Great Western Coffee Shop

Before the electrification plans, it was assumed that no through trains would run to London.
What do people think will happen now? Part of Crossrail - i.e. slow? Fast "Greater Western Franchise" trains to Pad in peaks?

Assumed by who?  The Greater Western franchise consultation asked the following question:

Under current plans for electrification, any direct services from the Henley and Bourne End branches to Paddington would still have to be diesel- operated. Respondents are encouraged to consider if these services would represent a good use of scarce timetable slots on the main line, given that these slots could be used by higher-capacity electric trains.

They won't be part of Crossrail if Crossrail continues with its current preference of 10-car EMUs as there's no way platform extension work would take place even if SDO was used.  My bet would be on a reduction to one direct train from Henley and Bourne End to Paddington in the morning running as a 4 or 5-car EMU and running fast from Twyford (Henley) and Maidenhead (Bourne End), and a similar service returning in the evening.  Or, perhaps two through trains could still run, but with them coupling/uncoupling at Maidenhead and running as two 4 Car units between Maidenhead and Paddington?

There will be a lot of lobbying nearer the time I should imagine!

As I posted under the Western Airport link I think it's time somebody sat down and worked out how Crossrail, Hex, Connect, FGW  stoppers, semis and ICs plus frieght are going to work with the Western Junction open and the Marlow and Henley branches and  Bristol, Swansea plus Newbury and Oxford electrified.

What I want is a decent integrated service serving all stations between Newbury and Oxford to Heathrow, Padd and Crossrail. With semis serving pricncipel stations. I don't give a damm who runs it, plus it's all public money so it doesn't matter whose bucket it comes from.

So another of my rocks. How about making Iver a turnback for some ex Crossrail stoppers? If somebody could find a bucket somewhere, maybe the money from not building the the Maidenhead turnback. By utilising the goods loop from west Drayton and putting a platform by it and maybe reinstating the old runround you've got a turnbabk siding, with suitable crossings you can have the Up Relief bi-directioanlly signalled so termniating trains can be overtaken. Basically it seems to me better than West Drayton.

Hayes would also be a good place to terminate stoppers a right crossover Down Relief Up Relif near the canal bridge and link the bay platform with the goods loop (already electrified) over the canal bridge. Again Up Relief can be bi-diectional from Southall West to Hayes.

At the moment everyone is so taken with Crossrail that they don't realise that by terminating at Maidenhead it completely disrupts the current passenger flows between Reading (and West thereof) to Maidenhead Slough Hayes and Ealing which are quite heavy and serverely limits rush hour fast to Padd from Maidenhead and Twyford to Padd..

The western terminal at Maidenhead for Crossrail along with the turnback facilities have been left in place as it is in the Crossrail Act it also is a clean project line between the GW electrification and Crossrail funding, design and construction contracts. 

Because of the way the funding for these schemes is done (a political decsion to do it this way) Crossrail is funded by TfL GW electrification by DfT the additional power supply and electrification GW requires in the Crossrail patch has been complex enough to get agreement, to merge the 2 would have need a change to the Crossrail Act which would just added delay and cost.  I suspect that Maidenhead will always retain a Crossrail turnback even if Crossrail is extended to Reading for emergency use.  Reading only has pasive Crossrail provision.

As far as I'm aware, and if the plans haven't changed, the goods loop between Iver and West Drayton does become the Up Relief Line and is extended back from just east of Langley station.  Iver will then have a Platform 5.  The current Up Relief becomes a bi-directional passenger line, which will presumably be used to recess freight services as well as allowing semi-fasts to overtake stopping Crossrail services with a predominantly Up direction flow in the morning peak and Down direction in the evening peak.

I believe the only thing preventing 8 car through trains to London on the Henley line would be the length of Wargrave platform? Wouldn't an 8 car 319 be about the same length as a 7 car 165/6? I've seen 7 cars on the branch during Regatta so it should be possible - would certainly be nice to see!

Nominally 160m vs 161m, but the exact lengths would be needed.  I'd expect it would be well within the length of the existing platform end ramps though, so all that should be needed is to square them off to horizontal, which is OK under current design standards.

Paul

Exactly my point when Crossrail was proposed there was no sign of GWML being electrified. Not only are we getting wires to Reading and beyond  but Newbury and Oxford plus Windsor Marlow and Henley and now there is possibily of the Western junction for LHR.

