London to Reading, London to Heathrow, service patterns under Crossrail

[whole diary]

[janes]

But you won't get at seat on a GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) electric at Hayes in the morning peak CJB - it always amuses me to see people cramming themselves on when the TFL^▸ (Transport for London) Crossrail train that will leave in less than 5 mins later sits totally empty, just for the sake of missing a couple of extra intermediate stops. (Of course, it will then empty out at Ealing Broadway.)

TaplowGreen the point is that people from further out don't WANT a "Speed & Convenience Metro Service" for their entire journey. Through the central section, yes absolutely - but what is really needed is to run the metro-style trains starting from Slough or Hayes combined with retaining the 387's for the stopping services from Didcot and Reading and allowing them to continue right through the central section tunnels to the other end of the line (but I suppose this won't be possible because it didn't occur to anyone to make the tunnels compatible with 387's??)

Yes the lack of toilets and wifi will be really annoying as well - even if I don't need to use the toilets myself, I don't really want to have to put up with late-night revellers puking/urinating/defecating in the carriages, which is what is bound to happen. Not to mention the screaming kids who didn't need to go before they left but now simply can't wait another second..... And I had just got used to having the wifi!

[IndustryInsider]

Crossrail trains will have Wi-fi according to this:

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/route/new-trains/#

[CJB666]

Crossrail trains will have Wi-fi according to this:
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/route/new-trains/#

They don't at present. And even if they did there are no tables.

[IndustryInsider]

Presumably they will be when the Elizabeth Line opens?  Wi-fi would then be predominantly used by mobile and tablet users I would imagine.

[didcotdean]

TaplowGreen the point is that people from further out don't WANT a "Speed & Convenience Metro Service" for their entire journey. Through the central section, yes absolutely - but what is really needed is to run the metro-style trains starting from Slough or Hayes combined with retaining the 387's for the stopping services from Didcot and Reading and allowing them to continue right through the central section tunnels to the other end of the line (but I suppose this won't be possible because it didn't occur to anyone to make the tunnels compatible with 387's??)

There could well have been a case in principle for two different internal layouts, even two different classes of stock. However, TfL^» (Transport for London - about) have been quite clear in not wanting that driven by needs in the central portion for some time.

What doesn't help is the imbalance between west and east of the tunnel section.

[TaplowGreen]

TaplowGreen the point is that people from further out don't WANT a "Speed & Convenience Metro Service" for their entire journey. Through the central section, yes absolutely - but what is really needed is to run the metro-style trains starting from Slough or Hayes combined with retaining the 387's for the stopping services from Didcot and Reading and allowing them to continue right through the central section tunnels to the other end of the line (but I suppose this won't be possible because it didn't occur to anyone to make the tunnels compatible with 387's??)

I absolutely get that some people are going to miss out - but they are a tiny minority in the bigger picture ("hundreds" as you yourself stated) - there will always be people who perceive themselves to be "losers" in such massive projects, it's simply impossible to cater to every individuals needs and make everyone happy - and as I say I sympathise, but you simply have to see the bigger picture.

I'm happy to be corrected by those more knowledgeable, however I don't think that the 387s continuing through the central tunnels was ever on the agenda?

[stuving]

I'm happy to be corrected by those more knowledgeable, however I don't think that the 387s continuing through the central tunnels was ever on the agenda?

No, right from the outset the trains, the tunnel, and the service were designed to match each other. In other words it's an underground line on steroids. Its origin was not as a useful tunnel ("bring your own train"); nor as an RER, done to replace two termini (wasteful of space and throwing passengers off somewhere they don't want to go) by a more useful route. It exists as a Central Line bypass, which then needs to find a surface railway (or two) to run onto at each end, like any other underground line.

[didcotdean]

That is what it has become, and has been the case more or less since the rejection of the 'Superlink' proposal. Early concepts though were rathe more like Thameslink.

