Ideas for services in Reading in 2019

[JamesRowden]

Due to the present infastructure at Reading station with there only being four through platforms and no fly-over junctions, only two stopping services an hour do not terminate at Reading (Paddington-Oxford). With the nine through platforms there will be from Easter next year and the fly-over junctions to the east and west of the station that will exist at the end of the project (2015), crossing paths and a lack of through platforms will no longer be a barrier to linking stopping/semi-fast services at Reading. If the CP5 plans go ahead there will also be a direct train to Heathrow.

I have attached a schematic of the tracks around Reading station after the Upgrade


The present Crossrail plans include the present 4tph stopping service between Reading and Paddington being replaced by:

2tph Maidenhead-Crossrail (stopping)

2tph Reading(or Beyond)-Paddington (slow-semi-fast [Reading-Twyford-Maidenhead-Slough-Hayes&Harlington-EalingBroadway-Paddington)

If Crossrail is extended to Reading it almost certainly will not go any further than Reading.

If the CP5 plans go ahead the destinations of non-intercity services to the east of Reading might well be:

- Paddington
- Heathrow
- Waterloo
- Gatwick

Those to the west might be:

- Oxford/EastWestRail
- Newbury/Bedwyn
- Basingstoke

I am interested to know what services people think should run as a result of this new capacity.

As a starter I'll put in:

Birmingham(or beyond)-(fast-semi-fast)-Reading-(fast)-Heathrow (1tph)
Manchester-(fast-semi-fast)-Reading-(semi-fast)-Southampton (1tph)
Oxford-(stopping)-Reading-(slow-semi-fast)-Paddington (1tph)
Oxford-(stopping)-Reading-(fast-semi-fast)-Paddington (1tph)
Oxford-(semi-fast)-Reading-(semi-fast)-Gatwick/Ashford.Int (1tph)
Newbury-(stopping)-Reading-(slow-semi-fast)-Paddington (1tph)
Newbury-(stopping)-Reading-(slow-semi-fast)-Heathrow (1tph)
Basingstoke-(stopping)-Reading-(slow-semi-fast)-Heathrow (1tph)
Southampton-(fast-semi-fast)-Reading-(fast)-Heathrow (1tph)
Reading-EastWestRail-MML-Sheffield-York-Edinburgh (1tph)
Reading-Crossrail (stopping) (2tph)
Reading-Waterloo (stopping) (2tph)
Reading-Gatwick (stopping) (1tph)
Bedwyn-Reading (stopping) (1tph)

+ all GW intercity services

 

[transmanche]

Reading-Gatwick (stopping) (1tph)
Bedwyn-Reading (stopping) (1tph)

Why not combine those two?

 

[JamesRowden]

Reading-Gatwick (stopping) (1tph)
Bedwyn-Reading (stopping) (1tph)

Why not combine those two?

I had not noticed those two. Joining them would create new journey oportunities (but would also mean that disruption on one route would affect the other and the joining would create more constraints in the timetable than if the services ran seperatly [as are the case with all of my joinings]).

 

[Waverley125]

depending on how many tph through the Central section Crossrail has, the obvious option would be to include all branches (Windsor, Greenford etc) off the GWML as well as reading onto Crossrail, and remove almost al stops east of Reading (perhaps Maidenhead & Slough apart) from intercity trains.

Then run

1tph Oxford (Slough, Maidenhead, Reading & all stops)

1tph Banbury (Slough, Maidenhead, Reading & all stops)

1tph Hereford (Reading, Oxford, Evesham, Worcester SH, Worcester FS, Great Malvern, Ledbury, Hereford)

1tph Worcester (Reading, Didcot, Oxford, Hanborough, Charlbury, Kingham, Moreton in Marsh, Evesham, Pershore, Worcester Shrub Hill)

1tph Gloucester (Reading, Didcot, Swindon, Kemble, Stroud, Gloucester)

1tph Bristol (Reading, Didcot, Swindon, Chippenham, Bath Spa, Bristol)

1tph Weston super Mare (Reading, Didcot, Swindon, Chippenham, Bath Spa, Bristol, Weston super Mare)

1tph Bristol (Bristol Parkway, Bristol)

