Questions regarding GWML Padd-Reading and Crossrail Farringdon

[387star]

1. When Crossrail starts will the trains be using existing tracks through to Padd or wherever it is they tunnel under London?

2. Will Crossrail replace GWR services?

3. Why is GWR getting 365s AND 387s? why not all 387s especially as some will be brand new for GWR? The 365s and 387s couldn't be any different no gangways on the former for a start

Also what is happening at Farringdon will Crossrail use a new underground station there?

 

[JonathanH]

1. When Crossrail starts will the trains be using existing tracks through to Padd or wherever it is they tunnel under London?

2. Will Crossrail replace GWR services?

3. Why is GWR getting 365s AND 387s? why not all 387s especially as some will be brand new for GWR? The 365s and 387s couldn't be any different no gangways on the former for a start

Also what is happening at Farringdon will Crossrail use a new underground station there?

Crossrail will run on the relief lines all the way from Reading to the portal near Royal Oak. There is plenty of construction activity to the north of the running lines on the approaches to Paddington.

Crossrail replaces most of the slows inside Reading (although not all as I understand it).

Presumably 365s and 387s will have different work - 387s on 'fast' services and 365s on the residual relief line services. There are two things at play. The GN doesn't need the full fleet of 365s because of Thameslink / an influx of 377/5s on Cambridge fasts so GWR is good place to send them for further use. The lease cost on 365s is likely to be less than on 387s. 365s are perfectly adequate for the slower services.

 

[TEW]

There should be a residual 2tph GWR semi-fast service London-Reading on the relief lines. Before the extension through to Reading was announced more GWR services were planned, a 2tph Reading-Slough shuttle in to a newly built west facing bay at Slough.

 

[Stats]

They got all the available 387s. The new builds are the remaining options that were available on the original 387 order. To get more new units they would have had to go through a full tender process and there would be no guarantee that Bombardier would have offered electrostars. The 365s were available and will be primarily used on the branch lines.

 

[jimm]

They got all the available 387s. The new builds are the remaining options that were available on the original 387 order. To get more new units they would have had to go through a full tender process and there would be no guarantee that Bombardier would have offered electrostars. The 365s were available and will be primarily used on the branch lines.

GWR is getting 21 Class 365s and there will be two electrified branches - three if you count Reading-Basingstoke - so they will be doing plenty of work on the main line as well.

A lot of 387s will be soaked up running in long formations on Oxford services (and from Swindon in the morning peak) and mixing it on the fast lines east of Reading thanks to their 110mph capability, which would be wasted on the reliefs with 90/100 prevailing, so ideal territory for the 365s.

RE Farringdon station, see http://www.crossrail.co.uk/route/stations/farringdon/
http://www.building.co.uk/farringdon-station-overhaul-boring?-if-only!/5028457.article

There is a diagram with the second article showing where the Crossrail tunnels are.

 

[edwin_m]

Although Crossrail uses existing tracks west of Royal Oak there are several major enhancements including:
- A diveunder at Acton to avoid eastbound Crossrail conflicting with westbound freight leaving the yard
- An extra track over a longish section, near Langley I think but someone will know better
- Extra flyover at Stockley so Crossrail Heathrow services can use the relief lines without conflicting with the main lines
- Electrification from Stockley to Reading (strictly speaking Crossrail electrification is only as far as Maidenhead but the services will then use the part of the GW electrification)
- Reading remodelling - not part of the Crossrail project but without it there would not have been platform capacity to terminate Crossrail there
- Various platform lengthenings and extra platforms.

 

[D365]

Although Crossrail uses existing tracks west of Royal Oak there are several major enhancements including:
- A diveunder at Acton to avoid eastbound Crossrail conflicting with westbound freight leaving the yard
- An extra track over a longish section, near Langley I think but someone will know better
- Extra flyover at Stockley so Crossrail Heathrow services can use the relief lines without conflicting with the main lines
- Electrification from Stockley to Reading (strictly speaking Crossrail electrification is only as far as Maidenhead but the services will then use the part of the GW electrification)
- Reading remodelling - not part of the Crossrail project but without it there would not have been platform capacity to terminate Crossrail there
- Various platform lengthenings and extra platforms.

