the thinking behind extending Crossrail to Reading

[jimm]

Likewise I can't see alternating trains on the relief lines formed of 9-car Crossrail, then minimalist GW formation. GW currently regularly send out 2-car sets with standing loads, that attitude will not be allowed to continue. The milksop joint operation will be subsumed into a Crossrail operation.

Regularly? Where? The Greenfords?

You make it sound as though GWR couldn't give a monkey's - whereas the root of the problem is the lack of new dmus for Paddington services since, er, 1993. They do the best they can with what is to hand and if a two-car set is going anywhere other than Greenford in the peaks that tends to mean a set has failed somewhere, resulting in a coupled formation being split to provide some sort of cover for the failure.

There should be plenty of stock to go around once the 365s and 387s arrive - all of which should be staying with GWR once Crossrail starts running - so there aren't likely to be many if any lone four-car emus running around in a couple of years' time.

 

[swt_passenger]

Here's the latest, just for interest, from the new CP5 Enhancements plan (no longer in draft!) on the 43 platform extensions on the GW for EMU services, the contract has just been let:

4 car
Appleford – Platform 1 and 2.
Aldermaston – Platform 2.
Bramley – Platforms 1 and 2
Mortimer – Platform 1
8 car
Tilehurst – Platforms 1, 2, 3 and 4
Pangbourne – Platforms 1 and 2.
Goring and Streatley – Platforms 1, 2, 3, 4
Cholsey – Platforms 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Culham – Platforms 1 and 2.
Radley – Platforms 1 and 2.
Reading West – Platform 2.
Theale – Platforms 1 and 2.
Thatcham – Platforms 1 and 2.
Iver – Platforms 4 (resurfacing)
12 car
Slough – Platforms 2, 3, 4 and 5.
Maidenhead – Platforms 1, 2 ,3, 4 and 5.
Twyford – Platforms 1, 2 and 3.
Didcot - Platform 3 – funded by IEP but still delivers 12 car EMU capability

Gives a bit of an idea which services might be 8 car EMUs?

 

[Class 170101]

The DfT don't renew anyone's Track Access Contract. That is the job of the ORR as the economic regulator.

The DfT might object but ultimately it is the ORR that decides.

Or just pass legislation and abolish the ORR.

 

[Taunton]

Regularly? Where? The Greenfords?

No, Paddington to Slough and beyond, any day.

You make it sound as though GWR couldn't give a monkey's - whereas the root of the problem is the lack of new dmus for Paddington services since, er, 1993.

I think that about sums up a number of TOCs. Off peak, minimalist formations and 50%+ of the fleet standing in sidings. TOCs which have been happy to take the greatly increased revenue of recent times from increased traffic, but do nothing about the resources to handle it - as you say, for nearly 25 years.

 

[jimm]

No, Paddington to Slough and beyond, any day.

Please enlighten us as to which main line services this two-car operation regularly happens on.

I think that about sums up a number of TOCs. Off peak, minimalist formations and 50%+ of the fleet standing in sidings. TOCs which have been happy to take the greatly increased revenue of recent times from increased traffic, but do nothing about the resources to handle it - as you say, for nearly 25 years.

You appear to think TOCs can just go out willy-nilly and find more stock at the drop of a hat, whereas DfT tells them what they can and can't do - in great detail.

Planning work on a proposed order for 40-odd Turbostar-type dmu vehicles to bolster the FGW fleet was dropped the instant DfT decided it wanted GWML electrification.

And the then FGW had to make detailed financial cases to get hold of both the five Class 180s and the two Class 150/0s in 2011 and the agreements with DfT mean their use remains limited to this day.

In the case of GWR LTV services, I defy you to find anything remotely like 50%+ of the Turbo fleet in sidings at any point during the working day from Monday to Friday. Even at weekends, there are many more sets in use than was the case not many years ago, when the sidings at Oxford were packed on both Saturday and Sunday.