1tph Cardiff (Reading, Didcot, Swindon, Bristol Parkway, Newport, Cardiff)

1tph Swansea (Reading, Bristol Parkway, Newport, Cardiff Central, Bridgend, Port Talbot Parkway, Neath, Swansea)

1tph Taunton (Slough, Maidenhead, Reading & all stops)

1tph Yeovil (Slough, Maidenhead, Reading & all stops)

1tph Plymouth (Reading, Taunton, Tiverton Parkway, Exeter St Davids, Newton Abbott, Totnes, Plymouth)

1tph Penzance (Reading, Exeter St Davids, Newton Abbott, Plymouth, Liskeard, Bodmin Parkway, St Austell, Truro, Redruth, Camborne, St Erth, Penzance)

 

[The Ham]

If Crossrail is extended to Reading it almost certainly will not go any further than Reading.

Other than there has been talk about extending it to Basingstoke to see if it relieved pressure on the SWML.

Although the discussions weren't overly positive, as an all stops service from Basingstoke on Crossrail would probably take longer than the fast services (two stops between Basingstoke & Waterloo). Although it does depend on where in London you are trying to get to.

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

Although if Hampshire get their way and a new station at Chineham is built (between Bramley & Basignstoke), it maybe quicker to use Crossrail to get to London than change at Basingstoke (even though it's likely to be only 5 minutes away). In which case it could be used by a fair number of people.

Likewise Reading Green Park (Between the M4 and Reading - if it ever gets built) would attract a lot of lot of London bound passengers.

 

[JamesRowden]

I think that 4tph of semi-fast services could run through Crossrail (not run by TfL but by the Great Western or Great Eastern TOC). They would travel along the slow lines in the place of the planned Reading-Paddington services. My idea for the service pattern is as follows:

Oxford (all stations / semi-fast) -Reading - Twyford - Maidenhead - Slough - Ealing Broadway - Crossrail (all stations) - Stratford - Romford - Shenfield - (all stations) - Southend Victoria (2tph)

Basingstoke - (all stations) - Reading - Twyford - Maidenhead - Slough - Ealing Broadway - Crossrail (all stations) - Stratford - Romford - Shenfield - (all stations) - Colchester Town (1tph)

Newbury - (all stations) - Reading - Twyford - Maidenhead - Slough - Ealing Broadway - Crossrail (all stations) - Stratford - Romford - Shenfield - (all stations) - Colchester Town (1tph)

If these services cause too much path crossing on the GEML then extra stops could be added to allow them to travel on the metro lines out of London. I have not included Hayes and Harlington as a stop since the Slough-Heathrow line should make it unnecessary.

 

[paulusthegnome]

"I have attached a schematic of the tracks around Reading station after the Upgrade"

I'd be very interested in seeing the same type of diagram BEFORE the upgrade.
I live in the USA and visiting the station is a tad tricky.

 

[andyfrommk]

Here is a current map

Edit: Just thought that may be out of date what with the building work going on, peruse these flickr albums for a more up to date view

Redevelopment
Remodelling

 

[Robsignals]

Map is correct for now including new Platform numbering, track is in place through the east, single track, underpass but not in use. My old plan was join P2 & 3 to 4A & B (now 5 & 6), electrify 3rd rail to Basingstoke and run Waterloo - Reading trains through to various SWT destinations.

Reading - Gatwick fGW have wanted to have 2tph for years but NR say no capacity at Redhill until PZero is built. Soon after BR introduced the service they were talking about extending it to Birmingham - Brighton, this will now be able to use the east underpass. If Wokingham - Ash Jct & Shalford Jct - Reigate is electrified Dual Voltage (DV) units can run the route.

Being more ambitious DV units should run portions from Edinburgh/Glasgow/Manchester also Cardiff splitting at Reading to Bournemouth/Portsmouth/Heathrow, also Brighton or Eastbourne via Gatwick further splitting at Redhill for Kent destinations.

 

[Eagle]

My old plan was join P2 & 3 to 4A & B (now 5 & 6), electrify 3rd rail to Basingstoke and run Waterloo - Reading trains through to various SWT destinations.

Reading to Basingstoke will get OHLE by 2019 anyway.

 

[Robsignals]

Reading to Basingstoke will get OHLE by 2019 anyway.