Would the extra track at Langley be the extended Iver loop from the track diagram in this document? [P16]

 

[387star]

Very interesting

Could crossrail eventually extend trains to oxford

 

[swt_passenger]

Very interesting

Could crossrail eventually extend trains to oxford

No. They don't have a suitable interior layout at all. Many people believe they are completely wrong for a service as far as Reading anyway.

 

[coppercapped]

Would the extra track at Langley be the extended Iver loop from the track diagram in this document? [P16]

Yes. At the moment there is a short loop at Langley which used to serve the old depot. Then east of Langley there is a short section between two bridges with only 4 tracks and the Iver Up Goods Loop commences on the north side and runs through to West Drayton. For Crossrail this loop is being turned into a passenger line and the existing Up Relief will become bi-directional.

 

[AM9]

No. They don't have a suitable interior layout at all. Many people believe they are completely wrong for a service as far as Reading anyway.

That's because Crossrail were asked to extend from Maidenhead to Reading after the trains were specified. Whatever the interior is, sitting/standing in it will be better for many than waiting for an overcrowded 387 or 365.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

GWR is getting 21 Class 365s and there will be two electrified branches - three if you count Reading-Basingstoke - so they will be doing plenty of work on the main line as well.

A lot of 387s will be soaked up running in long formations on Oxford services (and from Swindon in the morning peak) and mixing it on the fast lines east of Reading thanks to their 110mph capability, which would be wasted on the reliefs with 90/100 prevailing, so ideal territory for the 365s.

RE Farringdon station, see http://www.crossrail.co.uk/route/stations/farringdon/
http://www.building.co.uk/farringdon-station-overhaul-boring?-if-only!/5028457.article

There is a diagram with the second article showing where the Crossrail tunnels are.

That's working on the assumption that it will be electrified under the electric spine proposals. That's somewhat dubious considering the state & costs of GWML electrification costs. They'd do far better to extend the wires to Westbury than to Basingstoke thus allowing a better service there, regardless of whether they're to be used by freight or not, because once they get to Basingstoke, they've got another long way to go to do Southampton. But that's another thread altogether.

 

[D365]

Yes. At the moment there is a short loop at Langley which used to serve the old depot. Then east of Langley there is a short section between two bridges with only 4 tracks and the Iver Up Goods Loop commences on the north side and runs through to West Drayton. For Crossrail this loop is being turned into a passenger line and the existing Up Relief will become bi-directional.

Seems at odds with proposals for HEx depot relocation, where in the document I linked, the loop will become bi-di (depot access line) and the Up Relief remains as present.

That's because Crossrail were asked to extend from Maidenhead to Reading after the trains were specified. Whatever the interior is, sitting/standing in it will be better for many than waiting for an overcrowded 387 or 365.

Same argument can be made in planning for a branch to Tring/Milton Keynes; although I've barely known of Tring before!

 

[Taunton]

No. They don't have a suitable interior layout at all. Many people believe they are completely wrong for a service as far as Reading anyway.

At least they are 9-car units, which will be a boon for the Reading local service, where GW turns out for much of the time just 3-car, and from time to time even 2-car, diesel units for the service, which with empty first class saloons doesn't give a lot of space left. GW would never have multipled the 4-car emus they are getting if Crossrail wasn't coming.

I think any residual GW service on the relief lines will not last too long, unless it's just an Orcats Raid on the local revenue that Crossrail will stimulate. What with Crossrail and the need to insert freights between them on the reliefs, there isn't going to be a lot of capacity left.

 

[Stats]

Same argument can be made in planning for a branch to Tring/Milton Keynes; although I've barely known of Tring before!

What is the latest on the proposed services to Tring? It's been over a year since it was announced and nothing has been heard since. When are we likely to hear more?

 

[swt_passenger]

That's working on the assumption that it will be electrified under the electric spine proposals.

The Reading to Basingstoke section was removed from the 'electric spine' and transferred to 'GW Branches' quite some time ago now, in Sept 2014; that's when the changes appeared in the CP5 enhancement plans.

 

[387star]

Who's idea was it to build two car trains for ltv anyway? Crazy

 

[swt_passenger]

At least they are 9-car units, which will be a boon for the Reading local service,

Don't disagree really, but the main point of the original question from ml was about Oxford, which I still think is much too far.

 

[coppercapped]

That's because Crossrail were asked to extend from Maidenhead to Reading after the trains were specified. Whatever the interior is, sitting/standing in it will be better for many than waiting for an overcrowded 387 or 365.

