Great Western Coffee Shop

From the Maidenhead Advertiser: (http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/News/Areas/Maidenhead/Fast-train-services-must-be-maintained-says-MP-Theresa-May-20032012.htm)

Wow... That is the first I've heard her be bothered about our train service since she became Home Secretary.. ::) ::)

I still can't see how the Maidenhead and Twyford services are going to work post Crossrail.
Will everything have to transfer to the fasts, leading to a possible new flat junction bottleneck?
It now looks doubtful that Crossrail will be extended, and even if it were, how would non stops and Maidenhead stoppers fit on the fasts?

From the Theresa May MP website (http://www.tmay.co.uk/news/215/theresa-calls-for-local-commuters-to-be-at-the-centre-of-new-rail-franchise):

What makes you say that?

Even with Crossrail extended it would only be the 4 tph that would have terminated at Maidenhead.  They won't be the only users of the reliefs even if they are extended to Reading.  It is quite obvious that as far as Acton yard Crossrail will be sharing with freight as well.  This is presumably why all the London and SE RUS proposals to increase the number of destinations on the western side of Crossrail include 6 more trains to Heathrow and 8 trains heading for the WCML - there's no room to do anything else.

The implication is that the reliefs east of Reading will still remain very much mixed use.  As described in the GWML RUS, section 4.3.3. The only way to reduce congestion on the approaches into Paddington (ie east of the Heathrow spur) therefore seems to be to shift trains from the reliefs to the mains somewhere en route.  The current 6 track approach to Paddington becomes a 4 track + 2 Crossrail of course.

Paul   

I've thought for a while it would make sense to stop Bedwyn trains at Slough and one of the Oxford fasts per hour at Maidenhead instead of Slough. With electric traction in a few years the time penalty for throwing in an extra call between London and Reading will be much less thanks to better acceleration. Even though longer distance travelers might not like it a good fast service for Maidenhead in particular is very important and is a substantial revenue stream.

My proposal for HSS stops before Reading:

Cardiff, Bristol and Plymouth - no stops (5 tph)
Oxford - Slough (2tph)
Cheltenham (post redoubling) - Twyford (1tph)
B&H semi fasts - Maidenhead (1tph)
Newbury (extended to London) - somewhere (1tph)
Baisingstoke (extended to London) - somewhere (tph)

That's 11 tph on the fast lines.

The clever way (in fact, the ONLY way) to path these stops on express trains on the main line at Twyford, Maidenhead and Slough would be to do it so that whilst one train is stopped at Twyford on the down line, the train behind it is the one that stops at Maidenhead and the one behind that is one of the ones that stops at Slough.  You'd want the Windsor, Marlow and Henley branches to connect in with these trains to maximise their usefulness.  Cue a major headache for the timetable planners!

My submission to the franchise consultation took a different route which still gave two fast Slough to Paddington trains per hour and one from both Maidenhead and Twyford.  It also had the benefit of allowing Slough stops to be removed from Cotswold Line/Oxford services.  I submitted:


Firstly, Crossrail should be extended to Reading.  A 15-minute interval stopping service could then operate, broadly as it does today, between Reading and London (then extending through the Crossrail tunnel to east London, rather than Paddington).  If two relief line paths are to be made available then, as contained in my answer to Question 6, a 4-car (8-car in the peaks) electric unit could provide the current Oxford to Paddington twice-hourly stopping service which after Reading would then become a semi-fast service calling at Twyford (1tph), Maidenhead (1tph) and Slough running on the relief lines as far as Stockley Bridge Junction.

From there you have a choice.  That service could continue on to call at Ealing Broadway (and, perhaps, Hayes & Harlington) on the Relief line ^ but pathing of that service will be extremely difficult between Crossrail trains and freight.  I think serious consideration should be given to upgrading the current 70mph crossover at Stockley Bridge so that as well as providing a route from Down Main to Down Relief it also offers a connection from Up Relief to Up Main - possibly upgrading it into a double junction rather than the current single one?  If that was to happen, those 2tph service could cross from Relief to Main lines and run fast to London with minimal impact on main line paths.

As well as the advantage of having a regular fast service from Twyford, Maidenhead and Slough to London, these trains would also be out of the mix on the Relief lines in terms of Crossrail trains on what will become the busiest section between Airport Junction and Westbourne Park.  In combination with the potential withdrawal of the Heathrow Express service (the justification of which will, in my mind be severely tested after Crossrail starts) might permit another two trains per hour to run on the Crossrail network to/from Heathrow Airport.  The four paths per hour released on the Main lines by the withdrawal of Heathrow Express could be used for the additional London- Bristol trains proposed as well as the twice-hourly Oxford-Paddington stopping service I^ve talked about above.