Yes, but it will be years before SWTs entire mainline fleet is Dual Voltage, anyway without linking those platforms there won't be capacity for them.

 

[Lrd]

Yes, but it will be years before SWTs entire mainline fleet is Dual Voltage

The 450s will be on the Reading's soon.

 

[TheWalrus]

Due to the present infastructure at Reading station with there only being four through platforms and no fly-over junctions, only two stopping services an hour do not terminate at Reading (Paddington-Oxford). With the nine through platforms there will be from Easter next year and the fly-over junctions to the east and west of the station that will exist at the end of the project (2015), crossing paths and a lack of through platforms will no longer be a barrier to linking stopping/semi-fast services at Reading. If the CP5 plans go ahead there will also be a direct train to Heathrow.

I have attached a schematic of the tracks around Reading station after the Upgrade
View attachment 12874

The present Crossrail plans include the present 4tph stopping service between Reading and Paddington being replaced by:

2tph Maidenhead-Crossrail (stopping)

2tph Reading(or Beyond)-Paddington (slow-semi-fast [Reading-Twyford-Maidenhead-Slough-Hayes&Harlington-EalingBroadway-Paddington)

If Crossrail is extended to Reading it almost certainly will not go any further than Reading.

If the CP5 plans go ahead the destinations of non-intercity services to the east of Reading might well be:

- Paddington
- Heathrow
- Waterloo
- Gatwick

Those to the west might be:

- Oxford/EastWestRail
- Newbury/Bedwyn
- Basingstoke

I am interested to know what services people think should run as a result of this new capacity.

As a starter I'll put in:

Birmingham(or beyond)-(fast-semi-fast)-Reading-(fast)-Heathrow (1tph)
Manchester-(fast-semi-fast)-Reading-(semi-fast)-Southampton (1tph)
Oxford-(stopping)-Reading-(slow-semi-fast)-Paddington (1tph)
Oxford-(stopping)-Reading-(fast-semi-fast)-Paddington (1tph)
Oxford-(semi-fast)-Reading-(semi-fast)-Gatwick/Ashford.Int (1tph)
Newbury-(stopping)-Reading-(slow-semi-fast)-Paddington (1tph)
Newbury-(stopping)-Reading-(slow-semi-fast)-Heathrow (1tph)
Basingstoke-(stopping)-Reading-(slow-semi-fast)-Heathrow (1tph)
Southampton-(fast-semi-fast)-Reading-(fast)-Heathrow (1tph)
Reading-EastWestRail-MML-Sheffield-York-Edinburgh (1tph)
Reading-Crossrail (stopping) (2tph)
Reading-Waterloo (stopping) (2tph)
Reading-Gatwick (stopping) (1tph)
Bedwyn-Reading (stopping) (1tph)

+ all GW intercity services

Is a London-Exeter semi-fast included in GW intercity services? If not I'd scrap the Reading-Bedwyn and put the Exeter semi-fast in its place, otherwise it'll be practically empty Newbury-Bedwyn and back!

 

[Buttsy]

The only issue I see with extenstions of crossrail is that the stock is supposed to be longditudinal seating like the 378s. I don't fancy trying to sit on one of those from Oxford to Prittlewell for an away game...

 

[JamesRowden]

Is a London-Exeter semi-fast included in GW intercity services? If not I'd scrap the Reading-Bedwyn and put the Exeter semi-fast in its place, otherwise it'll be practically empty Newbury-Bedwyn and back!

I was including the semi-fast London-Westbury-Exeter service as a GW intercity service since it will be run using IEP Bi-mode. I thought that a stopping service all the way between Reading and Taunton might get in the way of the fast and semi-fast services and the I doubt many people will stay on the service for a large proportion of the train's journey. I thought it might be better to split the stopping service into several services. In order to run the long stopping service, places must be arranged for the fast services to pass.

My old plan was join P2 & 3 to 4A & B (now 5 & 6), electrify 3rd rail to Basingstoke and run Waterloo - Reading trains through to various SWT destinations.

With the underpass being reopened to the East of the station and the viaduct being built to the west this service could run (2 new relief platforms at the north of the station will have 3rd rail electrification). Another possibility would be to give the new platform 7 (old platform 4) 3rd rail electrification and have the services run through there (no crossing of GWML services).