Remind me again, how many Crossrail services will there be to Reading each hour? Will that number make a significant difference?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Who's idea was it to build two car trains for ltv anyway? Crazy

The 165 and 166s were ordered in 1988-9. Rail traffic was declining at the time. It seemed a very sensible decision not to spend money on trains that weren't needed.

 

[jimm]

No. They don't have a suitable interior layout at all. Many people believe they are completely wrong for a service as far as Reading anyway.

And how many Reading passengers do you actually think will use Crossrail? They will all be on GWR fast services, same as they are now, though the extra capacity offered in future by the 387-worked services, increasing the Reading lot's chances of getting a seat, will hopefully ease the pressure on long-distance trains. I would expect Crossrail services to be pretty sparsely populated west of Maidenhead, even in the peaks.

That's because Crossrail were asked to extend from Maidenhead to Reading after the trains were specified. Whatever the interior is, sitting/standing in it will be better for many than waiting for an overcrowded 387 or 365.

What makes you think they will be overcrowded? There will be lots of them and they will most likely all operate as eight-car rakes in the peaks, with some 12-car 387s out there as well. All the emus and IEPs heading to GWR represent a massive and long overdue hike in capacity in the Thames Valley, even before you factor in Crossrail.

That's working on the assumption that it will be electrified under the electric spine proposals. That's somewhat dubious considering the state & costs of GWML electrification costs. They'd do far better to extend the wires to Westbury than to Basingstoke thus allowing a better service there, regardless of whether they're to be used by freight or not, because once they get to Basingstoke, they've got another long way to go to do Southampton. But that's another thread altogether.

Reading-Basingstoke wiring was switched from the Electric Spine to be an integral part of the GW scheme a long time ago, with most of the piling for catenary masts along the line done months ago.

Who's idea was it to build two car trains for ltv anyway? Crazy

Not crazy, just a realistic assessment of what was needed at the time - and in the case of the Thames Valley branches and Oxford-Banbury stoppers, a two-car train is still more than adequate most of the day outside the peaks. In addition, the two-car sets came in very handy when NSE took over the Cotswold Line, as several of the halts have two-car platforms and three-car Turbos cannot call at them as they lack selective door opening. They also offer the option of running four-car and five car trains on main line services where three coaches would be too few and six too many.

 

[swt_passenger]

And how many Reading passengers do you actually think will use Crossrail? They will all be on GWR fast services, same as they are now, though the extra capacity offered in future by the 387-worked services, increasing the Reading lot's chances of getting a seat, will hopefully ease the pressure on long-distance trains. I would expect Crossrail services to be pretty sparsely populated west of Maidenhead, even in the peaks.

Agree entirely. I have never understood the allegedly widespread demands for the extension past Maidenhead. But it doesn't alter the general view that they are pretty much unsuitable for going the full distance to Oxford.

 

[Tw99]

And how many Reading passengers do you actually think will use Crossrail?

I'm sure most of the Reading-based commuters don't work near Paddington station, so the prospect of being able to get Crossrail direct to the City or Canary Wharf would be pretty attractive. Just being able to sit on one train and avoid the tube changes and LU unreliability might be attractive even if Crossrail is potentially a bit slower from Reading to Canary Wharf. For the City and West End, it looks like the predicted times are about the same.

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/route/western-section/reading-station

 

[edwin_m]

Is there much "reverse commuting" into Reading from Maidenhead and nearby?

 

[coppercapped]

I'm sure most of the Reading-based commuters don't work near Paddington station, so the prospect of being able to get Crossrail direct to the City or Canary Wharf would be pretty attractive. Just being able to sit on one train and avoid the tube changes and LU unreliability might be attractive even if Crossrail is potentially a bit slower from Reading to Canary Wharf. For the City and West End, it looks like the predicted times are about the same.

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/route/western-section/reading-station

This has been done to death. Crossrail trains from Reading to Paddington will take 50 minutes according to Crossrail's own figures. A non-stop high speed Class 801 0r 802 will take about 23 to 25 minutes, just as fast as an HST in days gone by. Even allowing 5 minutes or so for a change to Crossrail - the station is close by under Eastbourne Terrace and will be reached through the old booking hall - that's still 20 minutes faster to Paddington. As half the eastbound Crossrail trains start from Paddington the chances of getting a seat are good.

