetable (the December 2018 one) has already been decided by the DfT and contracted to GWR. Look at the DfT website, the GW franchise agreement page, go to the last SLC and you will see at the end what the seats uplift is.

The question you need to ask GWR is what main line peak seat capacity (actual number of seats) from Reading they are providing now and what they will be providing in that December 2018 timetable, when it finally gets implemented. With the amount of extra peak vehicles coming from the Newbury, Bristol and Oxford direction, I think you might be pleasantly surprised.

 

[peterson]

Unless I'm reading that wrongly, it still looks like most of the additional in-bound peak mainline capacity into Paddington would be accounted for by those new Bristol non-stop services?

 

[LexyBoy]

Hi. Hopefully this is the right thread. I've written a piece on the electrification impact on Reading. I personally think the overcrowding from Reading to Paddington isn't being given the focus is needs, and ensuring the additional post electric services call at Reading would be a sensible and fair move. Interested in your views. Link here
http://readingonthames.com/2016/03/...-coming-down-the-line-for-readings-commuters/

Thanks for the link.

This has been discussed (somewhat heatedly) here. Whilst there are some members who seem to think that Intercity services shouldn't call at our town at all - missing out the fact that not only is it the biggest settlement between London and Bristol and an important rail hub - the general consensus is that the rethink will bring improvements to Reading-London commuters as well as to longer distance travellers. I would agree with this: the problem at the moment is capacity, not frequency, and the frequency of fast trains will not change significantly.

Yes, not all intercity services will call - but there will be more of them. The 2 tph Bristol-London service as currently exists will be longer, and quieter as all the Bristol passengers will be on the non-stop services - good news too for Bath-Bristol commuters as trains are notoriously overcrowded here as well. Since the majority of passengers on these trains west of Reading are coming from Bristol, I don't think this would just be "short term relief". Additionally, London-Oxford services will be operated by 8- or 12-car EMUs, giving much more capacity. There will also be a new Swindon-London service operated by the same trains, again adding a lot of seats for Reading.

Essentially, we will still have plenty of fast trains to London, but many of these will not be starting from so far away and hence are less likely to be packed on arrival. The service from Reading westwards will be similar to the current, or slightly better (especially off-peak).

On Crossrail - I would expect it to take a bit of the demand - those who work near one of its stations might well choose a direct train over a slightly faster but busier route with changes - but in essence it is just replacing the current local services (much to the delight of those currently suffering crammed Turbos). I note that you don't mention Rob Wilson's recurrent chunterings that Crossrail should provide an express service from Reading to the City (having changed his previous position that Crossrail shouldn't come to Reading at all).

Actually, it will be 95 mph because health and safety means they must slow down to avoid creating so much draught that it could drag passengers down onto the tracks.

It's 95 mph because of the signalling and points arrangement, not elfinsafety. Trains pass plenty of stations at 125 regularly. [/pedant]

 

[Clarence Yard]

Additionally, London-Oxford services will be operated by 8- or 12-car EMUs, giving much more capacity. There will also be a new Swindon-London service operated by the same trains, again adding a lot of seats for Reading.
[/pedant]

Regarding Swindon, I'm afraid not. There is no Swindon-London service with the electrification. The 387 units are not diagrammed to go west of Didcot on the GWML. Newbury-London and Oxford-London are their main sphere of operation. Peak formations are mainly 8 and some 12.

 

[Mintona]

Regarding Swindon, I'm afraid not. There is no Swindon-London service with the electrification. The 387 units are not diagrammed to go west of Didcot on the GWML. Newbury-London and Oxford-London are their main sphere of operation. Peak formations are mainly 8 and some 12.

I don't know where this has come from, because it has definitely been written somewhere (I forget where) before that there will be some peak only Swindon services formed of 387s.

 

[D6975]

I don't know where this has come from, because it has definitely been written somewhere (I forget where) before that there will be some peak only Swindon services formed of 387s.

I've read that somewhere too, along with them working all the way to Cardiff on Rugby days.

 

[swt_passenger]

I don't know where this has come from, because it has definitely been written somewhere (I forget where) before that there will be some peak only Swindon services formed of 387s.

The GW Direct award franchise brief had this:

London & Thames Valley
• The peak timetable is designed to spread loads and
provide faster journeys from key markets, and will be
integrated with our high speed service offer
• 110mph EMU operation will enable faster Oxford
and Newbury services
• Additional Oxford to London and peak hour fast
trains from Swindon (am) to/from Didcot (am & pm)

It didn't explicitly say they would be 387s though it's a reasonable enough idea. I think the problem is that there are no services shown that meet the above description in any of the various SLCs that are also available on DfT's website.