 

[swt_passenger]

Other than there has been talk about extending it to Basingstoke to see if it relieved pressure on the SWML.

Although the discussions weren't overly positive, as an all stops service from Basingstoke on Crossrail would probably take longer than the fast services (two stops between Basingstoke & Waterloo). Although it does depend on where in London you are trying to get to.

What discussions?

There was no formal proposal to run Crossrail to Basingstoke. The London and SE RUS clearly stated that the proposal was to extend a 'peak only' fast line Reading to Paddington service back from Basingstoke. Option A5 amended as per option F6.

That probably then got swept up in the all pervading belief that Crossrail would be extended to Reading, but it isn't going to be, is it?

 

[Buttsy]

What discussions?

There was no formal proposal to run Crossrail to Basingstoke. The London and SE RUS clearly stated that the proposal was to extend a 'peak only' fast line Reading to Paddington service back from Basingstoke. Option A5 amended as per option F6.

That probably then got swept up in the all pervading belief that Crossrail would be extended to Reading, but it isn't going to be, is it?

Crossrail will end up going to Reading. The reason why Maidenhead was chosen was to avoid Crossrail having to cough up cash for part of the Reading upgrade. I'll wager £50 that Crossrail will start operating to Reading once the GWML has been electrified that far (if Crossrail is open by that time). If it wasn't going to Reading, why the need for 5 new platforms?????

 

[Minstral25]

Crossrail will end up going to Reading. The reason why Maidenhead was chosen was to avoid Crossrail having to cough up cash for part of the Reading upgrade. I'll wager £50 that Crossrail will start operating to Reading once the GWML has been electrified that far (if Crossrail is open by that time). If it wasn't going to Reading, why the need for 5 new platforms?????

Good point but I can't see Crossrail going to Reading as there is no need. The estimated "fastest" journey time from Maidenhead on Crossrail is 37 minutes, then add on 15 minutes to get to Reading. Reading fasts take around 30 minutes now so it will always be much faster to take a fast train and change at Paddington.

Crossrail is meant to be a tube style service calling at all stations and the stock is being planned that way. Reading is just too far out for that kind of service plus has a very good service anyway. I'm just surprised its going past Slough.

 

[Buttsy]

Good point but I can't see Crossrail going to Reading as there is no need. The estimated "fastest" journey time from Maidenhead on Crossrail is 37 minutes, then add on 15 minutes to get to Reading. Reading fasts take around 30 minutes now so it will always be much faster to take a fast train and change at Paddington.

Crossrail is meant to be a tube style service calling at all stations and the stock is being planned that way. Reading is just too far out for that kind of service plus has a very good service anyway. I'm just surprised its going past Slough.

My mole at Network Rail (Crossrail project) is pretty certain it will run to Reading to take over the current 'local' services rather than the fasts or semi-fasts.

 

[swt_passenger]

Crossrail will end up going to Reading. The reason why Maidenhead was chosen was to avoid Crossrail having to cough up cash for part of the Reading upgrade. I'll wager £50 that Crossrail will start operating to Reading once the GWML has been electrified that far (if Crossrail is open by that time). If it wasn't going to Reading, why the need for 5 new platforms?????

Ah, but the '5 new platforms' is rather a sleight of hand though. The net addition is only 3 new, because a number of bays have been or will be closed. One of the new platforms is on the Southern side anyway. The major gain is on the mains, where there'll be 5 platfoms rather than two now.

[It's a bit like the regular 'new/additional/cascaded' train numbers confusion. Mention 5 new platforms, but don't mention that the old P6 and P7 are closing without replacement...]

The relief lines will have four platforms in the rebuilt station, but they do already. I'll give you that platforms 12 - 15 are all going to be through platforms, but they have to do the job of two existing through platforms and the two London facing bays that are there at the moment. They'll obviously be able to cope with longer terminating trains on the relief side though.

The idea that the rebuild provides loads of extra capacity for Crossrail extensions is not quite right - by far the majority of the increased capability is on the main lines.

But I'm not the only contributor here who thinks Crossrail will not be extended. Also, NR seem to write off the idea in the London and SE RUS, because passengers from Reading will always have much faster through trains to Paddington.