To my mind having Crossrail terminating at Maidenhead is pointless and completely upsets the current traffic flow from the West of Maidenhead to intermediate stations between  Taplow and Acton.

It seems to me the that someone needs to work out how the TV suburban servce will be run as a complete service irrespective of who runs it.

Acts can be changed, it would take a couple of hours in parliament, then it will take 10 secs to transfer the money from one budget to the other.

What stock is going to be used on the Marlow branch come electrification?    

The down platform at Bourne End, which is the only one that allows access to and from Marlow, is only long enough for a two car train.

319s are likely to be cascaded to the Thames Valley, but these four car units would be too long to serve Bourne End-Marlow.

Is it likely that the wires will end at Bourne End and a diesel shuttle will be locked into the branch to Marlow? Or will the wires go up in hope of a future 2 car EMU build for other parts of the country from which a small sub-fleet can be used in the Thames Valley? There are currently no 2 car pantograph EMUs in existence in the UK.

There appears no way that the down platform at Bourne End can be lengthened in either direction.

I think it was 'Electric Train' that suggested in another thread that if the stop blocks were moved at Bourne End to a position level with those on the other platform (i.e. flush to the platform end), along with a reposition of the point indicator signal, then there would just be room for a 3-car 20 metre long EMU, which, together with a short extension of the platform at Marlow, would mean that could operate the service through from Maidenhead to Marlow.

This picture demonstrates the Bourne End situation perfectly: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/48405051?source=wapi&referrer=kh.google.com (http://www.panoramio.com/photo/48405051?source=wapi&referrer=kh.google.com)

I'm currently working on a 'mega-post' trying to sum up all the issues that will arise with the LTV services by the end of the decade (and my guesses as to the best/likely solutions), as by then Crossrail, and electrification will impact on virtually all the routes.

That would be very good to see your thoughts on LTV services  Industry Insider.

I just hope that they don't build the turnback sidngs at Maidenhead it would seem a complete waste of money and totally disrupt the establisehed pattern of services.

I and other like grahame have posted on a number of occasions that the pattern of train services is very important socialogically as many people choose ther homes and jobs to fit in with the train service.

Thus there are large number of people from Twford and Westwards who travel to Slough  and principle stations to Ealing. Similarly there is smaller counterflow from East of Maidenhead to Reading and maybe beyond like Oxford. So to have to change at Maidehead would be amajor disruption and add to theiri travel time.

Indeed. If three cars could be accommodated, they could take the non-driving trailer out of a 319 (or 317, of which I think there are some spare already), to make a 3 car EMU. If only two cars will fit, I suppose they could modify a 317 to a 2 car EMU by converting one end of the non-driving power car to a cab, in the same way that the 153s were created out of 155s.

Or some surplus 3-Car Class 313s from FCC?  Not a long term solution given their age mind you!

Might be a solutiuon if Southern decide to give up their class 313's

Things to ponder
165/6 vehicle length 74 ft
319 vehicle length 65 ft

319's are 4 car units so will not fit at Bourne End Plat 1, 3 car 313's would be a tight fit.  A 2 car diesel shuttle Bourne End / Marlow outside the peak would not be viable and would lead to the closure of this section of the line.  The other option is to loose plat 1 at Bourne End and run the whole branch as one block this would stuff the am and pm half hourly shuttle but would allow 4 car units to Marlow

So far the points have been based on existing stock and formations, the TV branches (Windsor, Marlow, Henley and Basingstoke) are viable out of the peaks with 2 car units so it is likely that 313 Units could get reconfigured to produce 2 car units with the spare cars being cascaded .................. or may be we will get new Units!!!!!

In reality I doubt anyone in the ORR or NR have done any in depth study into this

Yet they are proposing electrification for this branch! Bonkers if there ain't any stock to utilise the wires.

313s should be off once Southern gets the 377/5s back from FCC. By that time it will probably all be one franchise anyway. The Southern 313s are decent internally but they are still old units which ultimately have a limited life span. Suggestions of moving the similarly aged Class 315s from Greater Anglia to the Valley Lines seem to have died down recently.

Funny I should say that yesterday ........... a college I was talking today says GRIP stage 3 is authorised for next year for the branches etc (GRIP 3 produces the option selection report)