I can no longer find a live link to the franchise brief, so have attached the pdf.

 

[Clarence Yard]

I can assure you they are not 387's. The DA diagrams for Dec 2018 are quite explicit - there are no timetabled 387 services going to or from Swindon.

The additional stops from Swindon referred to in the DA brief are formed of 800/801 units that start further west.

 

[JamesRowden]

Running a peak only 2tph class 387 operated service between Swindon and Paddington is a suggestion in the Western Route Study to account for future demand.

 

[jimm]

Out on the ground, plenty of progress to see on a trip to Reading today.

Lots more portals now in place between Didcot Parkway and Moreton Cutting, and most of the uprights at the intermediate stations between Didcot and Reading now in place, so if this rate of progress is maintained over the next three Sundays, most of the steelwork will be in place between Tilehurst and Didcot.

And overhead wires have started to appear over the relief lines north of Goring & Streatley station - for a short distance on the Didcot-bound line but much more is in place on the Reading-bound one.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Out on the ground, plenty of progress to see on a trip to Reading today.

Lots more portals now in place between Didcot Parkway and Moreton Cutting, and most of the uprights at the intermediate stations between Didcot and Reading now in place, so if this rate of progress is maintained over the next three Sundays, most of the steelwork will be in place between Tilehurst and Didcot.

And overhead wires have started to appear over the relief lines north of Goring & Streatley station - for a short distance on the Didcot-bound line but much more is in place on the Reading-bound one.

Excellent news.

 

[HowardGWR]

Excellent news.

I could write the same but then I would be wasting members' time, as I have just done, but hopefully for the last time. One word emails saying 'thanks' are not great to open either. I was hoping the mods would inform you, so hopefully you will not take this as insult.

 

[Busaholic]

On Crossrail - I would expect it to take a bit of the demand - those who work near one of its stations might well choose a direct train over a slightly faster but busier route with changes - but in essence it is just replacing the current local services (much to the delight of those currently suffering crammed Turbos). I note that you don't mention Rob Wilson's recurrent chunterings that Crossrail should provide an express service from Reading to the City (having changed his previous position that Crossrail shouldn't come to Reading at all).


It's 95 mph because of the signalling and points arrangement, not elfinsafety. Trains pass plenty of stations at 125 regularly. [/pedant]

I'm not aware of a monorail construction taking place over the Crossrail route to enable these 'expresses' to operate - otherwise, even if these were desirable (which, in the Crossrail context, they are decidedly not) all they would do is crawl through stations at walking pace stopping people wishing to get on (or off) tailgating the stopping train in front, from Paddington onwards at least. Reading should consider itself fortunate to be added to the Crossrail portfolio, and would be advised to back off in pressing any claim to be treated more favourably than other settlements to its east - you'll get an empty train to board in the morning peak, for which you should be truly thankful.

 

[Ironside]

I'm not aware of a monorail construction taking place over the Crossrail route to enable these 'expresses' to operate - otherwise, even if these were desirable (which, in the Crossrail context, they are decidedly not) all they would do is crawl through stations at walking pace stopping people wishing to get on (or off) tailgating the stopping train in front, from Paddington onwards at least. Reading should consider itself fortunate to be added to the Crossrail portfolio, and would be advised to back off in pressing any claim to be treated more favourably than other settlements to its east - you'll get an empty train to board in the morning peak, for which you should be truly thankful.

I would imagine the MP Rob Wilson is mearly pointing out that Crossrail isn't the best service to get to London when there are faster trains to Paddington. He is also probably making sure that no extra taxes for the use of Crossrail are charged to Reading businesses (although this is unlikely now that Crossrail is nearly built). Of more use to Reading are the new electric trains and a train to Heathrow.

 

[coppercapped]

I'm not aware of a monorail construction taking place over the Crossrail route to enable these 'expresses' to operate - otherwise, even if these were desirable (which, in the Crossrail context, they are decidedly not) all they would do is crawl through stations at walking pace stopping people wishing to get on (or off) tailgating the stopping train in front, from Paddington onwards at least. Reading should consider itself fortunate to be added to the Crossrail portfolio, and would be advised to back off in pressing any claim to be treated more favourably than other settlements to its east - you'll get an empty train to board in the morning peak, for which you should be truly thankful.

You are missing the point. For Crossrail to be competitive in journey time between Reading and, say, Tottenham Court Road the trains would have to have a limited number of stops, or preferably be non-stop, between Reading and Paddington. Otherwise people will not use the Crossrail trains between Reading and Paddington but will use the fast trains and change at Paddington.

