Great Western Coffee Shop

From London Reconnections ...

https://www.londonreconnections.com/2018/crossrail-timetable-for-success/


Very long, very interesting article ...

Posted two days ago on the ... err ... Crossrail thread. Which maybe doesn't belong on the Across the West board, bit still.

OK - thanks.  Will have a chance to sort out duplication a bit later today ...

In the context of what you put into the other, locked, thread about Reading services:

I'd add a warning that this shares TfL's London-centric view of the world, and it barely mentions GWR services even when they interact with TfL ones, so is both confused and confusing. So while a discussion of the overall service from west of Slough is perhaps needed, I don't think this is a good starting point.

Its not Crossrail - its the Elizabeth Line - or going along with the concept of the fantasy of a modern customer friendly fairy-line where the doors drop off the stock, no toilets, rough running on bumpy track, and hard seating - the Tin Lizzie Line. 

And then there is still

https://www.londonreconnections.com/2018/crossrail-western-progress/

No disrespect to her majesty but I'll still be referring to it as Crossrail or in the future perhaps Crossrail 1.

There's still a fair amount of speculation and unknowns in the article but reading that and the comments gave at least a start on what the service west of Slough might look like. From a purely selfish point of view I care about Twyford and it sounds like it will be fairly similar to now. Couple of all stops and a few semi-fasts. The view of posters seems to be that there will still be fast trains from Maidenhead and Twyford peak times if only as a way of covering off stations to Didcot.

One issue that only gets a brief mention is the infrastructure. The plans seem very ambitious to me as a layman/commuter when we have what seems like almost daily signal faults out of Paddington. There also seems to be a view that people would use GWR into London and Crossrail out of London which how I imagine I'd end up using it.

I have my doubts, too!  I’ve expressed doubts before over getting terminating trains from the east emptied and sent to Royal Oak turnback sidings efficiently enough to maintain the timetable frequency, so I guess the more that head west of Paddington in service the better. 

But, the flakiness of the infrastructure over the past year or two, doesn’t install me with much confidence, and the reliability of the trains is also a concern when this December comes and, presumably, trains start running through the core.

What I found most confusing was the use of the term semi-fast. This has always had a lot of meanings, different on different lines and to different people. But for NR's futurologists and timetable planners, on this line, the semi-fasts run and make station calls on the Reliefs, but also run part of the way on the Main Lines. At times, I think, NR also include fast trains that make one call on the Main Lines, but only in the context of the service pattern out to Reading.

If you travel from Twyford or Maidenhead, you're more likely to call your train "fast" if it switches onto the Main Line straight away, and use semi-fast for something between that and the slowest stopper in speed. SWT/R have called the Reading-Waterloo trains semi-fast at times, as they skip stops and use the Fast Lines from Richmond. However, since there are no fast or slow trains as an alternative, the term has never had any real use.

TfL (are they doing the planning or are MTR/Crossrail?) evidently started using this term for the GWR residual services some time ago, though GWR are still due to run what we used to call the peak semi-fasts. That led to a lot of puzzlement when we were trying to understand last year's TfL announcement of the increased service levels. And both that and the London Reconnections article assume the GWR service without ever defining it. Of course I may have missed this information appearing elsewhere.

Reading between the lines, the plan that eventually emerged following the Crossrail extension to Reading has both the peak semi-fasts (using the Main Lines) and the residual services (which at one stage looked likely to disappear) but only off-peak and only stop at major stations (Twyford/Madenhead/Slough/Hayes/Ealing). The current service has no trains like that, and I'm sure a lot of people would say "why not". As a stopping pattern, semi-fast would fit that quite well - if the speed corresponds too.

Currently the service at Paddington on the Reliefs is pretty irregular, with some big gaps for a non-stop train to run into. Crossrail will have a regular 3 minute interval in the core, and would like to turn alternate trains at Paddington. As a special concession, they have put two turning trains together, to leave a 9-minute interval  over Paddinton-Stockley. Crossrail don't want "outsiders'" trains that don't run metronomically to time interfering with theirs, so that faster service can only be timed to catch up 3 minutes. Incidentally, I think those pretty diagrams are meant to be read as representing time vertically, but are not convincing at the western end if so.