[janes]

Yes it is all the platform doors in the central section that would not allow the tunnels to be used for any other type of train. Also it is what is causing all the current hoo-hah about the non-standard platform heights (so that the central section is step free - but the outer stations will have a much more hazardous gap, if anyone hasn't heard about this).

I must say that when the original idea of Crossrail was put forward, a "bring-your-own train" set of tunnels was exactly what I had expected to get - i.e. NOT a tube service but a tunnel to allow mainline trains to pass underneath Central London on the East-West axis just like Thameslink does for North-South.

BTW^▸ (by the way) my other concern is the VERY uncomfortable seats - if there is anyone who hasn't tried the new TFL^▸ (Transport for London) trains out yet, don't be fooled by the photos of those plush-looking purple cushions - if you picture a cushion cover put around a hardwood box, that is more what they are like to sit on - and the shape makes them more even uncomfortable than the seats on the new IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train). Really not looking forward to sitting for up to an hour on those....

[didcotdean]

Maybe the cynical way to view the Western Branch is that it gives various places for the tube trains to be turned round without the need for (even) more infrastructure, and abstraction of outside London commuter revenue into TfL^» (Transport for London - about). The proof that it isn't just a cash cow will be what are improvements made to the stations now under TfL and when.

The long gestation of Crossrail hasn't helped; the usage of the inner GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) is somewhat different to what it was in the 1990s and the projections therefrom. Also there were various other western branches that came and went in the planning stages that would have been more natural 'metro' services.

[grahame]

The long gestation of Crossrail hasn't helped; the usage of the inner GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) is somewhat different to what it was in the 1990s and the projections therefrom. Also there were various other western branches that came and went in the planning stages that would have been more natural 'metro' services.

The 1990s was the decade in which I perhaps ventured on a train once a year ... so is I guess, correct me ...

Crossrail to
... High Wycombe four an hour
... Greenford twice an hour
... Colnbrook and Staines twice an hour
... Bourne End twice an hour
... Henley-on-Thames twice an hour
Probably no through service to Windsor due to need to cross main line on the level.
Five minute service in total.  (F)GW^▸ (Great Western)(R) services Paddingon - Slough - Maidenhead and all stations to Reading every 15 minutes

[TaplowGreen]

BTW^▸ (by the way) my other concern is the VERY uncomfortable seats - if there is anyone who hasn't tried the new TFL^▸ (Transport for London) trains out yet, don't be fooled by the photos of those plush-looking purple cushions - if you picture a cushion cover put around a hardwood box, that is more what they are like to sit on - and the shape makes them more even uncomfortable than the seats on the new IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train). Really not looking forward to sitting for up to an hour on those....

I've sat on them quite frequently, they seem pretty much OK to my (quite well upholstered) derriere. Good for your posture.

You've moved from demanding a seat by virtue of the amount you pay for your season ticket to "not looking forward to sitting for up to an hour on those" - I guess some people will never be happy! 

[janes]

Exactly - I'm not happy! I think that was where I came in....?! And the choice between the devil and the deep blue sea is why I said I would have no choice but to go into Paddington and back out.

The whole issue has arisen simply because someone who obviously had no understanding of the usage patterns has allowed TFL^▸ (Transport for London) to take those extra peak-time slots from GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) - all I am asking for is a few peak-time semi-fasts in each direction to be run using a 387 not a TFL train - why is that seemingly too much to ask?

And it is obvious that they don't get it, because their response to any of the above criticisms is to say "it doesn't matter about the lack of seats/toilets/Wi-Fi because the typical customer will only be using the service for short journeys of 3-4 stops". So obviously any other type of customer simply doesn't count!

[IndustryInsider]

I've sat on them quite frequently, they seem pretty much OK to my (quite well upholstered) derriere. Good for your posture.

Careful, TG - you’ll be labelled an apologist. 

[TaplowGreen]

I've sat on them quite frequently, they seem pretty much OK to my (quite well upholstered) derriere. Good for your posture.

Careful, TG - you’ll be labelled an apologist. 

..............fair point, if only they had buffets!