As half the eastbound trains through the Crossrail platforms at Paddington will start from there the chances of getting a seat at Paddington will be pretty high. You won't need to get on a Crossrail train at Reading to get a seat on Crossrail.

Non-stop trains to the Crossrail tunnels are unlikely in the short and medium term since

• the Mains are pretty full at the moment and there is not the capacity to add another four paths per hour in the peaks - the minimum I would suggest for a competitive service
• new Crossrail rolling stock would be needed - the trains being built have a 90mph top speed which is incompatible with 125mph paths on the Mains
• a grade separated junction would be needed to reach the Crossrail tunnels from the Mains

So, it's a nice idea - but won't happen soon. So no need to make remarks about Reading being fortunate enough as it is.

 

[edwin_m]

I think it's very unlikely that anyone will use a Crossrail service the whole way from Reading to Paddington, even if their ultimate destination is a Crossrail station further east. It's one of those services provided mainly for the benefit of intermediate journeys, including "reverse commuting" from the stations east of Reading to Reading itself. And even if the reverse commuting comes nowhere near filling a Crossrail train at Reading, it's probably a better use of capacity than trying to run a separate shorter train to cater for the reverse commuters.

 

[phil beard]

Do people agree with me that the overhead masts and other equipment on the GWML are the ugliest and most over-engineered in the country? Previously described elsewhere as strong enough to stand the winds of Jupiter, I would add that aesthetically they are designed by Lego. What a way to ruin the look of Brunel's billiard table!

 

[Busaholic]

You are missing the point. For Crossrail to be competitive in journey time between Reading and, say, Tottenham Court Road the trains would have to have a limited number of stops, or preferably be non-stop, between Reading and Paddington. Otherwise people will not use the Crossrail trains between Reading and Paddington but will use the fast trains and change at Paddington.

As half the eastbound trains through the Crossrail platforms at Paddington will start from there the chances of getting a seat at Paddington will be pretty high. You won't need to get on a Crossrail train at Reading to get a seat on Crossrail.

Non-stop trains to the Crossrail tunnels are unlikely in the short and medium term since

• the Mains are pretty full at the moment and there is not the capacity to add another four paths per hour in the peaks - the minimum I would suggest for a competitive service
• new Crossrail rolling stock would be needed - the trains being built have a 90mph top speed which is incompatible with 125mph paths on the Mains
• a grade separated junction would be needed to reach the Crossrail tunnels from the Mains

So, it's a nice idea - but won't happen soon. So no need to make remarks about Reading being fortunate enough as it is.

I thought that was possibly what you meant. When I first joined this forum I wrote a couple of times about how, in extending Crossrail from Maidenhead to Reading, which seemed logical in some ways, it would instead create huge pressure from the Reading crowd to have, in effect, their 'own' Crossrail fast service to central London and the City. I don't recall anyone agreeing with my analysis, but your remarks tend to confirm it. I don't blame you - if I lived in Reading I'd be campaigning for it too, but I don't, so I can remain unbiased. I also seem to remember positing that there would be pressure to divert some of the Heathrow services in the general direction of Reading during peak periods as people saw half or three quarters empty trains leaving Bond Street in the p.m. peak bound for Heathrow.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Do people agree with me that the overhead masts and other equipment on the GWML are the ugliest and most over-engineered in the country? Previously described elsewhere as strong enough to stand the winds of Jupiter, I would add that aesthetically they are designed by Lego. What a way to ruin the look of Brunel's billiard table!

Well all those under-engineered headspans on the ECML and MML are being replaced soon, so I'm not sure why you're singling out the GWML here... Also, have you seen the London end of the GEML or the southern WCML lately?!?

 

[nlogax]

Do people agree with me that the overhead masts and other equipment on the GWML are the ugliest and most over-engineered in the country? Previously described elsewhere as strong enough to stand the winds of Jupiter, I would add that aesthetically they are designed by Lego. What a way to ruin the look of Brunel's billiard table!

Nope. They're great and unlike earlier equipment it's clear they're properly engineered for the job they need to perform.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Do people agree with me that the overhead masts and other equipment on the GWML are the ugliest and most over-engineered in the country?

No. And in future, stop being wrong.

 

[D1009]

To me, the new signal gantries are far uglier than the OHLE.

 

[kylemore]

Do people agree with me that the overhead masts and other equipment on the GWML are the ugliest and most over-engineered in the country? Previously described elsewhere as strong enough to stand the winds of Jupiter, I would add that aesthetically they are designed by Lego. What a way to ruin the look of Brunel's billiard table!