The last step change was for TfL to decide that two of their now 4 tph to Reading in the peaks would also have this limited-stop pattern, which does look odd if you don't know why GWR didn't want to run them (and that will relate to what other trains they are running at the time). When they do run then, off-peak, the question arises (bot for the first time) "will they run west of Reading too, and if so as what?". Again, TfL aren't going to tel you that.

Watching the current regulating regeime (yes, that ARS thing again) I think there is absolutley no hope of ever achieving a 3 minute headway day in day out.  Even the most simple of delays will simply escalate out of control with trains and train crew very quickly becoming out of place.  Trouble with a cross London service is that it will quickly also affect the opposite end of the network (aka Thameslink).  The only way you can succesfully achieve such a service is to have a dedicated line end to end (such as the majority of LU lines).

And I note that solving the Heathrow tunnels legacy signalling problem seems to be a long way off (its all gone very quite, anyway).

How about Crassrail?

But frankly my main concern is the loss of steam specials out of Paddington and the rumoured closure of Southall steam depot.

Ditto for me, but Goring. I still don't understand what is happening with the trains, whether I will need to change or not at Reading (I will be fuming if that is the case).

GWR have their faults, but at least they know where their boundaries are. How TfL ever managed to define Maidenhead, let alone Reading, as London, I will never know.

Because TfL run Crossrail, Crossrail needed the additional traffic from the west to support the business case and Maidenhead was a convenient place to terminate, build turnback and stabling facilities etc. In terms of geography, I don't think that it's any further out of London than Shenfield is.

Reading is of course much further out, but operationally it makes sense to give Crossrail the Thames Valley stopping services east of Reading to make the most of the limited paths. I'm pretty sure that London Reconnections went through it in fairly extensive detail and reckoned that once Reading was electrified, the marginal cost of continuing from Maidenhead to Reading was fairly low.

Theoretically of course there is a 'democratic deficit', as TfL are not directly accountable to the voters of Berkshire, but of course there's a counter argument that if they have a good working relationship with the councils along the route and deliver a decent service, then will anyone really be bothered?

Again, I am being completely selfish and just venting about it, but I don't care how far out of London it is, nor what it costs, nor that their business case didn't stack up! Fact is, Reading and Maidenhead are not London, so TfL should not be allowed to claim it as their own. By all means install new lines if that's what they want, but bumping GWR services off and forcing longer commutes to non-London destinations, is not right.

I'm 99% sure I will not be able to leave home and arrive at work at the same times as I do now, so its a negative effect on me. No longer will I be able to do anything on the train, as by the time I get on, I will be getting off at Reading. I will be hanging around in the rain because for some reason only those getting off at the middle of the station are deemed worthy enough of a platform canopy. My commute will have gone from a relatively nice and simple one for the past 12 years (excluding times of disruption), to a complete pain with a completely unnecessary stop/change.

Its already a total ball ache on Saturdays now the first train (0542) no longer goes to Paddington and instead terminates at Reading, meaning a stop and change. That's 1 day I do every couple of months, and pisses me right off as it is.

As I said, I am being selfish, I know that, but I just do not see any of this as an "improvement" to my services. Because I don't work in, or the other side of London, I don't count.

I get the self interest issue but aren't you being a little over the top? I'm sorry if Crossrail results in you having to change trains at Reading but for the overwhelming majority of those who work in London & commute via train/Tube, Crossrail represents a huge and much overdue step forward. The time saved will transform people's work/life balance. I guess there are always losers in any huge undertaking which is bound to skew your sense of perspective, but I do think you need to see the bigger picture on this one.
 

I don't have an issue with Crossrail, I have an issue with losing the GWR through trains as a result. Like I said, I am just venting, just like others do be it cancellations, loss of buffet cars or getting harder seats. I can't remember who to attribute it to, but as some one once said, progress sucks.

I'm kinda with lordgoata on this one - I don't know his circumstances or all the detail of where he commutes to and from, but I guess he isn't on his own entirely, and it's not progress if he (and others?) will have to change where they don't today.