The onward journey time from Paddington by other modes, Tube, bus, taxi, bike or walk, will remain the same with or without Crossrail, so no change.

So, Crossrail all the way from Reading will be 20 to 25 minutes slower than taking an express and changing at Paddington - whatever the destination.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is there much "reverse commuting" into Reading from Maidenhead and nearby?

Figures published a couple of years ago show that more people travel to Reading by train in the morning than travel by train from Reading to London.
And the reverse in the evening.

 

[jimm]

Agree entirely. I have never understood the allegedly widespread demands for the extension past Maidenhead. But it doesn't alter the general view that they are pretty much unsuitable for going the full distance to Oxford.

While the trains will be quieter west of Maidenhead, Reading still makes a far more sensible end point for Crossrail than Maidenhead, in part because of the flow of people into and out of Reading, mentioned above, but also the sheer range of inward and onward connections at Reading.

A key reason it did not go to Reading in the first place was that TfL did not want to get dragged into funding electrification work at Reading station, as the planning of Crossrail pre-dated GWML wiring and the associated Reading rebuilding being approved. Once that obstacle was removed, common sense prevailed but I'd agree the Crossrail trains are not suited to journeys as far out of London as Oxford and with East West trains planned to beef up Reading-Oxford frequencies anyway, I can't see any point taking Crossrail further west.

 

[Busaholic]

I can't see any point taking Crossrail further west.

Nor me, but further EAST is another matter.

On the matter of Farringdon , a completely unrecognisable (to those of us used to the old wreck) new station will emerge, at vast cost. I'm not attacking the cost: the interchange between Crossrail and Thameslink is of vital importance and the whole area could receive an enormous boost.

P.S. I'm quite fond of old wrecks, being one myself.

 

[miami]

When I lived in Twyford and worked in Shepherds Bush it made far more sense to travel on the stopper in the morning peak to Ealing, than the express to Paddington - end-to-end time was about the same (back when the H&C was rubbish), but it was far cheaper.

The trains filled up slowly along the track, as a local service is supposed to do. Some people got off at Maidenhead and Slough, but on the whole more people got on. By the time it got to Hayes+Harlington it was standing room only, and I think people were often left behind at Ealing, certainly not a lot of room.

In the evening though I gave up trying to get the train back from Ealing, couldn't physically get on those tiny FGWL things they were so overcrowded.

Off peak of course there were no fast trains to/from Twyford, so it was the stopper or nothing (I ended up driving for 1130 and 2300 starts). Then they slowed it down even more with stops at random places - West Drayton was one if I recall.

Moving to Tunbridge Wells and commuting by 375 was such a nice change, and even 2 hours a day on the central line when I moved to Epping was better than FGWL.

 

[JamesRowden]

I have never understood the allegedly widespread demands for the extension past Maidenhead.

For the same reasons for the present Paddington to Reading stoppers running through to Reading:

• To maintain through services between smaller GWML stations and Reading
• To maintain the 4tph service for journeys between Maidenhead (for connections to the Marlow branch), Twyford (for connections to the Henley branch) and Reading
• To maintain the 4tph service between Twyford (for connections to the Henley branch) and London

There are no stations on the GWML in East Reading, and I know of at least one individual who when traveling to/from East Reading chooses to use Twyford station because the fares are cheaper.

 

[edwin_m]

Most of the surface work at Farringdon has already been done. From the "new" booking hall east of Cowcross Street another bank of escalators is being built behind a temporary wall which will be removed when they are complete.

The western end of Farringdon station still looks similar but the east end is indeed totally unrecognisable.

 

[AM9]

This has been done to death. Crossrail trains from Reading to Paddington will take 50 minutes according to Crossrail's own figures. A non-stop high speed Class 801 0r 802 will take about 23 to 25 minutes, just as fast as an HST in days gone by. ...

I would imagine that post GWML electrification, the timetable will be adjusted to reduce the number of inter-city trains that stop at Reading and pick up/set down only rules will be enforced a lot more stringently than the current farce, to reduce commuter traffic clogging up long distance services. The 387s will be presented as the correct service for commuters, given their faster boarding/alighting layout and faster acceleration. Their RDG-PAD journey time is likely to be no more than 30 mins. anyway.