Ok they might have had a few more Gothic touches applied but I think Brunel would have thoroughly approved.

 

[jimm]

I thought that was possibly what you meant. When I first joined this forum I wrote a couple of times about how, in extending Crossrail from Maidenhead to Reading, which seemed logical in some ways, it would instead create huge pressure from the Reading crowd to have, in effect, their 'own' Crossrail fast service to central London and the City. I don't recall anyone agreeing with my analysis, but your remarks tend to confirm it. I don't blame you - if I lived in Reading I'd be campaigning for it too, but I don't, so I can remain unbiased. I also seem to remember positing that there would be pressure to divert some of the Heathrow services in the general direction of Reading during peak periods as people saw half or three quarters empty trains leaving Bond Street in the p.m. peak bound for Heathrow.

Given the level of demand at the stations between Paddington and Hayes & Harlington, which will be served by the Crossrail trains to Heathrow as a replacement for the current Heathrow Connect service, the idea that those trains will be leaving central London half or three quarters empty in the peak is laughable. Have you missed the problems the scrapping of much of the Connect service to provide stock to replace 332s on Heathrow Express has caused for passengers at those stations in the past couple of weeks?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Do people agree with me that the overhead masts and other equipment on the GWML are the ugliest and most over-engineered in the country? Previously described elsewhere as strong enough to stand the winds of Jupiter, I would add that aesthetically they are designed by Lego. What a way to ruin the look of Brunel's billiard table!

No- this thread an others are replete with explanations of why they are as they are. Our resident engineers have told us why they are fit for purpose on multiple occasions. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I love wind turbines for example.

 

[LexyBoy]

To briefly bring us back on-topic, I see that the wires over the mains are now continuous from immediately west of Tilehurst to Gatehampton bridge near Goring. On the reliefs there's a break at Pangbourne and they don't yet go quite so far west.

Gantries now look complete at Didcot, some cantilevers up on the line from there towards Oxford, and a dozen or so gantries up west of Didcot, to around the power station.

I'm not aware of a monorail construction taking place over the Crossrail route to enable these 'expresses' to operate - otherwise, even if these were desirable (which, in the Crossrail context, they are decidedly not) all they would do is crawl through stations at walking pace stopping people wishing to get on (or off) tailgating the stopping train in front, from Paddington onwards at least. Reading should consider itself fortunate to be added to the Crossrail portfolio, and would be advised to back off in pressing any claim to be treated more favourably than other settlements to its east - you'll get an empty train to board in the morning peak, for which you should be truly thankful.

Erm, I was just pointing out Mr Wilson's position (which to be fair I think is for "limited stop" rather than "non-stop" trains) which I thought relevant to peterson's blog post.

Crossrail is fine as it is. From Reading's POV it's not going to change much - house prices excepted - but that's not the point. Crossrail is supposed to provide local connectivity, which is what it'll do - this is as true for Reading as for London. Whilst a there's a lot of people living in Reading who commute to London, many also commute into Reading which is vital for the local economy. A better frequency would be nice but that may well come in time anyway (especially with WRAtH).

Crossrail terminating at Maidenhead would have been a ridiculous and completely London-centric situation. You'd end up with a break in service at Maidenhead, meaning local journeys in the Thames Valley would take longer. Maidenhead would have to accomodate more GW stoppers/terminators as well as Crossrail, whilst there's a newly rebuilt 15-platform station just up the line. Continuing to Reading means Crossrail simply replaces the existing Reading-Paddington stoppers and provides much better connectivity.

 

[swt_passenger]

To me, the new signal gantries are far uglier than the OHLE.

But on the other hand they will allow the signals to be accessed safely from the side of the tracks for routine maintenance without turning the 25 kV off, and without having to cross the tracks.

 

[TheKnightWho]

But on the other hand they will allow the signals to be accessed safely from the side of the tracks for routine maintenance without turning the 25 kV off, and without having to cross the tracks.

And, assuming nothing goes horribly wrong, will be gone reasonably soon anyway.

 

[Who Cares]

Do people agree with me that the overhead masts and other equipment on the GWML are the ugliest and most over-engineered in the country? Previously described elsewhere as strong enough to stand the winds of Jupiter, I would add that aesthetically they are designed by Lego. What a way to ruin the look of Brunel's billiard table!

Oh yes....

Although you're not allowed to have that opinion on here as you're wrong....

I used to try on this original thread, and the split-off thread below, but gave up as it was like trying to have a pie and a pint with jihadists....

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=123126

But despite NR's delaying tactics and procrastination, things are progressing very successfully for those of us who dare to share your opinion....

http://www.savegoringgap.org.uk/