In my neck of the woods (or slightly west) there was a pretty big stink kicked-up around the suggestion of connections (to diesel shuttles) at Newbury being necessary for the commuters of Kintbury, Hungerford and Bedwyn during the morning and evening peaks, once the wires went up.

That, combined with the expected use of IET's on the "Bedwyn's" would appear to have resolved that issue...and should also result in a better service.

As for Goring, presumably there will be 800's (or still Turbo's?) running the faster services between Paddington and Oxford, and 387's running from Paddington to Didcot? All that is needed is for some changes to stopping patterns? (I say "all that is needed" whilst at the same time realising that these things are not easy!)

I'm also kinda, sorta with lordgoata as well. I'm not getting too worked up at the moment as I know there's a lot of work still to be done but if we lose the fast GWR trains for Twyford and Maidenhead I think that's going to be a big step backward especially as not really seeing much benefit from the new trains (yet). In a worse case scenario I could see electrification, new trains, new and trained drivers, infrastructure all coming together for a few months in 2019 before a backwards step.

I remain hopeful though that we will keep some of the fast trains from and to  Didcot/Oxford which might help Lordgoata with some of his commutes.

I agree re: Maidenhead but as a significant station with 10x the number of passengers as Goring it's not really the best comparison?

I get that this thread is featuring people going into bat for their "own" stations in isolation however to suggest that Crossrail doesn't represent positive progress per se is verging on Luddite.

It isn't necessary, and it's unrealistic to expect 100% of people's situation to improve in their own judgement for a project to be judged a success. I'd suggest that the overall winners will exceed those who feel that they are losing out by a huge factor

You are of course correct around success factors TG (how often have I heard "80% is good enough" in my place of work!), but human nature is to not be happy (or even protest) if you feel that your lot is going to be negatively impacted.

I certainly don't disagree that Crossrail will be a game-changer. For me, once all the "new stuff" is in place, I'll have the choice, when travelling into London, of:
- take an IET from Thatcham to Paddington, change and cross London to the City in around 15 mins
- take an IET or 387 to Reading, change to Crossrail and ride direct to the City or Canary Wharf in 15-20 mins.
That seems pretty good (if I've understood the options/timings correctly)

It will potentially be those who do medium length trips between more minor stations that are likely to be the most inconvenienced in the medium term, particularly if one of these is beyond Didcot, meaning at least 1, often 2 changes whereas on the old pattern it would be direct. By definition these are small flows and percentages but the people concerned will be 100% affected.

As for a faster service in the peaks for some to London beyond Reading maybe something along the lines of the old Thames Valley Limited could run, starting from Oxford ideally or less ideally Didcot but missing out Reading.

Does the train come because of the traffic, or the traffic because of the train?

Most trains come because of the pasenger flows - but then other flows will grow because a good (perhaps through) service is provided for operational reasons. Good examples of flows that have grown over recent years might ne Tilehurst to Twyford and Oxford to Basingstoke.  Flows that - though parhaps unplanned - might grow could include Goring to North Camp on a through Oxford to Gatwick Airport services.

Trains cannot go through everywhere - long gone are the days of the ACE (Atlantic Coast Express) with portions for Padstow, Ilfracome, Bude and (perhaps) Bodmin North. So there are going to be winning and loosing flows. But the train planners meddle at their peril with what have become established if slightly surprising volume through journeys that they themselves have unintentionally prompoted.  Their customers are the people who use these services already, and a bird in hand is worth two in the bush.   They do need to look to the future though, ad consider whether a bird in hand is worth ten in the bush.

I think you've hit the nail on the head Grahame.

The answer to your first question is that for established frequent services like South London Third Rial services is that the train comes because the traffic is there (built up over 100 years), however, for improved services and a classic is the North London the traffic has grown because of the increased services to different destinations.

You are right when you say timetable planners should be wary of building up traffic flows with new  through journey possibilities only to degrade them later. A classic not in our area being Willington where  regular services to Nottingham Derby and Birmingham built up traffic only for these services to be cut at the next franchise change. 