 

[JamesRowden]

My mole at Network Rail (Crossrail project) is pretty certain it will run to Reading to take over the current 'local' services rather than the fasts or semi-fasts.

I agree. With present Crossrail plans there will no longer be off-peak direct services between Reading and the Crossrail only (or stopping) stations between Maidenhead and London (e.g. Taplow, Burnham). By running the stopping services between Slough and Maidenhead Crossrail also has the responsibility to provide connections between those stations and the West. By removing the direct services to Reading it will mean that people will need to change trains to make a local journey and that they will need to change twice to travel to Bristol (or go via Paddington) because neither Maidenhad nor Slough have (and probably won't get) servcies to Bristol stopping at them (off-peak).

The simple solution to this problem is to make the planned Paddington to Reading slow-semi-fast services (along relief lines) Crossrail services and extend the stopping Crossrail services to Reading.

 

[tbtc]

The only way I can see Crossrail trains at Reading would be if the western access to Heathrow happens - since this would be a "solution" to giving Reading a direct link (and not needing to take up valuable space under Heathrow with terminating trains from the west as well as the terminating Crossrail trains).

Extending HEX to Reading would be a non-starter as it's a premium service (in terms of fares), and there may not be room for lots of terminating services at Heathrow - given the logistics.

 

[JamesRowden]

Ah, but the '5 new platforms' is rather a sleight of hand though. The net addition is only 3 new, because a number of bays have been or will be closed. One of the new platforms is on the Southern side anyway. The major gain is on the mains, where there'll be 5 platfoms rather than two now.

The relief lines will have four platforms in the rebuilt station, but they do already. I'll give you that platforms 12 - 15 are all going to be through platforms, but they have to do the job of two existing through platforms and the two London facing bays that are there at the moment. They'll obviously be able to cope with longer terminating trains on the relief side though.

The idea that the rebuild provides loads of extra capacity for Crossrail extensions is not quite right - by far the majority of the increased capability is on the main lines.

London Bridge platform 6 shows that a single platform for non-intercity through services (~24tph) provides a lot of capacity comapared with terminating platforms (~6tph). Serving the east side (not counting the south platforms) there will be two extra relief through plaforms compared to the two short relief bay platforms that are being closed.

But I'm not the only contributor here who thinks Crossrail will not be extended. Also, NR seem to write off the idea in the London and SE RUS, because passengers from Reading will always have much faster through trains to Paddington.

The London and SE RUS actually stated that Reading should get Crossrail services. It did state that people from Reading would not be interested in traveling to central London on it but did not deny that local jounreys/connections to/from Reading would not make it worth extending Crossrail to Reading.

 

[cle]

Reading has more people commuting into it than people who commute from it to London. People need to bear in mind that it is a huge employment/business hub, and the GWML is its main corridor. This isn't just about Paddington <--> Reading traffic.

 

[Waverley125]

Reading might well get crossrail in the event of an HS3 being built out towards the SW & South Wales. Obviousloy from OOC there'll be political pressure to go via Heathrow, but I'd then be unsure whether it would serve Reading, or run fast to Bristol, through Temple Meads and then over the Severan Barrage to Cardiff & Swansea. A Reduction in the number of Inter-City services going through Reading (potentially just 1tph to Bristol, Swansea & Gloucester on the GWML, and 1tph to Penzance) would lead to a need for more trains into London, which Crossrail could fulfill.

 

[Robsignals]

My old plan was join P2 & 3 to 4A & B (now 5 & 6), electrify 3rd rail to Basingstoke and run Waterloo - Reading trains through to various SWT destinations.

Referred to by:

With the underpass being reopened to the East of the station and the viaduct being built to the west this service could run (2 new relief platforms at the north of the station will have 3rd rail electrification).

Interesting, but probably no spare peak capacity and limited off-peak to possibly only 2tph each way. NR will not want the operational risk of SWT disruption transmitting to the GWML.

Another possibility would be to give the new platform 7 (old platform 4) 3rd rail electrification and have the services run through there (no crossing of GWML services).

Isn't P7 to be dedicated to GW trains with little if any spare capacity? Again there's risk of transmitting disruption from SWT.