Whichever route they take though, expect there to be winners and losers!

Well, at least those fast trains to Maidenhead will give the delightful Ms May a little more time to spend on monitoring all our phone calls, texts, tweets and emails. It's going to be a big job  :-\

Doesn't that already happen with ECHELON (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echelon_%28signals_intelligence%29)?

"You MAY very well think that ... "  :P

From the Maidenhead Advertiser (http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/News/Areas/Maidenhead/Crossrail-will-not-reduce-fast-trains-from-Maidenhead-and-Twyford-09112012.htm?):

The problem with the press is that they assume Crossrail will be an all stations stopping service - it won't. Only the section east of Paddington will be all stops, with the exception of Maryland. Services west of Paddington will be a mixture of calling patterns.

It has to be remembered that no timetable is set in concrete, but an indicative timetable shows that peak Crossrail trains starting at Maidenhead will not call at Southall*, Hanwell, West Ealing or Acton Mainline.

* Peak Shenfield trains will skip Southall, but peak Abbey Wood trains will stop there.

It should also be noted that it is proposed that 2TPH are also proposed to operate on the relief lines from Reading calling at Twyford, Maidenhead, Slough, Hayes & Harlington and Ealing Broadway.

Electrification will also allow more/speeded up services to be shoehorned in on the GWML.

True, but if that meant you were a commuter from Maidenhead to the City and all peak hours Crossrail trains from Maidenhead did stop at Taplow, Burnham, Slough, Langley, Iver, West Drayton, Hayes & Harlington and Ealing Broadway then that would mean slower journey times than a change at Paddington on one of the current 22 minute (or thereabouts) non-stop service to Paddington - so I foresee there still being a demand/need for them.

Industry Insider is right in his previous post that Crossrail should run to Reading and the turnback sidings at Maidenhead scrapped (saving money yippe!).

But in order to maintain the current fasts from Twyford/Miadenhead/Slough then the money  needs to be spent remodeliing the Ladbroke to give parrellel access from Up Main/Line 6 Line 5/Down main to enable them to get into the Crossrail tunnels. Ideally one would like a grade separated junction. B with one crossover there is room to do SN120 (junction signal for Up Main to lines 2/3) to Line 4, giving a parrallel move for Line 3 (SN109) to the Down Main. There would then be a need to for a double left junction from Line 4 to 6 with a parrllel Line 5 to 3. That coupled with a full  parrel double right juction (as at Dolphin jn)  at Stockley Brook would give a lot of flexibility.

Left and right looking from Paddington down the line.

However, the problem is that Crossrail and GWML electrification (with Reading Rebuild) are being treated as two separate projects. Therefore, when it started Crossrail only had the money to wire from Airport Junction to Maidenhead and build turnback sidings but now Networkrail has money to electrify the GWML and is rebuilding Reding to increase capacity.

Now to my mind any sensible person would say right we are in whole new ball game in Thames Valley we will have elctrification to Reading, Oxford and Newbury and we will have two tracks connecting at Paddington from the Crossrail tunnel. So what local services do we need and which go to Padd and which pop down the tunnel. Bearing in mind that Crossrail will be running 24tph down the tunnel of which only 10tph can come from the GWML. So what extra Main Relief Crossovers do we need and Industry Insider has suggest a full set at Stockley  Brook and I've suggested another set between Ladbroke Grove or slighly further out and the  tunnel mouth.

Basically Crossrail as such should be scrapped of West of  Westbourne Park and incprporated in GWML electrification/Reading rebuild, which should be in place before the first train pops out of the tunnel at Westbourne Park.

But that's too easy.

I always tell people we don't want Crossrail in the Thames Valley we want an electric railwy (including wires over Maidenhead Bridge!) which if there happens to be tunnel at Paddington that a train can pop into then that's to the good, but not at the exspense of the existing travel patterns in the Thames Valley which include a lot of intermediate travel in both direction which doses't include Paddington or Central London , basically being to and from most stations West of Ealing.   
 

Yes, you have a point, although I would add that there is a lot to be said for having access to a seat for the entire journey to the city, as well as not having to make interchange at Paddington. For some, it might be worth an extra 15 minutes to get to Paddington.

I think the future GW franchise will still want to run fast trains from places like Twyford and Maidenhead however. Let's not forget, that there's going to be an extra track provided between West Drayton and Langley, electrification and ETCS introduced on the GWML.

There will also be 2TPH from Reading calling at Twyford, Maidenhead, Slough, Hayes & Harlington, Ealing Broadway and Paddington, which should also provide a service quicker than Crossrail to Paddington.

Sorry, just trying to follow this.  Would Stockley Brook, in your proposal, be a new crossover?  I am trying to work out where that is.