Plus of course the ups and downs of Melksham.

Part of the problem is shortage of units, whereby to achieve maximum utilisation of the limited amount of stock what were separate services served by 2 units are combined into one thus unintentionally giving greater through journey oportunities and creating different traffic flows.

There are big discussions on splitting the Manchester/Liverpool Norwich services   

I'm with Lord Goata too. The worst thing is the uncertainty - we from stations between Reading and Didcot are not being given any information about what our future service pattern will be.

As things stand now, my current morning service is a massive improvement on what was there before, but I have lost all three choices of direct services home in the evening. If this is how it will remain once Crossrail comes in, my only realistic option for going home will be to get a Crossrail train into Paddington and then a GWR fast or semi-fast back out (assuming the Mai-Twy-Rdg-stations to Didcot trains will continue.)

This is because the chances of getting a seat on a Crossrail cattletruck at Ealing Broadway in the evening peak will be absolute zero (I don't always get one until Hayes or West Drayton now.)

Others (from intermediate stations into London) will have the same issue in the morning peak. I don't see how introducing tube-style seating can possibly be described as any kind of "improvement" for anyone going more than a few stops.

Sorry but for the extortionate amount I pay for a Season Ticket I absolutely expect to be able to sit down most of the time so I can use the journey productively rather than be crammed in like a sardine.

It may be a "selfish" point of view but it is NOT a "minority" one at all as hundreds of other people will be adversely affected as well as me in various ways.

The only way to achieve that level of certainty of a seat  is a reservation.Merely buying a season ticket has not, does not, and (probably) never will. Crossrail is designed around a speed & convenience metro style service, not comfort or working productively.

I'm not sure " hundreds" of people being somewhat inconvenienced constitutes a majority in the context of the number of people travelling in the morning/evening peak so I'm sorry but yes,you are in a minority, which is not to say I don't sympathise.

Purely based on chatting to friends and colleagues with similar commutes to me I think there is some doubt as to whether Crossrail is the best solution beyond Slough. As TG says its based on a metro style solution which doesn't seem the best fit for 40-50 minute journeys and seems of limited benefit to Reading/Twyford/Maidenhead passengers especially if other services are cut. And no Toilets!

We will be very much be in the minority but doesn't mean it was necessarily the right decision to extend it that far.

As Janes say the moment its all speculation and uncertainty which doesn't help.

I just find it all the more frustrating coupled with a service from GWR that has got worse after all of the alleged improvements

And no wifi!

The TfL staff at the building site at Hayes are always trying to persuade Pad. bound pax to use their shiny new trains. I always opine that I'd rather wait for a GWR electric and sit down in a proper seat, with wifi, and toilets, than endure one of their appalling 'cattle trucks.' They never seem to get the point.

BTW I'm sure that you have seen those obtrusive adds for plastic devices that allow women caught short at say festivals to pee standing up into a urinal or bottle. Being an older than average male I might have to get one of these too. Maybe there's a marketing opportunity there - a plastic TfL pee device and bottle for use on toilet-less Crassrail trains!! I'll suggest to Private Eye that they could do a pi$$-take feature about this.

I'm sure Ian Hislop is on the edge of his seat in anticipation and is holding the front page  ::)

But you won't get at seat on a GWR electric at Hayes in the morning peak CJB - it always amuses me to see people cramming themselves on when the TFL 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!

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.

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

There could well have been a case in principle for two different internal layouts, even two different classes of stock. However, TfL 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.

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?

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.

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.

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 my other concern is the VERY uncomfortable seats - if there is anyone who hasn't tried the new TFL 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. Really not looking forward to sitting for up to an hour on those....

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. 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 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(R) services Paddingon - Slough - Maidenhead and all stations to Reading every 15 minutes

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!  ;)

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 to take those extra peak-time slots from GWR - 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!

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

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

This might come to some use to people, found it somewhere a while back but forgot about it.

http://74f85f59f39b887b696f-ab656259048fb93837ecc0ecbcf0c557.r23.cf3.rackcdn.com/assets/library/document/e/original/elizabeth_line_service_pattern-reading_to_central_london.pdf

With the year's delay I wonder what the actual service pattern will be when Crossrail starts?