The only way of obtaining sufficient capacity is to reconstruct the modern station (preserving the original building of course) and connect through P1 to P4 and P2 to P5, (or P2 to P5 and P3 to P6 depending on getting past the old station building). The concourse would be better placed at first floor level above the platforms in a glass walled structure to minimise visual impact on the original building with high level walkways to the town centre.

 

[swt_passenger]

Referred to by:
Isn't P7 to be dedicated to GW trains with little if any spare capacity? Again there's risk of transmitting disruption from SWT.

P7 will be dedicated only in as much as it is will be the preferred route for down trains to the B&H route, but it won't have anything like the number of services it does now, as anything bound for the Didcot direction will use P8 or P9.

The limitation they've unfortunately built in is that there is no route between the 'southern' and towards the B&H via P7 in the down direction without going on and off the down main - an additional short parallel track of about half a mile in length would have allowed far more flexibility for the suggested route, and if made reversible it would also allow up direction non-conflicting moves. However as such a non-conflicting move will be possible via P14 or P15 and the eastern underpass, there's presumably no need for it.

I don't expect for one minute such a service will actually happen, but the intended infrastructure does allow for it without conflicts.

 

[infobleep]

Reading - Gatwick fGW have wanted to have 2tph for years but NR say no capacity at Redhill until PZero is built.

That is interesting because for some years on Sundays FGW use to have 2 trains an hour to Redhil;. A fast to Gatwick and a slow to Redhill. The slow use to be perfect for connecting at Redhill with a train towards Brighton. However FGW got rid of one of the trains and now the 1 service an hour is fast to Guildford and then slow to Gatwick or slow to Guildford and then fast to Gatwick.

I don't see how that is helping the 2 trains per hour cause but I don't know who decided it had to be reduced to 1 train. Also not helping for people who might want to travel from Crowthorns to Shalford or basically any slow station before Guildford to any slow station after Guildford.

 

[Robsignals]

That is interesting because for some years on Sundays FGW use to have 2 trains an hour to Redhil;. A fast to Gatwick and a slow to Redhill. The slow use to be perfect for connecting at Redhill with a train towards Brighton. However FGW got rid of one of the trains and now the 1 service an hour is fast to Guildford and then slow to Gatwick or slow to Guildford and then fast to Gatwick.

I don't see how that is helping the 2 trains per hour cause but I don't know who decided it had to be reduced to 1 train. Also not helping for people who might want to travel from Crowthorns to Shalford or basically any slow station before Guildford to any slow station after Guildford.

Cost cutting measure, the standard hour Mon - Sat service from Reading is 1tph Gatwick and 1tph Redhill local. Until a few years ago the local called all stations but only 2 hourly beyond Shalford, those that ran to Redhill started their return journey exactly 1 hour after arriving. Now 4 small stations beyond Shalford are skip stopped on alternate hours giving a 9 minute turn round but in the peaks some are all stops both ways with 4 min t/r and later into Reading. On Summer Saturday mornings there were ~3 extra Gatwick Fasts only making a few calls.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

P7 will be dedicated only in as much as it is will be the preferred route for down trains to the B&H route, but it won't have anything like the number of services it does now, as anything bound for the Didcot direction will use P8 or P9.

The limitation they've unfortunately built in is that there is no route between the 'southern' and towards the B&H via P7 in the down direction without going on and off the down main - an additional short parallel track of about half a mile in length would have allowed far more flexibility for the suggested route, and if made reversible it would also allow up direction non-conflicting moves. However as such a non-conflicting move will be possible via P14 or P15 and the eastern underpass, there's presumably no need for it.

I don't expect for one minute such a service will actually happen, but the intended infrastructure does allow for it without conflicts.

It would be poor value for money to have platforms with only a few trains an hour depending on the planned B & H service, will XC trains also turn round in P7. The layout will allow trains to run towards Didcot so it's likely P7 will be used to spread the load during serious disruption though it will be very unpopular with passengers. Remember that the East Underpass is only single track.

 

[The Ham]

I thought that platform 7 (formally 4) would be for cross country services so that they could reverse without out blocking another through platform.

It then become more useful if/when the voyagers are replaced/lengthened and they do not fit on the bay platforms.