When was the Longfield crossover, scene of the derailment in the 1970s, removed?  I remember seeing the nameboard for it in the late 1970s but can't remember when I stopped seeing it.

To be aparrallel junction Stockley Brook would require two crossovers, Up Relief, Down Relief, Down Relief Up main space liked dolphin sot ath a trains cold run Down MAin Down Relief and Up relief down Amin in parrallell.

Not sure when Longfield was removed but it was in the latter days only Down Main to Down Releif like the existing Stockley Brook one.

There are more significant changes on there way other than electrification called ETCS and ETRMS these will significantly improve train paths in the TV so much so it may mean that some of the slow, to accelerate, diesel powered trains from the West Country may have to terminate at Reading, they will just eat up too many train paths.


........ Electric Train puts his tin hat on and ducks  ;D

Why should Maidenhead residents get a non-stop service just because their MP is a Cabinet Minister?

If I lived at (say) Langley or Acton, I would like a non stop to Liverpool St, if I (say) worked there.
 

Any chance of a translation of the first paragraph?  That must be the most casual typing in months...

Paul

Is that really what she's implying?  It's not really any different to any MP's position on their local rail service, similar quotes can be found for just about every constituency when/where there's a change proposed, normally the MP acts all surprised despite being sent a personal copy of the consultation document. 

The public line then taken is almost always 'no reduction in services', with no question of allowing change for the greater good.

Paul

I heard that "speeded up" argument from First when they took over in 2004/5.
Absolute rubbish as it turned out.
I'm not sure electrics will be the panacea that may be placed upon them.

Spot on, just witness the crush on the fast trains vs the slowers.
In crossrail mode they will be probably be jammed full across the city ; little chance of a seat.
At least with a start at PAD means more chance or a seat on the way home. I wouldn't want to stand for 30/40 mins on a swaying train to the outer suburbs.

Theresa campaigned for M'head commuters when First first f***ed up the timetable, when she was deep in opposition, so there is nothing new here....

I only mentioned her because her lobby on this was the article I read.  Doubtless, all other MPs on the Crossrail trajectory will be saying the same.  The issue is what decides whether one gets a fast or slower commuter service?

Just by the way, I assume that if you do not have to change trains at Paddington, a slower through service could beat a faster one that terminated there.

But what criteria should be used?  Why do travellers on suburban trains such as the bus-like ones pay the same (perhaps more) than those on swish express trains?

It's a fact that electric trains have faster acceleration than diesel ones.

Electric trains have been around for a century. Whenever services have been converted from steam or diesel, services have been speeded up. Are you denying 100 years of history?

I'm sure journey times will come down as a result of electrification, and in the case of IEPs replacing HSTs the power operated doors will help with reducing station dwell times enormously as well.  Though I'll be interested to see whether (and how often) the 17 minute reduction from Cardiff to London and 22 minutes from Bristol to London claimed in the original electrification documents is achieved. 

As for Crossrail, I think only modest journey time increases will be achieved - and a great deal will depend on calling patterns which we don't know much about yet.  For example if you're going from Maidenhead to Ealing Broadway, the Crossrail website suggests it will take 29 minutes, that's against the current journey time of 31/32 minutes (a few more in the peak hours).

That is spot on II, its all about dwell times at stations. Stations on the WR are not that far apart, so acceleration savings won't be too great. Stations will have to be rebuilt to allow more access to more doors on more longer trains. Try getting 40/50 people onto a Mk3 carriage and it takes several minutes.

Given Brunels legacy, the WR is pretty level and straight (east of devon anyway) compared to say the WCML, with its ups and downs and curves, so replacing the old hand fired Duchess^s with 5,000hp electics in the early 60^s had far more affect than would be replacing 4,400hp HST^s.





Edit note: Quote marks fixed. CfN.

I suspect Theresa May is harking back to the 1980s when there were indeed fast services from Twyford and Maidenhead, running non-stop from Maidenhead. I used to catch them.

However, they used to be class 50 hauled and would join the mainline just east of Maidenhead. Being class 50 hauled and capable of 100 mph they could keep up with most traffic on the fast line. Also, in those days there was no Heathrow Express so less traffic on the approach to London.

Not sure how you'd do it now.

Erm.. We still have fast (non-stop) services now from both Maidenhead and Twyford  ;D

Apologies not lived there since 1990 - but I bet your current services aren't as good as Class 50 in full cry.

Its done with 125's and 180's and the ones with 165/6 which 90 mph have a much quicker acceleration than a class 50 so in many ways a faster service, also quite a few depart from plat 2 so no messin about crossing over

No those Thames Turbos are certainly not the same as a refurbished 'Hoover' ! ;D