I think it will be more a question of "start? what does that mean?" After all, the trains are already running to the east and west, and there has been this big change of fashion - by then big-bang timetable introductions will be so last year.

With this new delay before running in the central tunnel, and a separate delay before running to Heathrow, I guess they will be keen to run what they can - which looks to be as much of the Crossrail service to Reading as can be fitted into Paddington high level (unless a substitute can be found). Timings could change to cram in as many turnrounds as possible, and the service build-up done slowly.

After reading this forum with interest for a couple of years I thought I would join. I'm certainly not as knowledgeable as many people on here, but since the project began I have struggled to see the point of Crossrail running to Reading or even Maidenhead. Since the branch off the Western mainline to Heathrow was built I have viewed this as the natural terminus for the project. Four trains an hour off peak along the relief lines to and from London Paddington running their same service pattern as now and interchanging with the six, eight, ten or whatever it happens to be between the Heathrow branch towards the tunnel, seems more than adequate especially as they are now eight carriage electric trains. The GWR trains stopping for interchange at Ealing Broadway only after West Drayton, provided the station was remodeled to accommodate better interchange, appears adequate to me even if I was heading back down the line to Hayes as the frequency is so high. But then again I am not familiar with how many people do a journey from West Drayton to Hayes for example. There was always going to be more trains in the tunnel section so anybody joining a train west of Hayes would stay on till the terminus and swap to Crossrail there at busy times I would assume, and then do the reverse to go back as they would be joining an empty train from London Paddington. I have seen how busy Ealing Broadway can get heading towards Reading (General) in the afternoon/evening and Crossrail calling at all stations till Hayes and GWR doing beyond would split the crowd here onto different trains, again I'm unsure of figures and journey patterns. The excitement shown of Crossrail coming as far as Reading by some parties confuses me as I'm convinced any people heading for London in the morning (many who got off other trains at Reading) will still be on the fast trains and change to Crossrail, if it is of any advantage to them, at London Paddington. Plenty of people I have spoken to about Crossrail were under the impression it was a brand new tube line all the way to Reading and were surprised when I point out that the trains already exist they currently just finish at London Paddinton. It has been sold by property companies and estate agents as a faster service to London and some adverts suggest that it's going to be the reason why you should move to one of the many daft luxury flats being built around the town (rather than just live and work there instead). Clearly all these new flat dwellers will be filing onto the GWR fast trains in the morning and evening rather than Crossrail. Also I have no idea how the Oyster card is going to work when the journey off peak is 20 quid return. Will people still buy national rail type season tickets? What's to stop me using Oyster to gain access to my station and get on a GWR fast train to London instead of a Tfl train? How will Oyster work for those travellers from the Thames branches? Will anybody heading west from an Oyster covered station have to leave the station at Reading to fetch a different ticket? I still don't see the advantages. It seems to me that people in the Thames Valley are happy with the trains they have at the moment finishing at London Paddington if punctuality was better and more train capacity was available for the relief line stations. Tfl running the service in an area beyond their zone 6 makes an assumption that everybody is just going to London and not doing any other journey.
Cheers

Welcome to the forum, Reading General

I'll leave others with far more knowledge than I to give you a full answer, but I do look at new through journey opportunities such as:
* Twyford to Tottneham Court Road
* Langley to Liverpool Street
* West Drayon to Whitechapel
and recall that something close to half the available traffic on a flow can be lost if people have to change trains.  Reading itself will be an interesting case as people wll have a choice of speed v change in may cases - get the Elizabeth line from Canary Wharf, them decide whether to stay on the Elizabeth Line train at Paddington and watch expresses that call at Reading whistle by as that travel on, or take time (and perhaps incur delay) in a change and not end up being much faster door to door anyway.

Clearing out (with a carrot not a stick too!) a lot of the one stop hops on long distance expresses from London to Reading also brings other benefits of evening load on some of the long distance stuff ... famous trains like the 19:03 West Country express and the 19:30 via Bristol.

Welcome Reading General. You make some interesting points. I have always maintained that Crossrail doesn't work West of Paddington because of of the discrepancy between 24tph through the tunnels and only 10/12 onto the GWML. Meaning at least every other train has to terminate at Paddington.

With regard to Grahame's re time to change at Padd, I think it would almost certainly be advantageous for Reading Passengers to use  Crossrail for a through journey I would suggest not, particulary on the inward journey, it should be a relatively quick change and you will have a Crossrail train every 2.5 minutes half of which will be empties from Westbourne Park so 5 mins max wait.

Twyford and Maidenhead it depends on how many GWR/Crossrail semis there are in the peak.

Taplow Burnham are already TFL so will be all Crossrail.

Slough if the Off peak fast Oxfords still stop it may it may be marginally quicker in the Up to take Crossrail.

Langley Iver and West Drayton all TFL Crossrail but will be competing with passengers from further West

Hayes inwards, Crossrail Metro, but passengers homeward bound to  West of Hayes compete as they do now with passengers for stations to Hayes.

As to Oyster Crossrail have suggested that it could be extended to Reading and possibly even the branches, Windsor Marlow and Henley. now that raises and interesting question will  the Oyster fare be  valid only on Crossrail services or GWR ones as well?

Then is is the major question how are all these extra passengers going to get to the various stations parking is already full at most stations. Twyford Maidenhead, Taplow and Burnham in particular  have very limited parking and few buses.

Thanks for responding. I guess nobody quite knows what happens if trains coming off the mainline into the tunnel are delayed for whatever reason on the relief lines, do they lose their place in the tunnel order? Is the turnaround of service versatile enough to correct this when it reaches a terminus? Is there only one platform available in each direction underground at London Paddington? If there is only one I can envisage trains finishing in the traditional platforms in the terminus. I don't think it's going to work and I think in a couple of years time we will see half of the Crossrail trains coming out of the tunnel heading up the line to Wycombe via South Ruislip.
Cheers

Can I add my welcome to you, Reading General. Many of the questions you raise are have been addressed in this thread and the main Crossrail one, though perhaps a couple of years is to short to have thoroughly explored them. Also, while in most cases a variety of answers will be on offer, that doesn't mean any of them are right.

But I wonder if you aren't overthinking this. None of us has all the relevant facts, nor the staff to develop detailed plans, so not surprisingly we can't see what that plan would look like. Fortunately we don't have to. But I'm sure there are such plans, including fall-back operation for when things go wrong, and not just on the Western route section either.

All of those plans will involve compromises, which is where the politics (of all kinds, not just involving politicians) comes in. You may not find some of them acceptable, but as I say it's not your call (or mine).

To take just one point, what happens if the trains from the west are late and miss their path through the tunnel? Logically, either the path is unfilled or a train due to start from Paddington is sent early. If you look at the service pattern as London Reconnections shows it (first post of this thread), all the trains for Liverpool Street and Shenfield start from Paddington, so the question in practice is how good a service to Abbey Wood can be run in between?

I think it will be worse if the line outbound from Paddington is blocked, since TfL's priority will be to keep the tunnel trains running and they've all go to go somewhere. That will be a matter of the capacity for turning trains round or putting them aside at Westbourne Grove (limited) and coping with the passengers unwillingly offloaded (at Paddington, not Westbourne Grove). Both of those become easier with Old Oak Common as the real terminus.

I've never thought TfL wanted to go to Reading, and probably not even to Maidenhead. They had to put up with their super-size new tube also bringing commuters in from outside their area, as that justified their Treasury money. Of course the older tube lines did that too, but mostly took over existing lines completely - which is what TfL wanted here. Unfortunately no-one could find lines you could do that with, so they were stuck with sharing the GW and GE lines, of which the GW poses the bigger problems.

There currently seem to be an astonishing number of TfL trains parked up in a line to the north of Old Oak Common - I would guess somewhere around fifteen of them, representing perhaps an hour's worth of arrivals (or departures) from / to central London at Paddington.  Presumably most of those will be in daily use so if something goes very wrong headed west from there, you'll having empty sidings into which the trains can be driven.  And (depending on what has gone wrong) some at least can turn round and head back east.    Far bigger problem will be all the people turfed off those incoming trains from central London and how to handle them in the area ...

Fares have often been mentioned in these discussions about Crossrail at Reading, but I really don’t see specially reduced “Oyster Crossrail only fares” happening.  Firstly, Reading has only one common paid area.  As Crossrail trains will have to share island platforms with other services, it isn’t practical to make modifications to have a Crossrail only “station within a station”.  So there’s no obvious way for the Oyster system to know which train you were using, or about to use.  Secondly, Oyster PAYG has already been introduced at a number of stations well outside the original zones, eg at Gatwick, and the fares have been set specific to the particular station; i.e. they don’t necessarily have to conform to the existing zonal fares at all.  I don’t think DfT would agree with anything that might reduce the farebox.  A minor supplementary point is that if they introduce Oyster PAYG fares to Reading, they’ll presumably have to consider what do do about the SWR route as well.

Paul

I see no reason why there can't be differential Crossrail Oyster/Contactless fares at Reading. If it can be done at Gatwick (where Oyster can be cheaper than paper for a single journey) then it can be done at Reading.

Revenue implications were factored in to the GTR management contract for Oyster/Contactless between Gatwick and London. Same can be done between Reading/Thames Valley and London in a future Greater Western contract award.

The fare differentiation at Gatwick is with Gatwick Express, but it’s enabled by the Gatwick Express having a dedicated gateline at the Victoria end, and not normally stopping en route.  Reading will have Crossrail and GWR stoppers arriving that have both passed through a number of stations where both have called.

I don’t think it’s as easy as you suggest.

Why is that astonishing? There will be a big fleet of trains and they all have to sleep somewhere. The final layout of their depot has 33 sidings, as well as the Big Shed.

The capacity of the lines in and out of the depot is a bit limited by the flat junction off the westbound Relief/Crossrail lines. However, in the case under discussion - something has interrupted the flow of inbound trains - that isn't an issue. But with Old Oak Common as the normal terminus, it could be a lot more difficult - we'll have to wait and see what that involves and if any changes are made.

Good question.  It probably cause me off guard because it is so different to what I'm used to.   I am used to fighting for a single carriage train, getting crushed on the 06:00 Penzance to Devonport when it's 2 car, or finding my whole service lost for half a day because the cab heater has failed on the only passenger train parked up in the yard at Westbury.  I have seen the big tube depots ... but usually from a tube during running hours, so they tend to be an array of mostly-empty lines.

GTR services between Gatwick and London have some different paper and Oyster fares, and also have intermediate stops where Oyster is accepted. Elizabeth Line at Paddington will also have its own gatelines.

It's as easy as the DfT and TfL want to make it. Elizabeth Line to Reading will have to have Oyster. Wherever TfL Rail goes Oyster goes with it. Whether there are fares differentials between mediums isn't a stumbling block.

All indications are that beyond Zone 6 it will be "Special Fares Apply" for Thames Valley stations to Reading. There are no technical issues with introducing Oyster to these stations. Any revenue implications for the 'classic' service provider can be easily addressed in a franchise agreement/management contract. Just as it was with GTR/GatEx.

To not have Oyster on a TfL Rail operated service would actually make things more complicated. Bringing Oyster to the parallel 'classic' services is a positive too.

Also note all the TfL concession rules will also apply, so free travel for those with a 60+ London Oyster photocard, Freedom Pass or Veterans Oyster photocard, free for children under 11 etc

Such concessions don't apply beyond the 'Freedom Pass' mapped area.

For instance, someone with a 60+ Oyster would need to buy an extension ticket to travel through to Gatwick. Expect similar to Reading.

The trains to Gatwick though aren't run on the behalf of TfL.

There has been a statement by the Mayor of London that the concessions will be available on the Elizabeth Line in due course, and there was no qualification made on this being only part of it in this.

Currently they apply to Shenfield on TfL Rail, but not on other services.

Of course there is still time for fudge to be brought to the table.

Ooo, I like a bit of fudge.  :P